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

consistent fn follows punctuation

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Mike Linksvayer 2014-10-22 11:03:19 -07:00 committed by Bradley M. Kuhn
parent 37bdf9cadd
commit 9641e72df0
1 changed files with 32 additions and 32 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

64
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -292,9 +292,9 @@ pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Historically
it was typical for a it was typical for a
Free Software project to sprout a mailing list where improvements Free Software project to sprout a mailing list where improvements
would be shared would be shared
freely among members of the development community\footnote{This is still freely among members of the development community.\footnote{This is still
commonly the case, though today there are additional ways of commonly the case, though today there are additional ways of
sharing Free Software.}. Such noncommercial sharing Free Software.} Such noncommercial
sharing is the primary reason that Free Software thrives. sharing is the primary reason that Free Software thrives.
Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important. Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.
@ -578,8 +578,8 @@ available to subjugate users. For example:
\item Digital Restrictions Management (usually called \defn{DRM}) is often \item Digital Restrictions Management (usually called \defn{DRM}) is often
used to impose technological restrictions on users' ability to exercise used to impose technological restrictions on users' ability to exercise
software freedom that they might otherwise be granted\footnote{See software freedom that they might otherwise be granted.\footnote{See
\S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} for more information on how GPL deals with this issue.}. \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} for more information on how GPL deals with this issue.}
The simplest (and perhaps oldest) form of DRM, of course, is separating The simplest (and perhaps oldest) form of DRM, of course, is separating
software source code (read by humans), from their compiled binaries (read software source code (read by humans), from their compiled binaries (read
only by computers). Furthermore, only by computers). Furthermore,
@ -671,9 +671,9 @@ to fuel a commercial system around that software.
For example, consider the Samba file server system that allows Unix-like For example, consider the Samba file server system that allows Unix-like
systems (including GNU/Linux) to serve files to Microsoft Windows systems. systems (including GNU/Linux) to serve files to Microsoft Windows systems.
Two graduate students originally developed Samba in their spare time and Two graduate students originally developed Samba in their spare time and
it was deployed noncommercially in academic environments\footnote{See it was deployed noncommercially in academic environments.\footnote{See
\href{http://turtle.ee.ncku.edu.tw/docs/samba/history}{Andrew Tridgell's \href{http://turtle.ee.ncku.edu.tw/docs/samba/history}{Andrew Tridgell's
``A bit of history and a bit of fun''}}. However, very ``A bit of history and a bit of fun''}} However, very
soon for-profit companies discovered that the software could work for them soon for-profit companies discovered that the software could work for them
as well, and their system administrators began to use it in place of as well, and their system administrators began to use it in place of
Microsoft Windows NT file-servers. This served to lower the cost of Microsoft Windows NT file-servers. This served to lower the cost of
@ -821,13 +821,13 @@ implementation that assured software freedom for all. However, RMS saw that
using a license that gave but did not assure software freedom would be using a license that gave but did not assure software freedom would be
counter to the goals of the GNU project. RMS invented ``copyleft'' as an counter to the goals of the GNU project. RMS invented ``copyleft'' as an
answer to that problem, and began using various copyleft licenses for the answer to that problem, and began using various copyleft licenses for the
early GNU project programs\footnote{RMS writes more fully about this topic in early GNU project programs.\footnote{RMS writes more fully about this topic in
his essay entitled simply his essay entitled simply
\href{http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html}{\textit{The GNU Project}}. \href{http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html}{\textit{The GNU Project}}.
For those who want to hear the story in his own voice, For those who want to hear the story in his own voice,
\href{http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/}{speech recordings} of his talk, \href{http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/}{speech recordings} of his talk,
\textit{The Free Software Movement and the GNU/Linux Operating System} \textit{The Free Software Movement and the GNU/Linux Operating System}
are also widely available}. are also widely available}
\section{Proto-GPLs And Their Impact} \section{Proto-GPLs And Their Impact}
@ -866,11 +866,11 @@ issues discussed earlier in \S~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.
In January 1989, the FSF announced that the GPL had been converted into a 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 ``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 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 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 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 \href{http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/}{consolidation of research on
the history of the pre-v1 GPL's}.)}: the history of the pre-v1 GPL's}.)}
\begin{quotation} \begin{quotation}
To make it easier to copyleft programs, we have been improving on the To make it easier to copyleft programs, we have been improving on the
legalbol architecture of the General Public License to produce a new version legalbol architecture of the General Public License to produce a new version
@ -884,18 +884,18 @@ It took almost five years from the first copyleft licenses to get to a
generalized, reusable GPLv1. In the context and mindset of the 1980s, this generalized, reusable GPLv1. In the context and mindset of the 1980s, this
is not surprising. The idea of reusable licensing infrastructure was not is not surprising. The idea of reusable licensing infrastructure was not
only uncommon, it was virtually nonexistent! Even the early BSD licenses only uncommon, it was virtually nonexistent! Even the early BSD licenses
were simply copied and rewritten slightly for each new use\footnote{It were simply copied and rewritten slightly for each new use.\footnote{It
remains an interesting accident of history that the early BSD problematic remains an interesting accident of history that the early BSD problematic
``advertising clause'' (discussion of which is somewhat beyond the scope of ``advertising clause'' (discussion of which is somewhat beyond the scope of
this tutorial) lives on into current day, simply because while the this tutorial) lives on into current day, simply because while the
University of California at Berkeley gave unilateral permission to remove University of California at Berkeley gave unilateral permission to remove
the clause from \textit{its} copyrighted works, others who adapted the BSD the clause from \textit{its} copyrighted works, others who adapted the BSD
license with their own names in place of UC-Berkeley's never have.}. The license with their own names in place of UC-Berkeley's never have.} The
GPLv1's innovation of reusable licensing infrastructure, an obvious fact GPLv1's innovation of reusable licensing infrastructure, an obvious fact
today, was indeed a novel invention for its day\footnote{We're all just today, was indeed a novel invention for its day.\footnote{We're all just
grateful that the FSF also opposes business method patents, since the FSF's grateful that the FSF also opposes business method patents, since the FSF's
patent on a ``method for reusable licensing infrastructure'' would have patent on a ``method for reusable licensing infrastructure'' would have
not expired until 2006!}. not expired until 2006!}
\section{The GNU General Public License, Version 2} \section{The GNU General Public License, Version 2}
@ -936,9 +936,9 @@ RMS began drafting GPLv2.2 in mid-2002, and FSF ran a few discussion groups
during that era about new text of that license. However, rampant violations during that era about new text of that license. However, rampant violations
of the GPL required more immediate attention of FSF's licensing staff, and as of the GPL required more immediate attention of FSF's licensing staff, and as
such, much of the early 2000's was spent doing GPL enforcement such, much of the early 2000's was spent doing GPL enforcement
work\footnote{More on GPL enforcement is discussed in \tutorialpartsplit{a work.\footnote{More on GPL enforcement is discussed in \tutorialpartsplit{a
companion tutorial, \textit{A Practical Guide to GPL companion tutorial, \textit{A Practical Guide to GPL
Compliance}}{Part~\ref{gpl-compliance-guide} of this tutorial}.}. In Compliance}}{Part~\ref{gpl-compliance-guide} of this tutorial}.} In
2006, FSF began in earnest drafting work for GPLv3. 2006, FSF began in earnest drafting work for GPLv3.
The GPLv3 process began in earnest in January 2006. It became clear that The GPLv3 process began in earnest in January 2006. It became clear that
@ -1791,11 +1791,11 @@ requirements of GPLv2~\S2 (and GPLv2~\S3, which will be discussed next) are
centered around two different copyright controls: both modification centered around two different copyright controls: both modification
\emph{and} distribution. As such, GPLv2~\S2's requirements need only be met \emph{and} distribution. As such, GPLv2~\S2's requirements need only be met
when a modified version is distributed; one need not follow them for modified when a modified version is distributed; one need not follow them for modified
versions that are not distributed\footnote{As a matter of best practice, it's versions that are not distributed.\footnote{As a matter of best practice, it's
useful to assume that all software may eventually be distributed later, useful to assume that all software may eventually be distributed later,
even if there no plans for distribution at this time. Too often, GPL even if there no plans for distribution at this time. Too often, GPL
violations occur because of a late distribution decision of software that violations occur because of a late distribution decision of software that
was otherwise never intended for distribution.}. was otherwise never intended for distribution.}
However, the careful reader of GPLv2 will notice that, unlike GPLv3, no other However, the careful reader of GPLv2 will notice that, unlike GPLv3, no other
clauses of the license actually give explicit permission to make private clauses of the license actually give explicit permission to make private
@ -2404,14 +2404,14 @@ terms surrounding it (see \textit{Stevenson v.~TRW, Inc.}, 987 F.2d 288, 296
(5th Cir.~1993)). While GPLv3's drafters doubted that such authority would (5th Cir.~1993)). While GPLv3's drafters doubted that such authority would
apply to copyright licenses like the GPL, the FSF has nevertheless left apply to copyright licenses like the GPL, the FSF has nevertheless left
warranty and related disclaimers in \textsc{all caps} throughout all versions warranty and related disclaimers in \textsc{all caps} throughout all versions
of GPL\@\footnote{One of the authors of this tutorial, Bradley M.~Kuhn, has of GPL\@.\footnote{One of the authors of this tutorial, Bradley M.~Kuhn, has
often suggested the aesthetically preferable compromise of a often suggested the aesthetically preferable compromise of a
\textsc{specifically designed ``small caps'' font, such as this one, as an \textsc{specifically designed ``small caps'' font, such as this one, as an
alternative to} WRITING IN ALL CAPS IN THE DEFAULT FONT (LIKE THIS), alternative to} WRITING IN ALL CAPS IN THE DEFAULT FONT (LIKE THIS),
since the latter adds more ugliness than conspicuousness. Kuhn once since the latter adds more ugliness than conspicuousness. Kuhn once
engaged in reversion war with a lawyer who disagreed, but that lawyer never engaged in reversion war with a lawyer who disagreed, but that lawyer never
answered Kuhn's requests for case law that argues THIS IS INHERENTLY MORE answered Kuhn's requests for case law that argues THIS IS INHERENTLY MORE
CONSPICUOUS \textsc{Than this is}.}. CONSPICUOUS \textsc{Than this is}.}
Some have argued the GPL is unenforceable in some jurisdictions because Some have argued the GPL is unenforceable in some jurisdictions because
its disclaimer of warranties is impermissibly broad. However, GPLv2~\S11 its disclaimer of warranties is impermissibly broad. However, GPLv2~\S11
@ -2542,14 +2542,14 @@ GPLv2 included a defined term, ``work based on the Program'', but also used
the term ``modify'' and ``based on'' throughout the license. GPLv2's ``work the term ``modify'' and ``based on'' throughout the license. GPLv2's ``work
based on the Program'' definition made use of a legal term of art, based on the Program'' definition made use of a legal term of art,
``derivative work'', which is peculiar to USA copyright ``derivative work'', which is peculiar to USA copyright
law\footnote{(Ironically, most criticism of USA-specific legal law.\footnote{(Ironically, most criticism of USA-specific legal
terminology in GPLv2's ``work based on the Program'' definition historically terminology in GPLv2's ``work based on the Program'' definition historically
came not primarily from readers outside the USA, but from those within came not primarily from readers outside the USA, but from those within
it. The FSF noted in that it did not generally agree with these it. The FSF noted in that it did not generally agree with these
views, and expressed puzzlement by the energy with which they were views, and expressed puzzlement by the energy with which they were
expressed, given the existence of many other, more difficult legal issues expressed, given the existence of many other, more difficult legal issues
implicated by the GPL. Nevertheless, the FSF argued that it made sense to implicated by the GPL. Nevertheless, the FSF argued that it made sense to
eliminate usage of local copyright terminology to good effect.}. GPLv2 eliminate usage of local copyright terminology to good effect.} GPLv2
always sought to cover all rights governed by relevant copyright law, in the always sought to cover all rights governed by relevant copyright law, in the
USA and elsewhere. USA and elsewhere.
Even though differently-labeled concepts corresponding to the Even though differently-labeled concepts corresponding to the
@ -2688,7 +2688,7 @@ obfuscated programming.
\subsection{CCS Definition} \subsection{CCS Definition}
\label{CCS Definition} \label{CCS Definition}
The definition of CCS\footnote{Note that the preferred term for those who The definition of CCS,\footnote{Note that the preferred term for those who
work regularly with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 is ``Complete Corresponding work regularly with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 is ``Complete Corresponding
Source'', abbreviated to ``CCS''. Admittedly, the word ``complete'' no Source'', abbreviated to ``CCS''. Admittedly, the word ``complete'' no
longer appears in GPLv3 (which uses the word ``all'' instead). However, longer appears in GPLv3 (which uses the word ``all'' instead). However,
@ -2697,7 +2697,7 @@ The definition of CCS\footnote{Note that the preferred term for those who
Corresponding Source''. Meanwhile, use of the acronym ``CCS'' (sometimes, Corresponding Source''. Meanwhile, use of the acronym ``CCS'' (sometimes,
``C\&CS'') was so widespread among GPL enforcers that its use continues ``C\&CS'') was so widespread among GPL enforcers that its use continues
even though GPLv3-focused experts tend to say just the defined term of even though GPLv3-focused experts tend to say just the defined term of
``Corresponding Source''.}, or, as GPLv3 officially calls it, ``Corresponding Source''.} or, as GPLv3 officially calls it,
``Corresponding Source'' in GPLv3~\S1\P4 is possibly the most complex ``Corresponding Source'' in GPLv3~\S1\P4 is possibly the most complex
definition in the license. definition in the license.
@ -3274,12 +3274,12 @@ interpreting Magnuson-Moss are in accord; see, e.g., \textit{Stroebner
Motors, Inc.~v.~Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.}, 459 F.~Supp.2d 1028, Motors, Inc.~v.~Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.}, 459 F.~Supp.2d 1028,
1033 (D.~Hawaii 2006).} Even a small amount of ``normal'' personal use 1033 (D.~Hawaii 2006).} Even a small amount of ``normal'' personal use
is enough to cause an entire product line to be treated as a consumer is enough to cause an entire product line to be treated as a consumer
product under Magnuson-Moss\footnote{\textit{Tandy Corp.~v.~Marymac product under Magnuson-Moss.\footnote{\textit{Tandy Corp.~v.~Marymac
Industries, Inc.}, 213 U.S.P.Q.~702 (S.D.~Tex.~1981). In this case, the Industries, Inc.}, 213 U.S.P.Q.~702 (S.D.~Tex.~1981). In this case, the
court concluded that TRS-80 microcomputers were consumer products, where court concluded that TRS-80 microcomputers were consumer products, where
such computers were designed and advertised for a variety of users, such computers were designed and advertised for a variety of users,
including small businesses and schools, and had only recently been including small businesses and schools, and had only recently been
promoted for use in the home.}. promoted for use in the home.}
However, Magnuson-Moss is not a perfect fit because in the area of components However, Magnuson-Moss is not a perfect fit because in the area of components
of dwellings, the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss is under-inclusive. of dwellings, the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss is under-inclusive.
@ -3778,9 +3778,9 @@ the material added or altered by the contributor, but also the pre-existing
material the contributor copied from the upstream version and retained in the material the contributor copied from the upstream version and retained in the
modified version. (GPLv3's usage of ``contributor'' and ``contribution'' should modified version. (GPLv3's usage of ``contributor'' and ``contribution'' should
not be confused with the various other ways in which those terms are used in not be confused with the various other ways in which those terms are used in
certain other free software licenses\footnote{Cf., e.g., Apache License, certain other free software licenses.\footnote{Cf., e.g., Apache License,
version 2.0, section 1; Eclipse Public License, version 1.0, section 1; version 2.0, section 1; Eclipse Public License, version 1.0, section 1;
Mozilla Public License, version 1.1, section 1.1.}.) Mozilla Public License, version 1.1, section 1.1.})
Some details of the ``essential patent claims'' definition deserve special Some details of the ``essential patent claims'' definition deserve special
mention. ``Essential patent claims'', for a given party, are a subset of the mention. ``Essential patent claims'', for a given party, are a subset of the
@ -3903,10 +3903,10 @@ availability option, so it remains.
Meanwhile, two specific alternatives to the source code availability option Meanwhile, two specific alternatives to the source code availability option
are also available. The distributor may comply by disclaiming the patent are also available. The distributor may comply by disclaiming the patent
license it has been granted for the conveyed work, or by arranging to extend license it has been granted for the conveyed work, or by arranging to extend
the patent license to downstream recipients\footnote{The latter option, if the patent license to downstream recipients.\footnote{The latter option, if
chosen, must be done ``in a manner consistent with the requirements of this chosen, must be done ``in a manner consistent with the requirements of this
License''; for example, it is unavailable if extension of the patent License''; for example, it is unavailable if extension of the patent
license would result in a violation of GPLv3~\S 12.}. The GPL is intended license would result in a violation of GPLv3~\S 12.} The GPL is intended
to permit private distribution as well as public distribution, and the to permit private distribution as well as public distribution, and the
addition of these options ensures that this remains the case, even though it addition of these options ensures that this remains the case, even though it
remains likely that distributors in this situation will usually choose the remains likely that distributors in this situation will usually choose the
@ -4884,11 +4884,11 @@ versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.
A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is
proprietary relicensing of a GPL'd code base. This is only an option for proprietary relicensing of a GPL'd code base. This is only an option for
software in which a particular entity holds exclusive rights to software in which a particular entity holds exclusive rights to
relicense\footnote{Entities typically hold exclusive relicensing rights relicense.\footnote{Entities typically hold exclusive relicensing rights
either by writing all the software under their own copyrights, collecting either by writing all the software under their own copyrights, collecting
copyright assignments from all contributors, or by otherwise demanding copyright assignments from all contributors, or by otherwise demanding
unconditional relicensing permissions from all contributors via some legal unconditional relicensing permissions from all contributors via some legal
agreement}. As discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is agreement} As discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is
permitted under copyright law to license a software system under her permitted under copyright law to license a software system under her
copyright as many different ways as she likes to as many different parties as copyright as many different ways as she likes to as many different parties as
she wishes. she wishes.