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

* Wrote about GPL Section 6 and minor editing fixes

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2003-05-29 19:00:18 +00:00
parent 69b1b7fb4b
commit 9443b10e4e
2 changed files with 61 additions and 29 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
GPL-Business/ChangeLog
View file

@ -8,6 +8,8 @@
out outline some.
(section{GPL \S 4: Termination on Violation}): Wrote section.
(section{GPL \S 5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}): Wrote section.
(section{GPL \S 6: GPL, My One and Only}): Wrote section.
(section{GPL \S 8: }): Moved to previous chapter.
2003-05-28 Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@fsf.org>

88
GPL-Business/gpl-business.tex
View file

@ -64,10 +64,11 @@ any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
\begin{abstract}
This tutorial gives a section-by-section explanation of the most popular
Free Software copyright license, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL),
and teaches software developers, managers and businesspeople how to use
the GPL and GPL'ed software successfully in new Free Software business and
and teaches software developers, managers and business people how to use
the GPL and GPL'ed software successfully in a new Free Software business and
in existing, successful enterprises.
Attendees should have a general familiarity with software development
@ -198,7 +199,7 @@ For a program to be Free Software, the freedom to run the program must be
completely unrestricted. This means that any use for that software that
the user can come up with must be permitted. Perhaps, for example, the
user has discovered an innovative new use for a particular program, one
that the programmer never could have predicted. Such a use much not be
that the programmer never could have predicted. Such a use must not be
restricted.
It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary
@ -225,7 +226,7 @@ users groups). This means they must have the freedom to recruit
programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their software.
The commercial exercise of this freedom is also essential. Each user, or
group of users, must have the right to hire anyone they wish on a
group of users, must have the right to 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
@ -314,7 +315,7 @@ redistributing that software\footnote{Copyright law in general also
governs ``public performance'' of copyrighted works. There is no
generally agreed definition for public performance of software and
version 2 of the GPL does not govern public performance.}. By law, the
copyright holder (aka the author) of the work controls how others my copy,
copyright holder (aka the author) of the work controls how others may copy,
modify and/or distribute the work. For proprietary software, these
controls are used to prohibit these activities. In addition, proprietary
software distributors further impede modification in a practical sense by
@ -365,6 +366,7 @@ expressed permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
By contrast, what the copyright holder has done is renounce her copyright
controls on the work. The law gave her controls over the work, and she
%should the ``she'' be a ``(s)he'' ?
has chosen to waive those controls. Software in the public domain is
absent copyright and absent a license. The software freedoms discussed in
Section~\ref{Free Software Definition} are all granted because there is no
@ -401,7 +403,7 @@ and that work of of defending software freedom is a substantial part of
its work today. Specifically because of this ``embrace, proprietarize and
extend'' cycle, FSF made a conscious choice to copyright its Free Software,
and then license it under ``copyleft'' terms, and many, including the
developers of the kernel named Linux has chosen to follow this paradigm.
developers of the kernel named Linux have chosen to follow this paradigm.
Copyleft is a legal strategy to defend, uphold and propagate software
freedom. The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the
@ -482,7 +484,7 @@ Samba altruistically, but also get work doing it. Priorities change when a
client is in the mix, but all the code is contributed back to the
canonical version. Meanwhile, many other individuals have gotten involved
non-commercially as developers, because they want to ``cut their teeth on
Free Software'' or because the problem interest them. When they get good
Free Software'' or because the problems interest them. When they get good
at it, perhaps they will move on to another project or perhaps they will
become commercial developers of the software themselves.
@ -565,7 +567,7 @@ remain free in just this sense.\footnote{This quotation is Copyright
In essence, lawyers are paid to service the shared commons of legal
infrastructure. Few defend themselves in court or write their own briefs
(even though they legally permitted to do so) because everyone would
(even though they are legally permitted to do so) because everyone would
prefer to have an expert do that job.
The Free Software economy is a market that is ripe for experts. It
@ -628,7 +630,7 @@ Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by \S 0.
The bulk of \S 0 not yet discussed gives definitions for other terms used
throughout. The only one worth discussing in detail is ``work based on
the Program''. The reason this definition is particular interesting is
the Program''. The reason this definition is particularly interesting is
not for the definition itself, which is rather straightforward, but the
because it clears up a common misconception about the GPL\@.
@ -682,13 +684,13 @@ copies, one may make money. Redistributors are fully permitted to charge
for the redistribution of copies of Free Software. In addition, they may
provide the warranty protection that the GPL disclaims as an additional
service for a fee. (See Section~\ref{Business Models} for more discussion
on making profit from Free Software redistribution.)
on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)
\section{GPL \S 2: Share and Share Alike}
Many consider \S 2 the heart and soul of the GPL\@. For many, this is
where the ``magic'' happens that defends software freedom along the
distribution chain. I certainly agree that if GPL has a soul, this is
distribution chain. I certainly agree that if the GPL has a soul, this is
where it is. However, I argue that the heart is in fact contained in \SS
4--5 (see Section~\ref{GPLs4} and~\ref{GPLs5} of this tutorial). But, for
the moment, let us consider the soul.
@ -734,7 +736,7 @@ share their changes. On the contrary, \S 2(b) {\bf does not apply if} the
changes are never distributed. Indeed, the freedom to make private,
personal changes to software that are not shared should be protected and
defended\footnote{FSF does maintain that there is an {\bf ethical}
obligation to redistributor changes that are generally useful, and often
obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful, and often
encourages companies and individuals to do so. However, there is a
clear distinction between what one {\bf ought} to do and what one {\bf
must} do.}.
@ -860,21 +862,21 @@ 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
reader as words in some human-readable langauge so that they can enjoy the
work. A film, even one directed by David Lynch, must be perceptable by
human eyes and ears to have any value.
Software is not so. While the source code, the human-readable
Software is not so. While the source code, the human-readible
representation of software is of keen interest to programmers, users and
programmers alike cannot make the proper use of software in that
human-readable form. Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer
can understand --- must be producible and attainable for the software to
human-readible form. Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer
can understand --- must be producable and attainable for the software to
be fully useful. Without the binaries, be they in object or executable
form, the software serves only the didactic purposes of computer science.
form, the software serves only the diadactic purposes of computer science.
Under copyright law, binary representations of the software are simply
derivative works of the source code. Applying a systematic process (i.e.,
``compilation'') to a work of source code yields binary code. The binary
``compilation'') to a work of source code yeilds binary code. The binary
code is now a new work of expression fixed in the tangible medium of
electronic file storage.
@ -892,7 +894,7 @@ of \S\S 1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies here.
However, \S 3 must go a bit further. Access to the software's source code
is an incontestable prerequisite for the exercise of the fundamental
freedoms to modify and improve the software. Making even the most trivial
changes to a software program at the binary level is effectively
changes to a software program at the binary level is effecitvely
impossible. \S 3 must ensure that the binaries are never distributed
without the source code, so that these freedoms are ensured to be passed
along the distribution chain.
@ -1159,21 +1161,49 @@ freedom.
\section{GPL \S 6: GPL, My One and Only}
\label{GPLs6}
Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to
the licensee to perform acts of copying, modification, and redistribution
that would otherwise have been prohibited by default. Since, barring
special permission from the copyright holder, the GPL is a licensee's one
and only license to the software (thanks to \S 6),
A point that was glossed over in Section~\ref{GPLs4}'s discussion of \S 4
was the irrevocable nature of the GPL\@. The GPL is indeed irrevocable,
and it is made so formally \S 6.
\section{GPL \S 7: ``Give My Software Liberty of Give It Death!''}
The first sentence in \S 6 ensures that as software propagates down the
distribution chain, that each licensor can pass along the license to each
new licensee. Under \S 6, the act of distributing automatically grants a
license from the original licensor to the next recipient. This creates a
chain of grants that ensure that everyone in the distribution has rights
under the GPL\@. In a mathematical sense, this bounds the bottom ---
making sure that future licensees get no fewer rights than than the
licensee before.
The second sentence of \S 6 does the opposite; it bounds from the top. It
prohibits any licensor along the distribution chain from placing
additional restrictions on the user. In other words, no additional
requirements may trump the rights and freedoms given by GPL\@.
The final sentence of \S 6 makes it abundantly clear that no individual
entity in the distribution chain is responsible for the compliance of any
other. This is particularly important for non-commercial users who have
passed along a source offer under \S 3(c), as they cannot be assured that
the issuer of the offer will honor their \S 3 obligations.
In short, \S 6 says that your license for the software is your one and
only copyright license allowing you to copy, modify and distribute the
software.
\section{GPL \S 7: ``Give Software Liberty of Give It Death!''}
\label{GPLs7}
In essence, \S 7 is a verbosely worded way of saying for non-copyright
systems what \S 6 says for copyright. If there exists any reason that a
distributor knows of that would prohibit those who would later receive
the software from the distribution
\section{GPL \S 8: Finding Freedonia}
\label{GPLs8}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}
\section{GPL \S 8}
\label{GPLs8}
\section{GPL \S 9}
\label{GPLs9}