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

* Maded changes based on feedback from novalis

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2003-05-29 22:29:43 +00:00
parent c47b2f290c
commit 8f43acf552
3 changed files with 57 additions and 61 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

1
GPL-Business/ChangeLog
View file

@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
(section{GPL \S 3: Producing Binaries}): Fixed typo.
(chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}): Wrote
chapter.
Made changes based on novalis' additional feedback.
2003-05-28 Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@fsf.org>

BIN
GPL-Business/gpl-business.kpr
View file

Binary file not shown.

117
GPL-Business/gpl-business.tex
View file

@ -614,13 +614,15 @@ to fair and unregulated uses.
Fair use of copyrighted material is an established legal doctrine that
permits certain activities. Discussion of the various types of fair use
activity are beyond the scope of this tutorial. However, one important
example of fair use is the right to reverse engineering software.
example of fair use is the right to quote a very few lines (less than
seven or so), and reuse them as you with without licensing restrictions.
Fair use is a doctrine established by the courts or by statute. By
contrast, unregulated uses are those that are not covered by the statue
nor determined by a court to be covered, but are common and enjoyed by
many users. An example of unregulated use is reading a program like a
novel for the purpose of learning how to be a better programmer.
many users. An example of unregulated use is reading a printout of the
programs source code like an instruction book for the purpose of learning
how to be a better programmer.
\medskip
@ -862,10 +864,11 @@ truly GPL'ed.
Software is a strange beast when compared to other copyrightable works.
It is currently impossible to make a film or a book that can be truly
obscured. Ultimately, the full text of a novel must presented to the
reader as words in some human-readable language so that they can enjoy the
work. A film, even one directed by David Lynch, must be perceptible by
human eyes and ears to have any value.
obscured. Ultimately, the full text of a novel, even one written by
Donald Barthelme, must presented to the reader as words in some
human-readable language so that they can enjoy the work. A film, even one
directed by David Lynch, must be perceptible by human eyes and ears to
have any value.
Software is not so. While the source code, the human-readable
representation of software is of keen interest to programmers, users and
@ -884,11 +887,11 @@ electronic file storage.
Therefore, for GPL'ed software to be useful, the GPL, since it governs the
rules for creation of derivative works, must grant permission for the
generation of binaries. Furthermore, notwithstanding the relative
popularity of source-based GNU/Linux distributions like ``Gentoo'', users
find it extremely convenient to receive distribution of binary software.
Such distribution is the redistribution of derivative works of the
software's source code. \S 3 addresses the matter of creation and
distribution of binary versions.
popularity of source-based GNU/Linux distributions like Gentoo, users find
it extremely convenient to receive distribution of binary software. Such
distribution is the redistribution of derivative works of the software's
source code. \S 3 addresses the matter of creation and distribution of
binary versions.
Under \S 3, binary versions may be created and distributed under the terms
of \S\S 1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies here.
@ -910,32 +913,32 @@ option for most distributors, because it means that the source-code
provision obligations are fully completed at the time of binary
distribution (more on that later).
Under \S 3(a), the source code code provided must be the ``corresponding
source code''. Here ``corresponding'' primarily means that the source
code provided must be that code used to produce the binaries being
distributed. That source code must also be ``complete''. A later
paragraph of \S 3 explains in detail what is meant by ``complete''. In
essence, it is all the material that a programmer of average skill would
need to actually use the source code to produce the binaries she has
received. Complete source is required so that, if the licensee choses,
she should be able to exercise her freedoms to modify and redistribute
changes. Without the complete source, it would not be possible to make
changes that were actually directly derived from the version received.
Under \S 3(a), the source code provided must be the ``corresponding source
code''. Here ``corresponding'' primarily means that the source code
provided must be that code used to produce the binaries being distributed.
That source code must also be ``complete''. A later paragraph of \S 3
explains in detail what is meant by ``complete''. In essence, it is all
the material that a programmer of average skill would need to actually use
the source code to produce the binaries she has received. Complete source
is required so that, if the licensee chooses, she should be able to
exercise her freedoms to modify and redistribute changes. Without the
complete source, it would not be possible to make changes that were
actually directly derived from the version received.
Furthermore, \S 3 is defending against a tactic that has in fact been seen
in FSF's GPL enforcement. Under GPL, if you pay a high price for a copy
of GPL'ed binaries (which comes with corresponding source, of course), you
have the freedom to redistribute that work at any fee you choose, or not
at all. Sometimes, companies attempt to build a racket by producing very
specialized binaries (perhaps for an obscure architecture), and then
giving source code that does correspond, but not giving the
``incantations'' and build plans they used to make that source compile
into the specialized binaries. Therefore, \S 3 that the source code
include ``meta-material'' like scripts, interface definitions, and other
material that is used to ``control compilation and installation'' of the
binaries. In this manner, those further down the distribution chain are
assured that they have the unabated freedom to build their own derivative
works from the sources provided.
at all. Sometimes, companies attempt a GPL-violating cozenage whereby
they produce very specialized binaries (perhaps for an obscure
architecture), and then giving source code that does correspond, but not
giving the ``incantations'' and build plans they used to make that source
compile into the specialized binaries. Therefore, \S 3 that the source
code include ``meta-material'' like scripts, interface definitions, and
other material that is used to ``control compilation and installation'' of
the binaries. In this manner, those further down the distribution chain
are assured that they have the unabated freedom to build their own
derivative works from the sources provided.
FSF (as authors of GPL) realizes that software distribution comes in many
forms. Embedded manufacturers, for example, have the freedom to put
@ -951,8 +954,8 @@ phrase covers a broad spectrum. At best, FSF can viably release a new GPL
every ten years or so. Thus, phrases like this must be adaptive to
changes in the technology. When GPL version 2 was first published in June
1991, distribution on magnetic tape was still common, and CD was
relatively new. Today, CD is the default, and for larger systems DVD-ROM
is gaining adoption. This language must adapt with changing technology.
relatively new. Today, CD is the default, and for larger systems DVD-R is
gaining adoption. This language must adapt with changing technology.
Meanwhile, the binding created by the word ``customarily'' is key. Many
incorrectly believe that distributing binary on CD and source on the
@ -1017,13 +1020,14 @@ those who receive the software from her can exercise their freedoms under
GPL --- including the freedom to modify, rebuild, and redistribute the
source code.
This is where \S 3(c) comes into play. Ultimately, \S 3(b) is a big
compromise. It separates the binary software from the key tool that
people can use to exercise their freedom. The GPL permits this separation
because it is good for redistributors, and those users who turn out not to
need the 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.
\S 3(c) is created to save her some trouble, because by itself \S 3(b)
would unfairly favor large companies. compromise. \S 3(b) allows the
separation of the binary software from the key tool that people can use
to exercise their freedom. The GPL permits this separation because it is
good for redistributors, and those users who turn out not to need the
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, \S 3(b)'s compromise primarily benefits companies who
distribute binary software commercially. Without \S 3(c), that benefit
@ -1066,11 +1070,6 @@ field clear so that \S\S 0--3 can do their jobs.
\section{GPL \S 4: Termination on Violation}
\label{GPLs4}
\S 4--5 are, in my opinion, the heart of the GPL\@. \S\S 0--3 are
important in their efforts to set forth in clear legal language the
doctrine of copyleft. However, \S 4--5 are the glue that holds \S\S 0--3
together.
\S 4 is GPL's termination clause. Upon first examination, it seems
strange for a license that has the goal of defending users and programmers
freedoms for perpetuity in an irrevocable way would have such a clause.
@ -1082,12 +1081,13 @@ rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the software under
terms of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that grant. Since the GPL has
no provision allowing the copyright holder to take such a prerogative, the
license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect\footnote{In
the USA< due to unfortunate legislation, this is nearly perpetual, even
though the Constitution forbids it.}. The copyright holder has the
right to relicense the same work under different licenses (see
Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} of this tutorial), or to stop
distributing the GPL'ed version (assuming \S 3(b) was never used), but the
she may not revoke the rights under GPL already granted.
the USA, due to unfortunate legislation, the length of copyright is
nearly perpetual, even though the Constitution forbids perpetual
copyright.}. The copyright holder has the right to relicense the same
work under different licenses (see Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing}
of this tutorial), or to stop distributing the GPL'ed version (assuming \S
3(b) was never used), but the she may not revoke the rights under GPL
already granted.
In fact, when an entity looses their right to copy, modify and distribute
GPL'ed software, it is because of their \emph{own actions}, not that of
@ -1264,11 +1264,6 @@ copyright licenses.
\section{GPL \S 11: No Warranty}
\label{GPLs11}
With \S 11, the boilerplate language of all copyright licenses begins.
Sometimes, companies are concerned that there is no default warranty on
GPL'ed software. However, nearly all proprietary software licensing
agreements disclaim warranty as well.
All warranty disclaimer language tends to be shouted in all capital
letters. Apparently, there was once a case where the disclaimer language
of an agreement was negated because it was not ``conspicuous'' to one of
@ -1277,7 +1272,7 @@ started placing it in bold or capitalizing the entire text. It now seems
to be voodoo tradition of warranty disclaimer writing.
Finally, one important point to remember when reading \S 11 is that \S 1
permits the sale of warranty as an additional service, which \S 11
permits the sale of warranty as an additional service, which \S 11
affirms.
\section{GPL, \S 12: Limitation of Liability}
@ -1401,7 +1396,7 @@ For those who go into the business of distributing or distributing
modified versions of GPL'ed software, the burden is a bit higher, but not
by much. The glib answer that is that it is always easy to comply with
the GPL by releasing the whole product as Free Software. However,
admittedly to the chagrin of FSF, many modern and complex software systems
admittedly to the dismay of FSF, many modern and complex software systems
are built using both proprietary and GPL'ed components that are not
legally derivative works of each other. Usually, in product development
with Free Software tools, sometimes it is easier simply to improve
@ -1412,7 +1407,7 @@ is a way to help build a better world while also making a profit.
Note that FSF does provide services to assist companies who need
assistance in complying with the GPL. You can contact FSF's GPL
Compliance Labs at <compliance@fsf.org>.
Compliance Labs at $<$compliance@fsf.org$>$.
\appendix