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

Misc copy editing: fix some typos, grammar, and formatting errors

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Martin Michlmayr 2014-03-24 21:51:23 -04:00 committed by Bradley M. Kuhn
parent 74899d7d1c
commit 85577d597a
1 changed files with 29 additions and 31 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

60
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ Software'' to refer to noncommercial software that restricts freedom
commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of
Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).
Keep in mind that the none of the terms ``software freedom'', ``open source''
Keep in mind that none of the terms ``software freedom'', ``open source''
and ``free software'' are known to be trademarked or otherwise legally
restricted by any organization in
any jurisdiction. As such, it's quite common that these terms are abused and
@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ group of users, may hire anyone they wish in a competitive free market to
modify and change the software. This means that companies have a right to
hire anyone they wish to modify their Free Software. Additionally, such
companies may contract with other companies to commission software
modification.
modifications.
\subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}
@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ program to your friend who likes the software you are using). Licenses that
respect software freedom, therefore, permit altruistic sharing of software
among friends.
The commercial environment also benefits of this freedom. Commercial sharing
The commercial environment also benefits from this freedom. Commercial sharing
includes selling copies of Free Software: that is, Free Software can
be distributed for any monetary
price to anyone. Those who redistribute Free Software commercially also have
@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ share commercially.)
\subsection{The Freedom to Share Improvements}
The freedom to modify and improve is somewhat empty without the freedom to
share those improvements. The Software freedom community is built on the
share those improvements. The software freedom community is built on the
pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Historically
it was typical for a
Free Software project to sprout a mailing list where improvements
@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ In January 1989, the FSF announced that the GPL had been converted into a
``subroutine'' that could be reused not just for all FSF-copyrighted
programs, but also by anyone else. As the FSF claimed in its announcement of
the GPLv1\footnote{The announcement of GPLv1 was published in the
\href{http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull6.html\#SEC8}{GNU'S Bulletin, vol 1,
\href{http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull6.html\#SEC8}{GNU's Bulletin, vol 1,
number 6 dated January 1989}. (Thanks very much to Andy Tai for his
\href{http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/}{consolidation of research on
the history of the pre-v1 GPL's}.)}:
@ -858,8 +858,8 @@ worth noting below the three key changes that GPLv2 brought:
\item GPLv2~\S3 includes more detailed requirements, including the phrase
``the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the
executable'', which is a central component of current GPLv2 enforcement
. (GPLv2~\S3 is discussed in detail in
executable'', which is a central component of current GPLv2 enforcement.
(GPLv2~\S3 is discussed in detail in
\S~\ref{GPLv2s3} in this tutorial).
\end{itemize}
@ -949,7 +949,7 @@ Other copyleft licenses that appeared after GPL, such
as the Creative Commons ``Share Alike'' licenses, the Eclipse Public License
and the Mozilla Public License \textbf{require} all copyright holders choosing
to use any version of those licenses to automatically accept and relicense
their copyrighted works under new versions. Of course ,Creative Commons, the
their copyrighted works under new versions. Of course, Creative Commons, the
Eclipse Foundation, and the Mozilla Foundation (like the FSF) have generally
served as excellent stewards of their licenses. Copyright holders using
those licenses seems to find it acceptable to fully delegate all future
@ -1042,7 +1042,7 @@ access to is and should remain unregulated and unrestricted.
\medskip
Thus, the GPLv2 protects users fair and unregulated use rights precisely by
Thus, the GPLv2 protects users' fair and unregulated use rights precisely by
not attempting to cover them. Furthermore, the GPLv2 ensures the freedom
to run specifically by stating the following:
\begin{quote}
@ -1304,9 +1304,7 @@ program is designed to operate in conjunction
\item Computer manufacturers'
design standards
\item Demands of the industry being serviced, and
widely accepted programming practices within the computer industry
\item Demands of the industry being serviced, and widely accepted programming practices within the computer industry
\end{itemize}
@ -1466,7 +1464,7 @@ requirements of GPLv2\@.
For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software
freedom upon redistribution. GPLv2~\S2 is the only place in GPLv2
that governs the modification controls of copyright law. If users
modifies a GPLv2'd program, they must follow the terms of GPLv2~\S2 in making
modify a GPLv2'd program, they must follow the terms of GPLv2~\S2 in making
those changes. Thus, this sections ensures that the body of GPL'd software, as it
continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.
@ -1593,7 +1591,7 @@ fee for the software.
GPLv2~\S2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed \ldots to all
third parties.'' This too yields some confusion, and feeds the
misconception mentioned earlier --- that all modified versions must made
misconception mentioned earlier --- that all modified versions must be made
available to the public at large. However, the text here does not say
that. Instead, it says that the licensing under terms of the GPL must
extend to anyone who might, through the distribution chain, receive a copy
@ -1798,7 +1796,7 @@ source. However, to ensure equal rights for all software users, anyone
along the distribution chain must have the right to get the source and
exercise those freedoms that require it.
Meanwhile, GPLv2~\S3(b)'s compromise primarily benefits companies who
Meanwhile, GPLv2~\S3(b)'s compromise primarily benefits companies that
distribute binary software commercially. Without GPLv2~\S3(c), that benefit
would be at the detriment of the companies' customers; the burden of
source code provision would be unfairly shifted to the companies'
@ -1980,7 +1978,7 @@ licenses (see Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} of this tutorial), or to
stop distributing the GPLv2'd version (assuming GPLv2~\S3(b) was never used),
but they may not revoke the rights under GPLv2 already granted.
In fact, when an entity looses their right to copy, modify and distribute
In fact, when an entity loses their right to copy, modify and distribute
GPL'd software, it is because of their \emph{own actions}, not that of the
copyright holder. The copyright holder does not decide when GPLv2~\S4
termination occurs (if ever); rather, the actions of the licensee determine
@ -2005,7 +2003,7 @@ negotiate another agreement, separate from GPL, with the copyright
holder. Both are common practice, although
\tutorialpartsplit{as discussed in \textit{A Practical Guide to GPL
Compliance}, there are }{Chapter~\ref{compliance-understanding-whos-enforcing}
explains further } key differences between these two very different uses of GPL.
explains further} key differences between these two very different uses of GPL.
\section{GPLv2~\S5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}
\label{GPLv2s5}
@ -2217,7 +2215,7 @@ So end the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License.
\chapter{GPL Version 3}
\label{GPLv3}
This chapter discussed the text of GPLv3. Much of this material herein
This chapter discusses the text of GPLv3. Much of this material herein
includes text that was adapted (with permission) from text that FSF
originally published as part of the so-called ``rationale documents'' for the
various discussion drafts of GPLv3.
@ -2259,8 +2257,8 @@ Overall, the changes made in GPLv3 admittedly \textit{increased} the
complexity of the license. The FSF stated at the start of the GPLv3 process
that they would have liked to oblige those who have asked for a simpler and
shorter GPL\@. Ultimately, the FSF gave priority to making GPLv3 a better
copyleft in the spirit of past GPL's. Obsession for concision should never
trump software freedom.
copyleft license in the spirit of past GPL's. Obsession for concision should
never trump software freedom.
The FSF had many different, important goals in seeking to upgrade to GPLv3.
However, one important goal that is often lost in the discussion of policy
@ -2329,7 +2327,7 @@ successive generations of users (particularly through the copyleft conditions
set forth in GPLv3~\S5, as described later in this tutorial in its
\S~\ref{GPLv3s5}). Here in GPLv3~\S0, ``modify'' refers to basic copyright
rights, and then this definition of ``modify'' is used to define ``modified
version of'' and ``work based on,'' as synonyms.
version of'' and ``work based on'' as synonyms.
\subsection{The Covered Work}
@ -2507,7 +2505,7 @@ of copylefted programs compiled for Windows.
However, in isolation, (a) would be too permissive, as it would sometimes
allowing distributors to evade important GPL requirements. Part (b) reigns
in (a). Specifically, (b) specifies only a few functionalities that a the
in (a). Specifically, (b) specifies only a few functionalities that a
system library may provide and still qualify for the exception. The goal is
to ensure system libraries are truly adjunct to a major essential operating
system component, compiler, or interpreter. The more low-level the
@ -2549,7 +2547,7 @@ However, note that (sadly to some copyleft advocates) the unlimited freedom
to run is confined to the \textit{unmodified} Program. This confinement is
unfortunately necessary since Programs that do not qualify as a User Product
in GPLv3~\S6 (see \S~\ref{user-product} in this tutorial) might have certain
unfortunate restrictions on the freedom to run\footnote{See
unfortunate restrictions on the freedom to run.\footnote{See
\S~\ref{freedom-to-run} of this tutorial for the details on ``the freedom to
run''.}
@ -2851,7 +2849,7 @@ physical servers. For example, a downstream distributor may provide a link
to an upstream distributor's server and arrange with the operator of that
server to keep the source code available for copying for as long as the
downstream distributor enables access to the object code. This codifies
formally typical historical interpretation of GPLv2.
formally the typical historical interpretation of GPLv2.
% FIXME-LATER: perhaps in enforcement section, but maybe here, note about
% ``slow down'' on source downloads being a compliance problem.
@ -2914,7 +2912,7 @@ limitation or further obligation.
\subsection{User Products, Installation Information and Device Lock-Down}
As discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} of this tutorial, GPLv3 seeks thwart
As discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} of this tutorial, GPLv3 seeks to thwart
technical measures such as signature checks in hardware to prevent
modification of GPL'd software on a device.
@ -3103,7 +3101,7 @@ limitation, could transform a GPL'd program into a non-free one.
With these principles in the background, GPLv3~\S7 answers the following
questions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item How do the presence of additional terms on all or part of a GPL'd program
\item How does the presence of additional terms on all or part of a GPL'd program
affect users' rights?
\item When and how may a licensee add terms to code being
@ -3432,7 +3430,7 @@ Finally, ``essential patent claims \ldots do not include
claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further
modification of the work.'' The set of essential patent
claims licensed is fixed by the
the particular version of the work that was contributed. The claim set
particular version of the work that was contributed. The claim set
cannot expand as a work is further modified downstream. (If it could,
then any software patent claim would be included, since any software
patent claim can be infringed by some further modification of the
@ -3569,7 +3567,7 @@ can structure the agreements so that they do not fall under GPLv3~\S11\P7.
\section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2~\S7}
GPLv2~\S12 remains almost completely unchanged from the text that appears
GPLv2~\S12 remains almost completely unchanged from the text that appears in
GPLv2~\S7. This is an important provision that ensures a catch-all to ensure
that nothing ``surprising'' interferes with the continued conveyance safely
under copyleft.
@ -3608,7 +3606,7 @@ the Affero clause such that the FSF felt the Affero clause would need its own
license, but one compatible with GPLv3.
GPLv3~\S13 makes GPLv3 compatible with the AGPLv3, so that at least code can
be shared between AGPLv3'd and GPLv3' projects, even if the Affero clause
be shared between AGPLv3'd and GPLv3'd projects, even if the Affero clause
does not automatically apply to all GPLv3'd works.
%FIXME-LATER: no time to do this justice, will come back later, instead the
@ -4249,7 +4247,7 @@ in the hardware, but it is essential that software be stable, reliable
and dependable, and the users be allowed to have unfettered access to
it. Free Software, and GPL'd software in particular (because IBM can
be assured that proprietary versions of the same software will not
exists to compete on their hardware) is the right choice.
exist to compete on their hardware) is the right choice.
For example, charging a ``convenience fee'' for Free Software,
when set at a reasonable price (around \$60 or so), can produce some
@ -4312,7 +4310,7 @@ that seeks to foster a community of sharing and mutual support. Certainly
complying with the GPL from a users' perspective gives substantially fewer
headaches than proprietary license compliance.
For those who go into the business of distributing {\em modified\\}
For those who go into the business of distributing {\em modified}
versions of GPL'd software, the burden is a bit higher, but not by
much. The glib answer is that by releasing the whole product as Free
Software, it is always easy to comply with the GPL. However,