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

* Wrote about GPL Section 5 and spell-checked

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2003-05-29 18:24:15 +00:00
parent f305c5500a
commit 69b1b7fb4b
2 changed files with 44 additions and 12 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

1
GPL-Business/ChangeLog
View file

@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
(chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}): Flushed
out outline some.
(section{GPL \S 4: Termination on Violation}): Wrote section.
(section{GPL \S 5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}): Wrote section.
2003-05-28 Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@fsf.org>

55
GPL-Business/gpl-business.tex
View file

@ -1053,9 +1053,9 @@ only rarely a better option than complying via \S 3(a).
The last chapter presented the core freedom-defending provisions of GPL\@,
which are in \S\S 0--3. \S\S 4--7 of the GPL are designed to ensure that
\S\S 0--3 are not infringed, are enforcable, are kept to the confines of
\S\S 0--3 are not infringed, are enforceable, are kept to the confines of
copyright law and are not trumped by other copyright agreements or
components of other entirely seperate legal systems. In short, while \S\S
components of other entirely separate legal systems. In short, while \S\S
0--3 are the parts of the license that defend the freedoms of users and
programmers, \S\S 4--7 are the parts of the license that keep the playing
field clear so that \S\S 0--3 can do their jobs.
@ -1064,7 +1064,7 @@ field clear so that \S\S 0--3 can do their jobs.
\label{GPLs4}
\S 4--5 are, in my opinion, the heart of the GPL\@. \S\S 0--3 are
important in their efforts to set forth in clear legal langauge the
important in their efforts to set forth in clear legal language the
doctrine of copyleft. However, \S 4--5 are the glue that holds \S\S 0--3
together.
@ -1077,7 +1077,7 @@ and this termination clause becomes clear.
The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder grants
rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the software under
terms of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that grant. Since the GPL has
no provision allowing the copyright holder to take such a pregoative, the
no provision allowing the copyright holder to take such a prerogative, the
license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect\footnote{In
the USA< due to unfortunate legislation, this is nearly perpetual, even
though the Constitution forbids it.}. The copyright holder has the
@ -1105,35 +1105,66 @@ copying, modification and distribution of that GPL'ed software.
At that point, violating licensees must gain the forgiveness of the
copyright holder to have their rights restored. Alternatively, they could
negotiate another agreement, seperate from GPL, with the copyright
negotiate another agreement, separate from GPL, with the copyright
holder. Both are common practice.
At FSF, it is part of the mission to spread software freedom. When FSF
enforces GPL, the goal is to bring the violator back into compliance as
quickly as possible, and redress the damage caused by the violation.
That is FSF's steadfast position in a violation negotation --- comply
That is FSF's steadfast position in a violation negotiation --- comply
with the license and respect freedom.
However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software
freedom as institiualized by FSF persue GPL violations differently. MySQL
freedom as institutionalized by FSF pursue GPL violations differently. MySQL
AB, a company that produces the GPL'ed MySQL database, upon discovering
GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software license
sepearately for a fee. While this practice is not one that FSF would ever
separately for a fee. While this practice is not one that FSF would ever
consider undertaking or even endorsing, it is a legal way for copyright
holders to proceed.
\section{GPL \S 5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}
\label{GPLs5}
\S 5 brings us to perhaps the most fundamental misconception and common
confusion about GPL\@. Because of the prevalence of proprietary software,
most users, programmers, and lawyers alike tend to be more familiar with
EULAs. EULAs are believed by their authors to be contracts, requiring
formal agreement between the licensee and the software distributor to be
valid. This has led to mechanisms like ``shrink-wrap'' and ``click-wrap''
as mechanisms to perform acceptance ceremonies with EULAs.
The GPL does not need contract law to ``transfer rights''. No rights are
transfered between parties. By contrast, the GPL is permission slip to
undertake activities that would otherwise been prohibited by copyright law.
As such, it needs no acceptance ceremony; the licensee is not even
required to accept the license.
However, without the GPL, the activities of copying, modifying and
distributing the software would have otherwise been prohibited. So, the
GPL says that you only accepted the license by undertaking activities that
you would have otherwise been prohibited without your license under GPL\@.
This is a certainly subtle point, and requires a mindset quite different
from the contractual approach taken by EULA authors.
An interesting side benefit to \S 5 is that the bulk of users of Free
Software are not required to accept the license. Undertaking fair and
unregulated use of the work, for example, does not bind you to the GPL,
since you are not engaging in activity that is otherwise controlled by
copyright law. Only when you engage in those activities that might have an
impact on the freedom of others does license acceptance occur and the
terms begin to bind you to fair and equitable sharing of the software. In
other words, the GPL only kicks in when it needs to for the sake of
freedom.
\section{GPL \S 6: GPL, My One and Only}
\label{GPLs6}
Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to
the licensee to perform acts of copying, modification, and redistribution
that would otherwise have been prohibited by default. Since, barring
special permission from the copyright holder, the GPL is a licensee's one
and only license to the software (thanks to \S 6),
\section{GPL \S 6: GPL, My One and Only}
\label{GPLs6}
\section{GPL \S 7: ``Give My Software Liberty of Give It Death!''}
\label{GPLs7}
@ -1610,4 +1641,4 @@ General Public License instead of this License.
% LocalWords: proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision EULAs
% LocalWords: Yoyodyne FrontPage improvers Berne copyrightable Stallman's GPLs
% LocalWords: Lessig Lessig's UCITA pre PDAs CDs reshifts
% LocalWords: Lessig Lessig's UCITA pre PDAs CDs reshifts GPL's Gentoo