Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Relevant text from GPLv3 First Discussion Draft Rationale of 2006-01-16.

Browse source 
I carefully went through FSF's First Discussion Draft Rationale, which was
published on Monday 16 January 2006 and merged in any relevant text and
descriptions that might be of use in this tutorial.

The raw material used for this commit can be found here:
       http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-rationale-2006-01-16.html
Specifically, a copy of the LaTeX sources are here:
       http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-rationale-2006-01-16.tex

As I merged in this text, I added FIXME's where it seemed the text was
incomplete or referred to parts of GPLv3 draft text that disappeared in later
versions.

Finally, note that this material was originally copyrighted and licensed as
follows:

  Copyright © 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

  Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted
  worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the
  copyright notice, are preserved.

However, I am hereby relicensing this material to CC-By-SA-4.0, with the
verbal permission from John Sullivan, Executive Director of the FSF, which
was given to me during a conference call on Wednesday 12 February 2014.
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-19 09:44:59 -04:00
parent 5ef15e08a0
commit 4cea1c4645
2 changed files with 523 additions and 4 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
comprehensive-gpl-guide.tex
View file

@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ A Comprehensive Tutorial
{\parindent 0in
\begin{tabbing}
Copyright \= \copyright{} 2003, 2004, 2005 \= \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc. \kill
Copyright \= \copyright{} 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 \= \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc. \kill
Copyright \> \copyright{} 2014 \> \hspace{.2in} Bradley M. Kuhn. \\
Copyright \> \copyright{} 2003, 2004, 2005 \> \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\
Copyright \> \copyright{} 2008 \> \hspace{.2in} Software Freedom Law Center. \\

525
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
% gpl-lgpl.tex -*- LaTeX -*-
% Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL course
%
% Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
% Copyright (C) 2014 Bradley M. Kuhn
% Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
% Copyright (C) 2014 Bradley M. Kuhn
% License: CC-By-SA-4.0
@ -28,12 +28,13 @@
{\parindent 0in
\tutorialpartsplit{``Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related Licenses''}{This part} is: \\
\begin{tabbing}
Copyright \= \copyright{} 2003, 2004, 2005 \= \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\
Copyright \= \copyright{} 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 \= \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\
Copyright \= \copyright{} 2014 \= \hspace{.2in} Bradley M. Kuhn \\
\end{tabbing}
Authors of \tutorialpartsplit{``Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related Licenses''}{this part} are: \\
Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\
Bradley M. Kuhn \\
David ``Novalis'' Turner \\
Daniel B. Ravicher \\
@ -2066,6 +2067,14 @@ copyright holders. Some have used GPLv2~\S8 to explain various odd special
topics of distribution, but generally speaking, this section is not
particularly useful and was actually removed in GPLv3.
% FIXME: integrate this into this section.
To our knowledge, no one has invoked this section to add an explicit
geographical distribution limitation since GPLv2 was released in 1991. We
have concluded that this provision is not needed and is not expected to be
needed in the future, and that it therefore should be removed.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}
@ -2174,41 +2183,551 @@ GPLv3 that's possible is by default less than a decade.
These two factors usually cause even new students of GPL to start with GPLv2
and move on to GPLv3, and this tutorial follows that pattern.
We recognize that, overall, the changes made in GPLv3 have increased the
complexity of the license. We would have liked to oblige those who have asked
us for a simpler and shorter GPL, but we had to give priority to making GPLv3
do the job that needs to be done.
\section{GPLv3~\S0: Giving In On ``Defined Terms''}
% FIXME: intro defined terms
% FIXME: rewrite to FOUR new terms
Section 0 includes definitions of two new terms: ``covered work'' and
``propagate.'' The use of the term ``covered work'' enables some of the
wording in the revised GPL to be simpler and clearer.
% FIXME: rewrite propagate
The term ``propagate'' serves two purposes. First, ``propagate'' provides
a simple and convenient means for distinguishing between the kinds of
uses of a work that the GPL imposes conditions on and the kinds of
uses that the GPL does not (for the most part) impose conditions
on.
Second, ``propagate'' furthers our goal of making the license as
global as possible in its wording and effect. When a work is licensed
under the GPL, the copyright law of some particular country will
govern certain legal issues arising under the license. A term like
``distribute,'' or its equivalent in languages other than English, is
used in several national copyright statutes. The scope of
``distribution'' in the copyright context can differ from country to
country. We do not wish to force on the GPL the specific meaning of
``distribution'' that exists under United States copyright law or any
other country's copyright law.
We therefore define the term ``propagate'' by reference to activities
that require permission under ``applicable copyright law,'' but we
exclude execution and private modification from the definition. Our
definition gives examples of activities that may be included within
``propagation,'' but it also makes clear that, under the copyright laws
of a given country, ``propagation'' may include other activities as well.
% FIXME: paragraph number change , and more on Convey once definition comes.
The third paragraph of section 2 represents another effort to compensate for
variation in national copyright law. We distinguish between propagation that
enables parties other than the licensee to make or receive copies, and other
forms of propagation. As noted above, the meaning of ``distribution'' under
copyright law varies from country to country, including with respect to
whether making copies available to other parties (such as related public or
corporate entities) is ``distribution.'' ``Propagation,'' however, is a term
not tied to any statutory language. Propagation that does not enable other
parties to make or receive copies --- for example, making private copies or
privately viewing the program --- is permitted unconditionally. Propagation
that does enable other parties to make or receive copies is permitted as
``distribution,'' subject to the conditions set forth in sections 4--6.
% FIXME: Appropriate Legal Notices
\section{GPLv3~\S1: Understanding CCS}
% FIXME: Talk briefly about importance of CCS and reference compliance guide
% FIXME: reword source code a bit
Section 1 retains GPLv2's definition of ``source code'' and adds an
explicit definition of ``object code'' as ``any non-source version of a
work.'' Object code is not restricted to a narrow technical meaning and
is to be understood broadly as including any form of the work other than
the preferred form for making modifications to it. Object code
therefore includes any kind of transformed version of source code, such
as bytecode. The definition of object code also ensures that licensees
cannot escape their obligations under the GPL by resorting to shrouded
source or obfuscated programming.
% FIXME: More about CCS here.
% FIXME: CCS Coresponding Source updated to newer definition in later drafts
The definition of ``Complete Corresponding Source Code'' given in the
second paragraph of section 1 is as broad as necessary to protect users'
exercise of their rights under the GPL. We follow the definition with
particular examples to remove any doubt that they are to be considered
Complete Corresponding Source Code. We wish to make completely clear
that a licensee cannot avoid complying with the requirements of the GPL
by dynamically linking an add-on component to the original version of a
program.
Though the definition of Complete Corresponding Source Code in the
second paragraph of section 1 is expansive, it is not sufficient to
protect users' freedoms in many circumstances. For example, a GPL'd
program, or a modified version of such a program, might need to be
signed with a key or authorized with a code in order for it to run on
a particular machine and function properly. Similarly, a program that
produces digitally-restricted files might require a decryption code in
order to read the output.
% FIXME: Standard Interface
% FIXME: System Libraries: it's in a different place and changed in later drafts
The final paragraph of section 1 revises the exception to the source code
distribution requirement in GPLv2 that we have sometimes called the system
library exception. This exception has been read to prohibit certain
distribution arrangements that we consider reasonable and have not sought to
prevent, such as distribution of gcc linked with a non-free C library that is
included as part of a larger non-free system. This is not to say that such
non-free libraries are legitimate; rather, preventing free software from
linking with these libraries would hurt free software more than it would hurt
proprietary software.
As revised, the exception has two parts. Part (a) rewords the GPLv2
exception for clarity but also removes the words ``unless that
component itself accompanies the executable.'' By itself, (a) would
be too permissive, allowing distributors to evade their
responsibilities under the GPL. We have therefore added part (b) to
specify when a system library that is an adjunct of a major essential
operating system component, compiler, or interpreter does not trigger
the requirement to distribute source code. The more low-level the
functionality provided by the library, the more likely it is to be
qualified for this exception.
\section{GPLv3~\S2: Basic Permissions}
% FIXME: phrase ``unmodified Program'' appears due to User Products exception
We have included the first sentence of section 2 to further internationalize
the GPL. Under the copyright laws of some countries, it may be necessary for
a copyright license to include an explicit provision setting forth the
duration of the rights being granted. In other countries, including the
United States, such a provision is unnecessary but permissible.
The first paragraph of section 2 also acknowledges that licensees under the
GPL enjoy rights of copyright fair use, or the equivalent under applicable
law. These rights are compatible with, and not in conflict with, the freedoms
that the GPL seeks to protect, and the GPL cannot and should not restrict
them.
% FIXME: propagate and convey
Section 2 distinguishes between activities of a licensee that are permitted
without limitation and activities that trigger additional requirements. The
second paragraph of section 2 guarantees the basic freedoms of privately
modifying and running the program. However, the right to privately modify and
run the program is terminated if the licensee brings a patent infringement
lawsuit against anyone for activities relating to a work based on the
program.
\section{GPLv3~\S3: What Hath DMCA Wrought}
\label{GPLv3s3}
% FIXME: reference the section in DMCA about this, maybe already there in
% GPLv2 section?
% FIXME: Wrong paragraph now.
The second paragraph of section 3 declares that no GPL'd program is part of
an effective technological protection measure, regardless of what the program
does. Ill-advised legislation in the United States and other countries has
prohibited circumvention of such technological measures. If a covered work is
distributed as part of a system for generating or accessing certain data, the
effect of this paragraph is to prevent someone from claiming that some other
GPL'd program that accesses the same data is an illegal circumvention.
\section{GPLv3~\S4: Verbatim Copying}
% FIXME: there appear to be minor changes here in later drafts, fix that.
Section 4 has been revised from its corresponding section in GPLv2 in light
of the new section 7 on license compatibility. A distributor of verbatim
copies of the program's source code must obey any existing additional terms
that apply to parts of the program. In addition, the distributor is required
to keep intact all license notices, including notices of such additional
terms.
\section{GPLv3~\S5: Modified Source}
% FIXME: 5(a) is slightly different in final version
Section 5 contains a number of changes relative to the corresponding section
in GPLv2. Subsection 5a slightly relaxes the requirements regarding notice of
changes to the program. In particular, the modified files themselves need no
longer be marked. This reduces administrative burdens for developers of
modified versions of GPL'd software.
Under subsection 5a, as in the corresponding provision of GPLv2, the notices
must state ``the date of any change,'' which we interpret to mean the date of
one or more of the licensee's changes. The best practice would be to include
the date of the latest change. However, in order to avoid requiring revision
of programs distributed under ``GPL version 2 or later,'' we have retained
the existing wording.
% FIXME: It's now (b) and (c). Also, ``validity'' of proprietary
% relicensing? Give me a break. I'll fix that.
Subsection 5b is the central copyleft provision of the license. It now
states that the GPL applies to the whole of the work. The license must be
unmodified, except as permitted by section 7, which allows GPL'd code to be
combined with parts covered by certain other kinds of free software licensing
terms. Another change in subsection 5b is the removal of the words ``at no
charge,'' which was often misinterpreted by commentators. The last sentence
of subsection 5b explicitly recognizes the validity of disjunctive
dual-licensing.
% FIXME: 5d. Related to Appropriatey Legal notices
% follows 5d now, call it the ``final paragraph''
The paragraph following subsection 5c has been revised for clarity, but the
underlying meaning is unchanged. When independent non-derivative sections are
distributed for use in a combination that is a covered work, the whole of the
combination must be licensed under the GPL, regardless of the form in which
such combination occurs, including combination by dynamic linking. The final
sentence of the paragraph adapts this requirement to the new compatibility
provisions of section 7.
\section{GPLv3~\S6: Non-Source and Corresponding Source}
Section 6 of GPLv3, which clarifies and revises GPLv2 section 3, requires
distributors of GPL'd object code to provide access to the corresponding
source code, in one of four specified ways. As noted above, ``object code''
in GPLv3 is defined broadly to mean any non-source version of a work.
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
Subsections 6a and 6b now apply specifically to distribution of object code
in a physical product. Physical products include embedded systems, as well as
physical software distribution media such as CDs. As in GPLv2, the
distribution of object code may either be accompanied by the machine-readable
source code, or it may be accompanied by a written offer to provide the
machine-readable source code to any third party. GPLv3 clarifies that the
medium for software interchange on which the machine-readable source code is
provided must be a durable physical medium. Subsection 6b does not prevent a
distributor from offering to provide source code to a third party by some
other means, such as transmission over a network, so long as the option of
obtaining source code on a physical medium is presented.
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
Subsection 6b revises the requirements for the written offer to provide
source code. As before, the offer must remain valid for at least three
years. In addition, even after three years, a distributor of a product
containing GPL'd object code must offer to provide source code for as long as
the distributor also continues to offer spare parts or customer support for
the product model. We believe that this is a reasonable and appropriate
requirement; a distributor should be prepared to provide source code if he or
she is prepared to provide support for other aspects of a physical product.
% FIXME: 10x language is gone.
Subsection 6b also increases the maximum permitted price for providing a copy
of the source code. GPLv2 stated that the price could be no more than the
cost of physically performing source distribution; GPLv3 allows the price to
be up to ten times the distributor's cost. It may not be practical to expect
some organizations to provide such copies at cost. Moreover, permitting such
organizations to charge ten times the cost is not particularly harmful, since
some recipient of the code can be expected to make the code freely available
on a public network server. We also recognize that there is nothing wrong
with profiting from providing copies of source code, provided that the price
of a copy is not so unreasonably high as to make it effectively unavailable.
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
Subsection 6c gives narrower permission than the corresponding subsection in
GPLv2. The option of including a copy of an offer received in accordance
with subsection 6b is available only for private distribution of object code;
moreover, such private distribution is restricted to ``occasional
non-commercial distribution.'' This subsection makes clear that a
distributor cannot comply with the GPL merely by making object code available
on a publicly-accessible network server accompanied by a copy of the written
offer to provide source code received from an upstream distributor.
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
New subsection 6d, which revises the final paragraph of GPLv2 section 3,
addresses distribution of object code by offering access to copy the code
from a designated place, such as by enabling electronic access to a network
server. Subsection 6d clarifies that the distributor must offer equivalent
access to copy the source code ``in the same way through the same place.''
This wording permits a distributor to offer a third party access to both
object code and source code on a single network portal or web page, even
though the access may include links to different physical servers. For
example, a downstream distributor may provide a link to an upstream
distributor's server and arrange with the operator of that server to keep the
source code available for copying for as long as the downstream distributor
enables access to the object code. This codifies what has been our
interpretation of GPLv2.
%FIXME: 6e, peer-to-peer
% FIXME: Not final paragraph anymore.
The final paragraph of section 6 takes account of the fact that the Complete
Corresponding Source Code may include added parts that carry non-GPL terms,
as permitted by section 7.
% FIXME: update lock-down section to work with more recent drafts
Though the definition of Complete Corresponding Source Code in the second
paragraph of section 1 is expansive, it is not sufficient to protect users'
freedoms in many circumstances. For example, a GPL'd program, or a modified
version of such a program, might need to be signed with a key or authorized
with a code in order for it to run on a particular machine and function
properly. Similarly, a program that produces digitally-restricted files might
require a decryption code in order to read the output.
The third paragraph of section 1 addresses this problem by making clear that
Complete Corresponding Source Code includes any such encryption,
authorization, and decryption codes. By requiring the inclusion of this
information whenever the GPL requires distribution of Complete Corresponding
Source Code, we thwart efforts to obstruct the goals of the GPL, and we
ensure that users will remain in control over their own machines. We
recognize an exception where use of the program normally implies that the
user already has the codes. For example, in secure systems a computer owner
might possess any keys needed to run a program, while the distributor of the
program might not have the keys.
% FIXME: installation information
%FIXME: publicly documented format
\section{Understanding License Compatibility}
\label{license-compatibility}
% FIXME: reword intro to license compatibility
Another challenge facing the free software community is the proliferation of
incompatible free software licenses. Of course, we cannot make the GPL
compatible with all such licenses. GPLv3 contains provisions that are
designed to reduce license incompatibility by making it easier for developers
to combine code carrying non-GPL terms with GPL'd code.
\section{GPLv3~\S7: Explicit Compatibility}
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
In GPLv3 we take a new approach to the issue of combining GPL'd code with
code governed by the terms of other free software licenses. Our view, though
it was not explicitly stated in GPLv2 itself, was that GPLv2 allowed such
combinations only if the non-GPL licensing terms permitted distribution under
the GPL and imposed no restrictions on the code that were not also imposed by
the GPL. In practice, we supplemented this policy with a structure of
exceptions for certain kinds of combinations.
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
Section 7 of GPLv3 implements a more explicit policy on license
compatibility. It formalizes the circumstances under which a licensee may
release a covered work that includes an added part carrying non-GPL terms. We
distinguish between terms that provide additional permissions, and terms that
place additional requirements on the code, relative to the permissions and
requirements established by applying the GPL to the code.
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
Section 7 first explicitly allows added parts covered by terms with
additional permissions to be combined with GPL'd code. This codifies our
existing practice of regarding such licensing terms as compatible with the
GPL. A downstream user of a combined GPL'd work who modifies such an added
part may remove the additional permissions, in which case the broader
permissions no longer apply to the modified version, and only the terms of
the GPL apply to it.
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
In its treatment of terms that impose additional requirements, section 7
extends the range of licensing terms with which the GPL is compatible. An
added part carrying additional requirements may be combined with GPL'd code,
but only if those requirements belong to an set enumerated in section 7. We
must, of course, place some limit on the kinds of additional requirements
that we will accept, to ensure that enhanced license compatibility does not
defeat the broader freedoms advanced by the GPL. Unlike terms that grant
additional permissions, terms that impose additional requirements cannot be
removed by a downstream user of the combined GPL'd work, because no such user
would have the right to do so.
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
Under subsections 7a and 7b, the requirements may include preservation of
copyright notices, information about the origins of the code or alterations
of the code, and different warranty disclaimers. Under subsection 7c, the
requirements may include limitations on the use of names of contributors and
on the use of trademarks for publicity purposes. In general, we permit these
requirements in added terms because many free software licenses include them
and we consider them to be unobjectionable. Because we support trademark fair
use, the limitations on the use of trademarks may seek to enforce only what
is required by trademark law, and may not prohibit what would constitute fair
use.
% FIXME: 7d-f
% FIXME: removing additional restrictions
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
Section 7 requires a downstream user of a covered work to preserve the
non-GPL terms covering the added parts just as they must preserve the GPL, as
long as any substantial portion of those parts is present in the user's
version.
\section{GPLv3~\S8: A Lighter Termination}
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
GPLv2 provided for automatic termination of the rights of a person who
copied, modified, sublicensed, or distributed a work in violation of the
license. Automatic termination can be too harsh for those who have committed
an inadvertent violation, particularly in cases involving distribution of
large collections of software having numerous copyright holders. A violator
who resumes compliance with GPLv2 would need to obtain forgiveness from all
copyright holders, but even to contact them all might be impossible.
% FIXME: needs to be updated to describe more complex termination
Section 8 of GPLv3 replaces automatic termination with a non-automatic
termination process. Any copyright holder for the licensed work may opt to
terminate the rights of a violator of the license, provided that the
copyright holder has first given notice of the violation within 60 days of
its most recent occurrence. A violator who has been given notice may make
efforts to enter into compliance and may request that the copyright holder
agree not exercise the right of termination; the copyright holder may choose
to grant or refuse this request.
% FIXME: needs to be updated to describe more complex termination
If a licensee who is in violation of GPLv3 acts to correct the violation and
enter into compliance, and the licensee receives no notice of the past
violation within 60 days, then the licensee need not worry about termination
of rights under the license.
\section{GPLv3~\S9: Acceptance}
% FIXME
\section{GPLv3~\S10: Explicit Downstream License}
% FIXME
\section{GPLv3~\S11: Explicit Patent Licensing}
\label{GPLv3s11}
% FIXME: probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time.
GPLv3 adds a new section on licensing of patents. GPLv2 relies on an implied
patent license. The doctrine of implied license is one that is recognized
under United States patent law but may not be recognized in other
jurisdictions. We have therefore decided to make the patent license grant
explicit in GPLv3. Under section 11, a redistributor of a GPL'd work
automatically grants a nonexclusive, royalty-free and worldwide license for
any patent claims held by the redistributor, if those claims would be
infringed by the work or a reasonably contemplated use of the work.
% FIXME: probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time.
The patent license is granted both to recipients of the redistributed work
and to any other users who have received any version of the work. Section 11
therefore ensures that downstream users of GPL'd code and works derived from
GPL'd code are protected from the threat of patent infringement allegations
made by upstream distributors, regardless of which country's laws are held to
apply to any particular aspect of the distribution or licensing of the GPL'd
code.
% FIXME: probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time.
A redistributor of GPL'd code may benefit from a patent license that has been
granted by a third party, where the third party otherwise could bring a
patent infringement lawsuit against the redistributor based on the
distribution or other use of the code. In such a case, downstream users of
the redistributed code generally remain vulnerable to the applicable patent
claims of the third party. This threatens to defeat the purposes of the GPL,
for the third party could prevent any downstream users from exercising the
freedoms that the license seeks to guarantee.
% FIXME: probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time.
The second paragraph of section 11 addresses this problem by requiring the
redistributor to act to shield downstream users from these patent claims. The
requirement applies only to those redistributors who distribute knowingly
relying on a patent license. Many companies enter into blanket patent
cross-licensing agreements. With respect to some such agreements, it would
not be reasonable to expect a company to know that a particular patent
license covered by the agreement, but not specifically mentioned in it,
protects the company's distribution of GPL'd code.
% FIXME: does this still fit with the final retaliation provision?
This narrowly-targeted patent retaliation provision is the only form of
patent retaliation that GPLv3 imposes by its own force. We believe that it
strikes a proper balance between preserving the freedom of a user to run and
modify a program, and protecting the rights of other users to run, modify,
copy, and distribute code free from threats by patent holders. It is
particularly intended to discourage a GPL licensee from securing a patent
directed to unreleased modifications of GPL'd code and then suing the
original developers or others for making their own equivalent modifications.
Several other free software licenses include significantly broader patent
retaliation provisions. In our view, too little is known about the
consequences of these forms of patent retaliation. As we explain below,
section 7 permits distribution of a GPL'd work that includes added parts
covered by terms other than those of the GPL. Such terms may include certain
kinds of patent retaliation provisions that are broader than those of section
2.
\section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2 \S 7}
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
The wording in the first sentence of section 12 has been revised
slightly to clarify that an agreement, such as a litigation settlement
agreement or a patent license agreement, is one of the ways in which
conditions may be ``imposed'' on a GPL licensee that may contradict the
conditions of the GPL, but which do not excuse the licensee from
compliance with those conditions. This change codifies what has been
our interpretation of GPLv2.
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
We have removed the limited severability clause of GPLv2 section 7 as a
matter of tactical judgment, believing that this is the best way to ensure
that all provisions of the GPL will be upheld in court. We have also removed
the final sentence of GPLv2 section 7, which we consider to be unnecessary.
\section{GPLv3~\S13: The Great Affero Compromise}
% FIXME
\section{GPLv3~\S14: So, When's GPLv4?}
\label{GPlv2s14}
% FIXME Say more
No substantive change has been made in section 14. The wording of the section
has been revised slightly to make it clearer.
% FIXME; proxy
\section{GPLv3~\S15--17: Warranty Disclaimers and Liability Limitation}
No substantive changes have been made in sections 15 and 16.
% FIXME: more, plus 17
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{The Lesser GPL}