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

the everywhere

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
donaldr3 2014-03-21 19:15:20 -04:00
parent 5545101088
commit c6063eca3c
1 changed files with 7 additions and 7 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

14
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -3774,10 +3774,10 @@ on modern GNU/Linux systems, which all use the GNU C Library).
Unlike existing GNU application software, however, the licensing
implications of releasing the GNU C Library (``glibc'') under the GPL were
somewhat different. Applications released under GPL would never
somewhat different. Applications released under the GPL would never
themselves become part of proprietary software. However, if glibc were
released under GPL, it would require that any application distributed for
the GNU/Linux platform be released under GPL\@.
released under the GPL, it would require that any application distributed for
the GNU/Linux platform be released under the GPL\@.
Since all applications on a Unix-like system depend on the C library, it
means that they must link with that library to function on the system. In
@ -3799,7 +3799,7 @@ to anyone who wished to write proprietary software for GNU/Linux systems.
The de-facto standard for the C library on GNU/Linux would likely be not
glibc, but the most popular proprietary one.
Meanwhile, the actual goal of releasing glibc under GPL --- to ensure no
Meanwhile, the actual goal of releasing glibc under the GPL --- to ensure no
proprietary applications on GNU/Linux --- would be unattainable in this
scenario. Furthermore, users of those proprietary applications would also
be users of a proprietary C library, not the Free glibc.
@ -3807,7 +3807,7 @@ be users of a proprietary C library, not the Free glibc.
The Lesser GPL was initially conceived to handle this scenario. It was
clear that the existence of proprietary applications for GNU/Linux was
inevitable. Since there were so many C libraries already in existence, a
new one under GPL would not stop that tide. However, if the new C library
new one under the GPL would not stop that tide. However, if the new C library
were released under a license that permitted proprietary applications
to link with it, but made sure that the library itself remained Free,
an ancillary goal could be met. Users of proprietary applications, while
@ -3862,7 +3862,7 @@ used to allow original copyright holders to forbid distribution in
countries with draconian laws that would otherwise contradict these
licenses.
LGPLv2.1~\S13 sets up FSF as the steward of the LGPL, just as GPLv2~\S9
LGPLv2.1~\S13 sets up the FSF as the steward of the LGPL, just as GPLv2~\S9
does for GPL. Meanwhile, LGPLv2.1~\S14 reminds licensees that copyright
holders can grant exceptions to the terms of LGPL, just as GPLv2~\S10
reminds licensees of the same thing.
@ -3878,7 +3878,7 @@ same legal mechanisms and are enforced precisely the same way.
We strike a difference only in the early portions of the license.
Namely, in the LGPL we go into deeper detail of granting various permissions to
create derivative works, so the redistributors can make
create derivative works, so the re-distributors can make
some proprietary derivatives. Since we simply do not allow the
license to stretch as far as copyright law does regarding what
derivative works must be relicensed under the same terms, we must go