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

multiple copy edits

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
donaldr3 2014-03-21 17:50:54 -04:00
parent c6183da7fd
commit a4feaf97bf
1 changed files with 2 additions and 3 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

5
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -2457,7 +2457,7 @@ readily substituted by other existing implementations. While copyleft
advocates never doubted this was required under GPLv2's definition of CCS,
GPLv3 makes it abundantly clear with an extra example.
GPL, as always, seeks to ensure users are truly in a position to install and
The GPL, as always, seeks to ensure users are truly in a position to install and
run their modified versions of the program; the CCS definition is designed to
be expansive to ensure this software freedom. However, although the
definition of CCS is expansive, it is not sufficient to protect users'
@ -2492,14 +2492,13 @@ The previous section skipped over one part of the CCS definition, the
so-called system library exception. The ``System Libraries'' definition (and
the ``Standard Interface'' and ``Major Component'' definitions, which it
includes) are designed as part
to permit certain distribution arrangements that are considered reasonable by
copyleft advocates. The system library exception is designed to allow
copylefted software to link with these libraries when such linking would hurt
software freedom more than it would hurt proprietary software.
The system library exception has two parts. Part (a) rewords the GPLv2
exception for clarity replaces GPLv2's words ``unless that component itself
exception for clarity replacing GPLv2's words ``unless that component itself
accompanies the executable'' with ``which is not part of the Major
Component''. The goal here is to not require disclosure of source code of
certain libraries, such as necessary Microsoft Windows DLLs (which aren't