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

Spell check.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-20 20:56:36 -04:00 • committed by donaldr3
parent 730a079cc7
commit ab4861b27e
1 changed files with 41 additions and 18 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

59
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ among friends.
The commercial environment also benefits of this freedom. Commercial sharing The commercial environment also benefits of this freedom. Commercial sharing
includes selling copies of Free Software: that is, Free Software can includes selling copies of Free Software: that is, Free Software can
be distribted for any monetary be distributed for any monetary
price to anyone. Those who redistribute Free Software commercially also have price to anyone. Those who redistribute Free Software commercially also have
the freedom to selectively distribute (i.e., you can pick your customers) and the freedom to selectively distribute (i.e., you can pick your customers) and
to set prices at any level that redistributor sees fit. to set prices at any level that redistributor sees fit.
@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.
For commercial support to exist in a competitive free market, all For commercial support to exist in a competitive free market, all
developers -- from single-person contractors to large software developers -- from single-person contractors to large software
companies -- must have the freedom to market their services as companies -- must have the freedom to market their services as
improvers of Free Software. All forms of such service marketing must augmenters of Free Software. All forms of such service marketing must
be equally available to all. be equally available to all.
For example, selling support services for Free Software is fully For example, selling support services for Free Software is fully
@ -827,7 +827,7 @@ were simply copied and rewritten slightly for each new use\footnote{It
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 reuable 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
@ -944,7 +944,7 @@ This is admittedly a frustrating outcome.
Other copyleft licenses that appeared after GPL, such Other copyleft licenses that appeared after GPL, such
as the Creative Commons ``Share Alike'' licenses, the Eclipse Public License as the Creative Commons ``Share Alike'' licenses, the Eclipse Public License
and the Mozilla Public License \textbf{require} all copyright holders chosing and the Mozilla Public License \textbf{require} all copyright holders choosing
to use any version of those licenses to automatically accept and relicense 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 Eclipse Foundation, and the Mozilla Foundation (like the FSF) have generally
@ -1098,13 +1098,13 @@ Also mentioned by name is the warranty disclaimer. Most people today do
not believe that software comes with any warranty. Notwithstanding the not believe that software comes with any warranty. Notwithstanding the
\href{http://mlis.state.md.us/2000rs/billfile/hb0019.htm}{Maryland's} and \href{http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?001+ful+SB372ER}{Virginia's} UCITA bills, there are few or no implied warranties with software. \href{http://mlis.state.md.us/2000rs/billfile/hb0019.htm}{Maryland's} and \href{http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?001+ful+SB372ER}{Virginia's} UCITA bills, there are few or no implied warranties with software.
However, just to be on the safe side, GPL clearly disclaims them, and the However, just to be on the safe side, GPL clearly disclaims them, and the
GPL requires redistributors to keep the disclaimer very visible. (See GPL requires re distributors to keep the disclaimer very visible. (See
Sections~\ref{GPLv2s11} and~\ref{GPLv2s12} of this tutorial for more on GPL's Sections~\ref{GPLv2s11} and~\ref{GPLv2s12} of this tutorial for more on GPL's
warranty disclaimers.) warranty disclaimers.)
Note finally that GPLv2~\S1 creates groundwork for the important defense of Note finally that GPLv2~\S1 creates groundwork for the important defense of
commercial freedom. GPLv2~\S1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim commercial freedom. GPLv2~\S1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim
copies, one may make money. Redistributors are fully permitted to charge copies, one may make money. Re distributors are fully permitted to charge
for the redistribution of copies of Free Software. In addition, they may for the redistribution of copies of Free Software. In addition, they may
provide the warranty protection that the GPL disclaims as an additional provide the warranty protection that the GPL disclaims as an additional
service for a fee. (See Section~\ref{Business Models} for more discussion service for a fee. (See Section~\ref{Business Models} for more discussion
@ -1397,7 +1397,7 @@ interpretation of copyright law. Therefore, uncertainty exists with
respect to determining the extent to which a software program is a respect to determining the extent to which a software program is a
derivative work of another in those circuits. However, one may presume derivative work of another in those circuits. However, one may presume
that they would give deference to the AFC test since it is by far the that they would give deference to the AFC test since it is by far the
majority rule amongst those circuits that have a standard for defining majority rule among those circuits that have a standard for defining
a software derivative work. a software derivative work.
\section{Cases Applying Software Derivative Work Analysis} \section{Cases Applying Software Derivative Work Analysis}
@ -1439,14 +1439,14 @@ structure and taxonomy of the APIs were not protectable under copyright law.
Specifically, the court characterized the command structure and taxonomy as Specifically, the court characterized the command structure and taxonomy as
both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the
First Circuit's analysis in Lotus) and a ``functional requirement for First Circuit's analysis in Lotus) and a ``functional requirement for
compatability'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and compatibility'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and
Sony Computer Ent. v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) as analogies), Sony Computer Ent. v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) as analogies),
and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S~102(b). and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S~102(b).
Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few other cases involving a highly Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few other cases involving a highly
detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve
clearer basis for decision, including frequent bad faith on the part of clearer basis for decision, including frequent bad faith on the part of
the defendant or overaggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff. the defendant or over-aggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
@ -1565,7 +1565,7 @@ holder of \workg{}. (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a proprietary
product --- would its copyright holders give you permission to create and distribute product --- would its copyright holders give you permission to create and distribute
\gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?) The license of \workg{}, the \gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?) The license of \workg{}, the
GPL, states the options for the copyright holder of \worki{} GPL, states the options for the copyright holder of \worki{}
who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}. GPL's pregranted who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}. GPL's pre-granted
permission to create and distribute derivative works, provided the terms permission to create and distribute derivative works, provided the terms
of GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one of GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license. (Thus, to would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license. (Thus, to
@ -1715,7 +1715,7 @@ GPL'd software into mobile devices with very tight memory and space
constraints. In such cases, putting the source right alongside the constraints. In such cases, putting the source right alongside the
binaries on the machine itself might not be an option. While it is binaries on the machine itself might not be an option. While it is
recommended that this be the default way that people comply with GPL, the recommended that this be the default way that people comply with GPL, the
GPL does provide options when such distribution is infeasible. GPL does provide options when such distribution is unfeasible.
\label{GPLv2s3-medium-customarily} \label{GPLv2s3-medium-customarily}
GPLv2~\S3, therefore, allows source code to be provided on any physical GPLv2~\S3, therefore, allows source code to be provided on any physical
@ -1885,7 +1885,7 @@ Inc. v. Pan Man, Inc., 228 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Additionally, the
Federal Circuit extended that rule to include any future recipients of the Federal Circuit extended that rule to include any future recipients of the
patented article, not just the direct recipient from the distributor. patented article, not just the direct recipient from the distributor.
This theory comports well with the idea of Free Software, whereby software This theory comports well with the idea of Free Software, whereby software
is distributed amongst many entities within the community for the purpose is distributed among many entities within the community for the purpose
of constant evolution and improvement. In this way, the law of implied of constant evolution and improvement. In this way, the law of implied
patent license used by the GPLv2 ensures that the community mutually patent license used by the GPLv2 ensures that the community mutually
benefits from the licensing of patents to any single community member. benefits from the licensing of patents to any single community member.
@ -1920,7 +1920,7 @@ infringement claims against the non-GPLv2-compliant party and
infringement of the patent, because the implied patent license only infringement of the patent, because the implied patent license only
extends to use of the software in accordance with the GPLv2. Further, if extends to use of the software in accordance with the GPLv2. Further, if
Company \compB{} distributes a competitive advanced Web browsing program Company \compB{} distributes a competitive advanced Web browsing program
that is not a derivative work of Company \compA{}'s GPL'ed Web browsing software that is not a derivative work of Company \compA{}'s GPL'd Web browsing software
program, Company \compA{} is free to assert its patent against any user or program, Company \compA{} is free to assert its patent against any user or
distributor of that product. It is irrelevant whether Company \compB's distributor of that product. It is irrelevant whether Company \compB's
program is also distributed under the GPLv2, as Company \compB{} can not grant program is also distributed under the GPLv2, as Company \compB{} can not grant
@ -2017,7 +2017,7 @@ valid. This has led to mechanisms like ``shrink-wrap'' and ``click-wrap''
as mechanisms to perform acceptance ceremonies with EULAs. as mechanisms to perform acceptance ceremonies with EULAs.
The GPL does not need contract law to ``transfer rights.'' Usually, no rights The GPL does not need contract law to ``transfer rights.'' Usually, no rights
are transfered between parties. By contrast, the GPL is primarily a permission are transferred between parties. By contrast, the GPL is primarily a permission
slip to undertake activities that would otherwise have been prohibited slip to undertake activities that would otherwise have been prohibited
by copyright law. As such, GPL needs no acceptance ceremony; the by copyright law. As such, GPL needs no acceptance ceremony; the
licensee is not even required to accept the license. licensee is not even required to accept the license.
@ -2912,7 +2912,7 @@ limitation or further obligation.
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 thwart
technical measures such as signature checks in hardware to prevent technical measures such as signature checks in hardware to prevent
modification of GPLed software on a device. modification of GPL'd software on a device.
To address this issue, GPLv3~\S6 requires that parties distributing object To address this issue, GPLv3~\S6 requires that parties distributing object
code provide recipients with the source code through certain means. When code provide recipients with the source code through certain means. When
@ -2997,7 +2997,7 @@ 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 underinclusive. of dwellings, the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss under-inclusive.
Depending on how such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may Depending on how such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may
not be considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products.\footnote{Building not be considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products.\footnote{Building
materials that are purchased directly by a consumer from a retailer, for materials that are purchased directly by a consumer from a retailer, for
@ -3324,7 +3324,7 @@ However, the patent licensing practices that GPLv2~\S7 (corresponding to
GPLv3~\S12) is designed to prevent is only one of several ways in which GPLv3~\S12) is designed to prevent is only one of several ways in which
software patents threaten to make free programs non-free and to prevent users software patents threaten to make free programs non-free and to prevent users
from exercising their rights under the GPL. GPLv3 takes a more comprehensive from exercising their rights under the GPL. GPLv3 takes a more comprehensive
approach to combatting the danger of patents. approach to combating the danger of patents.
GPLv2~\S7 has seen some success in deterring conduct that would otherwise GPLv2~\S7 has seen some success in deterring conduct that would otherwise
result in denial of full downstream enjoyment of GPL rights, and thus it is result in denial of full downstream enjoyment of GPL rights, and thus it is
@ -3528,7 +3528,7 @@ this make a mockery of free software, and we must do everything in our power
to stop them. to stop them.
First, GPLv3~\S11\P6 states that any license that protects some recipients of First, GPLv3~\S11\P6 states that any license that protects some recipients of
GPLed software must be extended to all recipients of the software. GPL'd software must be extended to all recipients of the software.
If conveyors arrange to provide patent If conveyors arrange to provide patent
protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that
protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software, protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software,
@ -4338,3 +4338,26 @@ compliance in new situations.
% ===================================================================== % =====================================================================
% END OF FIRST DAY SEMINAR SECTION % END OF FIRST DAY SEMINAR SECTION
% ===================================================================== % =====================================================================
%% LocalWords: Sebro Novalis Ravicher GPLv GPL'd copylefted LGPLv OSI USC
%% LocalWords: noncommercially counterintuitive Berne copyrightable DRM UC
%% LocalWords: proprietarize proprietarization Stallman's Tridgell's RMS
%% LocalWords: Lessig Lessig's Stallman Proto GPLs proto Tai pre GPL's ful
%% LocalWords: legalbol AGPLv Runtime licensor licensors relicense UCITA
%% LocalWords: unprotectable Intl nd th Kepner Tregoe Bando Indust Mitel
%% LocalWords: Iqtel Bateman Mitek Arce protectable hoc faire de minimis
%% LocalWords: Borland Int'l uncopyrightable LLC APIs Ent Connectix DVD's
%% LocalWords: redistributor diachronic unshared subpart redistributors
%% LocalWords: CDs userbase reshifts licensor's distributee impliedly Mgmt
%% LocalWords: patentee relicenses irrevocability Jacobsen Katzer TRW CCS
%% LocalWords: Unfreedonia administrivia Relicensing impermissibly centric
%% LocalWords: permissibility firehose bytecode minified Javascript DLLs
%% LocalWords: preprocessors functionalities offsite sublicensing DMCA CFR
%% LocalWords: anticircumvention WIPO BitTorrent multidirectional Magnuson
%% LocalWords: subdefinition Dryvit Stroebner Tandy TRS superset LGPL SLES
%% LocalWords: cryptographic relicensing removability sublicensed Novell
%% LocalWords: anticompetitive administrability sublicensable licensable
%% LocalWords: sublicense sublicensees sublicenses affixation Novell's
%% LocalWords: severability Affero LGPL'd lingua franca glibc facto LGPL's
%% LocalWords: relicensed runtime subunits relink downloadable MontaVista
%% LocalWords: CodeSourcery OpenTV MySQL TrollTech