tex4ht supports "overlib" for footnote popups. The hack is pretty
straightforward; it dumps a Javascript area into a .js file that can
then be used by overlib to popup stuff.
This hack is to use that output to make the same thing work with jQuery
UI's tooltip widget.
Note that we run with overlib support first, then *without* it in the
Makefile setup. This is to force the needed .js file to be generated,
but make sure the HTML doesn't try to load overlib (which is default).
(This should be adapted as a patch to upstream tex4ht ultimately.)
Also included herein are improvements to the Makefile to build the HTML
output.
This change also fixes the location of the multiple image note, which
is better included after the note added in 3c15418 so that it's clear
what "This step" refers to.
Also added were notes on how we checked to confirm the kernel was
corresponding and commentary on why the toolchain issue was much less
severe than the toolchain issues we usually see.
Note that this chapter is not properly TeX-formatted. Some work will
need to be done to make it compile correctly. It should also be
generally expanded and made to flow more nicely, in the spirit of the
other case study chapters.
The older portions of this tutorial tended to favor the term "derivative
work", since that was the popular catch-all term used at the time the
text was written.
However, as the newer text regarding GPLv3 now states, FSF abandoned the
use of the term "derivative work" in the text of GPLv3 itself, for
various reasons we already discuss in the tutorial.
Therefore, the tutorial text itself should likely not rely so heavily on
the phrase "derivative work" throughout. This change herein reworks a
number of places where "derivative work" was used in the tutorial and
replaced it with other terms.
Ultimately, some word-smithing happened as part of the process of doing
this patch.
This situation is still unresolved, but it's not necessarily accurate to
say that negotiations continue per se, since the issue in question is
now widely known by the entire Free Software community and remains an
issue. (It should be obvious to the careful and informed observer what
situation this is.)
Given the wealth of text this chapter offers regarding derivative works,
this section really is necessary to give context on this point and
assure that the reader is not unduly swayed to believe that the
derivative work discussion is a central tenant of understanding
copyleft.
Long term, it may make sense to move the entire chapter on derivative
works to a different part of the tutorial. Historically, it was placed
here because when teaching courses on the subject based on this text, I
found as an instructor that questions about derivative works became so
rampant from students during discussions of GPLv2§2 / GPLv3§5 that
derivative works discussion ahead of time was the only way to quell the
onslaught of ultimately off-topic questions.
Thus, the placement of the derivative works section in this location may
in fact be merely an historical artifact that this text was written
originally to accompany an in-course presentation. While I'd still
recommend organizing a classroom presentation of these topics in that
order, I no longer believe the written materials must follow suit.
enyst was quite correct that more explanation was needed here about how
an entity achieves exclusive relicensing rights. However, the details
are somewhat off-point to what the section is trying to explain, so the
details are best placed in a footnote.
I've also separated out copyright assignment from generating all of
one's own copyrights. This may be a distinction without a difference,
but a laundry list seemed appropriate here. Perhaps this should be
shortened in future.
I've long been aware that GPLv2 "technically" governed private
modifications and that generally there were probably more requirements
on privately modified versions of GPLv2'd works than most people assumed
in practice, including commonly held public interpretation by FSF.
HT Wolvereness, who pointed out to me that GPLv3 solved that problem.
When I spoke to Fontana about it, he was indeed aware that this text was
"missing" in GPLv2 and that GPLv3 properly added it, through some
politics during the GPLv3 process.
I've added herein the ultimate historical conclusions about GPLv2's
interpretation and how GPLv3 clarified it. I've left out the color
about the politics of how it got added, not because they are not
interesting, relevant and germane to tutorial, but because we don't have
a good place yet in the tutorial for discussion of GPLv3 drafting
politics, and frankly if we have such a section, Fontana ought to write
it, not me.
This text needs to be clear that GPLv2§2 doesn't govern merely the act
of modification, but distributing modified versions (in whole or in
part). The previous text here wasn't clear on that point.
While both GPLv2 and GPLv3 have long been considered to grant unabridged
right to private modification, GPLv3 has much clearer and explicit
wording to this effect.
This should be noted when that paragraph is explained. This change
herein does that.
HT Wolvereness for pointing this difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 out
to me.
