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

the gpl

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
donaldr3 2014-03-21 19:07:34 -04:00
parent 484ca88b81
commit c2415647a5
1 changed files with 6 additions and 6 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

12
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -3263,7 +3263,7 @@ copyright permissions the contributor granted to the licensee.
GPLv3~\S9 means what it says: mere receipt or execution of code neither
requires nor signifies contractual acceptance under the GPL. Speaking more
broadly, GPLv3 is intentionally structured our license as a unilateral grant
broadly, GPLv3 is intentionally structured as a unilateral grant
of copyright permissions, the basic operation of which exists outside of any
law of contract. Whether and when a contractual relationship is formed
between licensor and licensee under local law do not necessarily matter to
@ -3365,7 +3365,7 @@ preventing that act cannot be unfair).
However, the second argument seems valid in a practical sense. A
typical GNU/Linux distribution includes thousands of programs. It would
be quite difficult for a redistributor with a large patent portfolio to
be quite difficult for a re-distributor with a large patent portfolio to
review all those programs against that portfolio every time it receives
and passes on a new version of the distribution. Moreover, this question
raises a strategic issue. If the GPLv3 patent license requirements
@ -3457,7 +3457,7 @@ patent claims.
\subsection{Conveyors' Patent Licensing}
The remaining patent licensing in GPLv3 deals with patent licenses that are
granted by conveyance. The licensing is not as complete or far reaching at
granted by conveyance. The licensing is not as complete or far reaching as
the contributor patent licenses discussed in the preceding section.
The term ``patent license,'' as used in GPLv3~\S11\P4--6, is not meant to be
@ -3494,11 +3494,11 @@ CCS to be publicly available. (In such a case, if the distributor is also a
contributor, it will already have granted a patent sublicense anyway, and so
it need not do anything further to comply with the third paragraph.)
Admittedly, public disclosure of CCS is not necessarily required in by other
Admittedly, public disclosure of CCS is not necessarily required by other
sections of the GPL, and the FSF in drafting GPLv3 did not necessarily wish
to impose a general requirement to make source code available to all, which
has never been a GPL condition. However, many vendors who produce products
that include copylefted software, and who most likely to be affected by the
that include copylefted software, and who are most likely to be affected by the
downstream shielding provision, lobbied for the addition of the source code
availability option, so it remains.
@ -3737,7 +3737,7 @@ Terms to Your New Programs'' to just the bare essentials.
As we have seen in our consideration of the GPL, its text is specifically
designed to cover all possible derivative works under copyright law. Our
goal in designing GPL was to make sure that any derivative work of GPL'd
goal in designing the GPL was to make sure that any derivative work of GPL'd
software was itself released under GPL when distributed. Reaching as far
as copyright law will allow is the most direct way to reach that goal.