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

Rework copyleft definition utilizing pasted text.

Browse source 
Some of the pasted text was useful as a method of introducing briefly
the legal details of copyleft, to an appropriate level of detail for
this initial copyleft definition found in the tutorial.  However,
substantial additional text was needed to both properly integrate the
pasted text, and also improve the copyleft definition overall in light
of the pasted text content.

Meanwhile, part of the pasted text definitely doesn't belong here, but I
noticed it likely makes a good addition to the introductory paragraph in
the derivative works section.
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-11-12 07:44:47 -05:00
parent 00ac5cfb9a
commit e36a9a4f4c
1 changed files with 61 additions and 41 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

102
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -492,56 +492,65 @@ of this work itself). Copyright holders of creative work can unilaterally
implement these licenses for their own works to build communities that
collaboratively share and improve those copylefted creative works.
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
Copyleft,
which uses functional parts of copyright law to achieve an unusual result
(legal protection for free sharing) forms the core legal principle of these
licenses. It modifies, or ``hacks'' copyright law, which is usually employed to
strengthen the rights of authors or publishers, to strengthen instead the
rights of users. %FIXME-URGENT: end
Copyleft is a legal strategy and mechanism to defend, uphold and propagate software
Copyleft uses functional parts of the copyright system to achieve an unusual
result (legal protection for free sharing). Copyleft modifies, or ``hacks''
copyright law, which is usually employed to strengthen the rights of authors
or publishers, to strengthen instead the rights of users. Thus, Copyleft is
a legal strategy and mechanism to defend, uphold and propagate software
freedom. The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the
software, license it under terms that give all the software freedoms, but
use the copyright law controls to ensure that all who receive a copy of
the software have equal rights and freedom. In essence, copyleft grants
freedom, but forbids others to forbid that freedom to anyone else along
the distribution and modification chains.
software, license it under terms that give all the software freedoms, but use
the copyright law controls to ensure that all who receive a copy of the
software have equal rights and freedom. In essence, copyleft grants freedom,
but forbids others to forbid that freedom to anyone else along the
distribution and modification chains.
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
This ``reciprocity'' or ``share and share alike'' rule protects both
Copyleft's ``reciprocity'' or ``share and share alike'' rule protects both
developers, who avoid facing a ``proprietized'' competitor of their project,
and users, who can be sure that they will have all four basic freedoms not
only in the present version of the program they use, but in all its future
improved versions.
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.
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
The unit of copyright law is ``the work''. In that sense, the ``work''
referenced by the licenses is anything that can be copyrighted or will be
subject to the terms of copyright law. The GNU licenses exercise their scope
fully. Anything which is ``a work'' or a ``work based on a work'' licensed
under GPL is subject to its requirements, including the requirement of
complete and corresponding source code, unless it is specifically
excepted. This principle often causes theoretical or speculative dispute
among lawyers, because ``the work'' is not a unit of computer programming. In
order to determine whether a ``routine'' an ``object'', a ``function'', a
``library'' or any other unit of software is part of one ``work'' when combined
with other GPL’d code, we must ask a question that copyright law will not
directly answer in the same technical terms.
The key here is that the GNU GPL licenses mean to ``plow fence row to fence
row'', covering every version of ``work based on the work'' recognized by local
copyright law, but no further.
%FIXME-URGENT: end
Copyleft is a general concept. Much like ideas for what a computer might
do must be \emph{implemented} by a program that actually does the job, so
too must copyleft be implemented in some concrete legal structure.
``Share and share alike'' is a phrase that is used often enough to explain the
concept behind copyleft, but to actually make it work in the real world, a
true implementation in legal text must exist. The GPL is the primary
implementation of copyleft in copyright licensing language.
true implementation in legal text must exist, written as a ``copyright
license''. The GPL implements the concept of copyleft for software-oriented
and other functional works of a technical nature. The ``CC BY SA'' license
implements copyleft for works of textual, musical and visual authorship, such
as this tutorial.
Copyleft advocates often distinguish between the concept of a ``strong
copyleft'' or a ``weak copyleft''. However, ``strong vs. weak'' copyleft is
not a dichotomy, it's a spectrum. The strongest copylefts strive to the
exclusive rights that copyright grants to authors as extensively as possible
to maximize software freedom. As a copyleft gets ``weaker'', the copyleft
license typically makes ``trade offs'' that might impede software freedom,
but reach other tactic goals for the community of users and developers of the
work.
In other words, strong copyleft licenses place the more requirements on how
``the work'' is licensed. The unit of copyright law is ``the work''. In
that sense, the ``work'' referenced by the licenses is anything that can be
copyrighted or will be subject to the terms of copyright law. Strong
copyleft licenses exercise their scope fully. Anything which is ``a work''
or a ``work based on a work'' licensed under a strong copyleft is subject to
its requirements, including the requirement of complete, corresponding source
code\footnote{Copyleft communities' use of the term ``strong copyleft'' is
undoubtedly imprecise. For example, most will call the GNU GPL a ``strong
copyleft'' license, even though the GPL itself has various exceptions, such
as the \hyperref[GPLv3-system-library-exception]{GPLv3's system library
exception} written into the text of the license itself. Furthermore, the
copyleft community continues to debate where the a license cross the line
from ``strong copyleft'' to ``license that fails to respect software
freedom'', although ultimately these debates are actually regarding whether
the license fits \hyperref[Free Software Definition]{Free Software
definition} at all.}. Thus, copyleft licenses, particularly strong ones,
seek to ensure the same license covers every version of ``work based on the
work'', as recognized by local copyright law, and thereby achieve the
specific strategic policy aim of ensuring software freedom for all users,
developers, authors, and readers who encounter the copylefted work.
\subsection{Software and Non-Copyright Legal Regimes}
\label{software-and-non-copyright}
@ -1176,6 +1185,16 @@ on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)
\chapter{Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law}
\label{derivative-works}
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
This principle often causes theoretical or
speculative dispute among lawyers, because ``the work'' is not a unit of
computer programming. In order to determine whether a ``routine'' an
``object'', a ``function'', a ``library'' or any other unit of software is
part of one ``work'' when combined with other GPL’d code, we must ask a
question that copyright law will not directly answer in the same technical
terms. (This issue
%END FIXME-URGENT
We digress for this chapter from our discussion of GPL's exact text to
consider the matter of derivative works --- a concept that we must
understand fully before considering GPLv2~\S\S2--3\@. The GPL, and Free
@ -2701,6 +2720,7 @@ modify a source code work by deleting any part of it, and there can be no
requirement that free software source code be a whole functioning program.
\subsection{The System Library Exception}
\label{GPLv3-system-library-exception}
The previous section skipped over one part of the CCS definition, the
so-called system library exception. The ``System Libraries'' definition (and