The original text for this case study was developed as the final
chapter, as sort of a "you heard about the rest, now try the best"
approach. However, I think we want to put this one first. "Hope before
despair" is perhaps a better attitude?
The diff on this one didn't come out so clean, so it's a bit difficult
to see that I'm just moving a big block of text up.
I diffed it against a version of this file, from:
commit 2f2e5f9e4c on 2014-10-15 22:14:45 -0400
that was before work began on this chapter, and the diff was relatively
clean.
Joshua Gay made contributions to all the files earlier in 2014 (see git
log) which were copyrighted by the FSF, so FSF's copyright needs
refreshed to include this year.
Denver recently added a section to the enforcement-case-studies.tex, so
his copyright notice needs to go there and at the top file.
I made changes to enforcement-case-studies.tex on top of Denver's.
Also, remove commented-out copyright notices -- the ones in the actual
text are now primary and should be maintained directly.
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.)
This is the correct list of authors, as shown by:
$ git log enforcement-case-studies.tex|grep Author | sort | uniq
Author: Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@ebb.org>
Author: Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@fsf.org>
Author: John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org>
Dalvik didn't exist as a software package when the anonymous name
placeholders were chosen when this was originally written. At this point,
using Darvik as a name will likely only cause confusion Dalvik, which is
fully unrelated to this matter.
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.
