From ace387b0982499ea74b5b0be431d39c4f0da8d0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:21:11 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] More wordsmith and formatting fixes. --- gpl-lgpl.tex | 135 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-) diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index 8faa527..a3cdd66 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -1070,9 +1070,9 @@ GPL requires redistributors to keep the disclaimer very visible. (See Sections~\ref{GPLv2s11} and~\ref{GPLv2s12} of this tutorial for more on GPL's warranty disclaimers.) -Note finally that GPLv2~\S1 begins to set forth the important defense of -commercial freedom. GPLv2~\S1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim -copies, one may make money. Redistributors are fully permitted to charge +Note finally that GPLv2~\S1 creates groundwork for the important defense of +commercial freedom. GPLv2~\S1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim +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 @@ -1417,49 +1417,50 @@ requirements of GPLv2\@. \section{GPLv2~\S2: Share and Share Alike} For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software -freedom along the distribution chain. GPLv2~\S2 is the only place in the GPL -that governs the modification controls of copyright law. If someone -modifies a GPL'd program, she is bound in the making those changes by -GPLv2~\S2. The goal here is to ensure that the body of GPL'd software, as it +freedom upon redistribution. GPLv2~\S2 is the only place in GPLv2 +that governs the modification controls of copyright law. If users +modifies a GPLv2'd program, they must follow the terms of GPLv2~\S2 in making +those changes. Thus, this sections ensures that the body of GPL'd software, as it continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom. To achieve that goal, GPLv2~\S2 first sets forth that the rights of redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim -copying, as presented in GPLv2~\S1. Therefore, the details of charging, +copying, as presented in GPLv2~\S1. Therefore, the details of charging money, keeping copyright notices intact, and other GPLv2~\S1 provisions are in tact -here as well. However, there are three additional requirements. +here as well. However, there are three additional requirements. The first (GPLv2~\S2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent notices'' explaining what changes were made and the date of such -changes. The goal here is not to put forward some specific way of -marking changes nor controlling the process of how changes get made. +changes. This section does not prescribe some specific way of +marking changes nor does it control the process of how changes are made. Primarily, GPLv2~\S2(a) seeks to ensure that those receiving modified -versions know the history of changes to the software. For some users, +versions know the history of changes to the software. For some users, it is important to know that they are using the standard version of program, because while there are many advantages to using a fork, -there are a few disadvantages. Users should be informed about the +there are a few disadvantages. Users should be informed about the historical context of the software version they use, so that they can -make proper support choices. Finally, GPLv2~\S2(a) serves an academic +make proper support choices. Finally, GPLv2~\S2(a) serves an academic purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic approach to understand the software. \medskip The second requirement (GPLv2~\S2(b)) contains the four short lines that embody -the legal details of ``share and share alike.'' These 46 words are -considered by some to be the most worthy of careful scrutiny because GPLv2~\S2(b) +the legal details of ``share and share alike''. These 46 words are +considered by some to be the most worthy of careful scrutiny because +GPLv2~\S2(b), and they can be a source of great confusion when not properly understood. -In considering GPLv2~\S2(b), first note the qualifier: it only applies to -derivative works that ``you distribute or publish.'' Despite years of -education efforts by FSF on this matter, many still believe that modifiers -of GPL'd software are required by the license to publish or otherwise -share their changes. On the contrary, GPLv2~\S2(b) {\bf does not apply if} the -changes are never distributed. Indeed, the freedom to make private, +In considering GPLv2~\S2(b), first note the qualifier: it \textit{only} applies to +derivative works that ``you distribute or publish''. Despite years of +education efforts on this matter, many still believe that modifiers +of GPL'd software \textit{must} to publish or otherwise +share their changes. On the contrary, GPLv2~\S2(b) {\bf does not apply if} the +changes are never distributed. Indeed, the freedom to make private, personal, unshared changes to software for personal use only should be -protected and defended.\footnote{FSF does maintain that there is an {\bf - ethical} obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful, - and often encourages companies and individuals to do so. However, there +protected and defended.\footnote{Most Free Software enthusiasts believe there is an {\bf + moral} obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful, + and they often encourage 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.} @@ -1469,9 +1470,9 @@ following text: ``...that in whole or part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof.'' \end{quote} Again, the GPL relies here on what the copyright law says is a derivative -work. If, under copyright law, the modified version ``contains or is +work. If, under copyright law, the modified version ``contains or is derived from'' the GPL'd software, then the requirements of GPLv2~\S2(b) -apply. The GPL invokes its control as a copyright license over the +apply. The GPL invokes its control as a copyright license over the modification of the work in combination with its control over distribution of the work. @@ -1487,10 +1488,10 @@ Consider each subpart carefully. The work ``as a whole'' is what is to be licensed. This is an important point that GPLv2~\S2 spends an entire paragraph explaining; thus this phrase is -worthy of a lengthy discussion here. As a programmer modifies a software +worthy of a lengthy discussion here. As a programmer modifies a software program, she generates new copyrighted material --- fixing expressions of -ideas into the tangible medium of electronic file storage. That -programmer is indeed the copyright holder of those new changes. However, +ideas into the tangible medium of electronic file storage. That +programmer is indeed the copyright holder of those new changes. However, those changes are part and parcel to the original work distributed to the programmer under GPL\@. Thus, the license of the original work affects the license of the new whole derivative work. @@ -1503,7 +1504,7 @@ affects the license of the new whole derivative work. \label{separate-and-independent} It is certainly possible to take an existing independent work (called -\worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'd program (called \workg{}). The +\worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'd program (called \workg{}). The license of \worki{}, when it is distributed as a separate and independent work, remains the prerogative of the copyright holder of \worki{}. However, when \worki{} is combined with \workg{}, it produces a new work @@ -1512,95 +1513,93 @@ this combined work, \gplusi{}, is held by the original copyright holder of each of the two works. In this case, GPLv2~\S2 lays out the terms by which \gplusi{} may be -distributed and copied. By default, under copyright law, the copyright +distributed and copied. By default, under copyright law, the copyright holder of \worki{} would not have been permitted to distribute \gplusi{}; copyright law forbids it without the expressed permission of the copyright -holder of \workg{}. (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a Microsoft -product --- would they give you permission to create and distribute +holder of \workg{}. (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a proprietary +product --- would its copyright holders give you permission to create and distribute \gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?) The license of \workg{}, the -GPL, sets forth ahead of time options for the copyright holder of \worki{} -who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}. This pregranted +GPL, states the options for the copyright holder of \worki{} +who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}. GPL's pregranted permission to create and distribute derivative works, provided the terms 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 -say that this restriction is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous. +would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license. (Thus, to +say that this restriction is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.) \medskip -The next phrase of note in GPLv2~\S2(b) is ``licensed...at no charge.'' -This is a source of great confusion to many. Not a month goes by that -FSF does not receive an email that claims to point out ``a -contradiction in GPL'' because GPLv2~\S2 says that redistributors cannot +The next phrase of note in GPLv2~\S2(b) is ``licensed \ldots at no charge.'' +This phrase confuses many. The sloppy reader points out this as ``a +contradiction in GPL'' because (in their confused view) that clause of GPLv2~\S2 says that redistributors cannot charge for modified versions of GPL'd software, but GPLv2~\S1 says that -they can. The ``at no charge'' does not prohibit redistributors from +they can. Avoid this confusion: the ``at no charge'' \textbf{does not} prohibit redistributors from charging when performing the acts governed by copyright law,\footnote{Recall that you could by default charge for any acts not governed by copyright law, because the license controls are confined by copyright.} but rather that they cannot charge a fee for the -\emph{license itself}. In other words, redistributors of (modified +\emph{license itself}. In other words, redistributors of (modified and unmodified) GPL'd works may charge any amount they choose for performing the modifications on contract or the act of transferring the copy to the customer, but they may not charge a separate licensing fee for the software. -GPLv2~\S2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed...to all -third parties.'' This too has led to some confusions, and feeds the +GPLv2~\S2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed \ldots to all +third parties.'' This too yields some confusion, and feeds the misconception mentioned earlier --- that all modified versions must made -available to the public at large. However, the text here does not say -that. Instead, it says that the licensing under terms of the GPL must +available to the public at large. However, the text here does not say +that. Instead, it says that the licensing under terms of the GPL must extend to anyone who might, through the distribution chain, receive a copy -of the software. Distribution to all third parties is not mandated here, +of the software. Distribution to all third parties is not mandated here, but GPLv2~\S2(b) does require redistributors to license the derivative works in a way that extends to all third parties who may ultimately receive a copy of the software. In summary, GPLv2\ 2(b) says what terms under which the third parties must -receive this no-charge license. Namely, they receive it ``under the terms -of this License,'' the GPL. When an entity \emph{chooses} to redistribute -a derivative work of GPL'd software, the license of that whole derivative -work must be GPL and only GPL\@. In this manner, GPLv2~\S2(b) dovetails nicely +receive this no-charge license. Namely, they receive it ``under the terms +of this License'', the GPLv2. When an entity \emph{chooses} to redistribute +a derivative work of GPL'd software, the license of that whole +work must be GPL and only GPL\@. In this manner, GPLv2~\S2(b) dovetails nicely with GPLv2~\S6 (as discussed in Section~\ref{GPLv2s6} of this tutorial). \medskip -The final paragraph of GPLv2~\S2 is worth special mention. It is possible and +The final paragraph of GPLv2~\S2 is worth special mention. It is possible and quite common to aggregate various software programs together on one -distribution medium. Computer manufacturers do this when they ship a +distribution medium. Computer manufacturers do this when they ship a pre-installed hard drive, and GNU/Linux distribution vendors do this to give a one-stop CD or URL for a complete operating system with necessary -applications. The GPL very clearly permits such ``mere aggregation'' with -programs under any license. Despite what you hear from its critics, the +applications. The GPL very clearly permits such ``mere aggregation'' with +programs under any license. Despite what you hear from its critics, the GPL is nothing like a virus, not only because the GPL is good for you and a virus is bad for you, but also because simple contact with a GPL'd -code-base does not impact the license of other programs. Actual effort -must be expended by a programmer to cause a work to fall under the terms -of the GPL. Redistributors are always welcome to simply ship GPL'd +code-base does not impact the license of other programs. A programmer must +expended actual effort to cause a work to fall under the terms +of the GPL. Redistributors are always welcome to simply ship GPL'd software alongside proprietary software or other unrelated Free Software, as long as the terms of GPL are adhered to for those packages that are truly GPL'd. \section{GPLv2~\S3: Producing Binaries} \label{GPL-Section-3} -% FIXME: need name of a novelist who writes very obscurely and obliquely. 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, even one written by +obscured. Ultimately, the full text of a novel, even one written by William Faulkner, must presented to the reader as words in some -human-readable language so that they can enjoy the work. A film, even one +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 +Software is not so. While the source code --- the human-readable +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 +human-readable form. Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer can understand --- must be predicable and attainable for the software to -be fully useful. Without the binaries, be they in object or executable +be fully useful. Without the binaries, be they in object or executable form, the software serves only the didactic 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., +derivative works of the source code. Applying a systematic process (i.e., ``compilation'') to a work of source code yields binary code. The binary code is now a new work of expression fixed in the tangible medium of electronic file storage.