Spell check and correction.
Seems there were a lot of correctly spelled words missing from the LocalWords lists as well.
This commit is contained in:
parent
20f710d605
commit
d2e67f88c3
2 changed files with 15 additions and 8 deletions
|
@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ of modifying the works include innumerable common acts, such as:
|
|||
\item embedding those works as executable copies
|
||||
into a device,
|
||||
|
||||
\item transferring a digital copy of excutable copies to someone else,
|
||||
\item transferring a digital copy of executable copies to someone else,
|
||||
|
||||
\item posting a patch to the copylefted software to a public mailing list.
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -994,7 +994,7 @@ risk from a copylefted code snippet that some programmer dropped in your
|
|||
proprietary product careless of the consequences is a problem far more
|
||||
infrequent and less difficult to resolve. Efficient management of the risks
|
||||
of higher concern lies in making sure you can provide, for example, precisely
|
||||
CCS for a copy of Coreboot, the kernel named Linux, Busybox, or GNU tar that
|
||||
CCS for a copy of Coreboot, the kernel named Linux, BusyBox, or GNU tar that
|
||||
you included in a product your company shipped two years ago than in the risk
|
||||
of 10 lines of GPL'd Java code an engineer accidentally pasted into the
|
||||
source of your ERP system.
|
||||
|
@ -1477,4 +1477,9 @@ ready-made for their products.
|
|||
% LocalWords: redistributors NeXT's Slashdot Welte gpl ISC embedders BusyBox
|
||||
% LocalWords: someone's downloadable subdirectory subdirectories filesystem
|
||||
% LocalWords: roadmap README upstream's Ravicher's FOSSology readme CDs iPhone
|
||||
% LocalWords: makefiles violator's
|
||||
% LocalWords: makefiles violator's Michlmayr Stallman RMS GPL'd Harald LGPL
|
||||
%% LocalWords: GPL's resellers copylefted sublicenses GPLv unmanaged MySQL
|
||||
%% LocalWords: misassessments licensor COGEOs COGEO LGPLv CCS Requestors
|
||||
%% LocalWords: codebase Yocto distributees COGEO's Coreboot ERP reseller
|
||||
%% LocalWords: redistributor reinstatements decompilation acquired's grey
|
||||
%% LocalWords: upgradable unmodifiable Relicensing relicensing
|
||||
|
|
12
gpl-lgpl.tex
12
gpl-lgpl.tex
|
@ -505,7 +505,7 @@ but forbids others to forbid that freedom to anyone else along the
|
|||
distribution and modification chains.
|
||||
|
||||
Copyleft's ``reciprocity'' or ``share and share alike'' rule protects both
|
||||
developers, who avoid facing a ``proprietized'' competitor of their project,
|
||||
developers, who avoid facing a ``prioritized'' competitor of their project,
|
||||
and users, who can be sure that they will have all four software freedoms ---
|
||||
not only in the present version of the program they use, but in all its
|
||||
future improved versions.
|
||||
|
@ -2102,8 +2102,8 @@ with respect to the licensed software.
|
|||
For example, if Company \compA{} has a patent on advanced Web browsing, but
|
||||
also licenses a Web browsing program under the GPLv2, then it
|
||||
cannot assert the patent against any party based on that party's use of
|
||||
Company \compA{}'s GPL'ed Web browsing software program, or on that party's
|
||||
creation and use of modified versions of that GPL'ed program. However, if a
|
||||
Company \compA{}'s GPL'd Web browsing software program, or on that party's
|
||||
creation and use of modified versions of that GPL'd program. However, if a
|
||||
party uses that program without
|
||||
complying with the GPLv2, then Company \compA{} can assert both copyright
|
||||
infringement claims against the non-GPLv2-compliant party and
|
||||
|
@ -3385,7 +3385,7 @@ limitation, could transform a GPL'd program into a non-free one.
|
|||
Due to the latter fear, historically, GPLv2 did not permit any additional
|
||||
requirements. However, over time,
|
||||
many copyright holders generally tolerated certain types of benign additional requirements
|
||||
merely through a ``failure to enforce'' estoppelesque scenario. Therefore, GPLv3 allows
|
||||
merely through a ``failure to enforce'' estoppel-esque scenario. Therefore, GPLv3 allows
|
||||
for some specific limited requirement variations that GPLv2 technically prohibits.
|
||||
|
||||
With these principles in the background, GPLv3~\S7 answers the following
|
||||
|
@ -4965,4 +4965,6 @@ compliance and compliance case studies.
|
|||
%% 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
|
||||
%% LocalWords: CodeSourcery OpenTV MySQL TrollTech Michlmayr Copyleft's
|
||||
%% LocalWords: GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic privity Downstream's Jaeger
|
||||
%% LocalWords: Jaeger's copyleft's executables estoppel infringer
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue