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

Some rewording of this section, mostly wordsmith.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-11-10 20:16:07 -05:00
parent a32bea9563
commit 4daa86b30f
1 changed files with 20 additions and 13 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

33
compliance-guide.tex
View file

@ -284,20 +284,27 @@ software.\footnote{This document addresses compliance with GPLv2,
\section{Evaluate License Applicability}
\label{derivative-works}
Political discussion about the GPL often centers around the ``copyleft''
requirements of the license. Indeed, the license was designed primarily
to embody this licensing feature. Most companies adding non-trivial
features (beyond mere porting and bug-fixing) to GPL'd software (and
thereby invoking these requirements) are already well aware of their
more complex obligations under the license.\footnote{There has been much legal
discussion regarding copyleft and derivative works. In practical
reality, this issue is not relevant to the vast majority of companies
distributing GPL'd software. Those interested in this issue should study
\tutorialpartsplit{\textit{Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related
Licenses}'s Section on derivative works}{\S~\ref{derivative-works} of
this tutorial}.}
Political discussion about the GPL often centers around determining the
``work'' that must be licensed under GPL, or in other words, ``what is the
derivative and/or combined work that was created''. Nearly ever esoteric
question asked by lawyers seek to consider that question
\footnote{\tutorialpartsplit{In fact, a companion work, \textit{Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related
Licenses} contains an entire section discussing derivative works}{This tutorial in fact
also addresses the issue at length in~\S~\ref{derivative-works}}.} (perhaps because
that question explores exciting legal issues while the majority of the GPL
deals with much more mundane ones).
Of course, GPL was designed
primarily to embody the licensing feature of copyleft.
However, experienced GPL enforcers find that few redistributors'
However, most companies who add
complex features to and make combinations with GPL'd software
are already well aware of their
more complex obligations under the license that require complex legal
analysis. And, there are few companies overall that engage in such
activities. Thus, in practical reality, this issue is not relevant to the vast
majority of companies distributing GPL'd software.
Thus, experienced GPL enforcers find that few redistributors'
compliance challenges relate directly to combined work issues in copyleft.
Instead, the distributions of GPL'd
systems most often encountered typically consist of a full operating system