diff --git a/Case-Study-Ethics/case-study-ethics.pdf b/Case-Study-Ethics/case-study-ethics.pdf
deleted file mode 100644
index d7e07f8..0000000
Binary files a/Case-Study-Ethics/case-study-ethics.pdf and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/Case-Study-Ethics/case-study-ethics.tex b/Case-Study-Ethics/case-study-ethics.tex
deleted file mode 100644
index bb9b63f..0000000
--- a/Case-Study-Ethics/case-study-ethics.tex
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,900 +0,0 @@
-% case-study-ethics.tex -*- LaTeX -*-
-
-% Tutorial Text for GPL Compliance Case Studies
-% and Legal Ethics in Free Software Licensing
-%
-% Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-
-
-% License: CC-By-SA-4.0
-
-% The copyright holders hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify, convey,
-% Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative
-% Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License.
-
-% This text is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
-% WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
-% MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
-
-% You should have received a copy of the license with this document in
-% a file called 'CC-By-SA-4.0.txt'. If not, please visit
-% https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode to receive
-% the license text.
-
-\documentclass[12pt]{report}
-% FILTER_PS: \input{generate-ps-file}
-% FILTER_PDF: \input{generate-pdf-file}
-% FILTER_HTML: \input{generate-html-file}
-\input{one-inch-margins}
-
-%\setlength\parskip{0.7em}
-%\setlength\parindent{0pt}
-
-\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\emph{#1}}
-
-%\pagestyle{empty}
-
-\begin{document}
-
-\begin{titlepage}
-
-
-\begin{center}
-
-\vspace{.5in}
-
-{\Large {\sc GPL Compliance Case Studies} \\
-
-\vspace{.7in}
-
-Sponsored by the Free Software Foundation \\
-
-
-\vspace{.3in}
-
-Columbia Law School, New York, NY, USA \\
-\vspace{.1in}
-Wednesday 21 January 2004
-}
-
-\vspace{.7in}
-
-{\large
-Bradley M. Kuhn
-
-Executive Director
-
-Free Software Foundation
-}
-
-\vspace{.3in}
-
-
-{\large
-Daniel Ravicher
-
-Senior Counsel
-
-Free Software Foundation
-}
-
-\end{center}
-
-\vfill
-
-{\parindent 0in
-Copyright \copyright{} 2004 \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-
-\vspace{.3in}
-
-The copyright holders hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify, convey,
-Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative Commons
-Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License. A copy of that license is
-available at \verb=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode=.
-}
-
-\end{titlepage}
-
-\pagestyle{plain}
-\pagenumbering{roman}
-
-\begin{abstract}
-
-This one-day course presents the details of five different GPL compliance
-cases handled by FSF's GPL Compliance Laboratory. Each case offers unique
-insights into problems that can arise when the terms of GPL are not
-properly followed, and how diplomatic negotiation between the violator and
-the copyright holder can yield positive results for both parties.
-
-Attendees should have successfully completely the course, a ``Detailed
-Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL'', as the material from that course
-forms the building blocks for this material.
-
-The course is of most interest to lawyers who have clients or employers
-that deal with Free Software on a regular basis. However, technical
-managers and executives whose businesses use or distribute Free Software
-will also find the course very helpful.
-
-\bigskip
-
-These course materials are merely a summary of the highlights of the
-course presented. Readers of this material should assume that they have
-missed the bulk of the material, as the detailed discussion of these case
-studies is the most illuminating part about them. Merely reading this
-material is akin to matriculating into a college course and read only the
-textbook instead of going to class.
-
-\end{abstract}
-
-\tableofcontents
-
-\pagebreak
-
-\pagenumbering{arabic}
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Overview of FSF's GPL Compliance Lab}
-
-The GPL is a Free Software license with legal teeth. Unlike licenses like
-the X11-style or various BSD licenses, GPL (and by extension, the LGPL) is
-designed to defend as well as grant freedom. We saw in the last course
-that GPL uses copyright law as a mechanism to grant all the key freedoms
-essential in Free Software, but also to ensure that those freedoms
-propagate throughout the distribution chain of the software.
-
-\section{Termination Begins Enforcement}
-
-As we have learned, the assurance that Free Software under GPL remains
-Free Software is accomplished through various terms of GPL: \S 3 ensures
-that binaries are always accompanied with source; \S 2 ensures that the
-sources are adequate, complete and usable; \S 6 and \S 7 ensure that the
-license of the software is always GPL for everyone, and that no other
-legal agreements or licenses trump GPL. It is \S 4, however, that ensures
-that the GPL can be enforced.
-
-Thus, \S 4 is where we begin our discussion of GPL enforcement. This
-clause is where the legal teeth of the license are rooted. As a copyright
-license, GPL governs only the activities governed by copyright law ---
-copying, modifying and redistributing computer software. Unlike most
-copyright licenses, GPL gives wide grants of permission for engaging with
-these activities. Such permissions continue and all parties may exercise
-them until such time as one party violates the terms of GPL\@. At the
-moment of such a violation (i.e., the engaging of copying, modifying or
-redistributing in ways not permitted by GPL) \S 4 is invoked. While other
-parties may continue to operate under GPL, the violating party loses their
-rights.
-
-Specifically, \S 4 terminates the violators' rights to continue engaging
-in the permissions that otherwise granted by GPL\@. Effectively, their
-permissions go back to the copyright defaults --- no permission is granted
-to copy, modify, nor redistribute the work. Meanwhile, \S 5 points out
-that if if the violator has no rights under GPL --- as they will not once
-they have violated it --- then they otherwise have no rights and are
-prohibited by copyright law from engaging in the activities of copying,
-modifying and distributing.
-
-\section{Ongoing Violations}
-
-In conjunction with \S 4's termination of violators' rights, there is one
-final industry fact added to the mix: rarely, does one engage in a single,
-solitary act of copying, distributing or modifying software. Almost
-always, a violator will have legitimately acquired a copy a GPL'd program,
-either making modifications or not, and then began a ongoing activity of
-distributing that work. For example, the violator may have put the
-software in boxes and sold them at stores. Or perhaps the software was
-put up for download on the Internet. Regardless of the delivery
-mechanism, violators almost always are engaged in {\em ongoing\/}
-violation of GPL\@.
-
-In fact, when we discover a GPL violation that occurred only once --- for
-example, a user group who distributed copies of a GNU/Linux system without
-source at one meeting --- we rarely pursue it with a high degree of
-tenacity. In our minds, such a violation is an educational problem, and
-unless the user group becomes a repeat offender (as it turns out, the
-never do) we simply forward along an FAQ entry that best explains how user
-groups can most easily comply with GPL, and send them on there merry way.
-
-It is only the cases of {\em ongoing\/} GPL violation that warrant our
-active attention. We vehemently pursue those cases where dozens, hundreds
-or thousands of customers are receiving software that is out of
-compliance, and where the company continually puts for sale (or
-distributes gratis as a demo) software distributions that include GPL'd
-components out of compliance. Our goal is to maximize the impact of
-enforcement and educate industries who are making such a mistake on a
-large scale.
-
-In addition, such ongoing violation shows that a particular company is
-committed to a GPL'd product line. We are thrilled to learn that someone
-is benefiting from Free Software, and we understand that sometimes they
-have become confused about the rules of the road. Rather than merely
-giving us a post mortem to perform on a past mistake, an ongoing violation
-gives us an active opportunity to educate a new contributor the GPL'd
-commons about proper procedures to contribute to the community.
-
-Our central goal is not, in fact, to merely clear up particular violation.
-In fact, over time, we hope that our compliance lab will be out of
-business. We seek to educate the businesses that engage in commerce
-related to GPL'd software to obey the rules of the road and allow them to
-operate freely under them. Just as a traffic officer would not revel in
-reminding people which side of the road to drive on, so we do not revel in
-violations. By contrast, we revel in the successes of educating an
-ongoing violator about GPL so that GPL compliance becomes a second-nature
-matter, allowing that company to join the GPL ecosystem as a contributor.
-
-\section{How are Violations Discovered?}
-
-Our enforcement of GPL is not a fund-raising effort; in fact, FSF's GPL
-Compliance Lab runs at a loss (in other words, it is subsided by our
-donors). Our violation reports come from volunteers, who have encountered
-in their business or personal life, a device or software product that
-appears to contain GPL'd software. These reports are almost always sent
-via email to $<$license-violation@fsf.org$>$.
-
-Our first order of business, upon receiving such a report, is to seek
-independent confirmation. When possible, we get a copy of the software
-product. For example, if it is an offering that is downloadable from a
-website, we download it and investigate ourselves. When it is not
-possible for us to actually get a copy of the software, we ask the
-reporter to go through the same process we would use in examining the
-software.
-
-By rough estimation, about 95\% of violations at this stage can be
-confirmed by simple commands. Almost all violators have merely made an
-error and have no nefarious intentions. They have made no attempt to
-remove our copyright notices from the software. Thus, given the
-third-party binary, {\tt tpb}, usually, a simple command (on a GNU/Linux
-system) such as the following will find a Free Software copyright notice
-and GPL reference:
-\begin{quotation}
-{\tt strings tpb | grep Copyright}
-\end{quotation}
-In other words, it is usually more than trivial to confirm that GPL'd
-software is included.
-
-Once we have confirmed that a violation has indeed occurred, we must then
-determine whose copyright has been violated. Contrary to popular belief,
-FSF does not have the power to enforce GPL in all cases. Since GPL
-operates under copyright law, the powers of enforcement --- to seek
-redress once \S 4 has been invoked --- lies with the copyright holder of
-the software. FSF is one of the largest copyright holders in the world of
-GPL'd software, but we are by no means the only one. Thus, we sometimes
-discover that while GPL'd code is present in the software, there is no
-software copyrighted by FSF present.
-
-In cases where FSF does not hold copyright interest in the software, but
-we have confirmed a violation, we contact the copyright holders of the
-software, and encourage them to enforce GPL\@. We offer our good offices
-to help negotiate compliance on their behalf, and many times we help as a
-third party to settle such GPL violations. However, what we will describe
-primarily in this course is FSF's first-hand experience enforcing its own
-copyrights and GPL\@.
-
-\section{First Contact}
-
-The Free Software community is built on a structure of voluntary
-cooperation and mutual help. Our community has learned that cooperation
-works best when you assume the best of others, and only change policy,
-procedures and attitudes when some specific event or occurrence indicates
-that a change is necessary. We treat the process of GPL enforcement in
-the same way. Our goal is to encourage violators to join the cooperative
-community of software sharing, so we want to open our hand in friendship
-to them.
-
-Therefore, once we have confirmed a violation, our first assumption is
-that the violation is an oversight or otherwise a mistake due to confusion
-about the terms of the license. We reach out to the violator and ask them
-to work with us in a collaborative way to bring the product into
-compliance. We have received the gamut of possible reactions to such
-requests, and in this course, we examine four specific examples of such
-compliance work.
-
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Davrik: Modified GCC SDK}
-
-In our first case study, we will consider Davrik, a company that produces
-software and hardware toolkits to assist OEM vendors who products consumer
-electronic devices.
-
-\section{Facts}
-
-One of Davrik's key products is a Software Development Kit (``SDK'')
-designed to assist developers building software for a specific class of
-consumer electronics devices.
-
-FSF received a report that the SDK may be based on the GNU Compiler
-Collection (which is an FSF-copyrighted collection of tools for software
-development in C, C++ and other popular languages). FSF investigated the
-claim, but was unable to confirm the violation. The violation reporter
-was unresponsive to follow-up requests for more information.
-
-Since FSF was unable to confirm the violation, we did not pursue it any
-further. Bogus reports do happen, and we do not want to burden companies
-with specious GPL violation complaints. FSF shelved the matter until
-more evidence was discovered.
-
-FSF was later able to confirm the violation when two additional reports
-surfaced from other violation reporters, both of whom had used the SDK
-professional and noticed clear similarities to FSF's GNU GCC\@. FSF's
-Compliance Engineer asked the reporters to run standard tests to confirm
-the violation, and it was confirmed that Davrik's SDK was indeed a
-derivative work of GCC\@. Davrik had ported to Windows and added a number
-of features, including support for a specific consumer device chipset and
-additional features to aid in the linking process (``LP'') for those
-specific devices. FSF explained the rights that the GPL afforded these
-customers and pointed out, for example, that Davrik only needed to provide
-source to those in possession of the binaries, and that the users may need
-to request that source (if \S 3(b) was exercised). The violators
-confirmed that such requests were not answered.
-
-FSF brought the matter to the attention of Davrik, who immediately
-escalated the matter to their attorneys. After a long negotiation, Davrik
-acknowledged that their SDK was indeed a derivative work of GCC\@. Davrik
-released most of the source, but some disagreement occurred over whether
-LP was a derivate work of GCC\@. After repeated FSF inquiries, Davrik
-reaudited the source and discovered that FSF's analysis was correct and
-determined that LP included a number of source files copied from the GCC
-code-base.
-
-\label{davrik-build-problems}
-Once the full software release was made available, FSF asked the violation
-reporters if it addressed the problem. Reports came back that the source
-did not properly build. FSF asked Davrik to provide better build
-instructions with the software, and such build instructions were
-incorporated into the next software release.
-
-At FSF's request as well, Davrik informed customers who had previously
-purchased the product that the source was now available, by announcing
-the available on its website and via a customer newsletter.
-
-Davrik did have some concerns regarding patents. They wished to include a
-statement with the software release that made sure they were not granting
-any patent permission other than what was absolutely required by GPL\@.
-They understood that their patent assertions could not trump any rights
-granted by GPL\@. The following language was negotiated to be included
-with the release:
-
-\begin{quotation}
-Subject to the qualifications stated below, Davrik, on behalf of itself
-and its Subsidiaries, agrees not to assert the Claims against you for your
-making, use, offer for sale, sale, or importation of the Davrik's GNU
-Utilities or derivative works of the Davrik's GNU Utilities
-("Derivatives"), but only to the extent that any such Derivatives are
-licensed by you under the terms of the GNU General Public License. The
-Claims are the claims of patents that Davrik or its Subsidiaries have
-standing to enforce that are directly infringed by the making, use, or
-sale of an Davrik Distributed GNU Utilities in the form it was distributed
-by Davrik and that do not include any limitation that reads on hardware;
-the Claims do not include any additional patent claims held by Davrik that
-cover any modifications of, derivative works based on or combinations with
-the Davrik's GNU Utilities, even if such a claim is disclosed in the same
-patent as a Claim. Subsidiaries are entities that are wholly owned by
-Davrik.
-
-This statement does not negate, limit or restrict any rights you already
-have under the GNU General Public License, Version 2.
-\end{quotation}
-
-This quelled Davrik's concerns about other patent licensing they sought to
-do outside of the GPL'd software, and satisfied FSF's concerns that they
-give proper permissions to exercise teachings of patents that were
-exercised in their GPL'd software release.
-
-Finally, a GPL Compliance Officer inside Davrik was appointed who is
-responsible for all matters of GPL compliance inside the company. Darvik
-is responsible for informing FSF if the position is given to someone else
-inside the company, and making sure that FSF has direct contact
-information with Darvik's Compliance Officer.
-
-\section{Lessons}
-
-This case introduces a number of concepts regarding GPL enforcement.
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\item {\bf Enforcement should not begin until the evidence is confirmed.}
- Most companies who distribute GPL'd software do so in compliance, and at
- times, violation reports are mistaken. Even with extensive efforts in
- GPL education, many users do not fully understand their rights and the
- obligations that companies have. By working through the investigation
- with reporters, the violation can be properly confirmed, and {\bf the
- user of the software can be educated about what to expect with GPL'd
- software}. When users and customers of GPL'd products know their
- rights, what to expect, and how to properly exercise their rights
- (particularly under \S 3(b)), it reduces the chances for user
- frustration and inappropriate community outcry about an alleged GPL
- violation.
-
-\item {\bf GPL compliance requires friendly negotiation and cooperation.}
- Often, attorneys and managers are legitimately surprised to find out
- GPL'd software is included in their company's products. Engineers
- sometimes include GPL'd software without understanding the requirements.
- This does not excuse companies from their obligations under the license,
- but it does mean that care and patience are essential for reaching GPL
- compliance. We want companies to understand that participating and
- benefiting from a collaborative Free Software community is not a burden,
- so we strive to make the process of coming into compliance as smooth as
- possible.
-
-\item {\bf Confirming compliance is a community effort.} The whole point
- of making sure that software distributors respect the terms of GPL is to
- allow a thriving software sharing community to benefit and improve the
- work. FSF are not the experts on how a compiler for consumer electronic
- devices should work. We therefore inform the community who originally
- brought the violation to our attention and ask them to assist in
- evaluation and confirmation of the product's compliance. Of course, FSF
- coordinates and oversees the process, but we do not want compliance for
- compliance's sake; rather, we wish to foster a cooperating community of
- development around the Free Software in question, and encourage the
- once-violator to begin participating in that community.
-
-\item {\bf Informing the harmed community is part of compliance.} FSF asks
- violators to make some attempt --- such as via newsletters and the
- company's website --- to inform those who already have the products as
- to their rights under GPL\@. One of the key thrusts of GPL's \S 1 and
- \S 3 is to {\em make sure the user knows she has these rights\/}. If a
- product was received out of compliance by a customer, she may never
- actually discover that she had such rights. Informing customers, in a
- way that is not burdensome but has a high probability of successfully
- reaching those who would seek to exercise their freedoms, is essential
- to properly remedy the mistake.
-
-\item {\bf Lines between various copyright, patent, and other legal
- mechanisms must be precisely defined and considered.} The most
- difficult negotiation point of the Davrik case was drafting language
- that simultaneously protected the Davrik's patent rights outside of the
- GPL'd source, but was consistent with the implicit patent grant in
- GPL\@. As we discussed in the first course in this series, there is
- indeed an implicit patent grant with GPL, thanks to \S 6 and \S 7.
- However, many companies become nervous and wish to make the grant
- explicit to assure themselves that the grant is sufficiently narrow for
- their needs. We understand that there is no reasonable way to determine
- what patent claims read on a company's GPL holdings and which do not, so
- we do not object to general language that explicitly narrows the patent
- grant to only those patents that were, in fact, exercised by the GPL'd
- software as released by the company.
-
-\end{enumerate}
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Bracken: a Minor Violation in a GNU/Linux Distribution}
-
-In this case study, we consider a minor violation made by a company whose
-knowledge of the Free Software community and it functions is deep.
-
-\section{The Facts}
-
-Bracken produces a GNU/Linux operating system product that is sold
-primarily to OEM vendors to be placed in appliance devices that are used
-for a single purpose, such as an Internet-browsing-only device. The
-product is almost 100\% Free Software, mostly licensed under GPL and
-related Free Software licenses.
-
-FSF found out about this violation through a report first posted in a
-comment on a Slashdot\footnote{Slashdot is a popular news and discussion
- site for technical readers.} comment, and then was brought to attention
-again by another Free Software copyright holder who had discovered the
-same violation.
-
-Bracken's GNU/Linux product is delivered directly from their website.
-This allowed FSF engineers to directly download and confirm the violation
-quickly. It was discovered that there were two primary problems with the
-online distribution:
-
-\begin{itemize}
-
-\item No source code nor offer for source code was provided for a number
- of components for the distributed GNU/Linux system; only binaries were
- available.
-
-\item An End User License Agreement (``EULA'') was included that
- contradicted the permissions granted by GPL\@.
-\end{itemize}
-
-FSF contacted Bracken and gave them the details of the violation. Bracken
-immediately ceased distribution of the product temporarily, and set forth
-a plan to bring themselves back into compliance. This plan included the
-following steps:
-
-\begin{itemize}
-
-\item Bracken attorneys would rewrite the EULA to comply with GPL, and
- would vet the new EULA through FSF before use.
-
-\item Bracken engineers would provide source side-by-side with the
- binaries for the GNU/Linux distribution on the site (and on CD's, if
- ever they distributed that way).
-
-\item Bracken attorneys would run an internal seminar for its engineers
- regarding proper GPL compliance, to help ensure that such oversights
- regarding source releases would not occur in the future.
-
-\item Bracken would resume distribution of the product only after FSF
- formally restored Bracken's distribution rights.
-\end{itemize}
-
-This case was completed in the matter of about a month. FSF approved the
-new EULA text. They key portion in the EULA relating to GPL read as
-follows:
-
-\begin{quotation}
-Many of the Software Programs included in Bracken Software are distributed
-under the terms of agreements with Third Parties (``Third Party
-Agreements'') which may expand or limit the Licensee's rights to use
-certain Software Programs as set forth in [this EULA]. Certain Software
-Programs may be licensed (or sublicensed) to Licensee under the GNU
-General Public License and other similar license agreements listed in part
-in this section which, among other rights, permit the Licensee to copy,
-modify and redistribute certain Software Programs, or portions thereof,
-and have access to the source code of certain Software Programs, or
-portions thereof. In addition, certain Software Programs, or portions
-thereof, may be licensed (or sublicensed) to Licensee under terms stricter
-than those set forth in [this EULA]. The Licensee must review the
-electronic documentation that accompanies certain Software Programs, or
-portions thereof, for the applicable Third Party Agreements. To the
-extent any Third Party Agreements require that Bracken provide rights to
-use, copy or modify a Software Program that are broader than the rights
-granted to the Licensee in [this EULA], then such rights shall take
-precedence over the rights and restrictions granted in this Agreement
-solely for such Software Programs.
-\end{quotation}
-
-FSF restored Bracken's distribution rights shortly after the work was
-completed as described.
-
-\section{Lessons Learned}
-
-This case was probably the most quickly and easily resolved of all GPL
-violations in the history of FSF's Compliance Lab. The ease with which
-the problem was resolved shows a number of cultural factors that play a
-role in GPL compliance.
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\item {\bf Companies that understand Free Software culture better have an
- easier time with compliance.} Bracken's products were designed and
- built around the GNU/Linux system and Free Software components. Their
- engineers were deeply familiar with the Free Software ecosystem, and
- their lawyers had seen and reviewed GPL before. The violation was
- completely an honest mistake. Since the culture inside the company had
- already adapted to the cooperative style of resolution in the Free
- Software world, there was very little work for either party to bring the
- product into compliance.
-
-\item {\bf When people in key positions understand the Free Software
- nature of their software products, compliance concerns are as mundane as
- minor software bugs.} Even the most functional system or structure has
- its problems, and successful business often depends on agile response to
- the problems that do come up; avoiding problems altogether is a pipe
- dream. Minor GPL violations can and do happen even with well-informed
- redistributors. However, when the company --- and in particular, the
- lawyers, managers, and engineers working on the Free Software product
- lines --- have adapted to the cooperative Free Software culture,
- resolving such problems is merely a mundane detail of typical operation
- and resolution is reached quickly.
-
-\item {\bf Legally, distribution must stop when a violation is
- identified.} In our opinion, Bracken went above and beyond the call of
- duty by ceasing distribution while the violation was being resolved.
- Under GPL \S 4, the redistributor loses the right to distribute the
- software, and thus they are in ongoing violation of copyright law if
- they distribute before rights are restored. It is FSF's policy to
- temporarily allow distribution while compliance negotiations are ongoing
- and only in the most extreme cases (where the other party appears to be
- negotiating in bad faith) does FSF even threaten an injunction on
- copyright grounds. However, Bracken --- as a good Free Software citizen
- --- chose to be on the safe side and do the legally correct thing while
- the violation case was pending. Since from start to finish it took less
- than am month to resolve, this lapse in distribution did not, to FSF's
- knowledge, impact Bracken's business in any way.
-
-\item {\bf EULAs are a common area for GPL problems.} Often, EULAs are
- drafted from boilerplate text that a company uses for all its products.
- Even the most diligent attorneys forget or simply do not know that a
- product contains software licensed under GPL and other Free Software
- licenses. Drafting a EULA that accounts for such licenses is
- straightforward; the text quoted above works just fine. The EULA must
- be designed so that it does not trump and rights and permissions already
- granted by GPL\@, and it clearly state that if there is a conflict
- between the EULA and GPL, with regard to GPL'd code, that the GPL is the
- overriding license.
-
-\item {\bf Compliance Officers are rarely necessary when companies are
- educated about GPL compliance.} As we saw in the Davrik case, FSF asks
- that a formal ``GPL Compliance Officer'' be appointed inside a
- previously violating organization to shepherd the organization to a
- cooperative approach with regard to GPL compliance. However, when FSF
- sees that an organization already has such an approach, there is no
- need to request that such an officer be appointed.
-
-\end{enumerate}
-
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Vigorien: Security, Export Controls, and GPL Compliance}
-
-This case study introduces how concerns of ``security through obscurity''
-and regulatory problems can impact GPL compliance matters.
-
-\section{The Facts}
-
-Vigorien distributes a backup solution product that allows system
-administrators to create encrypted backups of file-systems on Unix-like
-computers. The product is based on GNU tar, a backup utility that
-replaces the standard Unix utility, ``tar'', but has additional features.
-
-Vigorien's backup solution added cryptographic features to GNU tar, and
-included a suite of utilities and graphical user interfaces surrounding
-GNU tar to make backups convenient.
-
-FSF discovered the violation from a user report, and determined that the
-cryptographic features were the only part of the product that constituted
-a derivative work of GNU tar; the extraneous utilities merely made
-``shell'' calls out to GNU tar. FSF requested that Vigorien come into
-compliance with GPL by releasing the source of GNU tar, with the
-cryptographic modifications, to its customers.
-
-Vigorien released the original GNU tar sources, but kept the cryptographic
-modifications proprietary. They argued that the security of their system
-depending on keeping the software proprietary and that regardless, USA
-export restrictions on cryptographic software prohibited such a release.
-FSF disputed the first claim, pointing out that Vigorien had only one
-option if they did not want to release the source: they would have to
-remove GNU tar from the software and not distribute it further. Vigorien
-rejected this suggestion, since GNU tar was an integral part of the
-product and the security changes were useless without GNU tar.
-
-Regarding the export control claims, FSF proposed a number of options,
-including release of the source from one of Vigorien's divisions overseas
-where no such restrictions occurred, but Vigorien argued that the problem
-was insoluble because they operated primarily in the USA\@.
-
-The deadlock on the second issue was resolved when those cryptographic
-export restrictions were lifted shortly thereafter, and FSF again raised
-the matter with Vigorien. At that point, they dropped the first claim and
-agreed to release the remaining source module to their customers. They
-did so, and the violation was resolved.
-
-
-\section{Lessons Learned}
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\item {\bf Removing the GPL'd portion of the product is always an option.}
- Many violators' first response is to simply refuse to release the source
- code as GPL requires. FSF offers the option to simply remove the GPL'd
- portions from the product and continue along without them indefinitely.
- Every case where this has been suggested has led to the same conclusion.
- Like Vigorien, the violator argues that the product cannot function
- without the GPL'd components and they cannot effectively replace them.
-
- Such an outcome is simply further evidence that the combined work in
- question is indeed a derivative work of the original GPL'd component.
- If the other components cannot stand on their own and be useful without
- the GPL'd portions, then one cannot effectively argue that the work as a
- whole is not a derivative of the GPL'd portions.
-
-\item {\bf The whole product is not always covered.} In this case,
- Vigorien had additional works aggregated. The backup system was a suite
- of utilities, some of which were GPL and some of which were not. While
- the cryptographic routines were tightly coupled with GNU tar and clearly
- derivative works, the various GUI utilities were separate and
- independent works merely aggregated with the distribution of the
- GNU-tar-based product.
-
-
-\item {\bf ``Security'' concerns do not exonerate a distributor from GPL
- obligations, and ``security through obscurity'' does not work anyway.}
- The argument that ``this is security software, so it cannot be released
- in source form'' is not a valid defense for explaining why the terms of
- the GPL are ignored. If companies do not want to release source code
- for some reason, then they should not base the work on GPL'd software.
- No external argument for non-compliance can hold weight if the work as
- whole is indeed a derivative work of a GPL'd program.
-
- The ``security concerns'' argument is often floated as a reason to keep
- software proprietary, but the computer security community has on
- numerous occasions confirmed that such arguments are entirely specious.
- Security experts have found --- since the beginnings of the field of
- cryptography in the ancient word --- that sharing results about systems
- and having such systems withstand peer review and scrutiny builds the
- most secure systems. While full disclosure may help some who wish to
- compromise security, it helps those who want to fix problems even more
- by identifying them early.
-
-\item {\bf External regulatory problems can be difficult to resolve.}
- GPL, though grounded in copyright law, does not have the power to trump
- regulations like export controls. While Vigorien's ``security
- concerns'' were specious, their export control concerns were not. It is
- indeed a difficult problem that FSF acknowledges. We want compliance
- with GPL and respect for users' freedoms, but we certainly do not expect
- companies to commit criminal offenses for the sake of compliance. We
- will see more about this issue in our next case study.
-\end{enumerate}
-
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Haxil, Polgara, and Thesulac: Mergers, Upstream Providers and Radio Devices}
-
-This case study considers an ongoing (at the time of writing) violation
-that has occurred. By the end of the investigation period, three
-companies were involved and many complex issues arose.
-
-\section{The Facts}
-
-Haxil produced a consumer electronics device which included a mini
-GNU/Linux distribution to control the device. The device was of interest
-to many technically minded consumers, who purchased the device and very
-quickly discovered that Free Software was included without source.
-Mailing lists throughout the Free Software community erupted with
-complaints about the problem, and FSF quickly investigated.
-
-FSF confirmed that FSF-copyrighted GPL'd software was included. In
-addition, the whole distribution included GPL'd works from hundreds of
-individual copyright holders, many of whom were, at this point, up in
-arms about the violation.
-
-Meanwhile, Haxil was in the midst of being acquired by Polgara. Polgara
-was as surprised as everyone else to discover the product was based on
-GPL'd software; this fact had not been part of the disclosures made during
-acquisition. FSF contacted both Haxil and Polgara, and product managers
-who had transitioned into the ``Haxil division'' of the newly-merged
-Polgara company and Polgara's General Counsel's office worked with FSF on
-the matter.
-
-FSF meanwhile formed a coalition with the other primary copyright holders
-to pursue the enforcement effort on their behalf. FSF communicated
-directly with Polgara's representatives to begin working through the
-issues on behalf of FSF itself and the Free Software community at large.
-
-Polgara pointed out that the software distribution they used was mostly
-contributed by an upstream provider, Thesulac, and Haxil's changes to that
-code base were minimal. Polgara negotiated with Thesulac to obtain the
-source, although the issue was moving very slowly in the channels between
-Polgara and Thesulac.
-
-FSF encouraged a round-table meeting so that high bandwidth communication
-could occur between FSF, Polgara and Thesulac. Polgara and Thesulac
-agreed, and that discussion began. Thesulac provided nearly complete
-sources to Polgara, and Polgara made a full software release on their
-website. At the time of writing, that software still has some build
-problems (similar those that occurred with Davrik, as described in
-Section~\ref{davrik-build-problems}). FSF continues to negotiate with
-Polgara and Thesulac to resolve these problems, which have a clear path to
-solution and are expected to resolve.
-
-Similar to the Vigorien case, Thesulac has regulatory concerns. In this
-case, it is not export controls --- an issue that has since been resolved
---- but radio spectrum regulation. Since this consumer electronic device
-contains a software-programmable radio transmitter, regulations in (at
-least) the USA and Japan prohibit release of those portions of the code
-that operate the device. Since this is a low-level programming issue, the
-changes to operate the device are a derivative work of the kernel named
-Linux. This situation remains unresolved at the time of writing, although
-FSF continues to negotiation with Thesulac and the Linux community
-regarding the problem.
-
-\section{Lessons Learned}
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\item {\bf Community outrage, while justified, can often make negotiation
- more difficult.} FSF has a strong policy never to publicize names of
- GPL violators if they are negotiating in a friendly way and operating in
- good faith toward compliance. Most violations are honest mistakes, and
- FSF sees no reason to publicly admonish violators who genuinely see to
- come into compliance with GPL and to work hard staying in compliance.
-
- This case was so public in the Free Software community that both Haxil's
- and Polgara's representatives were nearly shell-shocked by the time FSF
- began negotiations. There was much work required to diffuse the
- situation. We empathize with our community and their outrage about GPL
- violations, but we also want to follow a path that leads expediently
- to compliance. In our experience, public outcry works best as a last
- resort, not the first.
-
-\item {\bf For software companies, GPL compliance belongs on a corporate
- acquisition checklist. } Polgara was truly amazed that Haxil had used
- GPL'd software in a major new product line but never informed Polgara
- during the acquisition process. While GPL compliance is not a
- particularly difficult matter, it is an additional obligation that comes
- along with the product line. When planning mergers and joint ventures,
- one should include lists of GPL'd components contained in the products
- discussed.
-
-\item {\bf Compliance problems of upstream providers do not excuse a
- violation for the downstream distributor.} To paraphrase \S 6, upstream
- providers are not responsible for enforcing compliance of their
- downstream, nor are downstream distributors responsible for compliance
- problems of upstream providers. However, engaging in distribution of
- GPL'd works out of compliance is still just that: a compliance problem.
- When FSF carries out enforcement, we are patient and sympathetic when
- the problem appears to be upstream. In fact, we urge the violator to
- point us to the upstream provider so we may talk to them directly. In
- this case we were happy to begin negotiations with Thesulac. However,
- Polgara still has an obligation to bring their product into compliance,
- regardless of Thesulac's response.
-
-\item {\bf It behooves upstream providers to advise downstream
- distributors about compliance matters.} FSF has encouraged Thesulac to
- distribute a ``good practices for GPL compliance'' document with their
- product. Polgara added various software components to Thesulac's
- product, and it is conceivable that such additions can introduce
- compliance. In FSF's opinion, Thesulac is no way legally responsible
- for such a violation introduced by their customer, but it behooves them
- from a marketing standpoint to educate their customers about using the
- product. We can argue whether or not it is your coffee vendor's fault
- if you burn yourself with their product, but (likely) no one on either
- side would dispute the prudence of placing a ``caution: hot'' label on
- the cup.
-
-\item {\bf FSF enforcement often avoids redundant enforcement cases from
- many parties.} Most Free Software systems have hundreds of copyright
- holders. Some have thousands. FSF is in a unique position as one of
- the largest single copyright holders on GPL'd software and as a
- respected umpire in the community neutrally enforcing the rules of the
- GPL road. FSF works hard in the community to convince copyright
- holders that consolidating GPL claims through FSF is better for them,
- and more likely to yield positive compliance results.
-
- A few copyright holders engage in the ``proprietary relicensing''
- business, so they use GPL enforcement as a sales channel for that
- business. FSF, as a community-oriented not-for-profit organization,
- seeks only to preserve the freedom of Free Software in its enforcement
- efforts. As it turns out, most of the community of copyright holders
- of Free Software want the same thing. Share and share alike is a
- simple rule to follow, and following that rule to FSF's satisfaction
- usually means you are following it to the satisfaction of the entire
- Free Software community.
-
-\end{enumerate}
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Good Practices for Compliance}
-
-Generally, from the experience of GPL enforcement, we glean the following
-general practices that can help in GPL compliance for organizations that
-distribute products based on GPL'd software:
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\item Talk to your software engineers and ask them where they got the
- components they use in the products they build. Find out if GPL'd
- components are present.
-
-\item Teach your engineering staff to pay attention to license documents.
- Give them easy-to-follow policies to get approval for using a Free
- Software component.
-
-\item Build a ``Free Software Licensing'' committee that handles requests
- and questions about GPL and other Free Software licenses.
-
-\item Add ``What parts of your products are under GPL or other Free
- Software licenses?'' to your checklist of questions to ask when you
- consider mergers, acquisitions, or joint ventures.
-
-\item Encourage your engineers to participate collaboratively with GPL'd
- software development. The more knowledge about the Free Software world
- your organization has, the better equipped it is to deal with this
- rapidly changing field.
-
-\item When someone points out a potential GPL violation in one of your
- products, do not assume the product line is doomed. GPL is not a virus;
- merely having GPL'd code in one part of a product does not necessarily
- mean that every related product must also be GPL'd. And, even if some
- software needs to be released that was not before, the product will
- surely still survive. In FSF's enforcement efforts, we have not yet
- seen a product line die because source was released to customers in
- compliance with GPL.
-
-\end{enumerate}
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\end{document}
-
-% 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 GPL's Gentoo glibc
-% LocalWords: TrollTech administrivia LGPL's MontaVista Davrik Davrik's Darvik
-% LocalWords: Darvik's Slashdot sublicensed Vigorien Vigorien's Haxil Polgara
-% LocalWords: Thesulac Polgara's Haxil's Thesulac's SDK CD's
diff --git a/Case-Study-Ethics/new-case-study-ethics.pdf b/Case-Study-Ethics/new-case-study-ethics.pdf
deleted file mode 100644
index 5c16319..0000000
Binary files a/Case-Study-Ethics/new-case-study-ethics.pdf and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/Case-Study-Ethics/new-case-study-ethics.tex b/Case-Study-Ethics/new-case-study-ethics.tex
deleted file mode 100644
index 12fe319..0000000
--- a/Case-Study-Ethics/new-case-study-ethics.tex
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1991 +0,0 @@
-% Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL course
-%
-% Copyright (C) 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-
-% License: CC-By-SA-4.0
-
-% The copyright holders hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify, convey,
-% Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative
-% Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License.
-
-% This text is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
-% WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
-% MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
-
-% You should have received a copy of the license with this document in
-% a file called 'CC-By-SA-4.0.txt'. If not, please visit
-% https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode to receive
-% the license text.
-
-\documentclass[11pt]{book}
-% FILTER_PS: \input{generate-ps-file}
-% FILTER_PDF: \input{generate-pdf-file}
-% FILTER_HTML: \input{generate-html-file}
-% NOT FOUND \input{one-inch-margins}
-\usepackage{enumerate}
-\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
-%\setlength\parskip{0.7em}
-%\setlength\parindent{0pt}
-
-\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\emph{#1}}
-
-%\pagestyle{empty}
-
-\begin{document}
-
-\frontmatter
-
-\begin{titlepage}
-
-\begin{center}
-
-%\vspace{.5in}
-\vfill
-
-\includegraphics{fsf-logo.eps}
-
-\vfill
-
-{\Large
-{\sc GPL Compliance Case Studies} \\
-
-\vfill
-
-%\vspace{.7in}
-
-% \vspace{.3in}
-
-Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA \\
-\vspace{.1in}
-Wednesday, 25 August 2004
-}
-
-% \vspace{.7in}
-\vfill
-
-{\large
-Bradley M. Kuhn
-
-Executive Director
-
-Free Software Foundation
-}
-
-\vspace{.3in}
-
-
-{\large
-Daniel Ravicher
-
-Senior Counsel
-
-Free Software Foundation
-
-President and Executive Director
-
-Public Patent Foundation
-
-}
-
-\end{center}
-
-\vfill
-
-{\parindent 0in
-Copyright \copyright{} 2003, 2004 \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-
-\vspace{.3in}
-
-The copyright holders hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify, convey,
-Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative Commons
-Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License. A copy of that license is
-available at \verb=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode=.
-}
-
-\end{titlepage}
-
-\pagestyle{plain}
-
-\pagenumbering{roman}
-
-\chapter*{GPL Compliance Case Studies}
-
-\textit{Stanford University, Stanford, CA 25 August 2004}
-
-\begin{tabular}[t]{ll}
-09:00 - 09:25 & Registration / Check-in / Continental Breakfast\\
-&\\
-09:25 - 09:30 & Welcome\\
-&\\
-09:30 - 09:45 & Overview of FSF's GPL Compliance Lab\\
-&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
-&\\
-09:45 - 10:40 & GPL Violation Case Study A\\
-&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
-&\\
-10:40 - 11:00 & GPL Violation Case Study B\\
-&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
-&\\
-11:00 - 11:10 & Q \& A\\
-&\\
-11:10 - 11:20 & Break\\
-&\\
-11:20 - 11:50 & GPL Violation Case Study C\\
-&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
-&\\
-11:50 - 12:10 & GPL Violation Case Study D\\
-&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
-&\\
-12:10 - 12:20 & Good Practices for GPL Compliance\\
-&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
-&\\
-\end{tabular}
-
-\begin{tabular}[t]{ll}
-12:20 - 12:30 & Q \& A\\
-&\\
-12:30 - 14:00 & Lunch and Lecture ``GPL 3: Prospects and Process''\\
-& \textit{Prof. Eben Moglen}\\
-&\\
-
-14:00 - 15:40 & Ethical Considerations and Legal Practices\\
-&\textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\
-&\\
-15:40 - 15:50 & Q \& A\\
-&\\
-15:50 - 16:00 & Break\\
-&\\
-16:00 - 17:30 & Current Issues in Free Software\\
-& \textit{Prof. Eben Moglen}\\
-&\\
-17:30 - 18:00 & Q \& A\\
-\end{tabular}
-
-\pagebreak
-
-% =====================================================================
-% START OF SECOND DAY SEMINAR SECTION
-% =====================================================================
-
-\chapter*{Preface}
-
-This one-day course presents the details of five different GPL
-compliance cases handled by FSF's GPL Compliance Laboratory. Each case
-offers unique insights into problems that can arise when the terms of
-GPL are not properly followed, and how diplomatic negotiation between
-the violator and the copyright holder can yield positive results for
-both parties.
-
-Attendees should have successfully completely the course, a ``Detailed
-Study and Analysis of the GPL and LGPL,'' as the material from that
-course forms the building blocks for this material.
-
-This course is of most interest to lawyers who have clients or
-employers that deal with Free Software on a regular basis. However,
-technical managers and executives whose businesses use or distribute
-Free Software will also find the course very helpful.
-
-\bigskip
-
-These course materials are merely a summary of the highlights of the
-course presented. Please be aware that during the actual GPL course, class
-discussion supplements this printed curriculum. Simply reading it is
-not equivalent to attending the course.
-
-\tableofcontents
-
-\mainmatter
-
-\pagenumbering{arabic}
-
-\chapter{Overview of FSF's GPL Compliance Lab}
-
-The GPL is a Free Software license with legal teeth. Unlike licenses like
-the X11-style or various BSD licenses, GPL (and by extension, the LGPL) is
-designed to defend as well as grant freedom. We saw in the last course
-that GPL uses copyright law as a mechanism to grant all the key freedoms
-essential in Free Software, but also to ensure that those freedoms
-propagate throughout the distribution chain of the software.
-
-\section{Termination Begins Enforcement}
-
-As we have learned, the assurance that Free Software under GPL remains
-Free Software is accomplished through various terms of GPL: \S 3 ensures
-that binaries are always accompanied with source; \S 2 ensures that the
-sources are adequate, complete and usable; \S 6 and \S 7 ensure that the
-license of the software is always GPL for everyone, and that no other
-legal agreements or licenses trump GPL. It is \S 4, however, that ensures
-that the GPL can be enforced.
-
-Thus, \S 4 is where we begin our discussion of GPL enforcement. This
-clause is where the legal teeth of the license are rooted. As a copyright
-license, GPL governs only the activities governed by copyright law ---
-copying, modifying and redistributing computer software. Unlike most
-copyright licenses, GPL gives wide grants of permission for engaging with
-these activities. Such permissions continue, and all parties may exercise
-them until such time as one party violates the terms of GPL\@. At the
-moment of such a violation (i.e., the engaging of copying, modifying or
-redistributing in ways not permitted by GPL) \S 4 is invoked. While other
-parties may continue to operate under GPL, the violating party loses their
-rights.
-
-Specifically, \S 4 terminates the violators' rights to continue
-engaging in the permissions that are otherwise granted by GPL\@.
-Effectively, their rights revert to the copyright defaults ---
-no permission is granted to copy, modify, nor redistribute the work.
-Meanwhile, \S 5 points out that if the violator has no rights under
-GPL, they are prohibited by copyright law from engaging in the
-activities of copying, modifying and distributing. They have lost
-these rights because they have violated the GPL, and no other license
-gives them permission to engage in these activities governed by copyright law.
-
-\section{Ongoing Violations}
-
-In conjunction with \S 4's termination of violators' rights, there is
-one final industry fact added to the mix: rarely, does one engage in a
-single, solitary act of copying, distributing or modifying software.
-Almost always, a violator will have legitimately acquired a copy of a
-GPL'd program, either making modifications or not, and then begun
-distributing that work. For example, the violator may have put the
-software in boxes and sold them at stores. Or perhaps the software
-was put up for download on the Internet. Regardless of the delivery
-mechanism, violators almost always are engaged in {\em ongoing\/}
-violation of GPL\@.
-
-In fact, when we discover a GPL violation that occurred only once --- for
-example, a user group who distributed copies of a GNU/Linux system without
-source at one meeting --- we rarely pursue it with a high degree of
-tenacity. In our minds, such a violation is an educational problem, and
-unless the user group becomes a repeat offender (as it turns out, they
-never do), we simply forward along a FAQ entry that best explains how user
-groups can most easily comply with GPL, and send them on their merry way.
-
-It is only the cases of {\em ongoing\/} GPL violation that warrant our
-active attention. We vehemently pursue those cases where dozens, hundreds
-or thousands of customers are receiving software that is out of
-compliance, and where the company continually offers for sale (or
-distributes gratis as a demo) software distributions that include GPL'd
-components out of compliance. Our goal is to maximize the impact of
-enforcement and educate industries who are making such a mistake on a
-large scale.
-
-In addition, such ongoing violation shows that a particular company is
-committed to a GPL'd product line. We are thrilled to learn that someone
-is benefiting from Free Software, and we understand that sometimes they
-become confused about the rules of the road. Rather than merely
-giving us a post mortem to perform on a past mistake, an ongoing violation
-gives us an active opportunity to educate a new contributor to the GPL'd
-commons about proper procedures to contribute to the community.
-
-Our central goal is not, in fact, to merely clear up a particular violation.
-In fact, over time, we hope that our compliance lab will be out of
-business. We seek to educate the businesses that engage in commerce
-related to GPL'd software to obey the rules of the road and allow them to
-operate freely under them. Just as a traffic officer would not revel in
-reminding people which side of the road to drive on, so we do not revel in
-violations. By contrast, we revel in the successes of educating an
-ongoing violator about GPL so that GPL compliance becomes a second-nature
-matter, allowing that company to join the GPL ecosystem as a contributor.
-
-\section{How are Violations Discovered?}
-
-Our enforcement of GPL is not a fund-raising effort; in fact, FSF's GPL
-Compliance Lab runs at a loss (in other words, it is subsided by our
-donors). Our violation reports come from volunteers, who have encountered,
-in their business or personal life, a device or software product that
-appears to contain GPL'd software. These reports are almost always sent
-via email to $<$license-violation@fsf.org$>$.
-
-Our first order of business, upon receiving such a report, is to seek
-independent confirmation. When possible, we get a copy of the software
-product. For example, if it is an offering that is downloadable from a
-Web site, we download it and investigate ourselves. When it is not
-possible for us to actually get a copy of the software, we ask the
-reporter to go through the same process we would use in examining the
-software.
-
-By rough estimation, about 95\% of violations at this stage can be
-confirmed by simple commands. Almost all violators have merely made an
-error and have no nefarious intentions. They have made no attempt to
-remove our copyright notices from the software. Thus, given the
-third-party binary, {\tt tpb}, usually, a simple command (on a GNU/Linux
-system) such as the following will find a Free Software copyright notice
-and GPL reference:
-\begin{quotation}
-{\tt strings tpb | grep Copyright}
-\end{quotation}
-In other words, it is usually more than trivial to confirm that GPL'd
-software is included.
-
-Once we have confirmed that a violation has indeed occurred, we must then
-determine whose copyright has been violated. Contrary to popular belief,
-FSF does not have the power to enforce GPL in all cases. Since GPL
-operates under copyright law, the powers of enforcement --- to seek
-redress once \S 4 has been invoked --- lie with the copyright holder of
-the software. FSF is one of the largest copyright holders in the world of
-GPL'd software, but we are by no means the only one. Thus, we sometimes
-discover that while GPL'd code is present in the software, there is no
-software copyrighted by FSF present.
-
-In cases where FSF does not hold copyright interest in the software, but
-we have confirmed a violation, we contact the copyright holders of the
-software, and encourage them to enforce GPL\@. We offer our good offices
-to help negotiate compliance on their behalf, and many times, we help as a
-third party to settle such GPL violations. However, what we will describe
-primarily in this course is FSF's first-hand experience enforcing its own
-copyrights and GPL\@.
-
-\section{First Contact}
-
-The Free Software community is built on a structure of voluntary
-cooperation and mutual help. Our community has learned that cooperation
-works best when you assume the best of others, and only change policy,
-procedures and attitudes when some specific event or occurrence indicates
-that a change is necessary. We treat the process of GPL enforcement in
-the same way. Our goal is to encourage violators to join the cooperative
-community of software sharing, so we want to open our hand in friendship.
-
-Therefore, once we have confirmed a violation, our first assumption is
-that the violation is an oversight or otherwise a mistake due to confusion
-about the terms of the license. We reach out to the violator and ask them
-to work with us in a collaborative way to bring the product into
-compliance. We have received the gamut of possible reactions to such
-requests, and in this course, we examine four specific examples of such
-compliance work.
-
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Davrik: Modified GCC SDK}
-
-In our first case study, we will consider Davrik, a company that
-produces software and hardware toolkits to assist OEM vendors, makers
-of consumer electronic devices.
-
-\section{Facts}
-
-One of Davrik's key products is a Software Development Kit (``SDK'')
-designed to assist developers building software for a specific class of
-consumer electronics devices.
-
-FSF received a report that the SDK may be based on the GNU Compiler
-Collection (which is an FSF-copyrighted collection of tools for software
-development in C, C++ and other popular languages). FSF investigated the
-claim, but was unable to confirm the violation. The violation reporter
-was unresponsive to follow-up requests for more information.
-
-Since FSF was unable to confirm the violation, we did not pursue it any
-further. Bogus reports do happen, and we do not want to burden companies
-with specious GPL violation complaints. FSF shelved the matter until
-more evidence was discovered.
-
-FSF was later able to confirm the violation when two additional reports
-surfaced from other violation reporters, both of whom had used the SDK
-professionally and noticed clear similarities to FSF's GNU GCC\@. FSF's
-Compliance Engineer asked the reporters to run standard tests to confirm
-the violation, and it was confirmed that Davrik's SDK was indeed a
-derivative work of GCC\@. Davrik had ported to Windows and added a number
-of features, including support for a specific consumer device chipset and
-additional features to aid in the linking process (``LP'') for those
-specific devices. FSF explained the rights that the GPL afforded these
-customers and pointed out, for example, that Davrik only needed to provide
-source to those in possession of the binaries, and that the users may need
-to request that source (if \S 3(b) was exercised). The violators
-confirmed that such requests were not answered.
-
-FSF brought the matter to the attention of Davrik, who immediately
-escalated the matter to their attorneys. After a long negotiation,
-Davrik acknowledged that their SDK was indeed a derivative work of
-GCC\@. Davrik released most of the source, but some disagreement
-occurred over whether LP was a derivate work of GCC\@. After repeated
-FSF inquiries, Davrik reaudited the source to discover that FSF's
-analysis was correct. Davrik determined that LP included a number of
-source files copied from the GCC code-base.
-
-\label{davrik-build-problems}
-Once the full software release was made available, FSF asked the violation
-reporters if it addressed the problem. Reports came back that the source
-did not properly build. FSF asked Davrik to provide better build
-instructions with the software, and such build instructions were
-incorporated into the next software release.
-
-At FSF's request as well, Davrik informed customers who had previously
-purchased the product that the source was now available by announcing
-the availablity on its Web site and via a customer newsletter.
-
-Davrik did have some concerns regarding patents. They wished to include a
-statement with the software release that made sure they were not granting
-any patent permission other than what was absolutely required by GPL\@.
-They understood that their patent assertions could not trump any rights
-granted by GPL\@. The following language was negotiated into the release:
-
-\begin{quotation}
-Subject to the qualifications stated below, Davrik, on behalf of itself
-and its Subsidiaries, agrees not to assert the Claims against you for your
-making, use, offer for sale, sale, or importation of the Davrik's GNU
-Utilities or derivative works of the Davrik's GNU Utilities
-(``Derivatives''), but only to the extent that any such Derivatives are
-licensed by you under the terms of the GNU General Public License. The
-Claims are the claims of patents that Davrik or its Subsidiaries have
-standing to enforce that are directly infringed by the making, use, or
-sale of an Davrik Distributed GNU Utilities in the form it was distributed
-by Davrik and that do not include any limitation that reads on hardware;
-the Claims do not include any additional patent claims held by Davrik that
-cover any modifications of, derivative works based on or combinations with
-the Davrik's GNU Utilities, even if such a claim is disclosed in the same
-patent as a Claim. Subsidiaries are entities that are wholly owned by
-Davrik.
-
-This statement does not negate, limit or restrict any rights you already
-have under the GNU General Public License version 2.
-\end{quotation}
-
-This quelled Davrik's concerns about other patent licensing they sought to
-do outside of the GPL'd software, and satisfied FSF's concerns that Davrik
-give proper permissions to exercise teachings of patents that were
-exercised in their GPL'd software release.
-
-Finally, a GPL Compliance Officer inside Davrik was appointed to take
-responsibility for all matters of GPL compliance inside the company.
-Darvik is responsible for informing FSF if the position is given to
-someone else inside the company, and making sure that FSF has direct
-contact with Darvik's Compliance Officer.
-
-\section{Lessons}
-
-This case introduces a number of concepts regarding GPL enforcement.
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\item {\bf Enforcement should not begin until the evidence is confirmed.}
- Most companies who distribute GPL'd software do so in compliance, and at
- times, violation reports are mistaken. Even with extensive efforts in
- GPL education, many users do not fully understand their rights and the
- obligations that companies have. By working through the investigation
- with reporters, the violation can be properly confirmed, and {\bf the
- user of the software can be educated about what to expect with GPL'd
- software}. When users and customers of GPL'd products know their
- rights, what to expect, and how to properly exercise their rights
- (particularly under \S 3(b)), it reduces the chances for user
- frustration and inappropriate community outcry about an alleged GPL
- violation.
-
-\item {\bf GPL compliance requires friendly negotiation and cooperation.}
- Often, attorneys and managers are legitimately surprised to find out
- GPL'd software is included in their company's products. Engineers
- sometimes include GPL'd software without understanding the requirements.
- This does not excuse companies from their obligations under the license,
- but it does mean that care and patience are essential for reaching GPL
- compliance. We want companies to understand that participating and
- benefiting from a collaborative Free Software community is not a burden,
- so we strive to make the process of coming into compliance as smooth as
- possible.
-
-\item {\bf Confirming compliance is a community effort.} The whole point
- of making sure that software distributors respect the terms of GPL is to
- allow a thriving software sharing community to benefit and improve the
- work. FSF is not the expert on how a compiler for consumer electronic
- devices should work. We therefore inform the community who originally
- brought the violation to our attention and ask them to assist in
- evaluation and confirmation of the product's compliance. Of course, FSF
- coordinates and oversees the process, but we do not want compliance for
- compliance's sake; rather, we wish to foster a cooperating community of
- development around the Free Software in question, and encourage the
- once-violator to begin participating in that community.
-
-\item {\bf Informing the harmed community is part of compliance.} FSF asks
- violators to make some attempt --- such as via newsletters and the
- company's Web site --- to inform those who already have the products as
- to their rights under GPL\@. One of the key thrusts of GPL's \S 1 and
- \S 3 is to {\em make sure the user knows she has these rights\/}. If a
- product was received out of compliance by a customer, she may never
- actually discover that she has such rights. Informing customers, in a
- way that is not burdensome but has a high probability of successfully
- reaching those who would seek to exercise their freedoms, is essential
- to properly remedy the mistake.
-
-\item {\bf Lines between various copyright, patent, and other legal
- mechanisms must be precisely defined and considered.} The most
- difficult negotiation point of the Davrik case was drafting language
- that simultaneously protected Davrik's patent rights outside of the
- GPL'd source, but was consistent with the implicit patent grant in
- GPL\@. As we discussed in the first course of this series, there is
- indeed an implicit patent grant with GPL, thanks to \S 6 and \S 7.
- However, many companies become nervous and wish to make the grant
- explicit to assure themselves that the grant is sufficiently narrow for
- their needs. We understand that there is no reasonable way to determine
- what patent claims read on a company's GPL holdings and which do not, so
- we do not object to general language that explicitly narrows the patent
- grant to only those patents that were, in fact, exercised by the GPL'd
- software as released by the company.
-
-\end{enumerate}
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Bracken: a Minor Violation in a GNU/Linux Distribution}
-
-In this case study, we consider a minor violation made by a company whose
-knowledge of the Free Software community and its functions is deep.
-
-\section{The Facts}
-
-Bracken produces a GNU/Linux operating system product that is sold
-primarily to OEM vendors to be placed in appliance devices used for a
-single purpose, such as an Internet-browsing-only device. The product
-is almost 100\% Free Software, mostly licensed under GPL and related
-Free Software licenses.
-
-FSF found out about this violation through a report first posted on a
- Slashdot\footnote{Slashdot is a popular news and discussion site for
- technical readers.} comment, and then it was brought to our attention again
- by another Free Software copyright holder who had discovered the
- same violation.
-
-Bracken's GNU/Linux product is delivered directly from their Web site.
-This allowed FSF engineers to directly download and confirm the
-violation quickly. Two primary problems were discovered with the
-online distribution:
-
-\begin{itemize}
-
-\item No source code nor offer for source code was provided for a number
- of components for the distributed GNU/Linux system; only binaries were
- available
-
-\item An End User License Agreement (``EULA'') was included that
- contradicted the permissions granted by GPL\@
-
-\end{itemize}
-
-FSF contacted Bracken and gave them the details of the violation. Bracken
-immediately ceased distribution of the product temporarily and set forth
-a plan to bring themselves back into compliance. This plan included the
-following steps:
-
-\begin{itemize}
-
-\item Bracken attorneys would rewrite the EULA to comply with GPL and
- would vet the new EULA through FSF before use
-
-\item Bracken engineers would provide source side-by-side with the
- binaries for the GNU/Linux distribution on the site (and on CD's, if
- ever they distributed that way)
-
-\item Bracken attorneys would run an internal seminar for its engineers
- regarding proper GPL compliance to help ensure that such oversights
- regarding source releases would not occur in the future
-
-\item Bracken would resume distribution of the product only after FSF
- formally restored Bracken's distribution rights
-\end{itemize}
-
-This case was completed in about a month. FSF approved the new EULA
-text. The key portion in the EULA relating to GPL read as follows:
-
-\begin{quotation}
-Many of the Software Programs included in Bracken Software are distributed
-under the terms of agreements with Third Parties (``Third Party
-Agreements'') which may expand or limit the Licensee's rights to use
-certain Software Programs as set forth in [this EULA]. Certain Software
-Programs may be licensed (or sublicensed) to Licensee under the GNU
-General Public License and other similar license agreements listed in part
-in this section which, among other rights, permit the Licensee to copy,
-modify and redistribute certain Software Programs, or portions thereof,
-and have access to the source code of certain Software Programs, or
-portions thereof. In addition, certain Software Programs, or portions
-thereof, may be licensed (or sublicensed) to Licensee under terms stricter
-than those set forth in [this EULA]. The Licensee must review the
-electronic documentation that accompanies certain Software Programs, or
-portions thereof, for the applicable Third Party Agreements. To the
-extent any Third Party Agreements require that Bracken provide rights to
-use, copy or modify a Software Program that are broader than the rights
-granted to the Licensee in [this EULA], then such rights shall take
-precedence over the rights and restrictions granted in this Agreement
-solely for such Software Programs.
-\end{quotation}
-
-FSF restored Bracken's distribution rights shortly after the work was
-completed as described.
-
-\section{Lessons Learned}
-
-This case was probably the most quickly and easily resolved of all GPL
-violations in the history of FSF's Compliance Lab. The ease with which
-the problem was resolved shows a number of cultural factors that play a
-role in GPL compliance.
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\item {\bf Companies that understand Free Software culture better have an
- easier time with compliance.} Bracken's products were designed and
- built around the GNU/Linux system and Free Software components. Their
- engineers were deeply familiar with the Free Software ecosystem, and
- their lawyers had seen and reviewed GPL before. The violation was
- completely an honest mistake. Since the culture inside the company had
- already adapted to the cooperative style of resolution in the Free
- Software world, there was very little work for either party to bring the
- product into compliance.
-
-\item {\bf When people in key positions understand the Free Software
- nature of their software products, compliance concerns are as
- mundane as minor software bugs.} Even the most functional system or
- structure has its problems, and successful business often depends on
- agile response to the problems that do come up; avoiding problems
- altogether is a pipe dream. Minor GPL violations can and do happen
- even with well-informed redistributors. However, resolution is
- reached quickly when the company --- and in particular, the lawyers,
- managers, and engineers working on the Free Software product lines
- --- have adapted to Free Software culture that the lower-level
- engineer already understood
-
-\item {\bf Legally, distribution must stop when a violation is
- identified.} In our opinion, Bracken went above and beyond the call of
- duty by ceasing distribution while the violation was being resolved.
- Under GPL \S 4, the redistributor loses the right to distribute the
- software, and thus they are in ongoing violation of copyright law if
- they distribute before rights are restored. It is FSF's policy to
- temporarily allow distribution while compliance negotiations are ongoing
- and only in the most extreme cases (where the other party appears to be
- negotiating in bad faith) does FSF even threaten an injunction on
- copyright grounds. However, Bracken --- as a good Free Software citizen
- --- chose to be on the safe side and do the legally correct thing while
- the violation case was pending. From start to finish, it took less
- than a month to resolve. This lapse in distribution did not, to FSF's
- knowledge, impact Bracken's business in any way.
-
-\item {\bf EULAs are a common area for GPL problems.} Often, EULAs
- are drafted from boilerplate text that a company uses for all its
- products. Even the most diligent attorneys forget or simply do not
- know that a product contains software licensed under GPL and other
- Free Software licenses. Drafting a EULA that accounts for such
- licenses is straightforward; the text quoted above works just fine.
- The EULA must be designed so that it does not trump rights and
- permissions already granted by GPL\@. The EULA must clearly state
- that if there is a conflict between it and GPL, with regard to GPL'd
- code, the GPL is the overriding license.
-
-\item {\bf Compliance Officers are rarely necessary when companies are
- educated about GPL compliance.} As we saw in the Davrik case, FSF asks
- that a formal ``GPL Compliance Officer'' be appointed inside a
- previously violating organization to shepherd the organization to a
- cooperative approach to GPL compliance. However, when FSF
- sees that an organization already has such an approach, there is no
- need to request that such an officer be appointed.
-
-\end{enumerate}
-
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Vigorien: Security, Export Controls, and GPL Compliance}
-
-This case study introduces how concerns of ``security through obscurity''
-and regulatory problems can impact GPL compliance matters.
-
-\section{The Facts}
-
-Vigorien distributes a back-up solution product that allows system
-administrators to create encrypted backups of file-systems on
-Unix-like computers. The product is based on GNU tar, a backup utility
-that replaces the standard Unix utility simply called tar, but has
-additional features.
-
-Vigorien's backup solution added cryptographic features to GNU tar, and
-included a suite of utilities and graphical user interfaces surrounding
-GNU tar to make backups convenient.
-
-FSF discovered the violation from a user report, and determined that the
-cryptographic features were the only part of the product that constituted
-a derivative work of GNU tar; the extraneous utilities merely made
-shell calls out to GNU tar. FSF requested that Vigorien come into
-compliance with GPL by releasing the source of GNU tar, with the
-cryptographic modifications, to its customers.
-
-Vigorien released the original GNU tar sources, but kept the cryptographic
-modifications proprietary. They argued that the security of their system
-depending on keeping the software proprietary and that regardless, USA
-export restrictions on cryptographic software prohibited such a release.
-FSF disputed the first claim, pointing out that Vigorien had only one
-option if they did not want to release the source: they would have to
-remove GNU tar from the software and not distribute it further. Vigorien
-rejected this suggestion, since GNU tar was an integral part of the
-product, and the security changes were useless without GNU tar.
-
-Regarding the export control claims, FSF proposed a number of options,
-including release of the source from one of Vigorien's divisions overseas
-where no such restrictions occurred, but Vigorien argued that the problem
-was insoluble because they operated primarily in the USA\@.
-
-The deadlock on the second issue was resolved when those cryptographic
-export restrictions were lifted shortly thereafter, and FSF again raised
-the matter with Vigorien. At that point, they dropped the first claim and
-agreed to release the remaining source module to their customers. They
-did so, and the violation was resolved.
-
-
-\section{Lessons Learned}
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\item {\bf Removing the GPL'd portion of the product is always an
- option.} Many violators' first response is to simply refuse to
- release the source code as GPL requires. FSF offers the option to
- simply remove the GPL'd portions from the product and continue along
- without them. Every case where this has been suggested has led to
- the same conclusion. Like Vigorien, the violator argues that the
- product cannot function without the GPL'd components, and they
- cannot effectively replace them.
-
- Such an outcome is simply further evidence that the combined work in
- question is indeed a derivative work of the original GPL'd component.
- If the other components cannot stand on their own and be useful without
- the GPL'd portions, then one cannot effectively argue that the work as a
- whole is not a derivative of the GPL'd portions.
-
-\item {\bf The whole product is not always covered.} In this case,
- Vigorien had additional works aggregated. The backup system was a suite
- of utilities, some of which were GPL and some of which were not. While
- the cryptographic routines were tightly coupled with GNU tar and clearly
- derivative works, the various GUI utilities were separate and
- independent works merely aggregated with the distribution of the
- GNU-tar-based product.
-
-
-\item {\bf ``Security'' concerns do not exonerate a distributor from GPL
- obligations, and ``security through obscurity'' does not work anyway.}
- The argument that ``this is security software, so it cannot be released
- in source form'' is not a valid defense for explaining why the terms of
- the GPL are ignored. If companies do not want to release source code
- for some reason, then they should not base the work on GPL'd software.
- No external argument for noncompliance can hold weight if the work as
- whole is indeed a derivative work of a GPL'd program.
-
- The ``security concerns'' argument is often floated as a reason to keep
- software proprietary, but the computer security community has on
- numerous occasions confirmed that such arguments are entirely specious.
- Security experts have found --- since the beginnings of the field of
- cryptography in the ancient world --- that sharing results about systems
- and having such systems withstand peer review and scrutiny builds the
- most secure systems. While full disclosure may help some who wish to
- compromise security, it helps those who want to fix problems even more
- by identifying them early.
-
-\item {\bf External regulatory problems can be difficult to resolve.}
- GPL, though grounded in copyright law, does not have the power to trump
- regulations like export controls. While Vigorien's ``security
- concerns'' were specious, their export control concerns were not. It is
- indeed a difficult problem that FSF acknowledges. We want compliance
- with GPL and respect for users' freedoms, but we certainly do not expect
- companies to commit criminal offenses for the sake of compliance. We
- will see more about this issue in our next case study.
-\end{enumerate}
-
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Haxil, Polgara, and Thesulac: Mergers, Upstream Providers and Radio Devices}
-
-This case study considers an ongoing (at the time of writing) violation
-that has occurred. By the end of the investigation period, three
-companies were involved and many complex issues arose.
-
-\section{The Facts}
-
-Haxil produced a consumer electronics device which included a mini
-GNU/Linux distribution to control the device. The device was of interest
-to many technically-minded consumers, who purchased the device and very
-quickly discovered that Free Software was included without source.
-Mailing lists throughout the Free Software community erupted with
-complaints about the problem, and FSF quickly investigated.
-
-FSF confirmed that FSF-copyrighted GPL'd software was included. In
-addition, the whole distribution included GPL'd works from hundreds of
-individual copyright holders, many of whom were, at this point, up in
-arms about the violation.
-
-Meanwhile, Haxil was in the midst of being acquired by Polgara. Polgara
-was as surprised as everyone else to discover the product was based on
-GPL'd software; this fact had not been part of the disclosures made during
-acquisition. FSF contacted Haxil, Polgara, and the product managers
-who had transitioned into the ``Haxil division'' of the newly-merged
-Polgara company. Polgara's General Counsel's office worked with FSF on
-the matter.
-
-FSF formed a coalition with the other primary copyright holders
-to pursue the enforcement effort on their behalf. FSF communicated
-directly with Polgara's representatives to begin working through the
-issues on behalf of itself and the Free Software community at large.
-
-Polgara pointed out that the software distribution they used was mostly
-contributed by an upstream provider, Thesulac, and Haxil's changes to that
-code base were minimal. Polgara negotiated with Thesulac to obtain the
-source, although the issue moved very slowly in the channels between
-Polgara and Thesulac.
-
-FSF encouraged a round-table meeting so that high bandwidth communication
-could occur between FSF, Polgara and Thesulac. Polgara and Thesulac
-agreed, and that discussion began. Thesulac provided nearly complete
-sources to Polgara, and Polgara made a full software release on their
-Web site. At the time of writing, that software still has some build
-problems (similar to those that occurred with Davrik, as described in
-Section~\ref{davrik-build-problems}). FSF continues to negotiate with
-Polgara and Thesulac to resolve these problems, which have a clear path to
-a solution and are expected to resolve.
-
-Similar to the Vigorien case, Thesulac has regulatory concerns. In this
-case, it is not export controls --- an issue that has since been resolved
---- but radio spectrum regulation. Since this consumer electronic device
-contains a software-programmable radio transmitter, regulations in (at
-least) the USA and Japan prohibit release of those portions of the code
-that operate the device. Since this is a low-level programming issue, the
-changes to operate the device are a derivative work of the kernel named
-Linux. This situation remains unresolved at the time of writing, although
-FSF continues to negotiation with Thesulac and the Linux community
-regarding the problem.
-
-\section{Lessons Learned}
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\item {\bf Community outrage, while justified, can often make negotiation
- more difficult.} FSF has a strong policy never to publicize names of
- GPL violators if they are negotiating in a friendly way and operating in
- good faith toward compliance. Most violations are honest mistakes, and
- FSF sees no reason to publicly admonish violators who genuinely want to
- come into compliance with GPL and to work hard staying in compliance.
-
- This case was so public in the Free Software community that both Haxil's
- and Polgara's representatives were nearly shell-shocked by the time FSF
- began negotiations. There was much work required to diffuse the
- situation. We empathize with our community and their outrage about GPL
- violations, but we also want to follow a path that leads expediently
- to compliance. In our experience, public outcry works best as a last
- resort, not the first.
-
-\item {\bf For software companies, GPL compliance belongs on a corporate
- acquisition checklist. } Polgara was truly amazed that Haxil had used
- GPL'd software in a major new product line but never informed Polgara
- during the acquisition process. While GPL compliance is not a
- particularly difficult matter, it is an additional obligation that comes
- along with the product line. When planning mergers and joint ventures,
- one should include lists of GPL'd components contained in the products
- discussed.
-
-\item {\bf Compliance problems of upstream providers do not excuse a
- violation for the downstream distributor.} To paraphrase \S 6, upstream
- providers are not responsible for enforcing compliance of their
- downstream, nor are downstream distributors responsible for compliance
- problems of upstream providers. However, engaging in distribution of
- GPL'd works out of compliance is still just that: a compliance problem.
- When FSF carries out enforcement, we are patient and sympathetic when
- the problem appears to be upstream. In fact, we urge the violator to
- point us to the upstream provider so we may talk to them directly. In
- this case, we were happy to begin negotiations with Thesulac. However,
- Polgara still has an obligation to bring their product into compliance,
- regardless of Thesulac's response.
-
-\item {\bf It behooves upstream providers to advise downstream
- distributors about compliance matters.} FSF has encouraged Thesulac to
- distribute a ``good practices for GPL compliance'' document with their
- product. Polgara added various software components to Thesulac's
- product, and it is conceivable that such additions can introduce
- compliance. In FSF's opinion, Thesulac is in no way legally responsible
- for such a violation introduced by their customer, but it behooves them
- from a marketing standpoint to educate their customers about using the
- product. We can argue whether or not it is your coffee vendor's fault
- if you burn yourself with their product, but (likely) no one on either
- side would dispute the prudence of placing a ``caution: hot'' label on
- the cup.
-
-\item {\bf FSF enforcement often avoids redundant enforcement cases from
- many parties.} Most Free Software systems have hundreds of copyright
- holders. Some have thousands. FSF is in a unique position as one of
- the largest single copyright holders on GPL'd software and as a
- respected umpire in the community, neutrally enforcing the rules of the
- GPL road. FSF works hard in the community to convince copyright
- holders that consolidating GPL claims through FSF is better for them,
- and more likely to yield positive compliance results.
-
- A few copyright holders engage in the ``proprietary relicensing''
- business, so they use GPL enforcement as a sales channel for that
- business. FSF, as a community-oriented, not-for-profit organization,
- seeks only to preserve the freedom of Free Software in its enforcement
- efforts. As it turns out, most of the community of copyright holders
- of Free Software want the same thing. Share and share alike is a
- simple rule to follow, and following that rule to FSF's satisfaction
- usually means you are following it to the satisfaction of the entire
- Free Software community.
-
-\end{enumerate}
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Good Practices for Compliance}
-
-Generally, from the experience of GPL enforcement, we glean the following
-general practices that can help in GPL compliance for organizations that
-distribute products based on GPL'd software:
-
-\begin{itemize}
-
-\item Talk to your software engineers and ask them where they got the
- components they use in the products they build. Find out if GPL'd
- components are present.
-
-\item Teach your engineering staff to pay attention to license documents.
- Give them easy-to-follow policies to get approval for using a Free
- Software component.
-
-\item Build a ``Free Software Licensing'' committee that handles requests
- and questions about GPL and other Free Software licenses.
-
-\item Add ``What parts of your products are under GPL or other Free
- Software licenses?'' to your checklist of questions to ask when you
- consider mergers, acquisitions, or joint ventures.
-
-\item Encourage your engineers to participate collaboratively with GPL'd
- software development. The more knowledge about the Free Software world
- your organization has, the better equipped it is to deal with this
- rapidly changing field.
-
-\item When someone points out a potential GPL violation in one of your
- products, do not assume the product line is doomed. GPL is not a virus;
- merely having GPL'd code in one part of a product does not necessarily
- mean that every related product must also be GPL'd. And, even if some
- software needs to be released that was not before, the product will
- surely survive. In FSF's enforcement efforts, we have not yet
- seen a product line die because source was released to customers in
- compliance with GPL.
-
-\end{itemize}
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-
-\backmatter
-
-\appendix
-
-\chapter{The GNU General Public License}
-
-\begin{center}
-{\parindent 0in
-
-Version 2, June 1991
-
-Copyright \copyright\ 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-
-\bigskip
-
-59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
-
-\bigskip
-
-Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
-of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
-}
-\end{center}
-
-\begin{center}
-{\bf\large Preamble}
-\end{center}
-
-
-The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom
-to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
-intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change Free
-Software---to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
-General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
-Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
-using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
-the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
-your programs, too.
-
-When we speak of Free Software, we are referring to freedom, not price.
-Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the
-freedom to distribute copies of Free Software (and charge for this service
-if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it,
-that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new Free programs;
-and that you know you can do these things.
-
-To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to
-deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These
-restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
-distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
-
-For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
-for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You
-must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And
-you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
-
-We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2)
-offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
-distribute and/or modify the software.
-
-Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that
-everyone understands that there is no warranty for this Free Software. If
-the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its
-recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any
-problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors'
-reputations.
-
-Finally, any Free program is threatened constantly by software patents.
-We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a Free program will
-individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
-proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must
-be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
-
-The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
-modification follow.
-
-\begin{center}
-{\Large \sc Terms and Conditions For Copying, Distribution and
- Modification}
-\end{center}
-
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
-\item
-
-This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice
-placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the
-terms of this General Public License. The ``Program,'' below, refers to
-any such program or work, and a ``work based on the Program'' means either
-the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a
-work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with
-modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter,
-translation is included without limitation in the term ``modification.'')
-Each licensee is addressed as ``you.''
-
-Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
-covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
-running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
-is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
-Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
-Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
-
-\item You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
- code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
- and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
- and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to
- this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
- recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
-
-You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you
-may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
-
-\item
-
-You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
-of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
-distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
-above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\item
-
-You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
-you changed the files and the date of any change.
-
-\item
-
-You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
-whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
-part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
-parties under the terms of this License.
-
-\item
-If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
-when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
-interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
-announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
-notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
-a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
-these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
-License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
-does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
-the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
-
-\end{enumerate}
-
-
-These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
-identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
-and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
-themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
-sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
-distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
-on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
-this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
-entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
-
-Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
-your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
-exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
-collective works based on the Program.
-
-In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
-with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
-a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
-the scope of this License.
-
-\item
-You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
-under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
-Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\item
-
-Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
-source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
-1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
-
-\item
-
-Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
-years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
-cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
-machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
-distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
-customarily used for software interchange; or,
-
-\item
-
-Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
-to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
-allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
-received the program in object code or executable form with such
-an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
-
-\end{enumerate}
-
-
-The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
-making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
-code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
-associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
-control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
-special exception, the source code distributed need not include
-anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
-form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
-operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
-itself accompanies the executable.
-
-If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
-access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
-access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
-distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
-compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
-
-\item
-You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
-except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
-otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
-void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
-However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
-this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
-parties remain in full compliance.
-
-\item
-You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
-signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
-distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
-prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
-modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
-Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
-all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
-the Program or works based on it.
-
-\item
-Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
-Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
-original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
-these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
-restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
-You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
-this License.
-
-\item
-If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
-infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
-conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
-otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
-excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
-distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
-License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
-may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
-license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
-all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
-the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
-refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
-
-If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
-any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
-apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
-circumstances.
-
-It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
-patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
-such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
-integrity of the Free Software distribution system, which is
-implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
-generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
-through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
-system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
-to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
-impose that choice.
-
-This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
-be a consequence of the rest of this License.
-
-\item
-If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
-certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
-original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
-may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
-those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
-countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
-the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
-
-\item
-The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
-of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
-be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
-address new problems or concerns.
-
-Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
-specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and ``any
-later version,'' you have the option of following the terms and conditions
-either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
-Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
-this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
-Foundation.
-
-\item
-If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
-programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
-to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
-Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
-make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
-of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our Free Software and
-of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
-
-\begin{center}
-{\Large\sc
-No Warranty
-}
-\end{center}
-
-\item
-{\sc Because the program is licensed free of charge, there is no warranty
-for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Except when
-otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties
-provide the program ``as is'' without warranty of any kind, either expressed
-or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of
-merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as
-to the quality and performance of the program is with you. Should the
-program prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing,
-repair or correction.}
-
-\item
-{\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing
-will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or
-redistribute the program as permitted above, be liable to you for damages,
-including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising
-out of the use or inability to use the program (including but not limited
-to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by
-you or third parties or a failure of the program to operate with any other
-programs), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the
-possibility of such damages.}
-
-\end{enumerate}
-
-
-\begin{center}
-{\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}
-\end{center}
-\vfill
-
-\pagebreak[4]
-
-\section*{Appendix: How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs}
-
-If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
-possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
-Free Software which everyone can redistribute and change under these
-terms.
-
- To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to
- attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey
- the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
- ``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
-
-\begin{quote}
-one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does. \\
-Copyright (C) yyyy name of author \\
-
-This program is Free Software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
-it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
-the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
-(at your option) any later version.
-
-This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
-but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
-MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
-GNU General Public License for more details.
-
-You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
-along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
-Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
-\end{quote}
-
-Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
-
-If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
-when it starts in an interactive mode:
-
-\begin{quote}
-Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) yyyy name of author \\
-Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. \\
-This is Free Software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
-under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
-\end{quote}
-
-
-The hypothetical commands {\tt show w} and {\tt show c} should show the
-appropriate parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands
-you use may be called something other than {\tt show w} and {\tt show c};
-they could even be mouse-clicks or menu items---whatever suits your
-program.
-
-You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
-school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the program, if
-necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
-
-\begin{quote}
-Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program \\
-`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker. \\
-
-signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989 \\
-Ty Coon, President of Vice
-\end{quote}
-
-
-This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
-into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
-may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications
-with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library
-General Public License instead of this License.
-
-
-\chapter{The GNU Lesser General Public License}
-
-\begin{center}
-{\parindent 0in
-
-Version 2.1, February 1999
-
-Copyright \copyright\ 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-
-\bigskip
-
-59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
-
-\bigskip
-
-Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
-of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
-
-\bigskip
-
-[This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL. It also counts
- as the successor of the GNU Library Public License version 2, hence
- the version number 2.1.]
-}
-
-\end{center}
-
-\begin{center}
-{\bf\large Preamble}
-\end{center}
-
-The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
-share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public Licenses are
-intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change Free Software---to
-make sure the software is free for all its users.
-
-This license, the Lesser General Public License, applies to some specially
-designated software packages---typically libraries---of the Free Software
-Foundation and other authors who decide to use it. You can use it too,
-but we suggest you first think carefully about whether this license or the
-ordinary General Public License is the better strategy to use in any
-particular case, based on the explanations below.
-
-When we speak of Free Software, we are referring to freedom of use, not
-price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
-have the freedom to distribute copies of Free Software (and charge for
-this service if you wish); that you receive source code or can get it if
-you want it; that you can change the software and use pieces of it in new
-Free programs; and that you are informed that you can do these things.
-
-To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
-distributors to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender these
-rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you
-if you distribute copies of the library or if you modify it.
-
-For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or
-for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you.
-You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. If
-you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object
-files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the library
-after making changes to the library and recompiling it. And you must show
-them these terms so they know their rights.
-
-We protect your rights with a two-step method: (1) we copyright the
-library, and (2) we offer you this license, which gives you legal
-permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the library.
-
-To protect each distributor, we want to make it very clear that there is
-no warranty for the Free library. Also, if the library is modified by
-someone else and passed on, the recipients should know that what they have
-is not the original version, so that the original author's reputation will
-not be affected by problems that might be introduced by others.
-
-Finally, software patents pose a constant threat to the existence of any
-Free program. We wish to make sure that a company cannot effectively
-restrict the users of a Free program by obtaining a restrictive license
-from a patent holder. Therefore, we insist that any patent license
-obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full
-freedom of use specified in this license.
-
-Most GNU software, including some libraries, is covered by the ordinary
-GNU General Public License. This license, the GNU Lesser General Public
-License, applies to certain designated libraries, and is quite different
-from the ordinary General Public License. We use this license for certain
-libraries in order to permit linking those libraries into non-Free
-programs.
-
-When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a
-shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined
-work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public
-License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits
-its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more
-lax criteria for linking other code with the library.
-
-We call this license the ``Lesser'' General Public License because it does
-Less to protect the user's freedom than the ordinary General Public
-License. It also provides other Free Software developers Less of an
-advantage over competing non-Free programs. These disadvantages are the
-reason we use the ordinary General Public License for many libraries.
-However, the Lesser license provides advantages in certain special
-circumstances.
-
-For example, on rare occasions, there may be a special need to encourage
-the widest possible use of a certain library, so that it becomes a
-de-facto standard. To achieve this, non-Free programs must be allowed to
-use the library. A more frequent case is that a Free library does the
-same job as widely used non-Free libraries. In this case, there is little
-to gain by limiting the Free library to Free Software only, so we use the
-Lesser General Public License.
-
-In other cases, permission to use a particular library in non-Free
-programs enables a greater number of people to use a large body of Free
-software. For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-Free
-programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating system,
-as well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating system.
-
-Although the Lesser General Public License is Less protective of the
-users' freedom, it does ensure that the user of a program that is linked
-with the library has the freedom and the wherewithal to run that program
-using a modified version of the library.
-
-The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
-modification follow. Pay close attention to the difference between a
-``work based on the library'' and a ``work that uses the library.'' The
-former contains code derived from the library, whereas the latter must be
-combined with the library in order to run.
-
-\begin{center}
-{\Large \sc GNU Lesser General Public License} \\
-{\Large \sc Terms and Conditions For Copying, Distribution and
- Modification}
-\end{center}
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
-
-\item
-
-This License Agreement applies to any software library or other program
-which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder or other authorized
-party saying it may be distributed under the terms of this Lesser General
-Public License (also called ``this License''). Each licensee is addressed
-as ``you.''
-
-A ``library'' means a collection of software functions and/or data
-prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs (which
-use some of those functions and data) to form executables.
-
-The ``library,'' below, refers to any such software library or work which
-has been distributed under these terms. A ``work based on the library''
-means either the library or any derivative work under copyright law: that
-is to say, a work containing the library or a portion of it, either
-verbatim or with modifications and/or translated straightforwardly into
-another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without
-limitation in the term ``modification.'')
-
-``Source code'' for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
-modifications to it. For a library, complete source code means all the
-source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
-definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
-installation of the library.
-
-Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
-covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running a
-program using the library is not restricted, and output from such a
-program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
-library (independent of the use of the library in a tool for writing it).
-Whether that is true depends on what the library does and what the program
-that uses the library does.
-
-\item
-
-You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the library's complete
-source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
-conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
-copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices
-that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and
-distribute a copy of this License along with the library.
-
-You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
-and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a
-fee.
-
-\item
-
-You may modify your copy or copies of the library or any portion of it,
-thus forming a work based on the library, and copy and distribute such
-modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that
-you also meet all of these conditions:
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
- \item
-
- The modified work must itself be a software library.
-
- \item
-
- You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating
- that you changed the files and the date of any change.
-
- \item
-
- You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to
- all third parties under the terms of this License.
-
- \item
- If a facility in the modified library refers to a function or a table
- of data to be supplied by an application program that uses the
- facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility is
- invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the
- event an application does not supply such function or table, the
- facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose
- remains meaningful.
-
-(For example, a function in a library to compute square roots has a
-purpose that is entirely well-defined independent of the application.
-Therefore, Subsection 2d requires that any application-supplied function
-or table used by this function must be optional: if the application does
-not supply it, the square root function must still compute square roots.)
-\end{enumerate}
-
-These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
-sections of that work are not derived from the library, and can be
-reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
-this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
-distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
-sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the library, the
-distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
-permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to
-each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
-
-Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your
-rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise
-the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works
-based on the library.
-
-In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the library
-with the library (or with a work based on the library) on a volume of a
-storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
-scope of this License.
-
-\item
-
-You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License
-instead of this License to a given copy of the library. To do this, you
-must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer
-to the ordinary GNU General Public License version 2, instead of to this
-License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General
-Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if
-you wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices.
-
-Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that
-copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent
-copies and derivative works made from that copy.
-
-This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the
-library into a program that is not a library.
-
-\item
-
-You may copy and distribute the library (or a portion or derivative of it,
-under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
-Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete
-corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed
-under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for
-software interchange.
-
-If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a
-designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code
-from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source
-code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along
-with the object code.
-
-\item
-
-A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the library, but
-is designed to work with the library by being compiled or linked with it,
-is called a ``work that uses the library.'' Such a work, in isolation, is
-not a derivative work of the library, and therefore falls outside the
-scope of this License.
-
-However, linking a ``work that uses the library'' with the library creates
-an executable that is a derivative of the library (because it contains
-portions of the library), rather than a ``work that uses the library.''
-The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states
-terms for distribution of such executables.
-
-When a ``work that uses the library'' uses material from a header file
-that is part of the library, the object code for the work may be a
-derivative work of the library even though the source code is not.
-Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be linked
-without the library, or if the work is itself a library. The threshold
-for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.
-
-If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure
-layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions (ten
-lines or less in length), then the use of the object file is unrestricted,
-regardless of whether it is legally a derivative work. (Executables
-containing this object code plus portions of the library will still fall
-under Section 6.)
-
-Otherwise, if the work is a derivative of the library, you may distribute
-the object code for the work under the terms of Section 6. Any
-executables containing that work also fall under Section 6, whether or not
-they are linked directly with the library itself.
-
-\item
-
-As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a
-``work that uses the library'' with the library to produce a work
-containing portions of the library, and distribute that work under terms
-of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work
-for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
-modifications.
-
-You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the library
-is used in it and that the library and its use are covered by this
-License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during
-execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright
-notice for the library among them, as well as a reference directing the
-user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
- \item
-
- Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable
- source code for the library including whatever changes were used in
- the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above);
- and, if the work is an executable linked with the library, with the
- complete machine-readable ``work that uses the library,'' as object
- code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the library and
- then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified
- library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of
- definitions files in the library will not necessarily be able to
- recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
-
- \item
-
- Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the library.
- A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
- library already present on the user's computer system, rather than
- copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate
- properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs
- one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the
- version that the work was made with.
-
- \item
-
- Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three
- years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a,
- above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this
- distribution.
-
- \item
-
- If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a
- designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified
- materials from the same place.
-
- \item
-
- Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or
- that you have already sent this user a copy.
-\end{enumerate}
-
-For an executable, the required form of the ``work that uses the library''
-must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the
-executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be
-distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
-either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
-and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
-that component itself accompanies the executable.
-
-It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions
-of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the
-operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and
-the library together in an executable that you distribute.
-
-\item
-
-You may place library facilities that are a work based on the library
-side-by-side in a single library together with other library facilities
-not covered by this License, and distribute such a combined library,
-provided that the separate distribution of the work based on the library
-and of the other library facilities is otherwise permitted, and provided
-that you do these two things:
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-
- \item
-
- Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work based on
- the library, uncombined with any other library facilities. This must
- be distributed under the terms of the Sections above.
-
- \item
-
- Give prominent notice with the combined library of the fact that part
- of it is a work based on the library, and explaining where to find
- the accompanying uncombined form of the same work.
-\end{enumerate}
-
-\item
-
- You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the
- library except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
- otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the
- library is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
- License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you
- under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as
- such parties remain in full compliance.
-
-\item
-
- You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed
- it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
- the library or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by
- law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or
- distributing the library (or any work based on the library), you
- indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and
- conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the library or works
- based on it.
-
-\item
-
- Each time you redistribute the library (or any work based on the
- library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
- original licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the library
- subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
- restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
- You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with
- this License.
-
-\item
-
- If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
- infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
- conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
- otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
- excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
- distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
- License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
- may not distribute the library at all. For example, if a patent license
- would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the library by all those
- who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way
- you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely
- from distribution of the library.
-
- If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
- any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
- apply, and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
- circumstances.
-
- It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
- patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
- such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
- integrity of the Free Software distribution system which is implemented
- by public license practices. Many people have made generous
- contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that
- system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to
- the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute
- software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that
- choice.
-
- This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be
- a consequence of the rest of this License.
-
-% \pagebreak[4]
-
-
-\item
-
- If the distribution and/or use of the library is restricted in certain
- countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original
- copyright holder who places the library under this License may add an
- explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries,
- so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus
- excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if
- written in the body of this License.
-
-\item
-
- The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
- the Lesser General Public License from time to time. Such new versions
- will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in
- detail to address new problems or concerns.
-
- Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the library
- specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and ``any
- later version,'' you have the option of following the terms and
- conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
- the Free Software Foundation. If the library does not specify a license
- version number, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
- Software Foundation.
-
-
-\item
-
-
- If you wish to incorporate parts of the library into other Free programs
- whose distribution conditions are incompatible with these, write to the
- author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the
- Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we
- sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the
- two goals of preserving the Free status of all derivatives of our Free
- software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
-
-
-\begin{center}
-{\Large\sc
-No Warranty
-}
-\end{center}
-
-\item
-
-{\sc Because the library is licensed free of charge, there is no
-warranty for the library, to the extent permitted by applicable law.
-Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or
-other parties provide the library ``as is'' without warranty of any
-kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the
-implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
-purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the
-library is with you. should the library prove defective, you assume
-the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.}
-
-% \pagebreak[4]
-
-\item
-
-{\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing
- will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or
- redistribute the library as permitted above, be liable to you for
- damages, including any general, special, incidental or consequential
- damages arising out of the use or inability to use the library
- (including but not limited to loss of data or data being rendered
- inaccurate or losses sustained by you or third parties or a failure of
- the library to operate with any other software), even if such holder or
- other party has been advised of the possibility of such damages.}
-
-\end{enumerate}
-
-\begin{center}
-{\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}
-\end{center}
-\vfill
-
-\pagebreak[4]
-
-\section*{How to Apply These Terms to Your New Libraries}
-
-If you develop a new library, and you want it to be of the greatest
-possible use to the public, we recommend making it Free Software that
-everyone can redistribute and change. You can do so by permitting
-redistribution under these terms (or, alternatively, under the terms of
-the ordinary General Public License).
-
-To apply these terms, attach the following notices to the library. It is
-safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
-convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
-``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
-
-\begin{quote}
-one line to give the library's name and a brief idea of what it does. \\
-Copyright (C) year name of author \\
-
-This library is Free Software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
-under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
-the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at
-your option) any later version.
-
-This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
-WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY
-or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public
-License for more details.
-
-You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
-along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
-Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
-\end{quote}
-
-Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
-
-You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
-school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the library, if
-necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
-
-\begin{quote}
-Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program \\
-`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker. \\
-
-signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1990 \\
-Ty Coon, President of Vice
-\end{quote}
-
-That's all there is to it!
-
-\end{document}
-
-% 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 GPL's Gentoo glibc
-% LocalWords: TrollTech administrivia LGPL's MontaVista OpenTV Mitek Arce DVD
-% LocalWords: unprotectable protectable Unfreedonia chipset CodeSourcery Iqtel
-% LocalWords: impermissibly Bateman faire minimis Borland uncopyrightable Mgmt
-% LocalWords: franca downloadable Davrik Davrik's Darvik
-% LocalWords: Slashdot sublicensed Vigorien Vigorien's Haxil Polgara
-% LocalWords: Thesulac Polgara's Haxil's Thesulac's SDK CD's