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

* As submitted to OSCON 2003

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2003-05-29 23:44:11 +00:00 • committed by Bradley M. Kuhn
parent 16f6215850
commit fcd203294a
1 changed files with 21 additions and 20 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

41
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -134,9 +134,9 @@ designed to defend and uphold these principles.
\label{Free Software Definition}
The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's website at
\href{http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html}{http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html}.
This section presents an abbreviated version that will focus on the parts
that are most pertinent to the terms of the GPL\@.
\verb0http://www.fsf.org/0 \verb0philosophy/free-sw.html0. This section
presents an abbreviated version that will focus on the parts that are most
pertinent to the terms of the GPL\@.
A particular program is Free Software if it grants a particular user of
that program, the following freedoms:
@ -165,8 +165,7 @@ Source''. Besides having a different political focus than those who call
it Free Software\footnote{The political differences between the Free
Software Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's
website at
\href{http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}
{http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}.},
{\tt http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}},
those who call the software ``Open Source'' are focused on a side issue.
User access to the source code of a program is a prerequisite to make use
of the freedom to modify. However, the important issue is what freedoms
@ -236,7 +235,7 @@ to commission software modification.
\subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}
Users may share Free Software in a variety of ways. Free Software
advocates work to eliminate fundamental ethical dilemma of the software
advocates work to eliminate a fundamental ethical dilemma of the software
age: choosing between obeying a software license, and friendship (by
giving away a copy of a program your friend who likes the software you are
using). Free Software licenses, therefore, must permit this sort of
@ -317,7 +316,7 @@ law\footnote{This statement is a bit of an oversimplification. Patents
source code can be practically obscured in binary-only distribution
without reliance on any legal system. However, the primary control
mechanism for software is copyright.}. Copyright law, with respect to
software governs copying, modifying, and redistributing that
software, governs copying, modifying, and redistributing that
software\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs ``public
performance'' of copyrighted works. There is no generally agreed
definition for public performance of software and version 2 of the GPL
@ -368,7 +367,7 @@ Software.
Carefully note that software in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
in any way. It is nonsensical to say software is ``licensed for the
public domain'', or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave an
public domain'', or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave
expressed permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
By contrast, what the copyright holder has done is renounce her copyright
@ -409,7 +408,7 @@ and that work of of defending software freedom is a substantial part of
its work today. Specifically because of this ``embrace, proprietarize and
extend'' cycle, FSF made a conscious choice to copyright its Free Software,
and then license it under ``copyleft'' terms, and many, including the
developers of the kernel named Linux have chosen to follow this paradigm.
developers of the kernel named Linux, have chosen to follow this paradigm.
Copyleft is a legal strategy to defend, uphold and propagate software
freedom. The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the
@ -470,10 +469,10 @@ it was deployed non-commercially in academic environments. However, very
soon for-profit companies discovered that the software could work for them
as well, and their system administrators began to use it in place of
Microsoft Windows NT file-servers. This served to lower the cost of
ownership by orders of magnitude. There was suddenly room in Windows
file-server budgets to hire contractors to improve Samba. Some of the first
people hired to do such work were those same two graduate students who
originally developed the software.
running such servers by orders of magnitude. There was suddenly room in
Windows file-server budgets to hire contractors to improve Samba. Some of
the first people hired to do such work were those same two graduate
students who originally developed the software.
The non-commercial users, however, were not concerned when these two
fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'ed work. They knew
@ -591,6 +590,7 @@ are the sections of the GPL that fundamentally define the legal details of
how software freedom is respected.
\section{GPL \S 0: Freedom to Run}
\label{GPLs0}
\S 0, the opening section of GPL, sets forth that the work is governed by
copyright law. It specifically points out that it is the ``copyright
@ -621,7 +621,7 @@ Fair use is a doctrine established by the courts or by statute. By
contrast, unregulated uses are those that are not covered by the statue
nor determined by a court to be covered, but are common and enjoyed by
many users. An example of unregulated use is reading a printout of the
programs source code like an instruction book for the purpose of learning
program's source code like an instruction book for the purpose of learning
how to be a better programmer.
\medskip
@ -644,7 +644,7 @@ because it clears up a common misconception about the GPL\@.
The GPL is often mistakenly criticized because it fails to give a
definition of ``derivative work''. In fact, it would be incorrect and
problematic if the GPL attempt to define this. A copyright license, in
problematic if the GPL attempted to define this. A copyright license, in
fact, has no control over what may or may not be a derivative work. This
matter is left up to copyright law, not the licenses that utilize it.
@ -655,6 +655,7 @@ even the GNU GPL -- can be blamed for this. Legislators and court
opinions must give us guidance to decide the border cases.
\section{GPL \S 1: Verbatim Copying}
\label{GPLs1}
GPL \S 1 covers the matter of redistributing the source code of a program
exactly as it was received. This section is quite straightforward.
@ -705,7 +706,7 @@ modifies a GPL'ed program, she is bound in the making those changes by \S
continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.
To achieve that goal, \S 2 first sets forth that the rights of
redistribution modified versions are the same as those for verbatim
redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim
copying, as presented in \S 1. Therefore, the details of charging,
keeping copyright notices intact, and other \S 1 provisions are in tact
here as well. However, there are three additional requirements.
@ -718,10 +719,10 @@ seeks to ensure that those receiving modified versions know what path it
took to them. For some users, it is important to know that they are using
the standard version of program, because while there are many advantages
to using a fork, there are a few disadvantages. Users should be informed
the historical context of the software version they use, so that they can
make proper support choices. Finally, \S 2(a) serves an academic purpose
--- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic approach to
understand the software.
about the historical context of the software version they use, so that
they can make proper support choices. Finally, \S 2(a) serves an academic
purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic approach
to understand the software.
\medskip