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.
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.
While I liked Donald's changes in the previous commit enough to take them,
and I don't agree with SFLC's (who was the last to edit those words in this
document) preference for "FOSS", I did want to make some fine tuned changes
that I think are appropriate:
* say "software freedom" rather than "Free Software" anywhere it fits the
sentence.
* Capitalize "Free Software" like that, rather than lower case as Donald's
change did.
* Say "copylefted" in a few places where that was the stronger implication.
* Say "Open Source" in two specific places where the intention is to
include OSI-approved licenses that may not be Free Software licenses.
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.
