* Wrote about GPL Section 4
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn
parent
c098468ba8
commit
f305c5500a
2 changed files with 94 additions and 7 deletions
|
|
@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
|
|||
section.
|
||||
(section{GPL \S 2: Share and Share Alike}): Wrote section.
|
||||
(section{GPL \S 3: Producing Binaries}): Wrote section.
|
||||
(chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}): Flushed
|
||||
out outline some.
|
||||
(section{GPL \S 4: Termination on Violation}): Wrote section.
|
||||
|
||||
2003-05-28 Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@fsf.org>
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -155,8 +155,9 @@ that program, the following freedoms:
|
|||
The focus on ``a particular user'' is very pertinent here. It is not
|
||||
uncommon for the same version of a specific program to grant these
|
||||
freedoms to some subset of its user base, while others have none or only
|
||||
some of these freedoms. Section~\ref{relicensing} talks in detail about
|
||||
how this can happen even if a program is released under the GPL\@.
|
||||
some of these freedoms. Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in
|
||||
detail about how this can happen even if a program is released under the
|
||||
GPL\@.
|
||||
|
||||
Some people refer to software that gives these freedoms as ``Open
|
||||
Source''. Besides having a different political focus than those who call
|
||||
|
|
@ -970,7 +971,7 @@ Internet (i.e., ``from a designated place''), \emph{then} simply providing
|
|||
the source code right alongside the binaries in the same place is
|
||||
sufficient to comply with \S 3.
|
||||
|
||||
\midskip
|
||||
\medskip
|
||||
|
||||
As is shown above, Under \S 3(a), embedded manufacturers can put the
|
||||
binaries on the device and ship the source code along on a CD\@. However,
|
||||
|
|
@ -1050,16 +1051,90 @@ only rarely a better option than complying via \S 3(a).
|
|||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\chapter{Defending Freedom On Many Fronts}
|
||||
|
||||
\section{GPL, Section 4}
|
||||
The last chapter presented the core freedom-defending provisions of GPL\@,
|
||||
which are in \S\S 0--3. \S\S 4--7 of the GPL are designed to ensure that
|
||||
\S\S 0--3 are not infringed, are enforcable, are kept to the confines of
|
||||
copyright law and are not trumped by other copyright agreements or
|
||||
components of other entirely seperate legal systems. In short, while \S\S
|
||||
0--3 are the parts of the license that defend the freedoms of users and
|
||||
programmers, \S\S 4--7 are the parts of the license that keep the playing
|
||||
field clear so that \S\S 0--3 can do their jobs.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{GPL \S 4: Termination on Violation}
|
||||
\label{GPLs4}
|
||||
|
||||
\section{GPL, Section 5}
|
||||
\S 4--5 are, in my opinion, the heart of the GPL\@. \S\S 0--3 are
|
||||
important in their efforts to set forth in clear legal langauge the
|
||||
doctrine of copyleft. However, \S 4--5 are the glue that holds \S\S 0--3
|
||||
together.
|
||||
|
||||
\S 4 is GPL's termination clause. Upon first examination, it seems
|
||||
strange for a license that has the goal of defending users and programmers
|
||||
freedoms for perpetuity in an irrevocable way would have such a clause.
|
||||
However, upon further examination, the difference between irrevocability
|
||||
and this termination clause becomes clear.
|
||||
|
||||
The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder grants
|
||||
rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the software under
|
||||
terms of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that grant. Since the GPL has
|
||||
no provision allowing the copyright holder to take such a pregoative, the
|
||||
license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect\footnote{In
|
||||
the USA< due to unfortunate legislation, this is nearly perpetual, even
|
||||
though the Constitution forbids it.}. The copyright holder has the
|
||||
right to relicense the same work under different licenses (see
|
||||
Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} of this tutorial), or to stop
|
||||
distributing the GPL'ed version (assuming \S 3(b) was never used), but the
|
||||
she may not revoke the rights under GPL already granted.
|
||||
|
||||
In fact, when an entity looses their right to copy, modify and distribute
|
||||
GPL'ed software, it is because of their \emph{own actions}, not that of
|
||||
the copyright holder. The copyright holder does not decided when \S 4
|
||||
termination occurs (if ever), the actions of the licensee does.
|
||||
|
||||
Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to
|
||||
the licensee to perform specific types of copying, modification, and
|
||||
redistribution. By default, all other types of copying, modification, and
|
||||
redistribution are prohibited. \S 4 says that if you undertake any of
|
||||
those other types (e.g., redistributing binary-only in violation of \S 3),
|
||||
then all rights under the license --- even those otherwise permitted for
|
||||
those who have not violated --- terminate automatically.
|
||||
|
||||
\S 4 gives GPL teeth. If licensees fail to adhere to the license, then
|
||||
they are stuck. They must to completely cease and desist from all
|
||||
copying, modification and distribution of that GPL'ed software.
|
||||
|
||||
At that point, violating licensees must gain the forgiveness of the
|
||||
copyright holder to have their rights restored. Alternatively, they could
|
||||
negotiate another agreement, seperate from GPL, with the copyright
|
||||
holder. Both are common practice.
|
||||
|
||||
At FSF, it is part of the mission to spread software freedom. When FSF
|
||||
enforces GPL, the goal is to bring the violator back into compliance as
|
||||
quickly as possible, and redress the damage caused by the violation.
|
||||
That is FSF's steadfast position in a violation negotation --- comply
|
||||
with the license and respect freedom.
|
||||
|
||||
However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software
|
||||
freedom as institiualized by FSF persue GPL violations differently. MySQL
|
||||
AB, a company that produces the GPL'ed MySQL database, upon discovering
|
||||
GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software license
|
||||
sepearately for a fee. While this practice is not one that FSF would ever
|
||||
consider undertaking or even endorsing, it is a legal way for copyright
|
||||
holders to proceed.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{GPL \S 5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}
|
||||
\label{GPLs5}
|
||||
|
||||
\section{GPL, Section 6}
|
||||
Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to
|
||||
the licensee to perform acts of copying, modification, and redistribution
|
||||
that would otherwise have been prohibited by default. Since, barring
|
||||
special permission from the copyright holder, the GPL is a licensee's one
|
||||
and only license to the software (thanks to \S 6),
|
||||
|
||||
\section{GPL \S 6: GPL, My One and Only}
|
||||
\label{GPLs6}
|
||||
|
||||
\section{GPL, Section 7}
|
||||
\section{GPL \S 7: ``Give My Software Liberty of Give It Death!''}
|
||||
\label{GPLs7}
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
|
|
@ -1101,6 +1176,15 @@ warranties that cannot be disclaimed (such as personal injury, etc.).
|
|||
\section{Business Models}
|
||||
\label{Business Models}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Redistribution Sales}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Custom Modification on Contract}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Proprietary Relicensing}
|
||||
\label{Proprietary Relicensing}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Ongoing Compliance}
|
||||
|
||||
\appendix
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue