This text was originally written before GPLv3 existed, and as such it assumes
that "GPL" always means v2. Herein is the first attempt to rectify that
situation.
After the cherry-picking activity just completed in preceeding commits, the
file in the top-level directory named 'enforcement-case-studies.tex' now
includes a full history of all the improvements, with proper author dates,
names, and emails.
This includes a merger of the old history of
'Case-Studies-Ethics/case-study-ethics.tex', and newer history in
'Case-Studies-Ethics/new-case-study-ethics.tex',
Also removed herein are pdf files for the (new-)case-studies-ethics.tex file
that were apparently inadvertently added to the historical CVS repository.
I am relicensing these with verbal permission from John Sullivan, Executive
Director of the FSF, which was given to me during a conference call on
Wednesday 12 February 2014.
These were done by me in 2001 to handle generating HTML, Postscript, and PDF
all from the same LaTeX sources. Doing this is not as difficult as it once
was, as such, these files are no longer needed to achieve that goal.
However, it's still not automatic, so some additional stuff for formatting to
all types will need to be added later.
After the cherry-picking activity just completed in preceeding commits, the
file in the top-level directory named 'gpl-lgpl.tex' now includes a full
history of all the improvements, with proper author dates, names, and emails.
This includes a merger of the old history of 'GPL-Business/gpl-business.tex',
to the middle-period history in the 'GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl.tex', and the final
part of history found in 'GPL-LGPL/new-gpl-lgpl.tex'.
Also removed herein are dvi, pdf, and ps files for the new-gpl-lgpl.tex file
that were apparently inadvertently added to the historical CVS repository.
I am relicensing these with verbal permission from John Sullivan, Executive
Director of the FSF, which was given to me during a conference call on
Wednesday 12 February 2014.
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
