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

There are many other countries that are the "United States".

Browse source 
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_%28disambiguation%29

As such, use "USA" to refer to the United States of America.

Obviously, it's not the only united states in America, but USA is at least
the official internationally recognized name.
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-19 13:12:50 -04:00
parent 52b3058faf
commit 70772b5f71
1 changed files with 10 additions and 10 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

20
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ proprietary software distributors further impede modification in a practical
sense by distributing only binary code and keeping the source code of the
software secret.
Copyright is not a natural state, it is a legal construction. In the US, the
Copyright is not a natural state, it is a legal construction. In the USA, the
Constitution permits, but does not require, the creation of copyright law as
federal legislation. Software, since it is ``an original works of authorship
fixed in any tangible medium of expression ... from which they can be
@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ versions.\footnote{Note that this is again an oversimplification; the
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
of the domain of the copyright system. A copyright holder can often
\defn{disclaim} their copyright (for example, under US copyright law
\defn{disclaim} their copyright (for example, under USA copyright law
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
@ -2249,27 +2249,27 @@ Notices''.
% FIXME: Transition, GPLv2 ref needed.
Although the definition of ``work based on the Program'' made use of a legal
term of art, ``derivative work,'' peculiar to US copyright law, we did not
term of art, ``derivative work,'' peculiar to USA copyright law, we did not
believe that this presented difficulties as significant as those associated
with the use of the term ``distribution.'' After all, differently-labeled
concepts corresponding to the derivative work are recognized in all copyright
law systems. That these counterpart concepts might differ to some degree in
scope and breadth from the US derivative work was simply a consequence of
scope and breadth from the USA derivative work was simply a consequence of
varying national treatment of the right of altering a copyrighted work.
%FIXME: should we keep this? maybe a footnote?
Ironically, the criticism we have received regarding the use of
US-specific legal terminology in the ``work based on the Program''
definition has come not primarily from readers outside the US, but
USA-specific legal terminology in the ``work based on the Program''
definition has come not primarily from readers outside the USA, but
from those within it, and particularly from members of the technology
licensing bar. They have argued that the definition of ``work based
on the Program'' effectively misstates what a derivative work is under
US law, and they have contended that it attempts, by indirect means,
USA law, and they have contended that it attempts, by indirect means,
to extend the scope of copyleft in ways they consider undesirable.
They have also asserted that it confounds the concepts of derivative
and collective works, two terms of art that they assume, questionably,
to be neatly disjoint under US law.
to be neatly disjoint under USA law.
% FIXME: As above
@ -2339,7 +2339,7 @@ told that in at least one country distribution may not include network
transfers of software but may include interdepartmental transfers of physical
copies within an organization. In many countries the term ``making available
to the public'' or ``communicating to the public'' is the closest counterpart
to the generalized notion of distribution that exists under US law.
to the generalized notion of distribution that exists under USA law.
Therefore, the GPL defines the term ``propagate'' by reference to activities
that require permission under ``applicable copyright law'', but excludes
@ -2364,7 +2364,7 @@ distribution and replacing them with a new factually-based term,
propagation of copies to others. With these changes, GPLv3 addresses
transfers of copies of software in behavioral rather than statutory terms.
At the same time, we have acknowledged the use of ``making available to the
public'' in jurisdictions outside the US by adding it as a specific example
public'' in jurisdictions outside the USA by adding it as a specific example
in the definition of ``propagate.'' We decided to leave the precise
definition of an organizational licensee, and the line drawn between
licensees and other parties, for determination under local law.