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

Some edits to chapter 1, mostly stylistic and minor.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Richard Fontana 2014-03-19 12:22:32 -04:00
parent f6cfb851d6
commit 59eec91da7
1 changed files with 31 additions and 22 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

53
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -110,13 +110,14 @@ to have learned the following:
Study of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as \defn{GNU Study of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as \defn{GNU
GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader world GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader world
of software freedom. The GPL was not created from a void, rather, it was of software freedom. The GPL was not created in a vacuum. Rather, it was
created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set forth at the created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set forth at the
founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) -- the founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) -- the
organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy of software preeminent organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy of software
freedom. A prerequisite for understanding both of the popular versions of GPL freedom. A prerequisite for understanding both of the popular versions
of the GPL
(GPLv2 and GPLv3) and their terms and conditions is a basic understanding of (GPLv2 and GPLv3) and their terms and conditions is a basic understanding of
the principles behind it. The GPL family of licenses are unlike almost all the principles behind them. The GPL family of licenses are unlike nearly all
other software licenses in that they are designed to defend and uphold these other software licenses in that they are designed to defend and uphold these
principles. principles.
@ -155,7 +156,7 @@ Besides having a different political focus than those who call it Free
Software,\footnote{The political differences between the Free Software Software,\footnote{The political differences between the Free Software
Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's Web site at Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's Web site at
{\tt http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html}.} {\tt http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html}.}
those who call the software ``Open Source'' are often focused on a side Those who call the software ``Open Source'' are often focused on a side
issue. Specifically, user access to the source code of a program is a issue. Specifically, user access to the source code of a program is a
prerequisite to make use of the freedom to modify. However, the important prerequisite to make use of the freedom to modify. However, the important
issue is what freedoms are granted in the license of that source code. issue is what freedoms are granted in the license of that source code.
@ -166,7 +167,7 @@ exercise these freedoms noncommercially or commercially. Licenses that grant
these freedoms for noncommercial activities but prohibit them for commercial these freedoms for noncommercial activities but prohibit them for commercial
activities are considered non-free. Even the Open Source Initiative activities are considered non-free. Even the Open Source Initiative
(\defn{OSI}) (the arbiter of what is considered ``Open Source'') also rules (\defn{OSI}) (the arbiter of what is considered ``Open Source'') also rules
such licenses not in fitting with their ``Open Source Definition''. such licenses not in fitting with its ``Open Source Definition''.
In general, software for which most or all of these freedoms are In general, software for which most or all of these freedoms are
restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software.'' Typically, the restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software.'' Typically, the
@ -178,19 +179,20 @@ commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of
Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings). Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).
Keep in mind that the none of the terms ``software freedom'', ``open source'' Keep in mind that the none of the terms ``software freedom'', ``open source''
and ``free software'' are not known to be trademarked by any organization in and ``free software'' are known to be trademarked or otherwise legally
restricted by any organization in
any jurisdiction. As such, it's quite common that these terms are abused and any jurisdiction. As such, it's quite common that these terms are abused and
misused by parties who wish to bank on the popularity of software freedom. misused by parties who wish to bank on the popularity of software freedom.
When one considers using, modifying or redistributing a software package that When one considers using, modifying or redistributing a software package that
purports to be Open Source or Free Software, one \textbf{must} verify that purports to be Open Source or Free Software, one \textbf{must} verify that
the license grants software freedom the license grants software freedom.
Furthermore, throughout this text, we generally prefer the term ``software Furthermore, throughout this text, we generally prefer the term ``software
freedom'', as this is the least ambiguous term available to describe software freedom'', as this is the least ambiguous term available to describe software
that meets the Free Software Definition. For example, it is well known and that meets the Free Software Definition. For example, it is well known and
often discussed that the adjective ``free'' has two unrelated meanings in often discussed that the adjective ``free'' has two unrelated meanings in
English: ``free as in freedom'' and ``free as in price''. Meanwhile, the English: ``free as in freedom'' and ``free as in price''. Meanwhile, the
term ``open source'' is even more confusing, because it refers only to the term ``open source'' is even more confusing, because it appears to refer only to the
``freedom to study'', which is merely a subset of one of the four freedoms. ``freedom to study'', which is merely a subset of one of the four freedoms.
The remainder of this section considers each of each component of software The remainder of this section considers each of each component of software
@ -198,14 +200,14 @@ freedom in detail.
\subsection{The Freedom to Run} \subsection{The Freedom to Run}
The first tenant of software freedom is the user's fully unfettered right to The first tenet of software freedom is the user's fully unfettered right to
run the program. The software's license must permit any conceivable use of run the program. The software's license must permit any conceivable use of
the software. Perhaps, for example, the user has discovered an innovative the software. Perhaps, for example, the user has discovered an innovative
use for a particular program, one that the programmer never could have use for a particular program, one that the programmer never could have
predicted. Such a use must not be restricted. predicted. Such a use must not be restricted.
It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary
software; but such is quite common today. Most End User Licensing Agreements software; but such is quite common today. Most End User License Agreements
(EULAs) that cover most proprietary software typically restrict some types of (EULAs) that cover most proprietary software typically restrict some types of
uses. Such restrictions of any kind are an unacceptable restriction on uses. Such restrictions of any kind are an unacceptable restriction on
software freedom. software freedom.
@ -219,11 +221,11 @@ of this freedom. Without the source code, and the ability to build and
install the binary applications from that source, users cannot effectively install the binary applications from that source, users cannot effectively
exercise this freedom. exercise this freedom.
Programmers take direct benefit from this freedom. However, this freedom Programmers directly benefit from this freedom. However, this freedom
remains important to users who are not programmers. While it may seem remains important to users who are not programmers. While it may seem
counterintuitive at first, non-programmer users often exercise this freedom counterintuitive at first, non-programmer users often exercise this freedom
indirectly in both commercial and noncommercial settings. For example, users indirectly in both commercial and noncommercial settings. For example, users
often seek noncommercial help with the software on email lists and in users often seek noncommercial help with the software on email lists and in user
groups. To make use of such help they must either have the freedom to groups. To make use of such help they must either have the freedom to
recruit programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their recruit programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their
software, or to at least follow rote instructions to make basic modifications software, or to at least follow rote instructions to make basic modifications
@ -246,7 +248,8 @@ respect software freedom, therefore, permit altruistic sharing of software
among friends. among friends.
The commercial environment also benefits of this freedom. Commercial sharing The commercial environment also benefits of this freedom. Commercial sharing
includes selling copies of Free Software: Free Software can be sold at any includes selling copies of Free Software: that is, Free Software can
be distribted for any monetary
price to anyone. Those who redistribute Free Software commercially also have price to anyone. Those who redistribute Free Software commercially also have
the freedom to selectively distribute (i.e., you can pick your customers) and the freedom to selectively distribute (i.e., you can pick your customers) and
to set prices at any level that redistributor sees fit. to set prices at any level that redistributor sees fit.
@ -270,9 +273,13 @@ share commercially.)
The freedom to modify and improve is somewhat empty without the freedom to The freedom to modify and improve is somewhat empty without the freedom to
share those improvements. The Software freedom community is built on the share those improvements. The Software freedom community is built on the
pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Inevitably, a pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Historically
Free Software project sprouts a mailing list where improvements are shared it was typical for a
freely among members of the development community. Such noncommercial Free Software project to sprout a mailing list where improvements
would be shared
freely among members of the development community. This is still
commonly the case, though today there are other or additional ways of
sharing Free Software. Such noncommercial
sharing is the primary reason that Free Software thrives. sharing is the primary reason that Free Software thrives.
Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important. Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.
@ -331,7 +338,7 @@ software (For details of this in the USA, see
\textit{United States Code}).\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs \textit{United States Code}).\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs
``public performance'' of copyrighted works. There is no generally agreed ``public performance'' of copyrighted works. There is no generally agreed
definition for public performance of software and both GPLv2 and GPLv3 do definition for public performance of software and both GPLv2 and GPLv3 do
not govern public performance.} By law (in the USA and in most other not restrict public performance.} By law (in the USA and in most other
jurisdictions), the copyright holder (most typically, the author) of the work controls jurisdictions), the copyright holder (most typically, the author) of the work controls
how others may copy, modify and/or distribute the work. For proprietary how others may copy, modify and/or distribute the work. For proprietary
software, these controls are used to prohibit these activities. In addition, software, these controls are used to prohibit these activities. In addition,
@ -339,14 +346,14 @@ proprietary software distributors further impede modification in a practical
sense by distributing only binary code and keeping the source code of the sense by distributing only binary code and keeping the source code of the
software secret. software secret.
Copyright is not a natural state, it is a legal construction. In the USA, the Copyright is not a natural state, it is a legal construction. In the US, the
Constitution permits, but does not require, the creation of copyright law as Constitution permits, but does not require, the creation of copyright law as
federal legislation. Software, since it is ``an original works of authorship federal legislation. Software, since it is ``an original works of authorship
fixed in any tangible medium of expression ... from which they can be fixed in any tangible medium of expression ... from which they can be
perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the
aid of a machine or device'' (as stated in aid of a machine or device'' (as stated in
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102}{17 USC \S~102}), is thus \href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102}{17 USC \S~102}), is thus
covered by the statues, and is copyrighted by default. covered by the statute, and is copyrighted by default.
However, software, in its natural state without copyright, is Free However, software, in its natural state without copyright, is Free
Software. In an imaginary world with no copyright, the rules would be Software. In an imaginary world with no copyright, the rules would be
@ -360,8 +367,10 @@ versions.\footnote{Note that this is again an oversimplification; the
Software in the real world is copyrighted by default and is automatically Software in the real world is copyrighted by default and is automatically
covered by that legal system. However, it is possible to move software out covered by that legal system. However, it is possible to move software out
of the domain of the copyright system. A copyright holder can often of the domain of the copyright system. A copyright holder can often
\defn{disclaim} their copyright. If copyright is disclaimed, the software is \defn{disclaim} their copyright (for example, under US copyright law
not governed by copyright law. Software not governed by copyright is in the it is possible for a copyright holder to engage in conduct resulting
in abandonment of copyright). If copyright is disclaimed, the software is
effectively no longer restricted by copyright law. Software not restricted by copyright is in the
``public domain.'' ``public domain.''
\subsection{Public Domain Software} \subsection{Public Domain Software}