Files
@ b8f084be3a66
Branch filter:
Location: Copyleft/guide/gpl-lgpl.tex - annotation
b8f084be3a66
268.7 KiB
text/x-tex
Incorporate pasted text as chapter's introduction.
The pasted text, moved in an earlier commit to this chapter, is now
incorporated as the introduction for the chapter on derivative works.
Changes also included to the previous introduction so it properly flows
from the new text.
The pasted text, moved in an earlier commit to this chapter, is now
incorporated as the introduction for the chapter on derivative works.
Changes also included to the previous introduction so it properly flows
from the new text.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 2224 2225 2226 2227 2228 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2408 2409 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2480 2481 2482 2483 2484 2485 2486 2487 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2512 2513 2514 2515 2516 2517 2518 2519 2520 2521 2522 2523 2524 2525 2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 2531 2532 2533 2534 2535 2536 2537 2538 2539 2540 2541 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549 2550 2551 2552 2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564 2565 2566 2567 2568 2569 2570 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 2581 2582 2583 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 2595 2596 2597 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 2654 2655 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 2661 2662 2663 2664 2665 2666 2667 2668 2669 2670 2671 2672 2673 2674 2675 2676 2677 2678 2679 2680 2681 2682 2683 2684 2685 2686 2687 2688 2689 2690 2691 2692 2693 2694 2695 2696 2697 2698 2699 2700 2701 2702 2703 2704 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709 2710 2711 2712 2713 2714 2715 2716 2717 2718 2719 2720 2721 2722 2723 2724 2725 2726 2727 2728 2729 2730 2731 2732 2733 2734 2735 2736 2737 2738 2739 2740 2741 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 2751 2752 2753 2754 2755 2756 2757 2758 2759 2760 2761 2762 2763 2764 2765 2766 2767 2768 2769 2770 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 2777 2778 2779 2780 2781 2782 2783 2784 2785 2786 2787 2788 2789 2790 2791 2792 2793 2794 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801 2802 2803 2804 2805 2806 2807 2808 2809 2810 2811 2812 2813 2814 2815 2816 2817 2818 2819 2820 2821 2822 2823 2824 2825 2826 2827 2828 2829 2830 2831 2832 2833 2834 2835 2836 2837 2838 2839 2840 2841 2842 2843 2844 2845 2846 2847 2848 2849 2850 2851 2852 2853 2854 2855 2856 2857 2858 2859 2860 2861 2862 2863 2864 2865 2866 2867 2868 2869 2870 2871 2872 2873 2874 2875 2876 2877 2878 2879 2880 2881 2882 2883 2884 2885 2886 2887 2888 2889 2890 2891 2892 2893 2894 2895 2896 2897 2898 2899 2900 2901 2902 2903 2904 2905 2906 2907 2908 2909 2910 2911 2912 2913 2914 2915 2916 2917 2918 2919 2920 2921 2922 2923 2924 2925 2926 2927 2928 2929 2930 2931 2932 2933 2934 2935 2936 2937 2938 2939 2940 2941 2942 2943 2944 2945 2946 2947 2948 2949 2950 2951 2952 2953 2954 2955 2956 2957 2958 2959 2960 2961 2962 2963 2964 2965 2966 2967 2968 2969 2970 2971 2972 2973 2974 2975 2976 2977 2978 2979 2980 2981 2982 2983 2984 2985 2986 2987 2988 2989 2990 2991 2992 2993 2994 2995 2996 2997 2998 2999 3000 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3010 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015 3016 3017 3018 3019 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025 3026 3027 3028 3029 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035 3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055 3056 3057 3058 3059 3060 3061 3062 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3070 3071 3072 3073 3074 3075 3076 3077 3078 3079 3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085 3086 3087 3088 3089 3090 3091 3092 3093 3094 3095 3096 3097 3098 3099 3100 3101 3102 3103 3104 3105 3106 3107 3108 3109 3110 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116 3117 3118 3119 3120 3121 3122 3123 3124 3125 3126 3127 3128 3129 3130 3131 3132 3133 3134 3135 3136 3137 3138 3139 3140 3141 3142 3143 3144 3145 3146 3147 3148 3149 3150 3151 3152 3153 3154 3155 3156 3157 3158 3159 3160 3161 3162 3163 3164 3165 3166 3167 3168 3169 3170 3171 3172 3173 3174 3175 3176 3177 3178 3179 3180 3181 3182 3183 3184 3185 3186 3187 3188 3189 3190 3191 3192 3193 3194 3195 3196 3197 3198 3199 3200 3201 3202 3203 3204 3205 3206 3207 3208 3209 3210 3211 3212 3213 3214 3215 3216 3217 3218 3219 3220 3221 3222 3223 3224 3225 3226 3227 3228 3229 3230 3231 3232 3233 3234 3235 3236 3237 3238 3239 3240 3241 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 3251 3252 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257 3258 3259 3260 3261 3262 3263 3264 3265 3266 3267 3268 3269 3270 3271 3272 3273 3274 3275 3276 3277 3278 3279 3280 3281 3282 3283 3284 3285 3286 3287 3288 3289 3290 3291 3292 3293 3294 3295 3296 3297 3298 3299 3300 3301 3302 3303 3304 3305 3306 3307 3308 3309 3310 3311 3312 3313 3314 3315 3316 3317 3318 3319 3320 3321 3322 3323 3324 3325 3326 3327 3328 3329 3330 3331 3332 3333 3334 3335 3336 3337 3338 3339 3340 3341 3342 3343 3344 3345 3346 3347 3348 3349 3350 3351 3352 3353 3354 3355 3356 3357 3358 3359 3360 3361 3362 3363 3364 3365 3366 3367 3368 3369 3370 3371 3372 3373 3374 3375 3376 3377 3378 3379 3380 3381 3382 3383 3384 3385 3386 3387 3388 3389 3390 3391 3392 3393 3394 3395 3396 3397 3398 3399 3400 3401 3402 3403 3404 3405 3406 3407 3408 3409 3410 3411 3412 3413 3414 3415 3416 3417 3418 3419 3420 3421 3422 3423 3424 3425 3426 3427 3428 3429 3430 3431 3432 3433 3434 3435 3436 3437 3438 3439 3440 3441 3442 3443 3444 3445 3446 3447 3448 3449 3450 3451 3452 3453 3454 3455 3456 3457 3458 3459 3460 3461 3462 3463 3464 3465 3466 3467 3468 3469 3470 3471 3472 3473 3474 3475 3476 3477 3478 3479 3480 3481 3482 3483 3484 3485 3486 3487 3488 3489 3490 3491 3492 3493 3494 3495 3496 3497 3498 3499 3500 3501 3502 3503 3504 3505 3506 3507 3508 3509 3510 3511 3512 3513 3514 3515 3516 3517 3518 3519 3520 3521 3522 3523 3524 3525 3526 3527 3528 3529 3530 3531 3532 3533 3534 3535 3536 3537 3538 3539 3540 3541 3542 3543 3544 3545 3546 3547 3548 3549 3550 3551 3552 3553 3554 3555 3556 3557 3558 3559 3560 3561 3562 3563 3564 3565 3566 3567 3568 3569 3570 3571 3572 3573 3574 3575 3576 3577 3578 3579 3580 3581 3582 3583 3584 3585 3586 3587 3588 3589 3590 3591 3592 3593 3594 3595 3596 3597 3598 3599 3600 3601 3602 3603 3604 3605 3606 3607 3608 3609 3610 3611 3612 3613 3614 3615 3616 3617 3618 3619 3620 3621 3622 3623 3624 3625 3626 3627 3628 3629 3630 3631 3632 3633 3634 3635 3636 3637 3638 3639 3640 3641 3642 3643 3644 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 3653 3654 3655 3656 3657 3658 3659 3660 3661 3662 3663 3664 3665 3666 3667 3668 3669 3670 3671 3672 3673 3674 3675 3676 3677 3678 3679 3680 3681 3682 3683 3684 3685 3686 3687 3688 3689 3690 3691 3692 3693 3694 3695 3696 3697 3698 3699 3700 3701 3702 3703 3704 3705 3706 3707 3708 3709 3710 3711 3712 3713 3714 3715 3716 3717 3718 3719 3720 3721 3722 3723 3724 3725 3726 3727 3728 3729 3730 3731 3732 3733 3734 3735 3736 3737 3738 3739 3740 3741 3742 3743 3744 3745 3746 3747 3748 3749 3750 3751 3752 3753 3754 3755 3756 3757 3758 3759 3760 3761 3762 3763 3764 3765 3766 3767 3768 3769 3770 3771 3772 3773 3774 3775 3776 3777 3778 3779 3780 3781 3782 3783 3784 3785 3786 3787 3788 3789 3790 3791 3792 3793 3794 3795 3796 3797 3798 3799 3800 3801 3802 3803 3804 3805 3806 3807 3808 3809 3810 3811 3812 3813 3814 3815 3816 3817 3818 3819 3820 3821 3822 3823 3824 3825 3826 3827 3828 3829 3830 3831 3832 3833 3834 3835 3836 3837 3838 3839 3840 3841 3842 3843 3844 3845 3846 3847 3848 3849 3850 3851 3852 3853 3854 3855 3856 3857 3858 3859 3860 3861 3862 3863 3864 3865 3866 3867 3868 3869 3870 3871 3872 3873 3874 3875 3876 3877 3878 3879 3880 3881 3882 3883 3884 3885 3886 3887 3888 3889 3890 3891 3892 3893 3894 3895 3896 3897 3898 3899 3900 3901 3902 3903 3904 3905 3906 3907 3908 3909 3910 3911 3912 3913 3914 3915 3916 3917 3918 3919 3920 3921 3922 3923 3924 3925 3926 3927 3928 3929 3930 3931 3932 3933 3934 3935 3936 3937 3938 3939 3940 3941 3942 3943 3944 3945 3946 3947 3948 3949 3950 3951 3952 3953 3954 3955 3956 3957 3958 3959 3960 3961 3962 3963 3964 3965 3966 3967 3968 3969 3970 3971 3972 3973 3974 3975 3976 3977 3978 3979 3980 3981 3982 3983 3984 3985 3986 3987 3988 3989 3990 3991 3992 3993 3994 3995 3996 3997 3998 3999 4000 4001 4002 4003 4004 4005 4006 4007 4008 4009 4010 4011 4012 4013 4014 4015 4016 4017 4018 4019 4020 4021 4022 4023 4024 4025 4026 4027 4028 4029 4030 4031 4032 4033 4034 4035 4036 4037 4038 4039 4040 4041 4042 4043 4044 4045 4046 4047 4048 4049 4050 4051 4052 4053 4054 4055 4056 4057 4058 4059 4060 4061 4062 4063 4064 4065 4066 4067 4068 4069 4070 4071 4072 4073 4074 4075 4076 4077 4078 4079 4080 4081 4082 4083 4084 4085 4086 4087 4088 4089 4090 4091 4092 4093 4094 4095 4096 4097 4098 4099 4100 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 4106 4107 4108 4109 4110 4111 4112 4113 4114 4115 4116 4117 4118 4119 4120 4121 4122 4123 4124 4125 4126 4127 4128 4129 4130 4131 4132 4133 4134 4135 4136 4137 4138 4139 4140 4141 4142 4143 4144 4145 4146 4147 4148 4149 4150 4151 4152 4153 4154 4155 4156 4157 4158 4159 4160 4161 4162 4163 4164 4165 4166 4167 4168 4169 4170 4171 4172 4173 4174 4175 4176 4177 4178 4179 4180 4181 4182 4183 4184 4185 4186 4187 4188 4189 4190 4191 4192 4193 4194 4195 4196 4197 4198 4199 4200 4201 4202 4203 4204 4205 4206 4207 4208 4209 4210 4211 4212 4213 4214 4215 4216 4217 4218 4219 4220 4221 4222 4223 4224 4225 4226 4227 4228 4229 4230 4231 4232 4233 4234 4235 4236 4237 4238 4239 4240 4241 4242 4243 4244 4245 4246 4247 4248 4249 4250 4251 4252 4253 4254 4255 4256 4257 4258 4259 4260 4261 4262 4263 4264 4265 4266 4267 4268 4269 4270 4271 4272 4273 4274 4275 4276 4277 4278 4279 4280 4281 4282 4283 4284 4285 4286 4287 4288 4289 4290 4291 4292 4293 4294 4295 4296 4297 4298 4299 4300 4301 4302 4303 4304 4305 4306 4307 4308 4309 4310 4311 4312 4313 4314 4315 4316 4317 4318 4319 4320 4321 4322 4323 4324 4325 4326 4327 4328 4329 4330 4331 4332 4333 4334 4335 4336 4337 4338 4339 4340 4341 4342 4343 4344 4345 4346 4347 4348 4349 4350 4351 4352 4353 4354 4355 4356 4357 4358 4359 4360 4361 4362 4363 4364 4365 4366 4367 4368 4369 4370 4371 4372 4373 4374 4375 4376 4377 4378 4379 4380 4381 4382 4383 4384 4385 4386 4387 4388 4389 4390 4391 4392 4393 4394 4395 4396 4397 4398 4399 4400 4401 4402 4403 4404 4405 4406 4407 4408 4409 4410 4411 4412 4413 4414 4415 4416 4417 4418 4419 4420 4421 4422 4423 4424 4425 4426 4427 4428 4429 4430 4431 4432 4433 4434 4435 4436 4437 4438 4439 4440 4441 4442 4443 4444 4445 4446 4447 4448 4449 4450 4451 4452 4453 4454 4455 4456 4457 4458 4459 4460 4461 4462 4463 4464 4465 4466 4467 4468 4469 4470 4471 4472 4473 4474 4475 4476 4477 4478 4479 4480 4481 4482 4483 4484 4485 4486 4487 4488 4489 4490 4491 4492 4493 4494 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 4501 4502 4503 4504 4505 4506 4507 4508 4509 4510 4511 4512 4513 4514 4515 4516 4517 4518 4519 4520 4521 4522 4523 4524 4525 4526 4527 4528 4529 4530 4531 4532 4533 4534 4535 4536 4537 4538 4539 4540 4541 4542 4543 4544 4545 4546 4547 4548 4549 4550 4551 4552 4553 4554 4555 4556 4557 4558 4559 4560 4561 4562 4563 4564 4565 4566 4567 4568 4569 4570 4571 4572 4573 4574 4575 4576 4577 4578 4579 4580 4581 4582 4583 4584 4585 4586 4587 4588 4589 4590 4591 4592 4593 4594 4595 4596 4597 4598 4599 4600 4601 4602 4603 4604 4605 4606 4607 4608 4609 4610 4611 4612 4613 4614 4615 4616 4617 4618 4619 4620 4621 4622 4623 4624 4625 4626 4627 4628 4629 4630 4631 4632 4633 4634 4635 4636 4637 4638 4639 4640 4641 4642 4643 4644 4645 4646 4647 4648 4649 4650 4651 4652 4653 4654 4655 4656 4657 4658 4659 4660 4661 4662 4663 4664 4665 4666 4667 4668 4669 4670 4671 4672 4673 4674 4675 4676 4677 4678 4679 4680 4681 4682 4683 4684 4685 4686 4687 4688 4689 4690 4691 4692 4693 4694 4695 4696 4697 4698 4699 4700 4701 4702 4703 4704 4705 4706 4707 4708 4709 4710 4711 4712 4713 4714 4715 4716 4717 4718 4719 4720 4721 4722 4723 4724 4725 4726 4727 4728 4729 4730 4731 4732 4733 4734 4735 4736 4737 4738 4739 4740 4741 4742 4743 4744 4745 4746 4747 4748 4749 4750 4751 4752 4753 4754 4755 4756 4757 4758 4759 4760 4761 4762 4763 4764 4765 4766 4767 4768 4769 4770 4771 4772 4773 4774 4775 4776 4777 4778 4779 4780 4781 4782 4783 4784 4785 4786 4787 4788 4789 4790 4791 4792 4793 4794 4795 4796 4797 4798 4799 4800 4801 4802 4803 4804 4805 4806 4807 4808 4809 4810 4811 4812 4813 4814 4815 4816 4817 4818 4819 4820 4821 4822 4823 4824 4825 4826 4827 4828 4829 4830 4831 4832 4833 4834 4835 4836 4837 4838 4839 4840 4841 4842 4843 4844 4845 4846 4847 4848 4849 4850 4851 4852 4853 4854 4855 4856 4857 4858 4859 4860 4861 4862 4863 4864 4865 4866 4867 4868 4869 4870 4871 4872 4873 4874 4875 4876 4877 4878 4879 4880 4881 4882 4883 4884 4885 4886 4887 4888 4889 4890 4891 4892 4893 4894 4895 4896 4897 4898 4899 4900 4901 4902 4903 4904 4905 4906 4907 4908 4909 4910 4911 4912 4913 4914 4915 4916 4917 4918 4919 4920 4921 4922 4923 4924 4925 4926 4927 4928 4929 4930 4931 4932 4933 4934 4935 4936 4937 4938 4939 4940 4941 4942 4943 4944 4945 4946 4947 4948 4949 4950 4951 4952 4953 4954 4955 4956 4957 4958 4959 4960 4961 4962 4963 4964 4965 4966 4967 4968 4969 4970 4971 4972 4973 4974 4975 4976 4977 4978 4979 4980 4981 4982 4983 4984 | 80295e9c558b 6c9b78d9d570 06b0425089bd 06b0425089bd aa419884a673 aa419884a673 aa419884a673 aa419884a673 aa419884a673 aa419884a673 aa419884a673 aa419884a673 aa419884a673 aa419884a673 aa419884a673 aa419884a673 aa419884a673 aa419884a673 06b0425089bd c74733d56798 c74733d56798 c74733d56798 c74733d56798 c74733d56798 c74733d56798 b1a86ee9cd0d 06b0425089bd de5fbfffa719 82831c9b8161 06b0425089bd 06b0425089bd a333f11d1178 7ad226003dbe b46d1bc16fd6 ee9e86642a07 ee9e86642a07 8e360c9db819 a1b059184c96 7ad226003dbe 06b0425089bd ee9e86642a07 1548847af965 ee9e86642a07 ee9e86642a07 a333f11d1178 4cea1c46451f 1583f593cae5 1583f593cae5 1583f593cae5 844bf4ba5b34 1583f593cae5 06b0425089bd 1548847af965 1548847af965 1548847af965 1548847af965 1548847af965 1548847af965 1548847af965 b1a86ee9cd0d a333f11d1178 1583f593cae5 1583f593cae5 1583f593cae5 ee9e86642a07 b7c4c11477c4 ee9e86642a07 1f05cd5515ac b7c4c11477c4 34ae4308af18 a333f11d1178 a333f11d1178 a333f11d1178 a333f11d1178 a333f11d1178 a333f11d1178 f6cfb851d6ef a333f11d1178 a333f11d1178 06b0425089bd 2774ae23d2ca f6cfb851d6ef 110e1b08fe71 1583f593cae5 110e1b08fe71 f6cfb851d6ef 110e1b08fe71 06b0425089bd f6cfb851d6ef 110e1b08fe71 06b0425089bd 06b0425089bd 06b0425089bd f6cfb851d6ef 06b0425089bd 337f2e9044cb 06b0425089bd 337f2e9044cb 337f2e9044cb 110e1b08fe71 06b0425089bd 110e1b08fe71 06b0425089bd 110e1b08fe71 06b0425089bd 110e1b08fe71 06b0425089bd 110e1b08fe71 6c9b78d9d570 f6cfb851d6ef 337f2e9044cb 6c9b78d9d570 110e1b08fe71 110e1b08fe71 06b0425089bd 06b0425089bd 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d f6ce16a32196 06b0425089bd ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 59eec91da752 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 59eec91da752 59eec91da752 59eec91da752 ed6fe59dfc88 59eec91da752 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 06b0425089bd 06b0425089bd b1a86ee9cd0d 06b0425089bd ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 06b0425089bd ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 06b0425089bd 06b0425089bd 06b0425089bd 06b0425089bd 0e0d00163d9e 06b0425089bd ed6fe59dfc88 06b0425089bd ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 06b0425089bd 06b0425089bd 06b0425089bd ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 16155bea58cc 59eec91da752 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 ed6fe59dfc88 59eec91da752 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 85577d597ac5 59eec91da752 59eec91da752 67115cb25737 67115cb25737 67115cb25737 67115cb25737 59eec91da752 67115cb25737 67115cb25737 67115cb25737 67115cb25737 67115cb25737 67115cb25737 59eec91da752 67115cb25737 67115cb25737 67115cb25737 67115cb25737 5d8bdec51c27 06b0425089bd cb18441ebafd 06b0425089bd 59eec91da752 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 06b0425089bd 5d8bdec51c27 59eec91da752 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 59eec91da752 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 59eec91da752 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 1b5161f40204 85577d597ac5 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 85577d597ac5 59eec91da752 16917f85a2ae e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 5d8bdec51c27 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 e6ee7fa2b935 f8562aaf5502 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 85577d597ac5 59eec91da752 59eec91da752 59eec91da752 59eec91da752 52b3058faf90 59eec91da752 52b3058faf90 f58d197fe1b4 5d8bdec51c27 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b f58d197fe1b4 f58d197fe1b4 16917f85a2ae 80295e9c558b 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 80295e9c558b f58d197fe1b4 f58d197fe1b4 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 f58d197fe1b4 f58d197fe1b4 f58d197fe1b4 f58d197fe1b4 f58d197fe1b4 f58d197fe1b4 f58d197fe1b4 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 f58d197fe1b4 5d8bdec51c27 f58d197fe1b4 f58d197fe1b4 f8562aaf5502 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 5d8bdec51c27 135533708853 135533708853 9bbbda9847d8 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 2ce793aa0513 2ce793aa0513 2ce793aa0513 2ce793aa0513 2ce793aa0513 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 59eec91da752 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 70772b5f7168 135533708853 14e09b0b1814 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 54d57e9281d9 59eec91da752 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 135533708853 d775398748a0 d775398748a0 d775398748a0 d775398748a0 d775398748a0 d775398748a0 d775398748a0 1cf4f1749dec 59eec91da752 1cf4f1749dec 59eec91da752 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d d775398748a0 a625e05c30c9 87f0f9e7879a a625e05c30c9 a625e05c30c9 e391b67596af e391b67596af 2880f4eebb1b af63358d308c 62a0c3b4fb65 62a0c3b4fb65 62a0c3b4fb65 62a0c3b4fb65 b1a86ee9cd0d a625e05c30c9 af63358d308c 80295e9c558b a625e05c30c9 b1a86ee9cd0d a625e05c30c9 a625e05c30c9 e7ff8ce2af19 a625e05c30c9 a625e05c30c9 a625e05c30c9 b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d d775398748a0 a625e05c30c9 d775398748a0 af63358d308c d775398748a0 d775398748a0 d775398748a0 d775398748a0 d775398748a0 d775398748a0 d775398748a0 d775398748a0 d775398748a0 a7dbd07c8981 a625e05c30c9 a625e05c30c9 a625e05c30c9 a625e05c30c9 a625e05c30c9 a625e05c30c9 a625e05c30c9 a7dbd07c8981 54d57e9281d9 a7dbd07c8981 62a0c3b4fb65 b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d f8562aaf5502 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b f8562aaf5502 b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b fcd203294aee b1a86ee9cd0d 79e474e4d12d 79e474e4d12d 00ac5cfb9ad5 00ac5cfb9ad5 00ac5cfb9ad5 00ac5cfb9ad5 00ac5cfb9ad5 00ac5cfb9ad5 00ac5cfb9ad5 00ac5cfb9ad5 00ac5cfb9ad5 00ac5cfb9ad5 00ac5cfb9ad5 a1b059184c96 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 80295e9c558b e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 a1b059184c96 e36a9a4f4cb2 a1b059184c96 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 a1b059184c96 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 b1a86ee9cd0d b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 5d93036c5347 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 74899d7d1c08 74899d7d1c08 b15c4c2a2419 b15c4c2a2419 c6521ae3031a c6521ae3031a c6521ae3031a 0be18ce1927f c6521ae3031a c6521ae3031a c6521ae3031a 6faa16d45750 c6521ae3031a b15c4c2a2419 d9bdf4e8448f d9bdf4e8448f d9bdf4e8448f d9bdf4e8448f d9bdf4e8448f b15c4c2a2419 3215d133acdc 3215d133acdc 3215d133acdc 3215d133acdc 3215d133acdc 3215d133acdc b2fadd383ca8 b2fadd383ca8 b2fadd383ca8 b2fadd383ca8 b2fadd383ca8 b2fadd383ca8 b2fadd383ca8 0e5e24093f64 b2fadd383ca8 b2fadd383ca8 b2fadd383ca8 b2fadd383ca8 991960d5eb98 991960d5eb98 f83638ca1dd3 991960d5eb98 991960d5eb98 b2fadd383ca8 7e922009ee52 b1a86ee9cd0d 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 83b69e1f5c53 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 9c9c82295147 4098beb70788 9c9c82295147 b1a86ee9cd0d 7e922009ee52 b1a86ee9cd0d 02819d4d979c 325fe11b18bc b1a86ee9cd0d 325fe11b18bc 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 325fe11b18bc b1a86ee9cd0d 325fe11b18bc b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d c00788449789 b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 7e922009ee52 b1a86ee9cd0d 02819d4d979c 90f1aab65675 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 3a751d848b5e 3a751d848b5e 9cbbf7e34cd3 b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 80295e9c558b 90f1aab65675 fcd203294aee fcd203294aee b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b 90f1aab65675 b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 80295e9c558b 531f142207b8 b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b 90f1aab65675 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 90f1aab65675 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 90f1aab65675 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b 90f1aab65675 b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 90f1aab65675 90f1aab65675 b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 90f1aab65675 b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 90f1aab65675 90f1aab65675 80295e9c558b 90f1aab65675 b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 90f1aab65675 80295e9c558b 90f1aab65675 80295e9c558b 90f1aab65675 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 90f1aab65675 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 f8562aaf5502 f8562aaf5502 b1a86ee9cd0d 90f1aab65675 b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d b1a86ee9cd0d 65a3a3fd5701 65a3a3fd5701 618ddec73058 65a3a3fd5701 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 65a3a3fd5701 65a3a3fd5701 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 9cbbf7e34cd3 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 65a3a3fd5701 65a3a3fd5701 05d02bfff430 05d02bfff430 05d02bfff430 ac74d6348873 05d02bfff430 05d02bfff430 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 ac74d6348873 65a3a3fd5701 5d93036c5347 65a3a3fd5701 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 85577d597ac5 9cbbf7e34cd3 23d356cbf627 9cbbf7e34cd3 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 16917f85a2ae 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 23d356cbf627 65a3a3fd5701 65a3a3fd5701 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 54d57e9281d9 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 54d57e9281d9 3158f32e477d 85577d597ac5 85577d597ac5 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 3158f32e477d 65a3a3fd5701 65a3a3fd5701 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 fa892fe5b61b 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 7f493a236ab9 0c48d8fdd3f2 79941dd33445 65a3a3fd5701 65a3a3fd5701 592a6f08de91 163368ebf89b 9dc94d5869af 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b f0efbf5fa89e 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b e92e89ae55cd 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b b174bad711f2 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 16917f85a2ae 163368ebf89b 85577d597ac5 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b d55d2787c8a5 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 163368ebf89b 7a755cf4cbab 79941dd33445 65a3a3fd5701 65a3a3fd5701 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 8310c8947acb e1ef7578f7ff a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 04bc20eba725 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 a749f38dee49 7f493a236ab9 b1a86ee9cd0d 360d6057f11c d1de64cafda9 d1de64cafda9 b1a86ee9cd0d 5682a42c827d 337f2e9044cb 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 5682a42c827d 54d57e9281d9 5d93036c5347 5682a42c827d 0b2aa866a7c9 2d58414de7ce 80295e9c558b 5682a42c827d 5682a42c827d 54d57e9281d9 2d58414de7ce 5682a42c827d 5682a42c827d 5682a42c827d 5682a42c827d 80295e9c558b 337f2e9044cb 2d58414de7ce 5682a42c827d 5682a42c827d 2d58414de7ce 5682a42c827d 5682a42c827d 2d58414de7ce 2d58414de7ce a7f901e4a398 2d58414de7ce 2d58414de7ce 3e526a2589e7 3e526a2589e7 b364be0e4347 5682a42c827d b364be0e4347 5682a42c827d 5682a42c827d b364be0e4347 fcd203294aee 07828daf38a4 3e526a2589e7 5682a42c827d 5682a42c827d 5682a42c827d 85577d597ac5 8399b0a7964a 5682a42c827d 5682a42c827d 80295e9c558b 5682a42c827d 54d57e9281d9 5682a42c827d 5682a42c827d 5682a42c827d 54d57e9281d9 8399b0a7964a 8399b0a7964a 80295e9c558b 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 163097cd2b29 5e195ab80a22 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 5e195ab80a22 a1b059184c96 5e195ab80a22 5e195ab80a22 5e195ab80a22 5e195ab80a22 a1b059184c96 54d57e9281d9 5d93036c5347 163097cd2b29 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 54d57e9281d9 163097cd2b29 54d57e9281d9 163097cd2b29 54d57e9281d9 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 54d57e9281d9 3815a3d2252c 163097cd2b29 3815a3d2252c 3815a3d2252c 3815a3d2252c 80295e9c558b 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 80295e9c558b adc4d167bbb3 adc4d167bbb3 163097cd2b29 7ce3980bd6f2 5d93036c5347 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 ace387b09824 ace387b09824 7ce3980bd6f2 7ce3980bd6f2 163097cd2b29 80295e9c558b 34ae4308af18 163097cd2b29 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 595c64c15878 817aa177f129 b8f084be3a66 b8f084be3a66 b8f084be3a66 b8f084be3a66 b8f084be3a66 b8f084be3a66 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 e36a9a4f4cb2 b8f084be3a66 e36a9a4f4cb2 b8f084be3a66 b8f084be3a66 b8f084be3a66 b8f084be3a66 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 d1de64cafda9 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b d1de64cafda9 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 54d57e9281d9 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 844bf4ba5b34 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 85577d597ac5 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 fd3be34dc4dc 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 844bf4ba5b34 844bf4ba5b34 e8a8778ae5ec 844bf4ba5b34 844bf4ba5b34 e8a8778ae5ec 817aa177f129 f491e358824e 844bf4ba5b34 817aa177f129 f491e358824e 817aa177f129 f491e358824e 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 844bf4ba5b34 e8a8778ae5ec 844bf4ba5b34 844bf4ba5b34 844bf4ba5b34 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 16917f85a2ae 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 fd3be34dc4dc 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 844bf4ba5b34 844bf4ba5b34 844bf4ba5b34 844bf4ba5b34 844bf4ba5b34 6d6d18f1e6b1 844bf4ba5b34 844bf4ba5b34 844bf4ba5b34 844bf4ba5b34 16917f85a2ae 844bf4ba5b34 e8a8778ae5ec 844bf4ba5b34 844bf4ba5b34 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 16917f85a2ae 817aa177f129 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 4a40f09f142f 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 3d402b8cbfad 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 d1de64cafda9 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 54d57e9281d9 337f2e9044cb 817aa177f129 54d57e9281d9 7a755cf4cbab 163097cd2b29 f8562aaf5502 ace387b09824 ace387b09824 d982de460aff ace387b09824 f8562aaf5502 163097cd2b29 54d57e9281d9 fcd203294aee ace387b09824 d638f60cd9fe ace387b09824 163097cd2b29 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b ace387b09824 ace387b09824 54d57e9281d9 ace387b09824 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b ace387b09824 80295e9c558b ace387b09824 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 5682a42c827d a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 54d57e9281d9 ace387b09824 ace387b09824 ace387b09824 54d57e9281d9 163097cd2b29 ace387b09824 2f2e5f9e4c32 ace387b09824 30389cad6c41 ace387b09824 ace387b09824 f8562aaf5502 30389cad6c41 ace387b09824 ace387b09824 f8562aaf5502 80295e9c558b 163097cd2b29 54d57e9281d9 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 80295e9c558b 163097cd2b29 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 54d57e9281d9 ace387b09824 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 ace387b09824 f8562aaf5502 ace387b09824 ace387b09824 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 2f2e5f9e4c32 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 163097cd2b29 ace387b09824 163097cd2b29 f8562aaf5502 f8562aaf5502 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 54d57e9281d9 ace387b09824 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 ace387b09824 ace387b09824 163097cd2b29 ace387b09824 1dd7d7b4cc56 2f2e5f9e4c32 1dd7d7b4cc56 ace387b09824 1dd7d7b4cc56 163097cd2b29 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 10b0ade5d5a0 ace387b09824 ace387b09824 4753f14a8279 54d57e9281d9 4753f14a8279 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b ace387b09824 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b ace387b09824 ace387b09824 85577d597ac5 ace387b09824 ace387b09824 f8562aaf5502 ace387b09824 2f2e5f9e4c32 80295e9c558b f8562aaf5502 163097cd2b29 54d57e9281d9 ace387b09824 ace387b09824 2f2e5f9e4c32 ace387b09824 54d57e9281d9 5682a42c827d 163097cd2b29 5682a42c827d ace387b09824 163097cd2b29 ace387b09824 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 ace387b09824 ace387b09824 163097cd2b29 02819d4d979c ace387b09824 f167d0387a6d ace387b09824 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 02819d4d979c 5682a42c827d 9641db188d0e b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 090b05660863 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 54d57e9281d9 7a755cf4cbab 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 1e14536092de ace387b09824 f167d0387a6d ace387b09824 16f6215850ff 16f6215850ff 1e14536092de ace387b09824 d638f60cd9fe 1e14536092de ace387b09824 c40b88ad403f ace387b09824 c40b88ad403f 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 2f2e5f9e4c32 47e37c955c57 47e37c955c57 47e37c955c57 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 d5864804ba05 16f6215850ff d5864804ba05 2f2e5f9e4c32 d5864804ba05 16f6215850ff 1e14536092de 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 d5864804ba05 80295e9c558b d5864804ba05 80295e9c558b d5864804ba05 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 1e14536092de 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 1e14536092de 183784995275 54d57e9281d9 d5864804ba05 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 16f6215850ff d5864804ba05 d5864804ba05 16f6215850ff d5864804ba05 16f6215850ff d5864804ba05 16f6215850ff 16f6215850ff 1e14536092de 0a37731b72f5 0a37731b72f5 54d57e9281d9 d5864804ba05 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b d5864804ba05 80295e9c558b d5864804ba05 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b d5864804ba05 80295e9c558b 2f2e5f9e4c32 80295e9c558b 1e14536092de d5864804ba05 d5864804ba05 d5864804ba05 d5864804ba05 d5864804ba05 1e14536092de 16917f85a2ae 1e14536092de 9bd27fcffefc 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b d5864804ba05 58beece8fd55 1e14536092de 58beece8fd55 58beece8fd55 d5864804ba05 1e14536092de d5864804ba05 1e14536092de d5864804ba05 d5864804ba05 d5864804ba05 d5864804ba05 1e14536092de d5864804ba05 d5864804ba05 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 54d57e9281d9 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 54d57e9281d9 1e14536092de fd9a2353f4c9 1e14536092de 05d02bfff430 d5864804ba05 d5864804ba05 1e14536092de 7a755cf4cbab 1e14536092de 54d57e9281d9 d5864804ba05 d5864804ba05 1e14536092de d5864804ba05 1e14536092de d5864804ba05 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 d5864804ba05 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 d5864804ba05 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b d5864804ba05 1e14536092de 1e14536092de d5864804ba05 1e14536092de d5864804ba05 d5864804ba05 1e14536092de d5864804ba05 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 1e14536092de 54d57e9281d9 d5864804ba05 16f6215850ff 80295e9c558b 58beece8fd55 d5864804ba05 16f6215850ff 16f6215850ff 1e14536092de 85577d597ac5 d5864804ba05 1e14536092de 1e14536092de d5864804ba05 54d57e9281d9 d5864804ba05 54d57e9281d9 1e14536092de 54d57e9281d9 d5864804ba05 80295e9c558b d5864804ba05 1e14536092de 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 1e14536092de 54d57e9281d9 d5864804ba05 80295e9c558b d5864804ba05 d5864804ba05 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 1e14536092de 817aa177f129 f6ce16a32196 b15c4c2a2419 817aa177f129 337f2e9044cb 80295e9c558b 337f2e9044cb 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 6d6d18f1e6b1 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 337f2e9044cb 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 337f2e9044cb 337f2e9044cb 337f2e9044cb 817aa177f129 337f2e9044cb 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 337f2e9044cb 80295e9c558b 6d6d18f1e6b1 6d6d18f1e6b1 6d6d18f1e6b1 6d6d18f1e6b1 6d6d18f1e6b1 6d6d18f1e6b1 6d6d18f1e6b1 2f2e5f9e4c32 6d6d18f1e6b1 6d6d18f1e6b1 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 16917f85a2ae 80295e9c558b 337f2e9044cb 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 337f2e9044cb 337f2e9044cb 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 337f2e9044cb 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 337f2e9044cb 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 20fba8b65462 57b7cc24030d 57b7cc24030d 2f2e5f9e4c32 57b7cc24030d 57b7cc24030d 57b7cc24030d 817aa177f129 337f2e9044cb 57b7cc24030d 2f2e5f9e4c32 57b7cc24030d 80295e9c558b 57b7cc24030d 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 337f2e9044cb 337f2e9044cb 80295e9c558b d1de64cafda9 d1de64cafda9 337f2e9044cb d1de64cafda9 d1de64cafda9 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 817aa177f129 337f2e9044cb 80295e9c558b d1de64cafda9 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 5682a42c827d b1a86ee9cd0d 80295e9c558b b1a86ee9cd0d 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 e8a8778ae5ec fd9a2353f4c9 54d57e9281d9 5d93036c5347 5682a42c827d 6d116fa1f310 80295e9c558b fd9a2353f4c9 fd9a2353f4c9 fd9a2353f4c9 fd9a2353f4c9 fd9a2353f4c9 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 80295e9c558b 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 fd9a2353f4c9 85577d597ac5 6d116fa1f310 e1f07949fe7b 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 fd9a2353f4c9 fd9a2353f4c9 fd9a2353f4c9 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 54d57e9281d9 fd9a2353f4c9 fd9a2353f4c9 fd9a2353f4c9 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 fd9a2353f4c9 6d116fa1f310 6d116fa1f310 5a4c6c22a9e8 2bafeda59ed3 2bafeda59ed3 2bafeda59ed3 85577d597ac5 fd9a2353f4c9 54d57e9281d9 5d93036c5347 5682a42c827d 54d57e9281d9 337f2e9044cb 5a4c6c22a9e8 80295e9c558b 5a4c6c22a9e8 80295e9c558b 5a4c6c22a9e8 5a4c6c22a9e8 e893d9d78296 16917f85a2ae 80295e9c558b e893d9d78296 80295e9c558b 5a4c6c22a9e8 5a4c6c22a9e8 e893d9d78296 5a4c6c22a9e8 5a4c6c22a9e8 5a4c6c22a9e8 5a4c6c22a9e8 5a4c6c22a9e8 54d57e9281d9 e893d9d78296 5a4c6c22a9e8 5a4c6c22a9e8 e893d9d78296 80295e9c558b e893d9d78296 5a4c6c22a9e8 5a4c6c22a9e8 5a4c6c22a9e8 eeee6e0df959 eeee6e0df959 e1f07949fe7b e1f07949fe7b eeee6e0df959 eeee6e0df959 eeee6e0df959 eeee6e0df959 05d02bfff430 05d02bfff430 05d02bfff430 337f2e9044cb 54d57e9281d9 5d93036c5347 5a4c6c22a9e8 54d57e9281d9 337f2e9044cb 54d57e9281d9 34ae4308af18 54d57e9281d9 34ae4308af18 80447ede077e 80447ede077e 34ae4308af18 80447ede077e 80295e9c558b 34ae4308af18 80447ede077e 34ae4308af18 80447ede077e 337f2e9044cb 34ae4308af18 54d57e9281d9 34ae4308af18 80447ede077e 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 34ae4308af18 54d57e9281d9 34ae4308af18 34ae4308af18 34ae4308af18 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 54d57e9281d9 5d93036c5347 5682a42c827d 54d57e9281d9 80447ede077e c40b88ad403f c40b88ad403f c40b88ad403f c40b88ad403f 80447ede077e 80447ede077e c40b88ad403f 80447ede077e 02819d4d979c c40b88ad403f 80447ede077e c40b88ad403f 54d57e9281d9 c40b88ad403f c40b88ad403f b1a86ee9cd0d 54d57e9281d9 5d93036c5347 163097cd2b29 80447ede077e 80295e9c558b f8562aaf5502 337f2e9044cb f8562aaf5502 f8562aaf5502 c7a3684824b1 c7a3684824b1 c7a3684824b1 c7a3684824b1 c7a3684824b1 c7a3684824b1 c7a3684824b1 c7a3684824b1 c7a3684824b1 c7a3684824b1 c7a3684824b1 c7a3684824b1 c7a3684824b1 4cea1c46451f 34ae4308af18 34ae4308af18 34ae4308af18 0ebf2969f46b 764802727541 39390252fc92 39390252fc92 54d57e9281d9 5d93036c5347 163097cd2b29 39390252fc92 0ebf2969f46b 02819d4d979c 39390252fc92 0ebf2969f46b 39390252fc92 39390252fc92 618ddec73058 618ddec73058 39390252fc92 54d57e9281d9 5d93036c5347 163097cd2b29 54d57e9281d9 b66035e69e58 39390252fc92 39390252fc92 39390252fc92 54d57e9281d9 5d93036c5347 163097cd2b29 2e8178b28d2e 2e8178b28d2e 2e8178b28d2e 2e8178b28d2e 2e8178b28d2e 2e8178b28d2e 39390252fc92 77579a83f43d 77579a83f43d 77579a83f43d 77579a83f43d 77579a83f43d 77579a83f43d 77579a83f43d 0efbc4029fa8 0efbc4029fa8 0efbc4029fa8 0efbc4029fa8 0efbc4029fa8 0efbc4029fa8 0efbc4029fa8 0efbc4029fa8 f4b4b9f85eba 817aa177f129 b66035e69e58 817aa177f129 b66035e69e58 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 5682a42c827d 54d57e9281d9 5d93036c5347 163097cd2b29 39390252fc92 b66035e69e58 b66035e69e58 b66035e69e58 54d57e9281d9 39390252fc92 39390252fc92 817aa177f129 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 817aa177f129 b66035e69e58 54d57e9281d9 817aa177f129 817aa177f129 39390252fc92 80295e9c558b 39390252fc92 3cdd6624043d 360d6057f11c 79941dd33445 3cdd6624043d 85577d597ac5 5ef15e08a026 5ef15e08a026 5ef15e08a026 5ef15e08a026 5ef15e08a026 5ef15e08a026 5ef15e08a026 5ef15e08a026 5ef15e08a026 5ef15e08a026 5ef15e08a026 8ce1870cef45 8ce1870cef45 8ce1870cef45 b776c58280a9 8ce1870cef45 8ce1870cef45 5ef15e08a026 3cdd6624043d 3cdd6624043d 5ef15e08a026 0c48d8fdd3f2 8ce1870cef45 5ef15e08a026 8ce1870cef45 8ce1870cef45 8ce1870cef45 8ce1870cef45 8ce1870cef45 8ce1870cef45 8ce1870cef45 8ce1870cef45 1070277ed6e3 8ce1870cef45 8ce1870cef45 8ce1870cef45 5ef15e08a026 3694e446db65 3694e446db65 3694e446db65 8ce1870cef45 85577d597ac5 85577d597ac5 4cea1c46451f 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d d638f60cd9fe 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 54d57e9281d9 9dc94d5869af 3cdd6624043d 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 1070277ed6e3 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 728c800bf3cc 4cea1c46451f 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d be62a9b7654f be62a9b7654f be62a9b7654f be62a9b7654f be62a9b7654f 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 c83c789fd06e a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 07a02b0b1c6d 85577d597ac5 1857efb0fb39 e2e1335aea9e 1eef642effa9 1eef642effa9 1eef642effa9 1eef642effa9 1eef642effa9 1eef642effa9 1eef642effa9 1eef642effa9 290774c3e820 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a1b059184c96 e2e1335aea9e 85989f711ba0 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a1b059184c96 85989f711ba0 85989f711ba0 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 520451439f85 4a22feba0699 85989f711ba0 85989f711ba0 85989f711ba0 85989f711ba0 85989f711ba0 4cea1c46451f 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 88388e6d24e6 30efea65795f 290774c3e820 a1b059184c96 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a1b059184c96 e2e1335aea9e 4cea1c46451f a43a205f9b45 ae87bcb2817f ae87bcb2817f ae87bcb2817f a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 a43a205f9b45 4cea1c46451f e2e1335aea9e 262ba65e3f7d 262ba65e3f7d 262ba65e3f7d 262ba65e3f7d 262ba65e3f7d 262ba65e3f7d 262ba65e3f7d 262ba65e3f7d 262ba65e3f7d e2e1335aea9e 4cea1c46451f 769edf2a7b15 769edf2a7b15 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 d587d3556c84 d587d3556c84 54d57e9281d9 8c5f9f38d1bb 3cdd6624043d 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 4cea1c46451f 428a539c1684 4cea1c46451f d0821c856b5d 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 52695626f092 5e6a129b4cd6 5e6a129b4cd6 5e6a129b4cd6 5e6a129b4cd6 4cea1c46451f 428a539c1684 851be52e624c 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 c6183da7fd5e 428a539c1684 a4feaf97bf92 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 428a539c1684 f65ecb47a6d9 f65ecb47a6d9 f65ecb47a6d9 f65ecb47a6d9 f65ecb47a6d9 f65ecb47a6d9 f65ecb47a6d9 f65ecb47a6d9 f65ecb47a6d9 f65ecb47a6d9 f65ecb47a6d9 5f356c351ad2 f65ecb47a6d9 f65ecb47a6d9 f65ecb47a6d9 f4b4b9f85eba 9f6175cf736f e36a9a4f4cb2 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 b5b0e2403efe 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 a4feaf97bf92 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 85577d597ac5 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 0f3bc95c5160 4cea1c46451f 54d57e9281d9 3847ee1c1b59 3cdd6624043d a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 e0a91a924c92 7a755cf4cbab e0a91a924c92 e0a91a924c92 e0a91a924c92 e0a91a924c92 e0a91a924c92 e0a91a924c92 e0a91a924c92 e0a91a924c92 e0a91a924c92 e0a91a924c92 e0a91a924c92 4cea1c46451f eeaf85134557 eeaf85134557 eeaf85134557 eeaf85134557 85577d597ac5 d0821c856b5d eeaf85134557 4cea1c46451f 97deccc4d155 97deccc4d155 97deccc4d155 e5ee0fd0a138 e5ee0fd0a138 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 b7bb47188fd9 4cea1c46451f 647d2e27a4c4 647d2e27a4c4 647d2e27a4c4 fa892fe5b61b 647d2e27a4c4 647d2e27a4c4 647d2e27a4c4 647d2e27a4c4 647d2e27a4c4 486aa88f1abd 647d2e27a4c4 647d2e27a4c4 647d2e27a4c4 647d2e27a4c4 647d2e27a4c4 33e47ace6032 647d2e27a4c4 7b2a12482732 4623ebe2ec1c 4623ebe2ec1c 4623ebe2ec1c 4623ebe2ec1c 4623ebe2ec1c 4623ebe2ec1c 4623ebe2ec1c 4623ebe2ec1c 8ca2d666852b dccc2155aeeb dccc2155aeeb dccc2155aeeb dccc2155aeeb dccc2155aeeb f7211a9f8a7f 0c48d8fdd3f2 520451439f85 d2c59d90e9d6 0be18ce1927f d2c59d90e9d6 d2c59d90e9d6 d2c59d90e9d6 d2c59d90e9d6 d2c59d90e9d6 d2c59d90e9d6 d2c59d90e9d6 d2c59d90e9d6 d2c59d90e9d6 d2c59d90e9d6 d2c59d90e9d6 d2c59d90e9d6 d2c59d90e9d6 d2c59d90e9d6 f4b4b9f85eba 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 6c97541824e7 da7e0da12860 da7e0da12860 da7e0da12860 da7e0da12860 ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa ed8fb5a938fa 4cea1c46451f 54d57e9281d9 c6521ae3031a 4cea1c46451f 8ca0ae7ccd9e 8ca0ae7ccd9e 8ca0ae7ccd9e 8ca0ae7ccd9e 8ca0ae7ccd9e 8ca0ae7ccd9e 8ca0ae7ccd9e 8ca0ae7ccd9e 33e47ace6032 ed2f3b21d02b ed2f3b21d02b ed2f3b21d02b 8ca0ae7ccd9e 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 08c38c104d31 f4b4b9f85eba ed2f3b21d02b ed2f3b21d02b ed2f3b21d02b da7e0da12860 da7e0da12860 da7e0da12860 54d57e9281d9 2cfbed706cef 3cdd6624043d f7211a9f8a7f 82f2c66198c3 f7211a9f8a7f 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 2cfbed706cef 3465a2dd60f7 3465a2dd60f7 3465a2dd60f7 3465a2dd60f7 3465a2dd60f7 3465a2dd60f7 4cea1c46451f df7c046d04b4 df7c046d04b4 df7c046d04b4 520451439f85 54d57e9281d9 7a755cf4cbab 3cdd6624043d 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 4cea1c46451f 8f33303a9f8e 8f33303a9f8e 8f33303a9f8e 8f33303a9f8e 8f33303a9f8e 8f33303a9f8e 4cea1c46451f 2b98827e568e 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 d638f60cd9fe 10b0ade5d5a0 8f33303a9f8e 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 10b0ade5d5a0 4cea1c46451f 9bd27fcffefc 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 4cea1c46451f 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 221481f33b6d 54d57e9281d9 7a755cf4cbab 3cdd6624043d a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc d638f60cd9fe 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc 9bd27fcffefc b7dfcb237240 4cea1c46451f a5079818d487 a5079818d487 a5079818d487 a5079818d487 a5079818d487 a5079818d487 a5079818d487 a5079818d487 a5079818d487 a5079818d487 a5079818d487 85577d597ac5 a5079818d487 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a5079818d487 a5079818d487 4cea1c46451f 9de90679bbc5 9de90679bbc5 9de90679bbc5 9de90679bbc5 9de90679bbc5 9de90679bbc5 9de90679bbc5 9de90679bbc5 9de90679bbc5 9de90679bbc5 f4b4b9f85eba dac68d141052 dac68d141052 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 dac68d141052 dac68d141052 8faf96d5e5d2 8faf96d5e5d2 8faf96d5e5d2 8faf96d5e5d2 8faf96d5e5d2 8faf96d5e5d2 8faf96d5e5d2 dac68d141052 511117826093 511117826093 511117826093 511117826093 511117826093 d638f60cd9fe 511117826093 511117826093 511117826093 511117826093 511117826093 511117826093 511117826093 511117826093 511117826093 511117826093 dac68d141052 d638f60cd9fe 6d5ca098a11e 6d5ca098a11e 6d5ca098a11e 6d5ca098a11e 6d5ca098a11e 6d5ca098a11e 6d5ca098a11e 6d5ca098a11e 6d5ca098a11e 6d5ca098a11e 6d5ca098a11e 4cea1c46451f 9de90679bbc5 9de90679bbc5 9de90679bbc5 f53db9025a0d ebe7610b2b3e 85577d597ac5 a83760dcc73c 16917f85a2ae a83760dcc73c a83760dcc73c a83760dcc73c a83760dcc73c a83760dcc73c a83760dcc73c a83760dcc73c a83760dcc73c a83760dcc73c a83760dcc73c ebe7610b2b3e b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a cb18441ebafd dd9e08222238 d638f60cd9fe dd9e08222238 dd9e08222238 dd9e08222238 ebe7610b2b3e 579704541d47 f31235afbc80 f31235afbc80 579704541d47 579704541d47 579704541d47 579704541d47 579704541d47 579704541d47 579704541d47 f58920bbe53c 579704541d47 f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba cee78c87ef8a cee78c87ef8a aa15f936ce89 aa15f936ce89 aa15f936ce89 aa15f936ce89 f4b4b9f85eba b17d0710acbe b17d0710acbe f4b4b9f85eba b3e528a31cf1 b17d0710acbe b17d0710acbe b3e528a31cf1 b17d0710acbe b17d0710acbe b17d0710acbe b17d0710acbe b17d0710acbe b17d0710acbe d638f60cd9fe b17d0710acbe b17d0710acbe b17d0710acbe f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba 10244bee1439 10244bee1439 f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba 10244bee1439 f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba 10244bee1439 f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba 10244bee1439 f4b4b9f85eba b3e528a31cf1 d638f60cd9fe b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 b3e528a31cf1 1e928fdbb897 b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a 0a37731b72f5 0a37731b72f5 b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a 678c1d80991b 678c1d80991b 678c1d80991b 678c1d80991b 678c1d80991b 678c1d80991b 678c1d80991b 678c1d80991b 678c1d80991b 678c1d80991b b00ddaa6987a b00ddaa6987a b3e528a31cf1 263dd1e086a4 9dc94d5869af 362292c69239 362292c69239 2aa26136116d 2aa26136116d 2aa26136116d 2aa26136116d 362292c69239 2aa26136116d 362292c69239 2aa26136116d 362292c69239 2aa26136116d 2aa26136116d a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 2aa26136116d 2aa26136116d 2aa26136116d 85577d597ac5 2aa26136116d 2aa26136116d 2aa26136116d 2aa26136116d 2aa26136116d 2aa26136116d 2aa26136116d 362292c69239 263dd1e086a4 1aa98048c19c 263dd1e086a4 263dd1e086a4 263dd1e086a4 263dd1e086a4 263dd1e086a4 263dd1e086a4 263dd1e086a4 362292c69239 362292c69239 362292c69239 362292c69239 362292c69239 362292c69239 362292c69239 362292c69239 362292c69239 263dd1e086a4 362292c69239 362292c69239 263dd1e086a4 362292c69239 263dd1e086a4 263dd1e086a4 362292c69239 263dd1e086a4 362292c69239 263dd1e086a4 263dd1e086a4 362292c69239 751992a9324b 98ae3aaac23c 98ae3aaac23c 98ae3aaac23c 98ae3aaac23c c4ced9c93f75 c4ced9c93f75 98ae3aaac23c 98ae3aaac23c 98ae3aaac23c 98ae3aaac23c 017c6ae1b510 362292c69239 017c6ae1b510 362292c69239 017c6ae1b510 017c6ae1b510 362292c69239 362292c69239 362292c69239 362292c69239 362292c69239 362292c69239 362292c69239 a03479ec1b00 a03479ec1b00 a03479ec1b00 a03479ec1b00 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f a03479ec1b00 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f a03479ec1b00 a03479ec1b00 a03479ec1b00 a03479ec1b00 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f a03479ec1b00 a03479ec1b00 4cea1c46451f a03479ec1b00 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f a03479ec1b00 a03479ec1b00 4cea1c46451f a03479ec1b00 484ca88b811b a03479ec1b00 a03479ec1b00 4cea1c46451f a03479ec1b00 a03479ec1b00 a03479ec1b00 a03479ec1b00 4cea1c46451f 5963e0d131ea 5963e0d131ea 5963e0d131ea a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a32bea95638d a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 5963e0d131ea 5963e0d131ea 5963e0d131ea 5963e0d131ea 5963e0d131ea 5963e0d131ea 5963e0d131ea 5963e0d131ea 5963e0d131ea 5963e0d131ea 7cd4b2d7f4cd 82a504a1155f 4cea1c46451f 82a504a1155f 362292c69239 4f31de2b9833 4f31de2b9833 4f31de2b9833 4f31de2b9833 4f31de2b9833 4f31de2b9833 4f31de2b9833 4f31de2b9833 4f31de2b9833 4f31de2b9833 4cea1c46451f a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 54d57e9281d9 3cdd6624043d 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f c6a0465a6515 c6a0465a6515 c6a0465a6515 484ca88b811b c6a0465a6515 c6a0465a6515 f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba c6a0465a6515 c6a0465a6515 c6a0465a6515 c6a0465a6515 c6a0465a6515 c6a0465a6515 c6a0465a6515 c6a0465a6515 c6a0465a6515 54d57e9281d9 3cdd6624043d c6a0465a6515 520451439f85 c2415647a5ec 520451439f85 520451439f85 520451439f85 520451439f85 4cea1c46451f 54d57e9281d9 6ba2ff285f10 3cdd6624043d 79405042169b 79405042169b 79405042169b 79405042169b 79405042169b a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a5bf35174cb2 a5bf35174cb2 79405042169b 79405042169b 79405042169b 79405042169b 79405042169b 79405042169b 79405042169b 79405042169b 79405042169b 79405042169b 4cea1c46451f 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba 54d57e9281d9 b15c4c2a2419 4cea1c46451f f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 16917f85a2ae f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c c2415647a5ec f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 85577d597ac5 f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c c2415647a5ec 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 764802727541 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c c2415647a5ec 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c c2415647a5ec 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 16917f85a2ae 5c1a943df91c ebe7610b2b3e ebe7610b2b3e 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 1e928fdbb897 1e928fdbb897 1e928fdbb897 1e928fdbb897 1e928fdbb897 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 5c1a943df91c 1e928fdbb897 5c1a943df91c f4b4b9f85eba 3878521bbfae 851be52e624c 3cdd6624043d 85577d597ac5 3878521bbfae 3878521bbfae 3878521bbfae 4cea1c46451f 3878521bbfae 3878521bbfae 3878521bbfae 3878521bbfae 3878521bbfae 3878521bbfae 4cea1c46451f 3878521bbfae 4cea1c46451f 3878521bbfae 3878521bbfae 4cea1c46451f 54d57e9281d9 3cdd6624043d f8a919928413 f4b4b9f85eba f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 85577d597ac5 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f8a919928413 f4b4b9f85eba f4b4b9f85eba 4cea1c46451f a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 54d57e9281d9 7a755cf4cbab 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f 596878284d12 596878284d12 596878284d12 596878284d12 596878284d12 596878284d12 596878284d12 596878284d12 596878284d12 596878284d12 596878284d12 4cea1c46451f 54d57e9281d9 3cdd6624043d 4cea1c46451f 4cea1c46451f b494e0cc661c 3cdd6624043d ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 ceccb45e2567 520451439f85 520451439f85 b494e0cc661c b494e0cc661c 520451439f85 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 746eff5786b2 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b d1de64cafda9 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b d1de64cafda9 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b ce82a1d11635 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c d1de64cafda9 d1de64cafda9 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 554510108853 c6063eca3c00 80295e9c558b c6063eca3c00 c6063eca3c00 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b d1de64cafda9 d1de64cafda9 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c c6063eca3c00 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b d1de64cafda9 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b d1de64cafda9 80295e9c558b c6063eca3c00 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b d1de64cafda9 d1de64cafda9 d1de64cafda9 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b d1de64cafda9 d1de64cafda9 d1de64cafda9 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c ce82a1d11635 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c ce82a1d11635 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c c6063eca3c00 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b ce82a1d11635 80295e9c558b ce82a1d11635 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 43cc44ae2945 02819d4d979c ce82a1d11635 43cc44ae2945 02819d4d979c 43cc44ae2945 80295e9c558b 43cc44ae2945 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 43cc44ae2945 43cc44ae2945 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 43cc44ae2945 2f2e5f9e4c32 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 9ab67f312539 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c faf09497055c 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 80295e9c558b 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 7a755cf4cbab 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c ce82a1d11635 ce82a1d11635 ce82a1d11635 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b ce82a1d11635 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 02819d4d979c 9ab67f312539 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c ce82a1d11635 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c ce82a1d11635 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 02819d4d979c ce82a1d11635 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c faf09497055c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 80295e9c558b 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a e24942c98b4a 02819d4d979c faf09497055c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c a577a77eb405 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 2f2e5f9e4c32 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 ce82a1d11635 2f2e5f9e4c32 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c ce82a1d11635 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 2f2e5f9e4c32 80295e9c558b ce82a1d11635 2f2e5f9e4c32 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b d1de64cafda9 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 d1de64cafda9 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 ce82a1d11635 ce82a1d11635 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b e8a8778ae5ec 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b ce82a1d11635 54d57e9281d9 ce82a1d11635 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b ce82a1d11635 ce82a1d11635 ce82a1d11635 ce82a1d11635 ce82a1d11635 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 a577a77eb405 a577a77eb405 ce82a1d11635 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b ce82a1d11635 80295e9c558b ce82a1d11635 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b ce82a1d11635 ce82a1d11635 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 d1de64cafda9 ce82a1d11635 faf09497055c ce82a1d11635 d1de64cafda9 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 d1de64cafda9 d1de64cafda9 ce82a1d11635 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 ce82a1d11635 ce82a1d11635 a577a77eb405 ce82a1d11635 ce82a1d11635 ce82a1d11635 02819d4d979c a577a77eb405 ce82a1d11635 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 54d57e9281d9 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 2f2e5f9e4c32 54d57e9281d9 ce82a1d11635 ce82a1d11635 02819d4d979c 02819d4d979c ce82a1d11635 54d57e9281d9 ce82a1d11635 80295e9c558b 54d57e9281d9 ce82a1d11635 02819d4d979c a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 746eff5786b2 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 b1a86ee9cd0d a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 a1b059184c96 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 02819d4d979c 80295e9c558b 02819d4d979c 9a799821ef3a 02819d4d979c 9a799821ef3a 5d93036c5347 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b a577a77eb405 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a 54d57e9281d9 80295e9c558b 9a799821ef3a 80295e9c558b 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 163097cd2b29 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b a7ffbb9ee575 a7ffbb9ee575 f31235afbc80 f31235afbc80 f31235afbc80 f31235afbc80 f31235afbc80 f31235afbc80 f31235afbc80 9a799821ef3a a7ffbb9ee575 9a799821ef3a 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 9a799821ef3a 80295e9c558b fd9a2353f4c9 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 9a799821ef3a a7ffbb9ee575 d638f60cd9fe 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 9a799821ef3a 80295e9c558b 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a fd9a2353f4c9 fd9a2353f4c9 fd9a2353f4c9 9a799821ef3a 80295e9c558b 012aebd493c9 012aebd493c9 012aebd493c9 012aebd493c9 012aebd493c9 012aebd493c9 012aebd493c9 012aebd493c9 012aebd493c9 9a799821ef3a a7ffbb9ee575 80295e9c558b 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a 0117799b6983 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a 80295e9c558b 9a799821ef3a fd9a2353f4c9 163097cd2b29 5d8bdec51c27 8e5a38102856 80295e9c558b 9a799821ef3a 80295e9c558b 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a 85577d597ac5 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 2f2e5f9e4c32 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 9a799821ef3a 9a799821ef3a 80295e9c558b a577a77eb405 9a799821ef3a 3b878270e482 02819d4d979c 3b878270e482 3b878270e482 3b878270e482 6c9b78d9d570 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 80295e9c558b 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae 16917f85a2ae | % gpl-lgpl.tex -*- LaTeX -*-
% Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL course
%
% License: CC-By-SA-4.0
% The copyright holders hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify, convey,
% Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative
% Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License.
% This text is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
% WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
% MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
% You should have received a copy of the license with this document in
% a file called 'CC-By-SA-4.0.txt'. If not, please visit
% https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode to receive
% the license text.
% FIXME-LATER: I should make a macro like the Texinfo @xref stuff for places
% where I'm saying ``see section X in this tutorial'', so that the extra
% verbiage isn't there in the HTML versions that I'll eventually do.
% Maybe something like that already exists? In the worst case, I could
% adapt @xref from texinfo.texi for it.
\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\emph{#1}}
\part{Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related Licenses}
\label{gpl-lgpl-part}
{\parindent 0in
\tutorialpartsplit{``Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related Licenses''}{This part} is: \\
\begin{tabbing}
Copyright \= \copyright{} 2003--2007, 2014 \hspace{.1mm} \= \kill
Copyright \> \copyright{} 2014 \> Bradley M. Kuhn \\
Copyright \> \copyright{} 2014 \> Anthony K. Sebro, Jr. \\
Copyright \> \copyright{} 2003--2007, 2014 \> Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\
Copyright \> \copyright{} 2014 \> Software Freedom Law Center.
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{.3in}
\begin{center}
Authors of \tutorialpartsplit{``Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related Licenses''}{this part} are: \\
Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\
Bradley M. Kuhn \\
David ``Novalis'' Turner \\
Daniel B. Ravicher \\
Tony Sebro \\
John Sullivan
\vspace{.2in}
Copy editors of this part include: \\
Martin Michlmayr
\vspace{.2in}
The copyright holders of \tutorialpartsplit{``Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related Licenses''}{this part} hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify,
convey, Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License. A copy of that
license is available at
\verb=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode=.
\end{center}
}
\bigskip
\tutorialpartsplit{This tutorial}{This part of the tutorial} gives a
comprehensive explanation of the most popular Free Software copyright
license, the GNU General Public License (``GNU GPL'', or sometimes just
``GPL'') -- both version 2 (``GPLv2'') and version 3 (``GPLv3'') -- and
teaches lawyers, software developers, managers and business people how to use
the GPL (and GPL'd software) successfully both as a community-building
``Constitution'' for a software project, and to incorporate copylefted
software into a new Free Software business and in existing, successful
enterprises.
To successfully benefit from this part of the tutorial, readers should
have a general familiarity with software development processes. A basic
understanding of how copyright law applies to software is also helpful. The
tutorial is of most interest to lawyers, software developers and managers who
run or advise software businesses that modify and/or redistribute software
under the terms of the GNU GPL (or who wish to do so in the future), and those
who wish to make use of existing GPL'd software in their enterprise.
Upon completion of this part of the tutorial, successful readers can expect
to have learned the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item The freedom-defending purpose of various terms in the GNU GPLv2 and GPLv3.
\item The differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3.
\item The redistribution options under the GPLv2 and GPLv3.
\item The obligations when modifying GPLv2'd or GPLv3'd software.
\item How to build a plan for proper and successful compliance with the GPL.
\item The business advantages that the GPL provides.
\item The most common business models used in conjunction with the GPL.
\item How existing GPL'd software can be used in existing enterprises.
\item The basics of LGPLv2.1 and LGPLv3, and how they
differs from the GPLv2 and GPLv3, respectively.
\item The basics to begin understanding the complexities regarding
derivative and combined works of software.
\end{itemize}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% END OF ABSTRACTS SECTION
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% START OF DAY ONE COURSE
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{What Is Software Freedom?}
Study of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as \defn{GNU
GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader world
of software freedom. The GPL was not created in a vacuum. Rather, it was
created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set forth at the
founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) -- the
preeminent organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy of software
freedom. A prerequisite for understanding both of the popular versions
of the GPL
(GPLv2 and GPLv3) and their terms and conditions is a basic understanding of
the principles behind them. The GPL family of licenses are unlike nearly all
other software licenses in that they are designed to defend and uphold these
principles.
\section{The Free Software Definition}
\label{Free Software Definition}
The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's website at
\verb0http://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 GPL\@.
A particular program grants software freedom to a particular user if that
user is granted the following freedoms:
\begin{itemize}
\item The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
\item The freedom to study how the program works, and modify it
\item The freedom to redistribute copies.
\item The freedom to distribute copies of modified versions to others.
\end{itemize}
The focus on ``a particular user'' is particularly pertinent here. It is not
uncommon for the same version of a specific program to grant these freedoms
to some subset of its user base, while others have none or only some of these
freedoms. Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in detail about how
this can unfortunately happen even if a program is released under the GPL\@.
Many people refer to software that gives these freedoms as ``Open 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 Web site at
\url{http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html}.}
Those who call the software ``Open Source'' are often focused on a side
issue. Specifically, 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 are granted in the license of that source code.
Software freedom is only complete when no restrictions are imposed on how
these freedoms are exercised. Specifically, users and programmers can
exercise these freedoms noncommercially or commercially. Licenses that grant
these freedoms for noncommercial activities but prohibit them for commercial
activities are considered non-free. Even the Open Source Initiative
(\defn{OSI}) (the arbiter of what is considered ``Open Source'') also rules
such licenses not in fitting with its ``Open Source Definition''.
In general, software for which most or all of these freedoms are
restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software.'' Typically, the
term ``proprietary software'' is used more or less interchangeably with
``non-Free Software.'' Personally, I tend to use the term ``non-Free
Software'' to refer to noncommercial software that restricts freedom
(such as ``shareware'') and ``proprietary software'' to refer to
commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of
Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).
Keep in mind that none of the terms ``software freedom'', ``open source''
and ``free software'' are known to be trademarked or otherwise legally
restricted by any organization in
any jurisdiction. As such, it's quite common that these terms are abused and
misused by parties who wish to bank on the popularity of software freedom.
When one considers using, modifying or redistributing a software package that
purports to be Open Source or Free Software, one \textbf{must} verify that
the license grants software freedom.
Furthermore, throughout this text, we generally prefer the term ``software
freedom'', as this is the least ambiguous term available to describe software
that meets the Free Software Definition. For example, it is well known and
often discussed that the adjective ``free'' has two unrelated meanings in
English: ``free as in freedom'' and ``free as in price''. Meanwhile, the
term ``open source'' is even more confusing, because it appears to refer only to the
``freedom to study'', which is merely a subset of one of the four freedoms.
The remainder of this section considers each of each component of software
freedom in detail.
\subsection{The Freedom to Run}
\label{freedom-to-run}
The first tenet of software freedom is the user's fully unfettered right to
run the program. The software's license must permit any conceivable use of
the software. Perhaps, for example, the user has discovered an innovative
use for a particular program, one that the programmer never could have
predicted. Such a use must not be restricted.
It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary
software; but such is quite common today. Most End User License Agreements
(EULAs) that cover most proprietary software typically restrict some types of
uses. Such restrictions of any kind are an unacceptable restriction on
software freedom.
\subsection{The Freedom to Change and Modify}
Perhaps the most useful right of software freedom is the users' right to
change, modify and adapt the software to suit their needs. Access to the
source code and related build and installation scripts are an essential part
of this freedom. Without the source code, and the ability to build and
install the binary applications from that source, users cannot effectively
exercise this freedom.
Programmers directly benefit from this freedom. However, this freedom
remains important to users who are not programmers. While it may seem
counterintuitive at first, non-programmer users often exercise this freedom
indirectly in both commercial and noncommercial settings. For example, users
often seek noncommercial help with the software on email lists and in user
groups. To make use of such help they must either have the freedom to
recruit programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their
software, or to at least follow rote instructions to make basic modifications
themselves.
More commonly, users also exercise this freedom commercially. Each user, or
group of users, may hire anyone they wish in a competitive free market to
modify and change the software. This means that companies have a right to
hire anyone they wish to modify their Free Software. Additionally, such
companies may contract with other companies to commission software
modifications.
\subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}
Users share Free Software in a variety of ways. Software freedom 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 to your friend who likes the software you are using). Licenses that
respect software freedom, therefore, permit altruistic sharing of software
among friends.
The commercial environment also benefits from this freedom. Commercial sharing
includes selling copies of Free Software: that is, Free Software can
be distributed for any monetary
price to anyone. Those who redistribute Free Software commercially also have
the freedom to selectively distribute (i.e., you can pick your customers) and
to set prices at any level that redistributor sees fit.
Of course, most people get copies of Free Software very cheaply (and
sometimes without charge). The competitive free market of Free Software
tends to keep prices low and reasonable. However, if someone is willing to
pay billions of dollars for one copy of the GNU Compiler Collection, such a
sale is completely permitted.
Another common instance of commercial sharing is service-oriented
distribution. For example, some distribution vendors provide immediate
security and upgrade distribution via a special network service. Such
distribution is not necessarily contradictory with software freedom.
(Section~\ref{Business Models} of this tutorial talks in detail about some
common Free Software business models that take advantage of the freedom to
share commercially.)
\subsection{The Freedom to Share Improvements}
The freedom to modify and improve is somewhat empty without the freedom to
share those improvements. The software freedom community is built on the
pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Historically
it was typical for a
Free Software project to sprout a mailing list where improvements
would be shared
freely among members of the development community\footnote{This is still
commonly the case, though today there are other or additional ways of
sharing Free Software.}. Such noncommercial
sharing is the primary reason that Free Software thrives.
Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.
For commercial support to exist in a competitive free market, all
developers -- from single-person contractors to large software
companies -- must have the freedom to market their services as
augmenters of Free Software. All forms of such service marketing must
be equally available to all.
For example, selling support services for Free Software is fully
permitted. Companies and individuals can offer themselves as ``the place
to call'' when software fails or does not function properly. For such a
service to be meaningful, the entity offering that service needs the
right to modify and improve the software for the customer to correct any
problems that are beyond mere user error.
Software freedom licenses also permit any entity to distribute modified
versions of Free Software. Most Free Software programs have a ``standard
version'' that is made available from the primary developers of the software.
However, all who have the software have the ``freedom to fork'' -- that is,
make available nontrivial modified versions of the software on a permanent or
semi-permanent basis. Such freedom is central to vibrant developer and user
interaction.
Companies and individuals have the right to make true value-added versions
of Free Software. They may use freedom to share improvements to
distribute distinct versions of Free Software with different functionality
and features. Furthermore, this freedom can be exercised to serve a
disenfranchised subset of the user community. If the developers of the
standard version refuse to serve the needs of some of the software's
users, other entities have the right to create a long- or short-lived fork
to serve that sub-community.
\section{How Does Software Become Free?}
The previous section set forth key freedoms and rights that are referred to
as ``software freedom''. This section discusses the licensing mechanisms
used to enable software freedom. These licensing mechanisms were ultimately
created as a community-oriented ``answer'' to the existing proprietary
software licensing mechanisms. Thus, first, consider carefully why
proprietary software exists in the first place.
\label{explaining-copyright}
The primary legal regime that applies to software is copyright law.
Proprietary software exists at all only because copyright law governs
software.\footnote{This statement is admittedly an oversimplification. Patents and
trade secrets can cover software and make it effectively non-Free, and one
can contract away their rights and freedoms regarding software, or 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, and therefore this section focuses on how copyright
restrictions make software proprietary.} Copyright law, with respect to
software, typically governs copying, modifying, and redistributing that
software (For details of this in the USA, see
\href{http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106}{\S~106} and
\href{http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117}{\S~117} of
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17}{Title 17} of the
\textit{United States Code}).\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs
``public performance'' of copyrighted works. There is no generally agreed
definition for public performance of software and both GPLv2 and GPLv3 do
not restrict public performance.} By law (in the USA and in most other
jurisdictions), the copyright holder (most typically, the author) of the work controls
how others may copy, modify and/or distribute the work. For proprietary
software, these controls are used to prohibit these activities. In addition,
proprietary software distributors further impede modification in a practical
sense by distributing only binary code and keeping the source code of the
software secret.
Copyright is not a natural state, it is a legal construction. In the USA, the
Constitution permits, but does not require, the creation of copyright law as
federal legislation. Software, since it is an ``original work of authorship
fixed in any tangible medium of expression ... from which they can be
perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the
aid of a machine or device'' (as stated in
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102}{17 USC \S~102}), is thus
covered by the statute, and is copyrighted by default.
However, software, in its natural state without copyright, is Free
Software. In an imaginary world with no copyright, the rules would be
different. In this world, when you received a copy of a program's source
code, there would be no default legal system to restrict you from sharing it
with others, making modifications, or redistributing those modified
versions.\footnote{Note that this is again an oversimplification; the
complexities with this argument are discussed in
Section~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.}
Software in the real world is copyrighted by default and is automatically
covered by that legal system. However, it is possible to move software out
of the domain of the copyright system. A copyright holder can often
\defn{disclaim} their copyright. (For example, under USA copyright law
it is possible for a copyright holder to engage in conduct resulting
in abandonment of copyright.) If copyright is disclaimed, the software is
effectively no longer restricted by copyright law. Software not restricted by copyright is in the
``public domain.''
\subsection{Public Domain Software}
In the USA and other countries that
are parties to the Berne Convention on Copyright, software is copyrighted
automatically by the author when she fixes the software in a tangible
medium. In the software world, this usually means typing the source code
of the software into a file.
Imagine if authors could truly disclaim those default controls of copyright
law. If so, the software is in the public domain --- no longer covered by
copyright. Since copyright law is the construction allowing for most
restrictions on software (i.e., prohibition of copying, modification, and
redistribution), removing the software from the copyright system usually
yields software freedom for its users.
Carefully note that software truly in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
in any way. It is confusing to say software is ``licensed for the
public domain,'' or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave
express permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
Copyright holders who state that they are releasing their code into
the public domain are effectively renouncing copyright controls on
the work. The law gave the copyright holders exclusive controls over the
work, and they chose to waive those controls. Software that is, in
this sense, in the public domain
is conceptualized by the developer as having no copyright and thus no license. The software freedoms discussed in
Section~\ref{Free Software Definition} are all granted because there is no
legal system in play to take them away.
Admittedly, a discussion of public domain software is an oversimplified
example.
Because copyright controls are usually automatically granted and because, in
some jurisdictions, some copyright controls cannot be waived (see
Section~\ref{non-usa-copyright} for further discussion), many copyright
holders sometimes incorrectly believe a work has been placed in the public
domain. Second, due to aggressive lobbying by the entertainment industry,
the ``exclusive Right'' of copyright, that was supposed to only exist for
``Limited Times'' according to the USA Constitution, appears to be infinite:
simply purchased on the installment plan rather than in whole. Thus, we must
assume no works of software will fall into the public domain merely due to
the passage of time.
Nevertheless, under USA law it is likely that the typical
disclaimers of copyright or public domain dedications we see in the
Free Software world would be interpreted by courts as copyright
abandonment, leading to a situation in which the user effectively receives a
maximum grant of copyright freedoms, similar to a maximally-permissive
Free Software license.
The best example of software known to truly be in the public domain is software
that is published by the USA government. Under
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/105}{17 USC 101 \S~105}, all
works published by the USA Government are not copyrightable in the USA.
\subsection{Why Copyright Free Software?}
If simply disclaiming copyright on software yields Free Software, then it
stands to reason that putting software into the public domain is the
easiest and most straightforward way to produce Free Software. Indeed,
some major Free Software projects have chosen this method for making their
software Free. However, most of the Free Software in existence \emph{is}
copyrighted. In most cases (particularly in those of FSF and the GNU
Project), this was done due to very careful planning.
Software released into the public domain does grant freedom to those users
who receive the standard versions on which the original author disclaimed
copyright. However, since the work is not copyrighted, any nontrivial
modification made to the work is fully copyrightable.
Free Software released into the public domain initially is Free, and
perhaps some who modify the software choose to place their work into the
public domain as well. However, over time, some entities will choose to
proprietarize their modified versions. The public domain body of software
feeds the proprietary software. The public commons disappears, because
fewer and fewer entities have an incentive to contribute back to the
commons. They know that any of their competitors can proprietarize their
enhancements. Over time, almost no interesting work is left in the public
domain, because nearly all new work is done by proprietarization.
A legal mechanism is needed to redress this problem. FSF was in fact
originally created primarily as a legal entity to defend software freedom,
and that work 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. Many, including the
developers of the kernel named Linux, have chosen to follow this paradigm.
\label{copyleft-definition}
Copyleft is a strategy of utilizing copyright law to pursue the policy goal
of fostering and encouraging the equal and inalienable right to copy, share,
modify and improve creative works of authorship. Copyleft (as a general
term) describes any method that utilizes the copyright system to achieve the
aforementioned goal. Copyleft as a concept is usually implemented in the
details of a specific copyright license, such as the
\hyperref[GPLv3-full-text]{GNU General Public License (GPL)} and the Creative
Commons Attribution Share Alike License (the latter of which is the license
of this work itself). Copyright holders of creative work can unilaterally
implement these licenses for their own works to build communities that
collaboratively share and improve those copylefted creative works.
Copyleft uses functional parts of the copyright system to achieve an unusual
result (legal protection for free sharing). Copyleft modifies, or ``hacks''
copyright law, which is usually employed to strengthen the rights of authors
or publishers, to strengthen instead the rights of users. Thus, Copyleft is
a legal strategy and mechanism to defend, uphold and propagate software
freedom. The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the
software, license it under terms that give all the software freedoms, but use
the copyright law controls to ensure that all who receive a copy of the
software have equal rights and freedom. In essence, copyleft grants freedom,
but forbids others to forbid that freedom to anyone else along the
distribution and modification chains.
Copyleft's ``reciprocity'' or ``share and share alike'' rule protects both
developers, who avoid facing a ``proprietized'' competitor of their project,
and users, who can be sure that they will have all four software freedoms ---
not only in the present version of the program they use, but in all its
future improved versions.
Copyleft is a general concept. Much like ideas for what a computer might
do must be \emph{implemented} by a program that actually does the job, so
too must copyleft be implemented in some concrete legal structure.
``Share and share alike'' is a phrase that is used often enough to explain the
concept behind copyleft, but to actually make it work in the real world, a
true implementation in legal text must exist, written as a ``copyright
license''. The GPL implements the concept of copyleft for software-oriented
and other functional works of a technical nature. The ``CC BY SA'' license
implements copyleft for works of textual, musical and visual authorship, such
as this tutorial.
Copyleft advocates often distinguish between the concept of a ``strong
copyleft'' or a ``weak copyleft''. However, ``strong vs. weak'' copyleft is
not a dichotomy, it's a spectrum. The strongest copylefts strive to the
exclusive rights that copyright grants to authors as extensively as possible
to maximize software freedom. As a copyleft gets ``weaker'', the copyleft
license typically makes ``trade offs'' that might impede software freedom,
but reach other tactic goals for the community of users and developers of the
work.
In other words, strong copyleft licenses place the more requirements on how
``the work'' is licensed. The unit of copyright law is ``the work''. In
that sense, the ``work'' referenced by the licenses is anything that can be
copyrighted or will be subject to the terms of copyright law. Strong
copyleft licenses exercise their scope fully. Anything which is ``a work''
or a ``work based on a work'' licensed under a strong copyleft is subject to
its requirements, including the requirement of complete, corresponding source
code\footnote{Copyleft communities' use of the term ``strong copyleft'' is
undoubtedly imprecise. For example, most will call the GNU GPL a ``strong
copyleft'' license, even though the GPL itself has various exceptions, such
as the \hyperref[GPLv3-system-library-exception]{GPLv3's system library
exception} written into the text of the license itself. Furthermore, the
copyleft community continues to debate where the a license cross the line
from ``strong copyleft'' to ``license that fails to respect software
freedom'', although ultimately these debates are actually regarding whether
the license fits \hyperref[Free Software Definition]{Free Software
definition} at all.}. Thus, copyleft licenses, particularly strong ones,
seek to ensure the same license covers every version of ``work based on the
work'', as recognized by local copyright law, and thereby achieve the
specific strategic policy aim of ensuring software freedom for all users,
developers, authors, and readers who encounter the copylefted work.
\subsection{Software and Non-Copyright Legal Regimes}
\label{software-and-non-copyright}
The use, modification and distribution of software, like many endeavors,
simultaneously interacts with multiple different legal regimes. As was noted
early via footnotes, copyright is merely the \textit{most common way} to
restrict users' rights to copy, share, modify and/or redistribute software.
However, proprietary software licenses typically use every mechanism
available to subjugate users. For example:
\begin{itemize}
\item Unfortunately, despite much effort by many in the software freedom
community to end patents that read on software (i.e., patents on
computational ideas), they still ultimately exist. As such, a software
program might otherwise be seemly unrestricted, but a patent might read on
the software and ruin everything for its users.\footnote{See
\S\S~\ref{gpl-implied-patent-grant},~\ref{GPLv2s7},~\ref{GPLv3s11} for more
discussion on how the patent system interacts with copyleft, and read
Richard M.~Stallman's essay,
\href{http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/richard-stallman-software-patents/}{\textit{Let's
Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can't Eliminate Them}}
for more information on the problems these patents present to society.}
\item Digital Restrictions Management (usually called \defn{DRM}) is often
used to impose technological restrictions on users' ability to exercise
software freedom that they might otherwise be granted\footnote{See
\S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} for more information on how GPL deals with this issue.}.
The simplest (and perhaps oldest) form of DRM, of course, is separating
software source code (read by humans), from their compiled binaries (read
only by computers). Furthermore,
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201}{17 USC~\S1201} often
prohibits users legally from circumventing some of these DRM systems.
\item Most EULAs also include a contractual agreement that bind users further
by forcing them to agree to a contractual, prohibitive software license
before ever even using the software.
\end{itemize}
Thus, most proprietary software restricts users via multiple interlocking
legal and technological means. Any license that truly respect the software
freedom of all users must not only grant appropriate copyright permissions,
but also \textit{prevent} restrictions from other legal and technological
means like those listed above.
\subsection{Non-USA Copyright Regimes}
\label{non-usa-copyright}
Generally speaking, copyright law operates similarly enough in countries that
have signed the Berne Convention on Copyright, and software freedom licenses
have generally taken advantage of this international standardization of
copyright law. However, copyright law does differ from country to country,
and commonly, software freedom licenses like the GPL must be considered under the
copyright law in the jurisdiction where any licensing dispute occurs.
Those who are most familiar with the USA's system of copyright often are
surprised to learn that there are certain copyright controls that cannot be
waived nor disclaimed. Specifically, many copyright regimes outside the USA
recognize a concept of moral rights of authors. Typically, moral rights are
fully compatible with respecting software freedom, as they are usually
centered around controls that software freedom licenses generally respect,
such as the right of an authors to require proper attribution for their work.
\section{A Community of Equality}
The previous section described the principles of software freedom, a brief
introduction to mechanisms that typically block these freedoms, and the
simplest ways that copyright holders might grant those freedoms to their
users for their copyrighted works of software. The previous section also
introduced the idea of \textit{copyleft}: a licensing mechanism to use
copyright to not only grant software freedom to users, but also to uphold
those rights against those who might seek to curtail them.
Copyleft, as defined in \S~\ref{copyleft-definition}, is a general term for this
mechanism. The remainder of this text will discuss details of various
real-world implementations of copyleft -- most notably, the GPL\@.
This discussion begins first with some general explanation of what the GPL is
able to do in software development communities. After that brief discussion
in this section, deeper discussion of how GPL accomplishes this in practice
follows in the next chapter.
Simply put, though, the GPL ultimately creates a community of equality for
both business and noncommercial users.
\subsection{The Noncommercial Community}
A GPL'd code base becomes a center of a vibrant development and user
community. Traditionally, volunteers, operating noncommercially out of
keen interest or ``scratch an itch'' motivations, produce initial versions
of a GPL'd system. Because of the efficient distribution channels of the
Internet, any useful GPL'd system is adopted quickly by noncommercial
users.
Fundamentally, the early release and quick distribution of the software
gives birth to a thriving noncommercial community. Users and developers
begin sharing bug reports and bug fixes across a shared intellectual
commons. Users can trust the developers, because they know that if the
developers fail to address their needs or abandon the project, the GPL
ensures that someone else has the right to pick up development.
Developers know that the users cannot redistribute their software without
passing along the rights granted by the GPL, so they are assured that every
one of their users is treated equally.
Because of the symmetry and fairness inherent in GPL'd distribution,
nearly every GPL'd package in existence has a vibrant noncommercial user
and developer base.
\subsection{The Commercial Community}
By the same token, nearly all established GPL'd software systems have a
vibrant commercial community. Nearly every GPL'd system that has gained
wide adoption from noncommercial users and developers eventually begins
to fuel a commercial system around that software.
For example, consider the Samba file server system that allows Unix-like
systems (including GNU/Linux) to serve files to Microsoft Windows systems.
Two graduate students originally developed Samba in their spare time and
it was deployed noncommercially in academic environments\footnote{See
\href{http://turtle.ee.ncku.edu.tw/docs/samba/history}{Andrew Tridgell's
``A bit of history and a bit of fun''}}. 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
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 noncommercial users, however, were not concerned when these two
fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'd work. They knew
that because of the nature of the GPL that improvements that were
distributed in the commercial environment could easily be folded back into
the standard version. Companies are not permitted to proprietarize
Samba, so the noncommercial users, and even other commercial users are
safe in the knowledge that the software freedom ensured by the GPL will remain
protected.
Commercial developers also work in concert with noncommercial
developers. Those two now-long-since graduated students continue to
contribute to Samba altruistically, but also get paid work doing it.
Priorities change when a client is in the mix, but all the code is
contributed back to the standard version. Meanwhile, many other
individuals have gotten involved noncommercially as developers,
because they want to ``cut their teeth on Free Software,'' or because
the problems interest them. When they get good at it, perhaps they
will move on to another project, or perhaps they will become
commercial developers of the software themselves.
No party is a threat to another in the GPL software scenario because
everyone is on equal ground. The GPL protects rights of the commercial
and noncommercial contributors and users equally. The GPL creates trust,
because it is a level playing field for all.
\subsection{Law Analogy}
In his introduction to Stallman's \emph{Free Software, Free Society},
Lawrence Lessig draws an interesting analogy between the law and Free
Software. He argues that the laws of a free society must be protected
much like the GPL protects software. So that I might do true justice to
Lessig's argument, I quote it verbatim:
\begin{quotation}
A ``free society'' is regulated by law. But there are limits that any free
society places on this regulation through law: No society that kept its
laws secret could ever be called free. No government that hid its
regulations from the regulated could ever stand in our tradition. Law
controls. But it does so justly only when visibly. And law is visible
only when its terms are knowable and controllable by those it regulates,
or by the agents of those it regulates (lawyers, legislatures).
This condition on law extends beyond the work of a legislature. Think
about the practice of law in American courts. Lawyers are hired by their
clients to advance their clients' interests. Sometimes that interest is
advanced through litigation. In the course of this litigation, lawyers
write briefs. These briefs in turn affect opinions written by judges.
These opinions decide who wins a particular case, or whether a certain law
can stand consistently with a constitution.
All the material in this process is free in the sense that Stallman means.
Legal briefs are open and free for others to use. The arguments are
transparent (which is different from saying they are good), and the
reasoning can be taken without the permission of the original lawyers.
The opinions they produce can be quoted in later briefs. They can be
copied and integrated into another brief or opinion. The ``source code''
for American law is by design, and by principle, open and free for anyone
to take. And take lawyers do---for it is a measure of a great brief that
it achieves its creativity through the reuse of what happened before. The
source is free; creativity and an economy is built upon it.
This economy of free code (and here I mean free legal code) doesn't starve
lawyers. Law firms have enough incentive to produce great briefs even
though the stuff they build can be taken and copied by anyone else. The
lawyer is a craftsman; his or her product is public. Yet the crafting is
not charity. Lawyers get paid; the public doesn't demand such work
without price. Instead this economy flourishes, with later work added to
the earlier.
We could imagine a legal practice that was different --- briefs and
arguments that were kept secret; rulings that announced a result but not
the reasoning. Laws that were kept by the police but published to no one
else. Regulation that operated without explaining its rule.
We could imagine this society, but we could not imagine calling it
``free.'' Whether or not the incentives in such a society would be better
or more efficiently allocated, such a society could not be known as free.
The ideals of freedom, of life within a free society, demand more than
efficient application. Instead, openness and transparency are the
constraints within which a legal system gets built, not options to be
added if convenient to the leaders. Life governed by software code should
be no less.
Code writing is not litigation. It is better, richer, more
productive. But the law is an obvious instance of how creativity and
incentives do not depend upon perfect control over the products
created. Like jazz, or novels, or architecture, the law gets built
upon the work that went before. This adding and changing is what
creativity always is. And a free society is one that assures that its
most important resources remain free in just this sense.\footnote{This
quotation is Copyright \copyright{} 2002, Lawrence Lessig. It is
licensed under the terms of
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/}{the ``Attribution
License'' version 1.0} or any later version as published by Creative
Commons.}
\end{quotation}
In essence, lawyers are paid to service the shared commons of legal
infrastructure. Few citizens defend themselves in court or write their
own briefs (even though they are legally permitted to do so) because
everyone would prefer to have an expert do that job.
The Free Software economy is a market ripe for experts. It
functions similarly to other well established professional fields like the
law. The GPL, in turn, serves as the legal scaffolding that permits the
creation of this vibrant commercial and noncommercial Free Software
economy.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{A Tale of Two Copyleft Licenses}
\label{tale-of-two-copylefts}
While determining the proper methodology and criteria to yield an accurate
count remains difficult, the GPL is generally considered one of the most
widely used Free Software licenses. For most of its history --- for 16 years
from June 1991 to June 2007 --- there was really only one version of the GPL,
version 2.
However, the GPL had both earlier versions before version 2, and, more well
known, a revision to version 3.
\section{Historical Motivations for the General Public License}
The earliest license to grant software freedom was likely the Berkeley
Software Distribution (``BSD'') license. This license is typical of what are
often called lax, highly permissive licenses. Not unlike software in the
public domain, these non-copyleft licenses (usually) grant software freedom
to users, but they do not go to any effort to uphold that software freedom
for users. The so-called ``downstream'' (those who receive the software and
then build new things based on that software) can restrict the software and
distribute further.
The GNU's Not Unix (``GNU'') project, which Richard M.~Stallman (``RMS'')
founded in 1984 to make a complete Unix-compatible operating system
implementation that assured software freedom for all. However, RMS saw that
using a license that gave but did not assure software freedom would be
counter to the goals of the GNU project. RMS invented ``copyleft'' as an
answer to that problem, and began using various copyleft licenses for the
early GNU project programs\footnote{RMS writes more fully about this topic in
his essay entitled simply
\href{http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html}{\textit{The GNU Project}}.
For those who want to hear the story in his own voice,
\href{http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/}{speech recordings} of his talk,
\textit{The Free Software Movement and the GNU/Linux Operating System}
are also widely available}.
\section{Proto-GPLs And Their Impact}
%FIXME-LATER: bad line break:
%\href{http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/emacs_gpl.html}{The Emacs
% General Public License}
The earliest copyleft licenses were specific to various GNU programs. For
example, The Emacs
General Public License was likely the first copyleft license ever
published. Interesting to note that even this earliest copyleft license
contains a version of the well-known GPL copyleft clause:
\begin{quotation}
You may modify your copy or copies of GNU Emacs \ldots provided that you also
\ldots cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU Emacs or any part
thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third parties on terms identical
to those contained in this License Agreement.
\end{quotation}
This simply stated clause is the fundamental innovation of copyleft.
Specifically, copyleft \textit{uses} the copyright holders' controls on
permission to modify the work to add a conditional requirement. Namely,
downstream users may only have permission to modify the work if they pass
along the same permissions on the modified version that came originally to
them.
These original program-specific proto-GPLs give an interesting window into
the central ideas and development of copyleft. In particular, reviewing them
shows how the text of the GPL we know has evolved to address more of the
issues discussed earlier in \S~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.
\section{The GNU General Public License, Version 1}
\label{GPLv1}
In January 1989, the FSF announced that the GPL had been converted into a
``subroutine'' that could be reused not just for all FSF-copyrighted
programs, but also by anyone else. As the FSF claimed in its announcement of
the GPLv1\footnote{The announcement of GPLv1 was published in the
\href{http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull6.html\#SEC8}{GNU's Bulletin, vol 1,
number 6 dated January 1989}. (Thanks very much to Andy Tai for his
\href{http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/}{consolidation of research on
the history of the pre-v1 GPL's}.)}:
\begin{quotation}
To make it easier to copyleft programs, we have been improving on the
legalbol architecture of the General Public License to produce a new version
that serves as a general-purpose subroutine: it can apply to any program
without modification, no matter who is publishing it.
\end{quotation}
This, like many inventive ideas, seems somewhat obvious in retrospect. But,
the FSF had some bright people and access to good lawyers when it started.
It took almost five years from the first copyleft licenses to get to a
generalized, reusable GPLv1. In the context and mindset of the 1980s, this
is not surprising. The idea of reusable licensing infrastructure was not
only uncommon, it was virtually nonexistent! Even the early BSD licenses
were simply copied and rewritten slightly for each new use\footnote{It
remains an interesting accident of history that the early BSD problematic
``advertising clause'' (discussion of which is somewhat beyond the scope of
this tutorial) lives on into current day, simply because while the
University of California at Berkeley gave unilateral permission to remove
the clause from \textit{its} copyrighted works, others who adapted the BSD
license with their own names in place of UC-Berkeley's never have.}. The
GPLv1's innovation of reusable licensing infrastructure, an obvious fact
today, was indeed a novel invention for its day\footnote{We're all just
grateful that the FSF also opposes business method patents, since the FSF's
patent on a ``method for reusable licensing infrastructure'' would have
not expired until 2006!}.
\section{The GNU General Public License, Version 2}
The GPLv2 was released two and a half years after GPLv1, and over the
following sixteen years, it became the standard for copyleft licensing until
the release of GPLv3 in 2007 (discussed in more detail in the next section).
While this tutorial does not discuss the terms of GPLv1 in detail, it is
worth noting below the three key changes that GPLv2 brought:
\begin{itemize}
\item Software patents and their danger are explicitly mentioned, inspiring
(in part) the addition of GPLv2~\S\S5--7. (These sections are discussed in
detail in \S~\ref{GPLv2s5}, \S~\ref{GPLv2s6} and \S~\ref{GPLv2s7} of this
tutorial.)
\item GPLv2~\S2's copyleft terms are expanded to more explicitly discuss the
issue of combined works. (GPLv2~\S2 is discussed in detail in
\S~\ref{GPLv2s2} in this tutorial).
\item GPLv2~\S3 includes more detailed requirements, including the phrase
``the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the
executable'', which is a central component of current GPLv2 enforcement.
(GPLv2~\S3 is discussed in detail in
\S~\ref{GPLv2s3} in this tutorial).
\end{itemize}
The next chapter discusses GPLv2 in full detail, and readers who wish to dive
into the section-by-section discussion of the GPL should jump ahead now to
that chapter. However, the most interesting fact to note here is how GPLv2
was published with little fanfare and limited commentary. This contrasts
greatly with the creation of GPLv3.
\section{The GNU General Public License, Version 3}
RMS began drafting GPLv2.2 in mid-2002, and FSF ran a few discussion groups
during that era about new text of that license. However, rampant violations
of the GPL required more immediate attention of FSF's licensing staff, and as
such, much of the early 2000's was spent doing GPL enforcement
work\footnote{More on GPL enforcement is discussed in \tutorialpartsplit{a
companion tutorial, \textit{A Practical Guide to GPL
Compliance}}{Part~\ref{gpl-compliance-guide} of this tutorial}.}. In
2006, FSF began in earnest drafting work for GPLv3.
The GPLv3 process began in earnest in January 2006. It became clear that
many provisions of the GPL could benefit from modification to fit new
circumstances and to reflect what the entire community learned from
experience with version 2. Given the scale of revision it seems proper to
approach the work through public discussion in a transparent and accessible
manner.
The GPLv3 process continued through June 2007, culminating in publication of
GPLv3 and LGPLv3 on 29 June 2007, AGPLv3 on 19 November 2007, and the GCC
Runtime Library Exception on 27 January 2009.
All told, four discussion drafts of GPLv3, two discussion drafts of LGPLv3
and two discussion drafts of AGPLv3 were published and discussed.
Ultimately, FSF remained the final arbiter and publisher of the licenses, and
RMS himself their primary author, but input was sought from many parties, and
these licenses do admittedly look and read more like legislation as a result.
Nevertheless, all of the ``v3'' group are substantially better and improved
licenses.
GPLv3 and its terms are discussed in detail in Chapter~\ref{GPLv3}.
\section{The Innovation of Optional ``Or Any Later'' Version}
An interesting fact of all GPL licenses is that there are ultimately multiple
choices for use of the license. The FSF is the primary steward of GPL (as
discussed later in \S~\ref{GPLv2s9} and \S~\ref{GPLv3s14}). However, those
who wish to license works under GPL are not required to automatically accept
changes made by the FSF for their own copyrighted works.
Each licensor may chose three different methods of licensing, as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item explicitly name a single version of GPL for their work (usually
indicated in shorthand by saying the license is ``GPLv$X$-only''), or
\item name no version of the GPL, thus they allow their downstream recipients
to select any version of the GPL they choose (usually indicated in shorthand
by saying the license is simply ``GPL''), or
\item name a specific version of GPL and give downstream recipients the
option to choose that version ``or any later version as published by the
FSF'' (usually indicated by saying the license is
``GPLv$X$-or-later'')\footnote{The shorthand of ``GPL$X+$'' is also popular
for this situation. The authors of this tutorial prefer ``-or-later''
syntax, because it (a) mirrors the words ``or'' and ``later from the
licensing statement, (b) the $X+$ doesn't make it abundantly clear that
$X$ is clearly included as a license option and (c) the $+$ symbol has
other uses in computing (such as with regular expressions) that mean
something different.}
\end{itemize}
\label{license-compatibility-first-mentioned}
Oddly, this flexibility has received (in the opinion of the authors, undue)
criticism, primarily because of the complex and oft-debated notion of
``license compatibility'' (which is explained in detail in
\S~\ref{license-compatibility}). Copyleft licenses are generally
incompatible with each other, because the details of how they implement
copyleft differs. Specifically, copyleft works only because of its
requirement that downstream licensors use the \textit{same} license for
combined and modified works. As such, software licensed under the terms of
``GPLv2-only'' cannot be combined with works licensed ``GPLv3-or-later''.
This is admittedly a frustrating outcome.
Other copyleft licenses that appeared after GPL, such
as the Creative Commons ``Share Alike'' licenses, the Eclipse Public License
and the Mozilla Public License \textbf{require} all copyright holders choosing
to use any version of those licenses to automatically accept and relicense
their copyrighted works under new versions. Of course, Creative Commons, the
Eclipse Foundation, and the Mozilla Foundation (like the FSF) have generally
served as excellent stewards of their licenses. Copyright holders using
those licenses seems to find it acceptable to fully delegate all future
licensing decisions for their copyrights to these organizations without a
second thought.
However, note that FSF gives herein the control of copyright holders to
decide whether or not to implicitly trust the FSF in its work of drafting
future GPL versions. The FSF, for its part, does encourage copyright holders
to chose by default ``GPLv$X$-or-later'' (where $X$ is the most recent
version of the GPL published by the FSF). However, the FSF \textbf{does not
mandate} that a choice to use any GPL requires a copyright holder ceding
its authority for future licensing decisions to the FSF. In fact, the FSF
considered this possibility for GPLv3 and chose not to do so, instead opting
for the third-party steward designation clause discussed in
Section~\ref{GPLv3s14}.
\section{Complexities of Two Simultaneously Popular Copylefts}
Obviously most GPL advocates would prefer widespread migration to GPLv3, and
many newly formed projects who seek a copyleft license tend to choose a
GPLv3-based license. However, many existing copylefted projects continue
with GPLv2-only or GPLv2-or-later as their default license.
While GPLv3 introduces many improvements --- many of which were designed to
increase adoption by for-profit companies --- GPLv2 remains a widely used and
extremely popular license. The GPLv2 is, no doubt, a good and useful
license.
However, unlike GPLv1 before it,
GPLv2 remains an integral part of the copyleft licensing infrastructure. As such, those who seek to have expertise in current
topics of copyleft licensing need to study both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 family of
licenses.
Furthermore, GPLv3 is more easily understood by first studying GPLv2.
This is not only because of their chronological order, but also because much
of the discussion material available for GPLv3 tends to talk about GPLv3 in
contrast to GPLv2. As such, a strong understanding of GPLv2 helps in
understanding most of the third-party material found regarding GPLv3. Thus,
the following chapter begins a deep discussion of GPLv2.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Running Software and Verbatim Copying}
\label{run-and-verbatim}
This chapter begins the deep discussion of the details of the terms of
GPLv2\@. In this chapter, we consider the first two sections: GPLv2 \S\S
0--2. These are the straightforward sections of the GPL that define the
simplest rights that the user receives.
\section{GPLv2~\S0: Freedom to Run}
\label{GPLv2s0}
GPLv2~\S0, the opening section of GPLv2, sets forth that copyright law governs
the work. It specifically points out that it is the ``copyright
holder'' who decides if a work is licensed under its terms and explains
how the copyright holder might indicate this fact.
A bit more subtly, GPLv2~\S0 makes an inference that copyright law is the only
system that can restrict the software. Specifically, it states:
\begin{quote}
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
\end{quote}
In essence, the license governs \emph{only} those activities, and all other
activities are unrestricted, provided that no other agreements trump GPLv2
(which they cannot; see Sections~\ref{GPLv2s6} and~\ref{GPLv2s7}). This is
very important, because the Free Software community heavily supports
users' rights to ``fair use'' and ``unregulated use'' of copyrighted
material. GPLv2 asserts through this clause that it supports users' rights
to fair and unregulated uses.
Fair use (called ``fair dealing'' in some jurisdictions) of copyrighted
material is an established legal doctrine that permits certain activities
regardless of whether copyright law would otherwise restrict those activities.
Discussion of the various types of fair use activity are beyond the scope of
this tutorial. However, one important example of fair use is the right to
quote portions of the text in a larger work so as to criticize or suggest
changes. This fair use right is commonly used on mailing lists when
discussing potential improvements or changes to Free Software.
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
program's source code like an instruction book for the purpose of learning
how to be a better programmer. The right to read something that you have
access to is and should remain unregulated and unrestricted.
\medskip
Thus, the GPLv2 protects users' fair and unregulated use rights precisely by
not attempting to cover them. Furthermore, the GPLv2 ensures the freedom
to run specifically by stating the following:
\begin{quote}
''The act of running the Program is not restricted.''
\end{quote}
Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by GPLv2~\S0.
\medskip
The bulk of GPLv2~\S0 not yet discussed gives definitions for other terms used
throughout. The only one worth discussing in detail is ``work based on
the Program''. The reason this definition is particularly interesting is
not for the definition itself, which is rather straightforward, but
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'' or ``combined work''. In fact, it would be incorrect and
problematic if the GPL attempted to define these terms. A copyright license, in
fact, has no control over the rules of copyright themselves. Such rules are
the domain of copyright law and the courts --- not the licenses that utilize
those systems.
Copyright law as a whole does not propose clear and straightforward guidelines
for identifying the derivative and/or combined works of software. However,
no copyright license --- not even the GNU GPL --- can be blamed for this.
Legislators and court opinions must give us guidance in borderline cases.
Meanwhile, lawyers will likely based their conclusions on the application of rules
made in the context of literary or artistic copyright to the different
context of computer programming and by analyzing the (somewhat limited) case
law and guidance available from various sources.
(Chapter~\ref{derivative-works} discusses this issue in depth.)
\section{GPLv2~\S1: Verbatim Copying}
\label{GPLv2s1}
GPLv2~\S1 covers the matter of redistributing the source code of a program
exactly as it was received. This section is quite straightforward.
However, there are a few details worth noting here.
The phrase ``in any medium'' is important. This, for example, gives the
freedom to publish a book that is the printed copy of the program's source
code. It also allows for changes in the medium of distribution. Some
vendors may ship Free Software on a CD, but others may place it right on
the hard drive of a pre-installed computer. Any such redistribution media
is allowed.
Preservation of copyright notice and license notifications are mentioned
specifically in GPLv2~\S1. These are in some ways the most important part of
the redistribution, which is why they are mentioned by name. GPL
always strives to make it abundantly clear to anyone who receives the
software what its license is. The goal is to make sure users know their
rights and freedoms under GPL, and to leave no reason that users might be
surprised the software is GPL'd. Thus
throughout the GPL, there are specific references to the importance of
notifying others down the distribution chain that they have rights under
GPL.
Also mentioned by name is the warranty disclaimer. Most people today do
not believe that software comes with any warranty. Notwithstanding the
\href{http://mlis.state.md.us/2000rs/billfile/hb0019.htm}{Maryland's} and \href{http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?001+ful+SB372ER}{Virginia's} UCITA bills, there are few or no implied warranties with software.
However, just to be on the safe side, GPL clearly disclaims them, and the
GPL requires re-distributors to keep the disclaimer very visible. (See
Sections~\ref{GPLv2s11} and~\ref{GPLv2s12} of this tutorial for more on GPL's
warranty disclaimers.)
Note finally that GPLv2~\S1 creates groundwork for the important defense of
commercial freedom. GPLv2~\S1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim
copies, one may make money. Re-distributors are fully permitted to charge
for the re-distribution of copies of Free Software. In addition, they may
provide the warranty protection that the GPL disclaims as an additional
service for a fee. (See Section~\ref{Business Models} for more discussion
on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law}
\label{derivative-works}
As described in the \hyperref[copyleft-definition]{earlier general discussion
of copyleft}, strong copyleft licenses such as the GPL seek to uphold
software freedom via the copyright system. This principle often causes
theoretical or speculative dispute among lawyers, because ``the work'' ---
the primary unit of consideration under most copyright rules -- is not a unit
of computer programming. In order to determine whether a ``routine'' an
``object'', a ``function'', a ``library'' or any other unit of software is
part of one ``work'' when combined with other GPL’d code, we must ask a
question that copyright law will not directly answer in the same technical
terms.
Therefore, this chapter digresses from discussion of GPL's exact text to
consider the matter of combined and/or derivative works --- a concept that we must
understand fully before considering GPLv2~\S\S2--3\@. At least under USA
copyright law, The GPL, and Free
Software licensing in general, relies critically on the concept of
``derivative work'' since software that is ``independent,'' (i.e., not
``derivative'') of Free Software need not abide by the terms of the
applicable Free Software license. As much is required by \S~106 of the
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. \S~106 (2002), and admitted by Free Software
licenses, such as the GPL, which (as we have seen) states in GPLv2~\S0 that ``a
`work based on the Program' means either the Program or any derivative
work under copyright law.'' It is being a derivative work of Free Software
that triggers the necessity to comply with the terms of the Free Software
license under which the original work is distributed. Therefore, one is
left to ask, just what is a ``derivative work''? The answer to that
question differs depending on which court is being asked.
The analysis in this chapter sets forth the differing definitions of
derivative work by the circuit courts. The broadest and most
established definition of derivative work for software is the
abstraction, filtration, and comparison test (``the AFC test'') as
created and developed by the Second Circuit. Some circuits, including
the Ninth Circuit and the First Circuit, have either adopted narrower
versions of the AFC test or have expressly rejected the AFC test in
favor of a narrower standard. Further, several other circuits have yet
to adopt any definition of derivative work for software.
As an introductory matter, it is important to note that literal copying of
a significant portion of source code is not always sufficient to establish
that a second work is a derivative work of an original
program. Conversely, a second work can be a derivative work of an original
program even though absolutely no copying of the literal source code of
the original program has been made. This is the case because copyright
protection does not always extend to all portions of a program's code,
while, at the same time, it can extend beyond the literal code of a
program to its non-literal aspects, such as its architecture, structure,
sequence, organization, operational modules, and computer-user interface.
\section{The Copyright Act}
The copyright act is of little, if any, help in determining the definition
of a derivative work of software. However, the applicable provisions do
provide some, albeit quite cursory, guidance. Section 101 of the Copyright
Act sets forth the following definitions:
\begin{quotation}
A ``computer program'' is a set of statements or instructions to be used
directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain
result.
A ``derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work
may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial
revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a
whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ``derivative work.''
\end{quotation}
These are the only provisions in the Copyright Act relevant to the
determination of what constitutes a derivative work of a computer
program. Another provision of the Copyright Act that is also relevant to
the definition of derivative work is \S~102(b), which reads as follows:
\begin{quotation}
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,
concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is
described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
\end{quotation}
Therefore, before a court can ask whether one program is a derivative work
of another program, it must be careful not to extend copyright protection
to any ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation,
concepts, principles, or discoveries contained in the original program. It
is the implementation of this requirement to ``strip out'' unprotectable
elements that serves as the most frequent issue over which courts
disagree.
\section{Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison Test}
As mentioned above, the AFC test for determining whether a computer
program is a derivative work of an earlier program was created by the
Second Circuit and has since been adopted in the Fifth, Tenth, and
Eleventh Circuits. Computer Associates Intl., Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982
F.2d 693 (2nd Cir. 1992); Engineering Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural
Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335 (5th Cir. 1994); Kepner-Tregoe,
Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 1994); Gates
Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indust., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993);
Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366 (10th Cir. 1997); Bateman
v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996); and, Mitek Holdings,
Inc. v. Arce Engineering Co., Inc., 89 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1996).
Under the AFC test, a court first abstracts from the original program its
constituent structural parts. Then, the court filters from those
structural parts all unprotectable portions, including incorporated ideas,
expression that is necessarily incidental to those ideas, and elements
that are taken from the public domain. Finally, the court compares any and
all remaining kernels of creative expression to the structure of the
second program to determine whether the software programs at issue are
substantially similar so as to warrant a finding that one is the
derivative work of the other.
Often, the courts that apply the AFC test will perform a quick initial
comparison between the entirety of the two programs at issue in order to
help determine whether one is a derivative work of the other. Such a
holistic comparison, although not a substitute for the full application of
the AFC test, sometimes reveals a pattern of copying that is not otherwise
obvious from the application of the AFC test when, as discussed below,
only certain components of the original program are compared to the second
program. If such a pattern is revealed by the quick initial comparison,
the court is more likely to conclude that the second work is indeed a
derivative of the original.
\subsection{Abstraction}
The first step courts perform under the AFC test is separation of the
work's ideas from its expression. In a process akin to reverse
engineering, the courts dissect the original program to isolate each level
of abstraction contained within it. Courts have stated that the
abstractions step is particularly well suited for computer programs
because it breaks down software in a way that mirrors the way it is
typically created. However, the courts have also indicated that this step
of the AFC test requires substantial guidance from experts, because it is
extremely fact and situation specific.
By way of example, one set of abstraction levels is, in descending order
of generality, as follows: the main purpose, system architecture, abstract
data types, algorithms and data structures, source code, and object
code. As this set of abstraction levels shows, during the abstraction step
of the AFC test, the literal elements of the computer program, namely the
source and object code, are defined as particular levels of
abstraction. Further, the source and object code elements of a program are
not the only elements capable of forming the basis for a finding that a
second work is a derivative of the program. In some cases, in order to
avoid a lengthy factual inquiry by the court, the owner of the copyright in
the original work will submit its own list of what it believes to be the
protected elements of the original program. In those situations, the court
will forgo performing its own abstraction, and proceed to the second step of
the AFC test.
\subsection{Filtration}
The most difficult and controversial part of the AFC test is the second
step, which entails the filtration of protectable expression contained in
the original program from any unprotectable elements nestled therein. In
determining which elements of a program are unprotectable, courts employ a
myriad of rules and procedures to sift from a program all the portions
that are not eligible for copyright protection.
First, as set forth in \S~102(b) of the Copyright Act, any and all ideas
embodied in the program are to be denied copyright protection. However,
implementing this rule is not as easy as it first appears. The courts
readily recognize the intrinsic difficulty in distinguishing between ideas
and expression and that, given the varying nature of computer programs,
doing so will be done on an ad hoc basis. The first step of the AFC test,
the abstraction, exists precisely to assist in this endeavor by helping
the court separate out all the individual elements of the program so that
they can be independently analyzed for their expressive nature.
A second rule applied by the courts in performing the filtration step of
the AFC test is the doctrine of merger, which denies copyright protection
to expression necessarily incidental to the idea being expressed. The
reasoning behind this doctrine is that when there is only one way to
express an idea, the idea and the expression merge, meaning that the
expression cannot receive copyright protection due to the bar on copyright
protection extending to ideas. In applying this doctrine, a court will ask
whether the program's use of particular code or structure is necessary for
the efficient implementation of a certain function or process. If so, then
that particular code or structure is not protected by copyright and, as a
result, it is filtered away from the remaining protectable expression.
A third rule applied by the courts in performing the filtration step of
the AFC test is the doctrine of scenes a faire, which denies copyright
protection to elements of a computer program that are dictated by external
factors. Such external factors can include:
\begin{itemize}
\item The mechanical
specifications of the computer on which a particular program is intended
to operate
\item Compatibility requirements of other programs with which a
program is designed to operate in conjunction
\item Computer manufacturers'
design standards
\item Demands of the industry being serviced, and widely accepted programming practices within the computer industry
\end{itemize}
Any code or structure of a program that was shaped predominantly in
response to these factors is filtered out and not protected by
copyright. Lastly, elements of a computer program are also to be filtered
out if they were taken from the public domain or fail to have sufficient
originality to merit copyright protection.
Portions of the source or object code of a computer program are rarely
filtered out as unprotectable elements. However, some distinct parts of
source and object code have been found unprotectable. For example,
constants, the invariable integers comprising part of formulas used to
perform calculations in a program, are unprotectable. Further, although
common errors found in two programs can provide strong evidence of
copying, they are not afforded any copyright protection over and above the
protection given to the expression containing them.
\subsection{Comparison}
The third and final step of the AFC test entails a comparison of the
original program's remaining protectable expression to a second
program. The issue will be whether any of the protected expression is
copied in the second program and, if so, what relative importance the
copied portion has with respect to the original program overall. The
ultimate inquiry is whether there is ``substantial'' similarity between
the protected elements of the original program and the potentially
derivative work. The courts admit that this process is primarily
qualitative rather than quantitative and is performed on a case-by-case
basis. In essence, the comparison is an ad hoc determination of whether
the protectable elements of the original program that are contained in the
second work are significant or important parts of the original program. If
so, then the second work is a derivative work of the first. If, however,
the amount of protectable elements copied in the second work are so small
as to be de minimis, then the second work is not a derivative work of the
original.
\section{Analytic Dissection Test}
The Ninth Circuit has adopted the analytic dissection test to determine
whether one program is a derivative work of another. Apple Computer,
Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994). The analytic
dissection test first considers whether there are substantial similarities
in both the ideas and expressions of the two works at issue. Once the
similar features are identified, analytic dissection is used to determine
whether any of those similar features are protected by copyright. This
step is the same as the filtration step in the AFC test. After identifying
the copyrightable similar features of the works, the court then decides
whether those features are entitled to ``broad'' or ``thin''
protection. ``Thin'' protection is given to non-copyrightable facts or
ideas that are combined in a way that affords copyright protection only
from their alignment and presentation, while ``broad'' protection is given
to copyrightable expression itself. Depending on the degree of protection
afforded, the court then sets the appropriate standard for a subjective
comparison of the works to determine whether, as a whole, they are
sufficiently similar to support a finding that one is a derivative work of
the other. ``Thin'' protection requires the second work be virtually
identical in order to be held a derivative work of an original, while
``broad'' protection requires only a ``substantial similarity.''
\section{No Protection for ``Methods of Operation''}
The First Circuit has taken the position that the AFC test is inapplicable
when the works in question relate to unprotectable elements set forth in
\S~102(b). Their approach results in a much narrower definition
of derivative work for software in comparison to other circuits. Specifically,
the
First Circuit holds that ``method of operation,'' as used in \S~102(b) of
the Copyright Act, refers to the means by which users operate
computers. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int'l., Inc., 49 F.3d 807
(1st Cir. 1995). In Lotus, the court held that a menu command
hierarchy for a computer program was uncopyrightable because it did not
merely explain and present the program's functional capabilities to the
user, but also served as a method by which the program was operated and
controlled. As a result, under the First Circuit's test, literal copying
of a menu command hierarchy, or any other ``method of operation,'' cannot
form the basis for a determination that one work is a derivative of
another. As a result, courts in the First Circuit that apply the AFC test
do so only after applying a broad interpretation of \S~102(b) to filter out
unprotected elements. E.g., Real View, LLC v. 20-20 Technologies, Inc.,
683 F. Supp.2d 147, 154 (D. Mass. 2010).
\section{No Test Yet Adopted}
Several circuits, most notably the Fourth and Seventh, have yet to
declare their definition of derivative work and whether or not the
AFC, Analytic Dissection, or some other test best fits their
interpretation of copyright law. Therefore, uncertainty exists with
respect to determining the extent to which a software program is a
derivative work of another in those circuits. However, one may presume
that they would give deference to the AFC test since it is by far the
majority rule among those circuits that have a standard for defining
a software derivative work.
\section{Cases Applying Software Derivative Work Analysis}
In the preeminent case regarding the definition of a derivative work for
software, Computer Associates v. Altai, the plaintiff alleged that its
program, Adapter, which was used to handle the differences in operating
system calls and services, was infringed by the defendant's competitive
program, Oscar. About 30\% of Oscar was literally the same code as
that in Adapter. After the suit began, the defendant rewrote those
portions of Oscar that contained Adapter code in order to produce a new
version of Oscar that was functionally competitive with Adapter, without
having any literal copies of its code. Feeling slighted still, the
plaintiff alleged that even the second version of Oscar, despite having no
literally copied code, also infringed its copyrights. In addressing that
question, the Second Circuit promulgated the AFC test.
In abstracting the various levels of the program, the court noted a
similarity between the two programs' parameter lists and macros. However,
following the filtration step of the AFC test, only a handful of the lists
and macros were protectable under copyright law because they were either
in the public domain or required by functional demands on the
program. With respect to the handful of parameter lists and macros that
did qualify for copyright protection, after performing the comparison step
of the AFC test, it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that
they did not warrant a finding of infringement given their relatively minor
contribution to the program as a whole. Likewise, the similarity between
the organizational charts of the two programs was not substantial enough
to support a finding of infringement because they were too simple and
obvious to contain any original expression.
In the case of Oracle America v. Google, 872 F. Supp.2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2012),
the Northern District of California District Court examined the question of
whether the application program interfaces (APIs) associated with the Java
programming language are entitled to copyright protection. While the
court expressly declined to rule whether all APIs are free to use without
license (872 F. Supp.2d 974 at 1002), the court held that the command
structure and taxonomy of the APIs were not protectable under copyright law.
Specifically, the court characterized the command structure and taxonomy as
both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the
First Circuit's analysis in Lotus) and a ``functional requirement for
compatibility'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and
Sony Computer Ent. v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) as analogies),
and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S~102(b).
Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few other cases involving a highly
detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve
clearer basis for decision, including frequent bad faith on the part of
the defendant or over-aggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.
\section{How Much Do Derivative Works Matter?}
It is certainly true that GPL intends for any work that is determined a
``derivative work'' under copyright law must be licensed as a whole under
GPL\@, as will be discussed in the following chapter. However, as we finish
up our discussion derivative works, we must note that preparation of a
derivative work is by far not the only way to create a new work covered by
GPL\@.
In fact, while derivative work preparation is perhaps the most exciting area
of legal issues to consider, the more mundane ways to create a new work
covered by GPL are much more common. For example, copyright statutes
generally require permission from the copyright holder to grant explicit
permission to modify a work in any manner. As discussed in the next chapter,
the GPL {\em does} grants such permission, but requires the modified work must
also be licensed under the terms of the GPL (and only GPL:
see\S~\label{GPLv2s6} in this tutorial). Determining whether software was
modified is a substantially easier analysis than the derivative work
discussions and considerations in this chapter.
The question of derivative works, when and how they are made, is undoubtedly
an essential discussion in the interpretation and consideration of copyleft.
That is why this chapter was included in this tutorial. However, as we
return from this digression and resume discussion of the detailed text of the
GPLv2, we must gain a sense of perspective: most GPL questions center around
questions of modification and distribution, not preparation of derivative
works. Derivative work preparation is ultimately a small subset of the types
of modified versions of the software a developer might create, thus, while an
excessive focus on derivative works indulges us in the more exciting areas of
copyleft, we must keep a sense of perspective regarding their relative
importance.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Modified Source and Binary Distribution}
\label{source-and-binary}
In this chapter, we discuss the two core sections that define the rights
and obligations for those who modify, improve, and/or redistribute GPL'd
software. These sections, GPLv2~\S\S2--3, define the central core rights and
requirements of GPLv2\@.
\section{GPLv2~\S2: Share and Share Alike}
\label{GPLv2s2}
For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software
freedom upon redistribution. GPLv2~\S2 is the only place in GPLv2
that governs the modification controls of copyright law. If users
distribute modified versions a GPLv2'd program, they must follow the terms of GPLv2~\S2 in making
those changes. Thus, this sections ensures that the body of GPL'd software, as it
continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.
To achieve that goal, GPLv2~\S2 first sets forth that the rights of
redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim
copying, as presented in GPLv2~\S1. Therefore, the details of charging money,
keeping copyright notices intact, and other GPLv2~\S1 provisions are intact
here as well. However, there are three additional requirements.
The first (GPLv2~\S2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent
notices'' explaining what changes were made and the date of such
changes. This section does not prescribe some specific way of
marking changes nor does it control the process of how changes are made.
Primarily, GPLv2~\S2(a) seeks to ensure that those receiving modified
versions know the history of changes to the software. 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 about the
historical context of the software version they use, so that they can
make proper support choices. Finally, GPLv2~\S2(a) serves an academic
purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic
approach to understand the software.
%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
section 2(c)
provides that if the program before modification ``normally reads commands
interactively when run'' and displays or prints legal information, all
copyright notices, warranty disclaimer, modification indications and a
pointer to the license text must be displayed or printed in interactive
use.
%FIXME-URGENT: end
\medskip
The second requirement (GPLv2~\S2(b)) contains the four short lines that embody
the legal details of ``share and share alike''. These 46 words are
considered by some to be the most worthy of careful scrutiny because
GPLv2~\S2(b), and they
can be a source of great confusion when not properly understood.
In considering GPLv2~\S2(b), first note the qualifier: it \textit{only} applies to
derivative, combined and/or modified works that ``you distribute or publish''. Despite years of
education efforts on this matter, many still believe that modifiers
of GPL'd software \textit{must} publish or otherwise
share their changes. On the contrary, GPLv2~\S2(b) {\bf does not apply if} the
changes are never distributed. Indeed, the freedom to make private,
personal, unshared changes to software for personal use only should be
protected and defended.\footnote{Most Free Software enthusiasts believe there is a {\bf
moral} obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful,
and they often encourage companies and individuals to do so. However, there
is a clear distinction between what one {\bf ought} to do and what one
{\bf must} do.}
Next, we again encounter the same matter that appears in GPLv2~\S0, in the
following text:
\begin{quote}
``...that in whole or part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof.''
\end{quote}
Again, the GPL relies here on copyright law.
If, under copyright law, the modified version ``contains or is
derived from'' the GPL'd software, then the requirements of GPLv2~\S2(b)
apply. The GPL invokes its control as a copyright license over the
modification of the work in combination with its control over distribution
of the work.
The final clause of GPLv2~\S2(b) describes what the licensee must do if she
distributes or publishes a modified version of the work --- namely, the following:
\begin{quote}
[The work must] be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License.
\end{quote}
That is probably the most tightly-packed phrase in all of the GPL\@.
Consider each subpart carefully.
The work ``as a whole'' is what is to be licensed. This is an important
point that GPLv2~\S2 spends an entire paragraph explaining; thus this phrase is
worthy of a lengthy discussion here. As a programmer modifies a software
program, she generates new copyrighted material --- fixing expressions of
ideas into the tangible medium of electronic file storage. That
programmer is indeed the copyright holder of those new changes. However,
those changes are part and parcel to the original work distributed to
the programmer under GPL\@. Thus, the license of the original work
affects the license of the new whole combined and/or derivative work.
% {\cal I}
\newcommand{\gplusi}{$\mathcal{G\!\!+\!\!I}$}
\newcommand{\worki}{$\mathcal{I}$}
\newcommand{\workg}{$\mathcal{G}$}
\label{separate-and-independent}
%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
But the GNU GPL licenses recognize what is outside their scope. Where a programmer’s work is
``separate and independent'' from any GPL’d program code with which it could be
combined, then the obligations of copyleft do not extend to the work
separately distributed. Far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond the
scope of copyright, the licenses explicitly recognize.
%FIXME-URGENT: end
It is certainly possible to take an existing independent work (called
\worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'd program (called \workg{}). The
license of \worki{}, when it is distributed as a separate and independent
work, remains the prerogative of the copyright holder of \worki{}.
However, when \worki{} is combined with \workg{}, it produces a new work
that is the combination of the two (called \gplusi{}). The copyright of
this combined work, \gplusi{}, is held by the original copyright
holder of each of the two works.
In this case, GPLv2~\S2 lays out the terms by which \gplusi{} may be
distributed and copied. By default, under copyright law, the copyright
holder of \worki{} would not have been permitted to distribute \gplusi{};
copyright law forbids it without the expressed permission of the copyright
holder of \workg{}. (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a proprietary
product --- would its copyright holders give you permission to create and distribute
\gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?) The license of \workg{}, the
GPL, states the options for the copyright holder of \worki{}
who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}. The GPL's pre-granted
permission to create and distribute combined and/or derivative works, provided the terms
of the GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license. (Thus, to
say that this condition is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.)
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
The GPL licenses, then, are explicit about limiting the scope of copyleft to
the scope of copyright. They do not, however, as is sometimes suggested, do
so in a way that distinguishes ``dynamic'' from ``static'' linking of program
code in ``early-binding'' programming languages. It is occasionally suggested
that a subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL’d code is, by virtue of the
linking alone, inherently outside the scope of copyleft on the main
work. This is a misunderstanding. When two software components are joined
together to make one work (whether a main and some library subroutines, two
objects with their respective methods, or a program and a ``plugin'') the
combination infringes the copyright on the components if the combination
required copyright permission from the component copyright holders, and such
permission was either not available or was available on terms that were not
observed.
Where a combination is made with GPL’d or AGPL’d components, the
only available permission is copyleft, and its terms must be observed on the
combination as a whole if the GPL’d component is to be used at all. Whether
the combination is made with a linker before distribution of the executable,
is made by the OS kernel in order to share libraries for execution efficiency
at runtime, or results from ``late-binding'' of references in the language at
runtime (as in Java programs) is irrelevant.
%FIXME-URGENT: end
\medskip
\label{GPLv2s2-at-no-charge}
The next phrase of note in GPLv2~\S2(b) is ``licensed \ldots at no charge.''
This phrase confuses many. The sloppy reader points out this as ``a
contradiction in GPL'' because (in their confused view) that clause of GPLv2~\S2 says that re-distributors cannot
charge for modified versions of GPL'd software, but GPLv2~\S1 says that
they can. Avoid this confusion: the ``at no charge'' \textbf{does not} prohibit re-distributors from
charging when performing the acts governed by copyright
law,\footnote{Recall that you could by default charge for any acts not
governed by copyright law, because the license controls are confined
by copyright.} but rather that they cannot charge a fee for the
\emph{license itself}. In other words, redistributors of (modified
and unmodified) GPL'd works may charge any amount they choose for
performing the modifications on contract or the act of transferring
the copy to the customer, but they may not charge a separate licensing
fee for the software.
GPLv2~\S2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed \ldots to all
third parties.'' This too yields some confusion, and feeds the
misconception mentioned earlier --- that all modified versions must be made
available to the public at large. However, the text here does not say
that. Instead, it says that the licensing under terms of the GPL must
extend to anyone who might, through the distribution chain, receive a copy
of the software. Distribution to all third parties is not mandated here,
but GPLv2~\S2(b) does require re-distributors to license the whole work in
a way that extends to all third parties who may ultimately receive a
copy of the software.
In summary, GPLv2\ 2(b) says what terms under which the third parties must
receive this no-charge license. Namely, they receive it ``under the terms
of this License'', the GPLv2. When an entity \emph{chooses} to redistribute
a work based on GPL'd software, the license of that whole
work must be GPL and only GPL\@. In this manner, GPLv2~\S2(b) dovetails nicely
with GPLv2~\S6 (as discussed in Section~\ref{GPLv2s6} of this tutorial).
\medskip
The final paragraph of GPLv2~\S2 is worth special mention. It is possible and
quite common to aggregate various software programs together on one
distribution medium. Computer manufacturers do this when they ship a
pre-installed hard drive, and GNU/Linux distribution vendors do this to
give a one-stop CD or URL for a complete operating system with necessary
applications. The GPL very clearly permits such ``mere aggregation'' with
programs under any license. Despite what you hear from its critics, the
GPL is nothing like a virus, not only because the GPL is good for you and
a virus is bad for you, but also because simple contact with a GPL'd
code-base does not impact the license of other programs. A programmer must
expend actual effort to cause a work to fall under the terms
of the GPL. Redistributors are always welcome to simply ship GPL'd
software alongside proprietary software or other unrelated Free Software,
as long as the terms of GPL are adhered to for those packages that are
truly GPL'd.
%FIXME: need discussion of GPLv2's system library exception somewhere in here.
\subsection{Right to Private Modification}
\label{gplv2-private-modification}
The issue of private modifications of GPLv2'd works deserves special
attention. While these rights are clearly explicit in GPLv3~\S2\P2 (see
\S~\ref{GPLv3S2} of this tutorial for details), the permission to create
private modifications is mostly implicit in GPLv2. Most notably, the
requirements of GPLv2~\S2 (and GPLv2~\S3, which will be discussed next) are
centered around two different copyright controls: both modification
\emph{and} distribution. As such, GPLv2~\S2's requirements need only be met
when a modified version is distributed; one need not follow them for modified
versions that are not distributed\footnote{As a matter of best practice, it's
useful to assume that all software may eventually be distributed later,
even if there no plans for distribution at this time. Too often, GPL
violations occur because of a late distribution decision of software that
was otherwise never intended for distribution.}.
However, the careful reader of GPLv2 will notice that, unlike GPLv3, no other
clauses of the license actually give explicit permission to make private
modifications. Since modification of software is a control governed by
copyright, a modifier needs permission from the copyright holder to engage in
that activity.
In practice, however, traditional GPLv2 interpretation has always assumed
that blanket permission to create non-distributed modified versions was
available, and the
\href{http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic}{FSF
has long opined that distribution of modified versions is never mandatory}.
This issue is one of many where GPLv3 clarifies in explicit text the implicit
policy and intent that was solidified via long-standing interpretation of
GPLv2.
\section{GPLv2~\S3: Producing Binaries}
\label{GPLv2s3}
Software is a strange beast when compared to other copyrightable works.
It is currently impossible to make a film or a book that can be truly
obscured. Ultimately, the full text of a novel, even one written by
William Faulkner, must be presented to the reader as words in some
human-readable language so that they can enjoy the work. A film, even one
directed by David Lynch, must be perceptible by human eyes and ears to
have any value.
Software is not so. While the source code --- the human-readable
representation of software --- is of keen interest to programmers, users and
programmers alike cannot make the proper use of software in that
human-readable form. Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer
can understand --- must be predicable and attainable for the software to
be fully useful. Without the binaries, be they in object or executable
form, the software serves only the didactic purposes of computer science.
Under copyright law, binary representations of the software are simply
modified versions (and/or derivative works) of the source code. Applying a systematic process (i.e.,
``compilation''\footnote{``Compilation'' in this context refers to the
automated computing process of converting source code into binaries. It
has absolutely nothing to do with the term ``compilation'' in copyright statues.}) to a work of source code yields binary code. The binary
code is now a new work of expression fixed in the tangible medium of
electronic file storage.
Therefore, for GPL'd software to be useful, the GPL, since it governs the
rules for creation of modified works, must grant permission for the
generation of binaries. Furthermore, notwithstanding the relative
popularity of source-based GNU/Linux distributions like Gentoo, users find
it extremely convenient to receive distribution of binary software. Such
distribution is the redistribution of modified works of the software's
source code. GPLv2~\S3 addresses the matter of creation and distribution of
binary versions.
Under GPLv2~\S3, binary versions may be created and distributed under the
terms of GPLv2~\S1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies
here. However, GPLv2~\S3 must go a bit further. Access to the software's
source code is an incontestable prerequisite for the exercise of the
fundamental freedoms to modify and improve the software. Making even
the most trivial changes to a software program at the binary level is
effectively impossible. GPLv2~\S3 must ensure that the binaries are never
distributed without the source code, so that these freedoms are passed
through the distribution chain.
GPLv2~\S3 permits distribution of binaries, and then offers three options for
distribution of source code along with binaries. The most common and the
least complicated is the option given under GPLv2~\S3(a).
\label{GPLv2s3a}
GPLv2~\S3(a) offers the option to directly accompany the source code alongside
the distribution of the binaries. This is by far the most convenient
option for most distributors, because it means that the source-code
provision obligations are fully completed at the time of binary
distribution (more on that later).
Under GPLv2~\S3(a), the source code provided must be the ``corresponding source
code.'' Here ``corresponding'' primarily means that the source code
provided must be that code used to produce the binaries being distributed.
That source code must also be ``complete''. GPLv2~\S3's penultimate paragraph
explains in detail what is meant by ``complete''. In essence, it is all
the material that a programmer of average skill would need to actually use
the source code to produce the binaries she has received. Complete source
is required so that, if the licensee chooses, she should be able to
exercise her freedoms to modify and redistribute changes. Without the
complete source, it would not be possible to make changes that were
actually directly derived from the version received.
\label{GPLv2s3-build-scripts}
Furthermore, GPLv2~\S3 is defending against a tactic that has in fact been
seen in GPL enforcement. Under GPL, if you pay a high price for
a copy of GPL'd binaries (which comes with corresponding source, of
course), you have the freedom to redistribute that work at any fee you
choose, or not at all. Sometimes, companies attempt a GPL-violating
cozenage whereby they produce very specialized binaries (perhaps for
an obscure architecture). They then give source code that does
correspond, but withhold the ``incantations'' and build plans they
used to make that source compile into the specialized binaries.
Therefore, GPLv2~\S3 requires that the source code include ``meta-material'' like
scripts, interface definitions, and other material that is used to
``control compilation and installation'' of the binaries. In this
manner, those further down the distribution chain are assured that
they have the unabated freedom to build their own modified works
from the sources provided.
Software distribution comes in many
forms. Embedded manufacturers, for example, have the freedom to put
GPL'd software into mobile devices with very tight memory and space
constraints. In such cases, putting the source right alongside the
binaries on the machine itself might not be an option. While it is
recommended that this be the default way that people comply with GPL, the
GPL does provide options when such distribution is unfeasible.
\label{GPLv2s3-medium-customarily}
GPLv2~\S3, therefore, allows source code to be provided on any physical
``medium customarily used for software interchange.'' By design, this
phrase covers a broad spectrum --- the phrase seeks to pre-adapt to
changes in technology. When GPLv2 was first published in June
1991, distribution on magnetic tape was still common, and CD was
relatively new. By 2002, CD was the default. By 2007, DVD's were the
default. Now, it's common to give software on USB drives and SD cards. This
language in the license must adapt with changing technology.
Meanwhile, the binding created by the word ``customarily'' is key. Many
incorrectly believe that distributing binary on CD and source on the
Internet is acceptable. In the corporate world in industrialized countries, it is indeed customary to
simply download a CDs' worth of data quickly. However, even today in the USA, many computer users are not connected to the Internet, and most people connected
to the Internet still have limited download speeds. Downloading
CDs full of data is not customary for them in the least. In some cities
in Africa, computers are becoming more common, but Internet connectivity
is still available only at a few centralized locations. Thus, the
``customs'' here are normalized for a worldwide userbase. Simply
providing source on the Internet --- while it is a kind, friendly and
useful thing to do --- is not usually sufficient.
Note, however, a major exception to this rule, given by the last paragraph
of GPLv2~\S3. \emph{If} distribution of the binary files is made only on the
Internet (i.e., ``from a designated place''), \emph{then} simply providing
the source code right alongside the binaries in the same place is
sufficient to comply with GPLv2~\S3.
\medskip
As is shown above, under GPLv2~\S3(a), embedded manufacturers can put the
binaries on the device and ship the source code along on a CD\@. However,
sometimes this turns out to be too costly. Including a CD with every
device could prove too costly, and may practically (although not legally)
prohibit using GPL'd software. For this situation and others like it, GPLv2\S~3(b) is available.
GPLv2~\S3(b) allows a distributor of binaries to instead provide a written
offer for source code alongside those binaries. This is useful in two
specific ways. First, it may turn out that most users do not request the
source, and thus the cost of producing the CDs is saved --- a financial
and environmental windfall. In addition, along with a GPLv2~\S3(b) compliant
offer for source, a binary distributor might choose to \emph{also} give a
URL for source code. Many who would otherwise need a CD with source might
turn out to have those coveted high bandwidth connections, and are able to
download the source instead --- again yielding environmental and financial
windfalls.
However, note that regardless of how many users prefer to get the
source online, GPLv2~\S3(b) does place lasting long-term obligations on the
binary distributor. The binary distributor must be prepared to honor
that offer for source for three years and ship it out (just as they
would have had to do under GPLv2~\S3(a)) at a moment's notice when they
receive such a request. There is real organizational cost here:
support engineers must be trained how to route source requests, and
source CD images for every release version for the last three years
must be kept on hand to burn such CDs quickly. The requests might not
even come from actual customers; the offer for source must be valid
for ``any third party''.
That phrase is another place where some get confused --- thinking again
that full public distribution of source is required. The offer for source
must be valid for ``any third party'' because of the freedoms of
redistribution granted by GPLv2~\S\S1--2. A company may ship a binary image
and an offer for source to only one customer. However, under GPL, that
customer has the right to redistribute that software to the world if she
likes. When she does, that customer has an obligation to make sure that
those who receive the software from her can exercise their freedoms under
GPL --- including the freedom to modify, rebuild, and redistribute the
source code.
GPLv2~\S3(c) is created to save her some trouble, because by itself GPLv2~\S3(b)
would unfairly favor large companies. GPLv2~\S3(b) allows the
separation of the binary software from the key tool that people can use
to exercise their freedom. The GPL permits this separation because it is
good for re-distributors, and those users who turn out not to need the
source. However, to ensure equal rights for all software users, anyone
along the distribution chain must have the right to get the source and
exercise those freedoms that require it.
Meanwhile, GPLv2~\S3(b)'s compromise primarily benefits companies that
distribute binary software commercially. Without GPLv2~\S3(c), that benefit
would be at the detriment of the companies' customers; the burden of
source code provision would be unfairly shifted to the companies'
customers. A customer, who had received binaries with a GPLv2~\S3(b)-compliant
offer, would be required under GPLv2 (sans GPLv2~\S3(c)) to acquire the source,
merely to give a copy of the software to a friend who needed it. GPLv2~\S3(c)
reshifts this burden to entity who benefits from GPLv2~\S3(b).
GPLv2~\S3(c) allows those who undertake \emph{noncommercial} distribution to
simply pass along a GPLv2~\S3(b)-compliant source code offer. The customer who
wishes to give a copy to her friend can now do so without provisioning the
source, as long as she gives that offer to her friend. By contrast, if
she wanted to go into business for herself selling CDs of that software,
she would have to acquire the source and either comply via GPLv2~\S3(a), or
write her own GPLv2~\S3(b)-compliant source offer.
This process is precisely the reason why a GPLv2~\S3(b) source offer must be
valid for all third parties. At the time the offer is made, there is no
way of knowing who might end up noncommercially receiving a copy of the
software. Companies who choose to comply via GPLv2~\S3(b) must thus be
prepared to honor all incoming source code requests. For this and the
many other additional necessary complications under GPLv2~\S\S3(b--c), it is
only rarely a better option than complying via GPLv2~\S3(a).
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{GPL's Implied Patent Grant}
\label{gpl-implied-patent-grant}
We digress again briefly from our section-by-section consideration of GPLv2
to consider the interaction between the terms of GPL and patent law. The
GPLv2, despite being silent with respect to patents, actually confers on its
licensees more rights to a licensor's patents than those licenses that
purport to address the issue. This is the case because patent law, under
the doctrine of implied license, gives to each distributee of a patented
article a license from the distributor to practice any patent claims owned
or held by the distributor that cover the distributed article. The
implied license also extends to any patent claims owned or held by the
distributor that cover ``reasonably contemplated uses'' of the patented
article. To quote the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the highest court
for patent cases other than the Supreme Court:
\begin{quotation}
Generally, when a seller sells a product without restriction, it in
effect promises the purchaser that in exchange for the price paid, it will
not interfere with the purchaser's full enjoyment of the product
purchased. The buyer has an implied license under any patents of the
seller that dominate the product or any uses of the product to which the
parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.
\end{quotation}
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg. Corp., Inc., 123 F.3d
1445, 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Of course, Free Software is licensed, not sold, and there are indeed
restrictions placed on the licensee, but those differences are not likely
to prevent the application of the implied license doctrine to Free
Software, because software licensed under the GPL grants the licensee the
right to make, use, and sell the software, each of which are exclusive
rights of a patent holder. Therefore, although the GPLv2 does not expressly
grant the licensee the right to do those things under any patents the
licensor may have that cover the software or its reasonably contemplated
uses, by licensing the software under the GPLv2, the distributor impliedly
licenses those patents to the GPLv2 licensee with respect to the GPLv2'd
software.
An interesting issue regarding this implied patent license of GPLv2'd
software is what would be considered ``uses of the [software] to which
the parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.'' A
clever advocate may argue that the implied license granted by GPLv2 is
larger in scope than the express license in other Free Software
licenses with express patent grants, in that the patent license
clause of many of those other Free Software licenses are specifically
limited to the patent claims covered by the code as licensed by the patentee.
In contrast, a GPLv2 licensee, under the doctrine of implied patent license,
is free to practice any patent claims held by the licensor that cover
``reasonably contemplated uses'' of the GPL'd code, which may very well
include creation and distribution of modified works since the GPL's terms,
under which the patented code is distributed, expressly permits such activity.
Further supporting this result is the Federal Circuit's pronouncement that
the recipient of a patented article has, not only an implied license to
make, use, and sell the article, but also an implied patent license to
repair the article to enable it to function properly, Bottom Line Mgmt.,
Inc. v. Pan Man, Inc., 228 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Additionally, the
Federal Circuit extended that rule to include any future recipients of the
patented article, not just the direct recipient from the distributor.
This theory comports well with the idea of Free Software, whereby software
is distributed among many entities within the community for the purpose
of constant evolution and improvement. In this way, the law of implied
patent license used by the GPLv2 ensures that the community mutually
benefits from the licensing of patents to any single community member.
Note that simply because GPLv2'd software has an implied patent license does
not mean that any patents held by a distributor of GPLv2'd code become
worthless. To the contrary, the patents are still valid and enforceable
against either:
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alph{enumi}}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\textup{(\theenumi)}}
\item any software other than that licensed under the GPLv2 by the patent
holder, and
\item any party that does not comply with the GPLv2
with respect to the licensed software.
\end{enumerate}
\newcommand{\compB}{$\mathcal{B}$}
\newcommand{\compA}{$\mathcal{A}$}
For example, if Company \compA{} has a patent on advanced Web browsing, but
also licenses a Web browsing program under the GPLv2, then it
cannot assert the patent against any party based on that party's use of
Company \compA{}'s GPL'ed Web browsing software program, or on that party's
creation and use of modified versions of that GPL'ed program. However, if a
party uses that program without
complying with the GPLv2, then Company \compA{} can assert both copyright
infringement claims against the non-GPLv2-compliant party and
infringement of the patent, because the implied patent license only
extends to use of the software in accordance with the GPLv2. Further, if
Company \compB{} distributes a competitive advanced Web browsing program
that is not a modified version of Company \compA{}'s GPL'd Web browsing software
program, Company \compA{} is free to assert its patent against any user or
distributor of that product. It is irrelevant whether Company \compB's
program is also distributed under the GPLv2, as Company \compB{} can not grant
implied licenses to Company \compA's patent.
This result also reassures companies that they need not fear losing their
proprietary value in patents to competitors through the GPLv2 implied patent
license, as only those competitors who adopt and comply with the GPLv2's
terms can benefit from the implied patent license. To continue the
example above, Company \compB{} does not receive a free ride on Company
\compA's patent, as Company \compB{} has not licensed-in and then
redistributed Company A's advanced Web browser under the GPLv2. If Company
\compB{} does do that, however, Company \compA{} still has not lost
competitive advantage against Company \compB{}, as Company \compB{} must then,
when it re-distributes Company \compA's program, grant an implied license
to any of its patents that cover the program. Further, if Company \compB{}
relicenses an improved version of Company A's program, it must do so under
the GPLv2, meaning that any patents it holds that cover the improved version
are impliedly licensed to any licensee. As such, the only way Company
\compB{} can benefit from Company \compA's implied patent license, is if it,
itself, distributes Company \compA's software program and grants an
implied patent license to any of its patents that cover that program.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Defending Freedom on Many Fronts}
Chapters~\ref{run-and-verbatim} and~\ref{source-and-binary} presented the
core freedom-defending provisions of GPLv2\@, which are in GPLv2~\S\S0--3.
GPLv2\S\S~4--7 of the GPLv2 are designed to ensure that GPLv2~\S\S0--3 are
not infringed, are enforceable, are kept to the confines of copyright law but
also not trumped by other copyright agreements or components of other
entirely separate legal systems. In short, while GPLv2~\S\S0--3 are the parts
of the license that defend the freedoms of users and programmers,
GPLv2~\S\S4--7 are the parts of the license that keep the playing field clear
so that \S\S~0--3 can do their jobs.
\section{GPLv2~\S4: Termination on Violation}
\label{GPLv2s4}
GPLv2~\S4 is GPLv2's termination clause. Upon first examination, it seems
strange that a license with the goal of defending users' and programmers'
freedoms for perpetuity in an irrevocable way would have such a clause.
However, upon further examination, the difference between irrevocability
and this termination clause becomes clear.
The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder grants
rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the software under terms
of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that grant. Since the GPL has no
provision allowing the copyright holder to take such a prerogative, the
license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect.\footnote{In
the USA, due to unfortunate legislation, the length of copyright is nearly
perpetual, even though the Constitution forbids perpetual copyright.} The
copyright holders have the right to relicense the same work under different
licenses (see Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} of this tutorial), or to
stop distributing the GPLv2'd version (assuming GPLv2~\S3(b) was never used),
but they may not revoke the rights under GPLv2 already granted.
In fact, when an entity loses their right to copy, modify and distribute
GPL'd software, it is because of their \emph{own actions}, not that of the
copyright holder. The copyright holder does not decide when GPLv2~\S4
termination occurs (if ever); rather, the actions of the licensee determine
that.
Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to
the licensee to perform specific types of copying, modification, and
redistribution. By default, all other types of copying, modification, and
redistribution are prohibited. GPLv2~\S4 says that if you undertake any of
those other types (e.g., redistributing binary-only in violation of GPLv2~\S3),
then all rights under the license --- even those otherwise permitted for
those who have not violated --- terminate automatically.
GPLv2~\S4 makes GPLv2 enforceable. If licensees fail to adhere to the
license, then they are stuck without any permission under to engage in
activities covered by copyright law. They must completely cease and desist
from all copying, modification and distribution of the GPL'd software.
At that point, violating licensees must gain the forgiveness of the copyright
holders to have their rights restored. Alternatively, the violators could
negotiate another agreement, separate from GPL, with the copyright
holder. Both are common practice, although
\tutorialpartsplit{as discussed in \textit{A Practical Guide to GPL
Compliance}, there are }{Chapter~\ref{compliance-understanding-whos-enforcing}
explains further} key differences between these two very different uses of GPL.
\section{GPLv2~\S5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}
\label{GPLv2s5}
GPLv2~\S5 brings us to perhaps the most fundamental misconception and common
confusion about GPLv2\@. Because of the prevalence of proprietary software,
most users, programmers, and lawyers alike tend to be more familiar with
EULAs. EULAs are believed by their authors to be contracts, requiring
formal agreement between the licensee and the software distributor to be
valid. This has led to mechanisms like ``shrink-wrap'' and ``click-wrap''
as mechanisms to perform acceptance ceremonies with EULAs.
The GPL does not need contract law to ``transfer rights.'' Usually, no rights
are transferred between parties. By contrast, the GPL is primarily a permission
slip to undertake activities that would otherwise have been prohibited
by copyright law. As such, GPL needs no acceptance ceremony; the
licensee is not even required to accept the license.
However, without the GPL, the activities of copying, modifying and
distributing the software would have otherwise been prohibited. So, the
GPL says that you only accepted the license by undertaking activities that
you would have otherwise been prohibited without your license under GPL\@.
This is a certainly subtle point, and requires a mindset quite different
from the contractual approach taken by EULA authors.
An interesting side benefit to GPLv2~\S5 is that the bulk of users of Free
Software are not required to accept the license. Undertaking fair and
unregulated use of the work, for example, does not bind you to the GPL,
since you are not engaging in activity that is otherwise controlled by
copyright law. Only when you engage in those activities that might have an
impact on the freedom of others does license acceptance occur, and the
terms begin to bind you to fair and equitable sharing of the software. In
other words, the GPL only kicks in when it needs to for the sake of
freedom.
While GPL is by default a copyright license, it is certainly still possible
to consider GPL as a contract as well. For example, some distributors chose
to ``wrap'' their software in an acceptance ceremony to the GPL, and nothing in
the GPL prohibits that use. Furthermore, the ruling in \textit{Jacobsen
v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2008)} indicates that \textbf{both}
copyright and contractual remedies may be sought by a copyright holder
seeking to enforce a license designed to uphold software freedom.
% FIXME-LATER: Write this
%\section{Using GPL Both as a Contract and Copyright License}
\section{GPLv2~\S6: GPL, My One and Only}
\label{GPLv2s6}
A point that was glossed over in Section~\ref{GPLv2s4}'s discussion of GPLv2~\S4
was the irrevocable nature of the GPL\@. The GPLv2 is indeed irrevocable,
and it is made so formally by GPLv2~\S6.
The first sentence in GPLv2~\S6 ensures that as software propagates down the
distribution chain, that each licensor can pass along the license to each
new licensee. Under GPLv2~\S6, the act of distributing automatically grants a
license from the original licensor to the next recipient. This creates a
chain of grants that ensure that everyone in the distribution has rights
under the GPLv2\@. In a mathematical sense, this bounds the bottom ---
making sure that future licensees get no fewer rights than the licensee before.
The second sentence of GPLv2~\S6 does the opposite; it bounds from the top. It
prohibits any licensor along the distribution chain from placing
additional restrictions on the user. In other words, no additional
requirements may trump the rights and freedoms given by GPLv2\@.
The final sentence of GPLv2~\S6 makes it abundantly clear that no individual
entity in the distribution chain is responsible for the compliance of any
other. This is particularly important for noncommercial users who have
passed along a source offer under GPLv2~\S3(c), as they cannot be assured that
the issuer of the offer will honor their GPLv2~\S3 obligations.
In short, GPLv2~\S6 says that your license for the software is your one and
only copyright license allowing you to copy, modify and distribute the
software.
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
% Also, link to GPLv3 section
This is GPLv2’s ``automatic downstream licensing'' provision. Each time you
redistribute a GPL’d program, the recipient automatically receives a license
from each original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the program subject
to the conditions of the license. There is no requirement to take any action
to ensure the downstream recipient’s acceptance of the license terms, see
above. This places every copyright holder in the chain of descent of the code
in legal privity, or direct relationship, with every downstream
redistributor. Two legal effects follow. First, as \S6 says, parties
themselves remaining in compliance have valid permissions for all actions
including modification and redistribution even if their immediate upstream
supplier of the software has been terminated for license violation. Their
licensed rights are not dependent on compliance of their upstream, because
their licenses issue directly from the copyright holder. Second, automatic
termination cannot be cured by obtaining additional copies from an alternate
supplier: the license permissions emanate only from the original licensors,
and if they have automatically terminated permission, no act by any
intermediate license holder can restore those terminated rights.
%FIXME-URGENT: end
\section{GPLv2~\S7: ``Give Software Liberty or Give It Death!''}
\label{GPLv2s7}
In essence, GPLv2~\S7 is a verbosely worded way of saying for non-copyright
systems what GPLv2~\S6 says for copyright. If there exists any reason that a
distributor knows of that would prohibit later licensees from exercising
their full rights under GPL, then distribution is prohibited.
Originally, this was designed as the title of this section suggests --- as
a last ditch effort to make sure that freedom was upheld. However, in
modern times, it has come to give much more. Now that the body of GPL'd
software is so large, patent holders who would want to be distributors of
GPL'd software have a tough choice. They must choose between avoiding
distribution of GPL'd software that exercises the teachings of their
patents, or grant a royalty-free, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to
those patents. Many companies have chosen the latter.
Thus, GPLv2~\S7 rarely gives software death by stopping its distribution.
Instead, it is inspiring patent holders to share their patents in the same
freedom-defending way that they share their copyrighted works.
\section{GPLv2~\S8: Excluding Problematic Jurisdictions}
\label{GPLv2s8}
GPLv2~\S8 is rarely used by copyright holders. Its intention is that if a
particular country, say Unfreedonia, grants particular patents or allows
copyrighted interfaces (no country to our knowledge even permits those
yet), that the GPLv2'd software can continue in free and unabated
distribution in the countries where such controls do not exist.
As far as is currently known, GPLv2~\S8 has very rarely been formally used by
copyright holders. Admittedly, some have used GPLv2~\S8 to explain various
odd special topics of distribution (usually related in some way to
GPLv2~\S7). However, generally speaking, this section is not proven
particularly useful in the more than two decades of GPLv2 history.
Meanwhile, despite many calls by the FSF (and others) for those licensors who
explicitly use this section to come forward and explain their reasoning, no
one ever did. Furthermore, research conducted during the GPLv3 drafting
process found exactly one licensor who had invoked this section to add an
explicit geographical distribution limitation, and the reasoning for that one
invocation was not fitting with FSF's intended spirit of GPLv2~\S8. As such,
GPLv2~\S8 was not included at all in GPLv3.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}
GPLv2~\S\S0--7 constitute the freedom-defending terms of the GPLv2. The remainder
of the GPLv2 handles administrivia and issues concerning warranties and
liability.
\section{GPLv2~\S9: FSF as Stewards of GPL}
\label{GPLv2s9}
FSF reserves the exclusive right to publish future versions of the GPL\@;
GPLv2~\S9 expresses this. While the stewardship of the copyrights on the body
of GPL'd software around the world is shared among thousands of
individuals and organizations, the license itself needs a single steward.
Forking of the code is often regrettable but basically innocuous. Forking
of licensing is disastrous.
(Chapter~\ref{tale-of-two-copylefts} discusses more about the various
versions of GPL.)
\section{GPLv2~\S10: Relicensing Permitted}
\label{GPLv2s10}
GPLv2~\S10 reminds the licensee of what is already implied by the nature of
copyright law. Namely, the copyright holder of a particular software
program has the prerogative to grant alternative agreements under separate
copyright licenses.
\section{GPLv2~\S11: No Warranty}
\label{GPLv2s11}
Most warranty disclaimer language shout at you. The
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-316}{Uniform Commercial
Code~\S2-316} requires that disclaimers of warranty be ``conspicuous''.
There is apparently general acceptance that \textsc{all caps} is the
preferred way to make something conspicuous, and that has over decades worked
its way into the voodoo tradition of warranty disclaimer writing.
That said, there is admittedly some authority under USA law suggesting that
effective warranty disclaimers that conspicuousness can be established by
capitalization and is absent when a disclaimer has the same typeface as the
terms surrounding it (see \textit{Stevenson v.~TRW, Inc.}, 987 F.2d 288, 296
(5th Cir.~1993)). While GPLv3's drafters doubted that such authority would
apply to copyright licenses like the GPL, the FSF has nevertheless left
warranty and related disclaimers in \textsc{all caps} throughout all versions
of GPL\@\footnote{One of the authors of this tutorial, Bradley M.~Kuhn, has
often suggested the aesthetically preferable compromise of a
\textsc{specifically designed ``small caps'' font, such as this one, as an
alternative to} WRITING IN ALL CAPS IN THE DEFAULT FONT (LIKE THIS),
since the latter adds more ugliness than conspicuousness. Kuhn once
engaged in reversion war with a lawyer who disagreed, but that lawyer never
answered Kuhn's requests for case law that argues THIS IS INHERENTLY MORE
CONSPICUOUS \textsc{Than this is}.}.
Some have argued the GPL is unenforceable in some jurisdictions because
its disclaimer of warranties is impermissibly broad. However, GPLv2~\S11
contains a jurisdictional savings provision, which states that it is to be
interpreted only as broadly as allowed by applicable law. Such a
provision ensures that both it, and the entire GPL, is enforceable in any
jurisdiction, regardless of any particular law regarding the
permissibility of certain warranty disclaimers.
Finally, one important point to remember when reading GPLv2~\S11 is that GPLv2~\S1
permits the sale of warranty as an additional service, which GPLv2~\S11 affirms.
\section{GPLv2~\S12: Limitation of Liability}
\label{GPLv2s12}
There are many types of warranties, and in some jurisdictions some of them
cannot be disclaimed. Therefore, usually agreements will have both a
warranty disclaimer and a limitation of liability, as we have in GPLv2~\S12.
GPLv2~\S11 thus gets rid of all implied warranties that can legally be
disavowed. GPLv2~\S12, in turn, limits the liability of the actor for any
warranties that cannot legally be disclaimed in a particular jurisdiction.
Again, some have argued the GPL is unenforceable in some jurisdictions
because its limitation of liability is impermissibly broad. However, \S
12, just like its sister, GPLv2~\S11, contains a jurisdictional savings
provision, which states that it is to be interpreted only as broadly as
allowed by applicable law. As stated above, such a provision ensures that
both GPLv2~\S12, and the entire GPL, is enforceable in any jurisdiction,
regardless of any particular law regarding the permissibility of limiting
liability.
So end the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{GPL Version 3}
\label{GPLv3}
This chapter discusses the text of GPLv3. Much of this material herein
includes text that was adapted (with permission) from text that FSF
originally published as part of the so-called ``rationale documents'' for the
various discussion drafts of GPLv3.
The FSF ran a somewhat public process to develop GPLv3, and it was the first
attempt of its kind to develop a Free Software license this way. Ultimately,
RMS was the primary author of GPLv3, but he listened to feedback from all
sorts of individuals and even for-profit companies. Nevertheless, in
attempting to understand GPLv3 after the fact, the materials available from
the GPLv3 process have a somewhat ``drinking from the firehose'' effect.
This chapter seeks to explain GPLv3 to newcomers, who perhaps are familiar
with GPLv2 and who did not participate in the GPLv3 process.
Those who wish to drink from the firehose and take a diachronic approach to
GPLv3 study by reading the step-by-step public drafting process of the GPLv3 (which
occurred from Monday 16 January 2006 through Monday 19 November 2007) should
visit \url{http://gplv3.fsf.org/}.
\section{Understanding GPLv3 As An Upgraded GPLv2}
Ultimately, GPLv2 and GPLv3 co-exist as active licenses in regular use. As
discussed in Chapter~\ref{tale-of-two-copylefts}, GPLv1 was never regularly
used alongside GPLv2. However, given GPLv2's widespread popularity and
existing longevity by the time GPLv3 was published, it is not surprising that
some licensors still prefer GPLv2-only or GPLv2-or-later. GPLv3 gained major
adoption by many projects, old and new, but many projects have not upgraded
due to (in some cases) mere laziness and (in other cases) policy preference
for some of GPLv2's terms and/or policy opposition to GPLv3's terms.
Given this ``two GPLs world'' is reality, it makes sense to consider GPLv3 in
terms of how it differs from GPLv2. Also, most of the best GPL experts in
the world must deal regularly with both licenses, and admittedly have decades
of experience with GPLv2 while the most experience with GPLv3 that's possible
is by default less than a decade. These two factors usually cause even new
students of GPL to start with GPLv2 and move on to GPLv3, and this tutorial
follows that pattern.
Overall, the changes made in GPLv3 admittedly \textit{increased} the
complexity of the license. The FSF stated at the start of the GPLv3 process
that they would have liked to oblige those who have asked for a simpler and
shorter GPL\@. Ultimately, the FSF gave priority to making GPLv3 a better
copyleft license in the spirit of past GPL's. Obsession for concision should
never trump software freedom.
The FSF had many different, important goals in seeking to upgrade to GPLv3.
However, one important goal that is often lost in the discussion of policy
minutia is a rather simple but important issue. Namely, FSF sought to assure
that GPLv3 was more easily internationalized than GPLv2. In particular, the
FSF sought to ease interpretation of GPL in other countries by replacement of
USA-centric\footnote{See Section~\ref{non-usa-copyright} of this tutorial for
a brief discussion about non-USA copyright systems.} copyright phrases and
wording with neutral terminology rooted in description of behavior rather
than specific statute. As can be seen in the section-by-section discussion of
GPLv3 that follows, nearly every section had changes related to issues of
internationalization.
\section{GPLv3~\S0: Giving In On ``Defined Terms''}
\label{GPLv3s0}
One of lawyers' most common complaints about GPLv2 is that defined terms in
the document appear throughout. Most licenses define terms up-front.
However, the GPL was always designed both as a document that should be easily
understood both by lawyers and by software developers: it is a document
designed to give freedom to software developers and users, and therefore it
should be comprehensible to that constituency.
Interestingly enough, one coauthor of this tutorial who is both a lawyer and
a developer pointed out that in law school, she understood defined terms more
quickly than other law students precisely because of her programming
background. For developers, having \verb0#define0 (in the C programming
language) or other types of constants and/or macros that automatically expand
in the place where they are used is second nature. As such, adding a defined
terms section was not terribly problematic for developers, and thus GPLv3
adds one. Most of these defined terms are somewhat straightforward and bring
forward better worded definitions from GPLv2. Herein, this tutorial
discusses a few of the new ones.
GPLv3~\S0 includes definitions of five new terms not found in any form in
GPLv2: ``modify'' ``covered work'', ``propagate'', ``convey'', and
``Appropriate Legal Notices''.
\subsection{Modify and the Work Based on the Program}
% FIXME: I think we actually need to research the claim below that
% ``derivative work'' as a term is unique to USA copyright law. I have
% heard German lawyers, for example, use the term extensively. Is it also a
% term perhaps under German law? -- bkuhn
GPLv2 included a defined term, ``work based on the Program'', but also used
the term ``modify'' and ``based on'' throughout the license. GPLv2's ``work
based on the Program'' definition made use of a legal term of art,
``derivative work'', which is peculiar to USA copyright
law\footnote{(Ironically, most criticism of USA-specific legal
terminology in GPLv2's ``work based on the Program'' definition historically
came not primarily from readers outside the USA, but from those within
it. The FSF noted in that it did not generally agree with these
views, and expressed puzzlement by the energy with which they were
expressed, given the existence of many other, more difficult legal issues
implicated by the GPL. Nevertheless, the FSF argued that it made sense to
eliminate usage of local copyright terminology to good effect.}. GPLv2
always sought to cover all rights governed by relevant copyright law, in the
USA and elsewhere.
Even though differently-labeled concepts corresponding to the
derivative work are recognized in all copyright law systems, these
counterpart concepts might differ to some degree in scope and breadth from
the USA derivative work. GPLv3 therefore takes the task of
internationalizing the license further by removing references to derivative
works and by providing a more globally useful definition.
GPLv3 drops all reference to USA ``derivative works'' and returns
to the base concept only: GPL covers the licensed work and all works where
copyright permission from the licensed work's copyright holder.
The new definitions returns to the common elements of copyright law. Copyright
holders of works of software have the exclusive right to form new works by
modification of the original --- a right that may be expressed in various
ways in different legal systems. GPLv3 operates to grant this right to
successive generations of users (particularly through the copyleft conditions
set forth in GPLv3~\S5, as described later in this tutorial in its
\S~\ref{GPLv3s5}). Here in GPLv3~\S0, ``modify'' refers to basic copyright
rights, and then this definition of ``modify'' is used to define ``modified
version of'' and ``work based on'' as synonyms.
\subsection{The Covered Work}
GPLv3 uses a common license drafting technique of building upon simpler
definitions to make complex ones. The Program is a defined term found
throughout GPLv2, and the word ``covered'' and the phrase ``covered by this
license'' are used in tandem with the Program in GPLv2, but not as part of a
definition. GPLv3 offers a single term ``covered work'', which enables some
of the wording in GPLv3 to be simpler and clearer than its GPLv2
counterparts.
Next, to avoid locking GPLv3 into specific copyright statues, the GPLv3
defines two terms that are otherwise exotic to the language of international
copyright.
\subsection{Propagate}
To ``propagate'' a work covered by the license means any activity in a locale
that requires permission of copyright holders in that locale's legal system.
However, personal use or modification for personal use are activities explicitly
excluded from ``propagation'' \textit{regardless} of domestic copyright law.
The term ``propagate'' serves two purposes. First, ``propagate'' provides a
simple and convenient means for distinguishing between the kinds of uses of a
work that GPL imposes conditions on and the kinds of uses that GPL does not
(for the most part) impose conditions on.
Second, ``propagate'' helps globalize GPL in its wording and effect:
``derivative work'' was in fact not the only term commonly used by local
copyright statutes. A term like ``distribute'' (or its equivalent in
languages other than English) is also used in several national copyright
statutes. Practical experience with GPLv2 revealed the awkwardness of using
the term ``distribution'' in a license intended for global use: the scope of
``distribution'' in the copyright context can differ from country to country.
The GPL never necessarily intended the specific meaning of ``distribution''
that exists under USA (or any other country's) copyright law.
Indeed, even within a single country and language, the term distribution may
be ambiguous; as a legal term of art, distribution varies significantly in
meaning among those countries that recognize it. For example, comments
during GPLv3's drafting process indicated that in at least one country,
distribution may not include network transfers of software but may include
interdepartmental transfers of physical copies within an organization.
Meanwhile, the copyright laws of many countries, as well as certain
international copyright treaties, recognize ``making available to the
public'' or ``communication to the public'' as one of the exclusive rights of
copyright holders.
Therefore, the GPLv3 defines the term ``propagate'' by reference to activities
that require permission under ``applicable copyright law'', but excludes
execution and private modification from the definition. GPLv3's definition
also gives examples of activities that may be included within ``propagation''
but it also makes clear that, under the copyright laws of a given country,
``propagation'' may include other activities as well.
Thus, propagation is defined by behavior, and not by categories drawn from
some particular national copyright statute. This helps not only with
internationalization, but also factually-based terminology aids in
developers' and users' understanding of the GPL\@.
As a further benefit, because ``propagation'' includes all
exclusive rights granted under any particular copyright regime, the term
automatically accounts for all exclusive rights under that regime.
\subsection{Convey}
Next, GPLv3 defines a subset of propagate --- ``convey''.
Conveying includes activities that constitute propagation of copies to
others. As with the definition of propagate, GPLv3 thus addresses transfers
of copies of software in behavioral rather than statutory terms.
Any propagation that enables other parties to receive or make copies of the
work, is called ``conveying''. Usually, conveying is the activity that
triggers most of the other obligations of GPLv3.
\subsection{Appropriate Legal Notices}
GPLv2 used the term ``appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of
warranty'' in two places, which is a rather bulk term. Also, experience with
GPLv2 and other licenses that grant software freedom showed throughout the
1990s that the scope of types of notices that need preservation upon
conveyance were more broad that merely the copyright notices. The
Appropriate Legal Notice definition consolidates the material that GPLv2
traditionally required preserved into one definition.
\subsection{Other Defined Terms}
Note finally that not all defined terms in GPLv3 appear in GPLv3~\S0.
Specifically, those defined terms that are confined in use to a single
section are defined in the section in which they are used, and GPLv3~\S1
contains those definitions focused on source code. In this tutorial, those
defined terms are discussed in the section where they are defined and/or
used.
\section{GPLv3~\S1: Understanding CCS}
\label{GPLv3s1}
Ensuring that users have the source code to the software they receive and the
freedom to modify remains the paramount right embodied in the Free Software
Definition (found in \S~\ref{Free Software Definition} of this tutorial). As
such, GPLv3~\S1 is likely one of the most important sections of GPLv3, as it
contains all the defined terms related to this important software freedom.
\subsection{Source Code Definition}
First, GPLv3~\S1 retains GPLv2's definition of ``source code'' and adds an
explicit definition of ``object code'' as ``any non-source version of a
work''. Object code is not restricted to a narrow technical meaning and is
understood broadly to include any form of the work other than the preferred
form for making modifications to it. Object code therefore includes any kind
of transformed version of source code, such as bytecode or minified
Javascript. The definition of object code also ensures that licensees cannot
escape their obligations under the GPL by resorting to shrouded source or
obfuscated programming.
\subsection{CCS Definition}
\label{CCS Definition}
The definition of CCS\footnote{Note that the preferred term for those who
work regularly with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 is ``Complete Corresponding
Source'', abbreviated to ``CCS''. Admittedly, the word ``complete'' no
longer appears in GPLv3 (which uses the word ``all'' instead). However,
both GPLv2 and the early drafts of GPLv3 itself used the word ``complete'',
and early GPLv3 drafts even called this defined term ``Complete
Corresponding Source''. Meanwhile, use of the acronym ``CCS'' (sometimes,
``C\&CS'') was so widespread among GPL enforcers that its use continues
even though GPLv3-focused experts tend to say just the defined term of
``Corresponding Source''.}, or, as GPLv3 officially calls it,
``Corresponding Source'' in GPLv3~\S1\P4 is possibly the most complex
definition in the license.
The CCS definition is broad so as to protect users' exercise of their rights
under the GPL\@. The definition includes with particular examples to remove
any doubt that they are to be considered CCS\@. GPLv3 seeks to make it
completely clear that a licensee cannot avoid complying with the requirements
of the GPL by dynamically linking a subprogram component to the original
version of a program. The example also clarifies that the shared libraries
and dynamically linked subprograms that are included in Corresponding Source
are those that the work is ``specifically'' designed to require, which
clarifies that they do not include libraries invoked by the work that can be
readily substituted by other existing implementations. While copyleft
advocates never doubted this was required under GPLv2's definition of CCS,
GPLv3 makes it abundantly clear with an extra example.
The GPL, as always, seeks to ensure users are truly in a position to install and
run their modified versions of the program; the CCS definition is designed to
be expansive to ensure this software freedom. However, although the
definition of CCS is expansive, it is not sufficient to protect users'
freedoms in many circumstances. For example, a GPL'd program, or a modified
version of such a program, might be locked-down and restricted. The
requirements in GPLv3~\S6 (discussed in Section~\ref{GPLv3s6} of this
tutorial) handle that issue. (Early drafts of GPLv3 included those
requirements in the definition of CCS; however, given that the lock-down
issue only comes up in distribution of object code, it is more logical to
place those requirements with the parts of GPLv3 dealing directly with object
code distribution).
The penultimate paragraph in GPLv3\S2 notes that GPLv3's CCS definition does
not require source that can be automatically generated. Many code
generators, preprocessors and take source code as input and sometimes even
have output that is still source code. Source code should always be whatever
the original programmer preferred to modify.
GPLv3\S1's final paragraph removes any ambiguity about what should be done on
source-only distributions. Specifically, the right to convey source code
that does not compile, does not work, or otherwise is experimental
in-progress work is fully permitted, \textit{provided that} no object code
form is conveyed as well. Indeed, when combined with the permissions in
GPLv3\S~5, it is clear that if one conveys \textit{only} source code, one can
never be required to provide more than that. One always has the right to
modify a source code work by deleting any part of it, and there can be no
requirement that free software source code be a whole functioning program.
\subsection{The System Library Exception}
\label{GPLv3-system-library-exception}
The previous section skipped over one part of the CCS definition, the
so-called system library exception. The ``System Libraries'' definition (and
the ``Standard Interface'' and ``Major Component'' definitions, which it
includes) are designed as part
to permit certain distribution arrangements that are considered reasonable by
copyleft advocates. The system library exception is designed to allow
copylefted software to link with these libraries when prohibition of that linking would hurt
software freedom more than it would hurt proprietary software.
The system library exception has two parts. Part (a) rewords the GPLv2
exception for clarity replacing GPLv2's words ``unless that component itself
accompanies the executable'' with ``which is not part of the Major
Component''. The goal here is to not require disclosure of source code of
certain libraries, such as necessary Microsoft Windows DLLs (which aren't
part of Windows' kernel but accompany it) that are required for functioning
of copylefted programs compiled for Windows.
However, in isolation, (a) would be too permissive, as it would sometimes
allowing distributors to evade important GPL requirements. Part (b) reigns
in (a). Specifically, (b) specifies only a few functionalities that a
system library may provide and still qualify for the exception. The goal is
to ensure system libraries are truly adjunct to a major essential operating
system component, compiler, or interpreter. The more low-level the
functionality provided by the library, the more likely it is to be qualified
for this exception.
Admittedly, the system library exception is a frequently discussed topic of
obsessed GPL theorists. The amount that has been written on the system
library exception (both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 versions of it), if included
herein, could easily increase this section of the tutorial to a length
greater than all the others.
Like any exception to the copyleft requirements of GPL, would-be GPL
violators frequently look to the system library exception as a potential
software freedom circumvention technique. When considering whether or not a
library qualifies for the system library exception, here is a pragmatic
thesis to consider, based on the combined decades of experience in GPL
interpretation of this tutorial's authors: the harder and more strained the
reader must study and read the system library exception, the more likely it
is that the library in question does not qualify for it.
\section{GPLv3~\S2: Basic Permissions}
\label{GPLv3S2}
%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
GPLv3 explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the
unmodified program. You can only make modifications, or otherwise propagate a
covered work, even one that you do not convey, so long as you are in
compliance with the license terms. If your license is terminated, then, for
example, you cannot continue to service your copies by making new modified
versions.
% FIXME-URGENT: end
GPLv3~\S2 can roughly be considered as an equivalent to GPLv2~\S0 (discussed
in \S~\ref{GPLv2s0} of this tutorial). However, the usual style of
improvements found in GPLv3 are found here as well. For example, the first
sentence of GPLv3~\S2 furthers the goal internationalization. Under the
copyright laws of some countries, it may be necessary for a copyright license
to include an explicit provision setting forth the duration of the rights
being granted. In other countries, including the USA, such a provision is
unnecessary but permissible.
GPLv3~\S2\P1 also acknowledges that licensees under the GPL enjoy rights of
copyright fair use, or the equivalent under applicable law. These rights are
compatible with, and not in conflict with, the freedoms that the GPL seeks to
protect, and the GPL cannot and should not restrict them.
However, note that (sadly to some copyleft advocates) the unlimited freedom
to run is confined to the \textit{unmodified} Program. This confinement is
unfortunately necessary since Programs that do not qualify as a User Product
in GPLv3~\S6 (see \S~\ref{user-product} in this tutorial) might have certain
unfortunate restrictions on the freedom to run.\footnote{See
\S~\ref{freedom-to-run} of this tutorial for the details on ``the freedom to
run''.}
GPLv3~\S2\P2 distinguishes between activities of a licensee that are
permitted without limitation and activities that trigger additional
requirements. Specifically, GPLv3~\S2\P2 guarantees the basic freedoms of
privately modifying and running the program. While these basic freedoms were
generally considered a standard part of users' rights under GPLv2 as well,
the GPLv3 states them herein more explicitly. In other words, there is no
direct analog to the first sentence of GPLv3~\S2\P2 in GPLv2
(See \S~\ref{gplv2-private-modification} of this tutorial for more on this issue.)
Also, GPLv3~\S2\P2 gives an explicit permission for a client to provide a
copy of its modified software to a contractor exclusively for that contractor
to modify it further, or run it, on behalf of the client. However, the
client can \textit{only} exercise this control over its own copyrighted
changes to the GPL-covered program. The parts of the program it obtained
from other contributors must be provided to the contractor with the usual GPL
freedoms. Thus, GPLv3 permits users to convey covered works to contractors
operating exclusively on the users' behalf, under the users' direction and
control, and to require the contractors to keep the users' copyrighted
changes confidential, but \textit{only if} the contractor is limited to acting
on the users' behalf (just as the users' employees would have to act).
The strict conditions in this ``contractors provision'' are needed so that it
cannot be twisted to fit other activities, such as making a program available
to downstream users or customers. By making the limits on this provision
very narrow, GPLv3 ensures that, in all other cases, contractor gets the
full freedoms of the GPL that they deserve.
The FSF was specifically asked to add this ``contractors provisions'' by
large enterprise users of Free Software, who often contract with non-employee
developers, working offsite, to make modifications intended for the user's
private or internal use, and often arrange with other companies to operate
their data centers. Whether GPLv2 permits these activities is not clear and
may depend on variations in copyright law in different jurisdictions. The
practices seem basically harmless, so FSF decided to make it clear they are
permitted.
GPLv3~\S2's final paragraph includes an explicit prohibition of sublicensing.
This provision ensures that GPL enforcement is always by the copyright
holder. Usually, sublicensing is regarded as a practical convenience or
necessity for the licensee, to avoid having to negotiate a license with each
licensor in a chain of distribution. The GPL solves this problem in another
way --- through its automatic licensing provision found in GPLv3~\S10 (which
is discussed in more detail in \S~\ref{GPLv3s10} of this tutorial).
\section{GPLv3's views on DRM and Device Lock-Down}
\label{GPLv3-drm}
The issues of DRM, device lock-down and encryption key disclosure were the
most hotly debated during the GPLv3 process. FSF's views on this were sadly
frequently misunderstood and, comparing the provisions related to these
issues in the earliest drafts of GPLv3 to the final version of GPLv3 shows
the FSF's willingness to compromise on tactical issues to reach the larger
goal of software freedom.
Specifically, GPLv3 introduced provisions that respond to the growing
practice of distributing GPL-covered programs in devices that employ
technical means to restrict users from installing and running modified
versions. This practice thwarts the expectations of developers and users
alike, because the right to modify is one of the core freedoms the GPL is
designed to secure.
Technological measures to defeat users' rights. These measures are often
described by such Orwellian phrases, such as ``digital rights management,''
which actually means limitation or outright destruction of users' legal
rights, or ``trusted computing,'' which actually means selling people
computers they cannot trust. However, these measures are alike in one basic
respect. They all employ technical means to turn the system of copyright law
(where the powers of the copyright holder are limited exceptions to general
freedom) into a virtual prison, where everything not specifically permitted
is utterly forbidden. This system of ``para-copyright'' was created well
after GPLv2 was written --- initially through legislation in the USA and the
EU, and later in other jurisdictions as well. This legislation creates
serious civil or even criminal penalties to escape from these restrictions
(commonly and aptly called ``jail-breaking a device''), even where the
purpose in doing so is to restore the users' legal rights that the technology
wrongfully prevents them from exercising.
GPLv2 did not address the use of technical measures to take back the rights
that the GPL granted, because such measures did not exist in 1991, and would
have been irrelevant to the forms in which software was then delivered to
users. GPLv3 addresses these issues, particularly because copylefted
software is ever more widely embedded in devices that impose technical
limitations on the user's freedom to change it.
However, FSF always made a clear distinction to avoid conflating these
``lock-down'' measures with legitimate applications that give users control,
as by enabling them to choose higher levels of system or data security within
their networks, or by allowing them to protect the security of their
communications using keys they can generate or copy to other devices for
sending or receiving messages. Such technologies present no obstacles to
software freedom and the goals of copyleft.
The public GPLv3 drafting process sought to balance these positions of
copyleft advocates with various desperate views of the larger
Free-Software-using community. Ultimately, FSF compromised to the GPLv3\S3
and GPLv3\S6 provisions that, taken together, are a minimalist set of terms
sufficient to protect the software freedom against the threat of invasive
para-copyright.
The compromises made were ultimately quite reasonable. The primary one is
embodied in GPLv3\S6's ``User Product'' definition (see \S~\ref{user-product}
in this tutorial for details). Additionally, some readers of early GPLv3
drafts seem to have assumed GPLv3 contained a blanket prohibition on DRM; but
it does not. In fact, no part of GPLv3 forbids DRM regarding non-GPL'd
works; rather, GPLv3 forbids the use of DRM specifically to lock-down
restrictions on users' ability to install modified versions of the GPL'd
software itself, but again, \textit{only} with regard to User Products.
\section{GPLv3~\S3: What Hath DMCA Wrought}
\label{GPLv3s3}
As discussed in \S~\ref{software-and-non-copyright} of this tutorial,
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201}{17 USC~\S1201} and
relate sections\footnote{These sections of the USC are often referred to as
the ``Digital Millennium Copyright Act'', or ``DMCA'', as that was the name
of the bill that so-modified these sections of the USC\@.} prohibits users
from circumventing technological measures that implement DRM\@. Since this
is part of copyright law and the GPL is primarily a copyright license, and
since what the DMCA calls ``circumvention'' is simply ``modifying the
software'' under the GPL, GPLv3 must disclaim that such anti-circumvention
provisions are not applicable to the GPLv3'd software. GPLv3\S3 shields
users from being subjected to liability under anti-circumvention law for
exercising their rights under the GPL, so far as the GPL can do so.
First, GPLv3\S3\P1 declares that no GPL'd program is part of an effective
technological protection measure, regardless of what the program does. Early
drafts of GPLv3\S3\P1 referred directly to the DMCA, but the final version
instead includes instead an international legal reference to
anticircumvention laws enacted pursuant to the 1996 WIPO treaty and any
similar laws. Lawyers outside the USA worried that a USA statutory reference
could be read as indicating a choice for application of USA law to the
license as a whole. While the FSF did not necessarily agree with that view,
the FSF decided anyway to refer to the WIPO treaty rather than DMCA, since
several national anticircumvention laws were (or will likely be) structured
more similarly to the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA in their
implementation of WIPO\@. Furthermore, the addition of ``or similar laws''
provides an appropriate catch-all.
Furthermore, GPLv3\S3\P2 states precisely that a conveying party waives the
power to forbid circumvention of technological measures only to the extent
that such circumvention is accomplished through the exercise of GPL rights in
the conveyed work. GPLv3\S3\P2 makes clear that the referenced ``legal
rights'' are specifically rights arising under anticircumvention law. and
refers to both the conveying party's rights and to third party rights, as in
some cases the conveying party will also be the party legally empowered to
enforce or invoke rights arising under anticircumvention law.
These disclaimers by each licensor of any intention to use GPL'd software to
stringently control access to other copyrighted works should effectively
prevent any private or public parties from invoking DMCA-like laws against
users who escape technical restriction measures implemented by GPL'd
software.
\section{GPLv3~\S4: Verbatim Copying}
\label{GPLv3s4}
GPLv3~\S4 is a revision of GPLv2~\S1 (as discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv2s1} of
this tutorial). There are almost no changes to this section from the
GPLv2~\S1, other than to use the new defined terms.
The only notable change of ``a fee'' to ``any price or no price'' in the
first sentence of GPLv3\S4\P2. The GPLv2\S1\P1 means that the GPL permits
one to charge money for the distribution of software. Despite efforts by
copyleft advocates to explain this in GPLv2 itself and in other documents,
there are evidently some people who still believe that GPLv2 allows charging
for services but not for selling copies of software and/or that the GPL
requires downloads to be gratis. Perhaps this is because GPLv2 referred to
charging a ``fee''; the term ``fee'' is generally used in connection with
services.
GPLv2's wording also referred to ``the physical act of transferring.'' The
intention was to distinguish charging for transfers from attempts to impose
licensing fees on all third parties. ``Physical'' might be read, however, as
suggesting ``distribution in a physical medium only''.
To address these two issues, GPLv3 says ``price'' in place of ``fee,'' and
removes the term ``physical.''
GPLv3~\S4 has also been revised from its corresponding section in GPLv2 in
light of the GPLv3~\S7 (see \S~\ref{GPLv3s7} in this tutorial for more).
Specifically, a distributor of verbatim copies of the program's source code
must obey any existing additional terms that apply to parts of the program
pursuant to GPLv3~\S7. In addition, the distributor is required to keep
intact all license notices, including notices of such additional terms.
Finally, there is no harm in explicitly pointing out what ought to be
obvious: that those who convey GPL-covered software may offer commercial
services for the support of that software.
\section{GPLv3~\S5: Modified Source}
\label{GPLv3s5}
GPLv3\S5 is the rewrite of GPLv2\S2, which was discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv2s2}
of this tutorial. This section discusses the changes found in GPLv3\S5
compared to GPLv2\S2.
GPLv3\S5(a) still requires modified versions be marked with ``relevant
date'', but no longer says ``the date of any change''. The best practice is
to include the date of the latest and/or most significant changes and who
made those. Of course, compared to its GPLv2\S2(a), GPLv3\S5(a) slightly
relaxes the requirements regarding notice of changes to the program. In
particular, the modified files themselves need no longer be marked. This
reduces administrative burdens for developers of modified versions of GPL'd
software.
GPLv3\S5(b) is a new but simple provision. GPLv3\S5(b) requires that the
license text itself must be unmodified (except as permitted by GPLv3\S7; see
\S~\ref{GPLv3s7} in this tutorial). Furthermore, it removes any perceived
conflict between the words ``keep intact all notices'' in GPLv3\S4, since
operating under GPLv3\S5 still includes all the requirements of GPLv3\S4 by
reference.
GPLv3\S5(c) is the primary source-code-related copyleft provision of GPL. (The
object-code-related copyleft provisions are in GPLv3\S6, discussed in
\S~\ref{GPLv3s6} of this tutorial). Compared to GPLv2\S2(b), GPLv3\S5(c)
states that the GPL applies to the whole of the work. Such was stated
already in GPLv2\S2(b), in ``in whole or in part'', but this simplified
wording makes it clear it applies to the entire covered work.
Another change in GPLv3\S5(c) is the removal of the
words ``at no charge,'' which was often is misunderstood upon na\"{i}ve
reading of in GPLv2\S(b) (as discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv2s2-at-no-charge} of this
tutorial).
% FIXME-LATER: Write up something on 5d, and related it to Appropriate Legal Notices.
Note that of GPLv2~\S2's penultimate and ante-penultimate paragraphs are now
handled adequately by the definitions in GPLv3\S0 and as such, have no direct
analogs in GPLv3.
GPLv2~\S2's final paragraph, however, is reworded and expanded into the final
paragraph of GPLv3\S5, which now also covers issues related to copyright
compilations (but not compilations into object code --- that's in the next
section!). The intent and scope is the same as was intended in GPLv2.
\section{GPLv3~\S6: Non-Source and Corresponding Source}
\label{GPLv3s6}
%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
Section 6 states the compliance obligations for distributing ``non-source
forms'' of a program, which means any form other than the form preferred for
making modifications. In addition to binaries or executables, non-source
forms therefore include obfuscated, minimized, compressed or otherwise
non-preferred forms for modification. The requirement to provide complete and corresponding source code under \S6
closely parallels the provisions of GPLv2 \S3, above, but with changes
designed to make compliant provisioning easier under contemporary
technological conditions.
% FIXME-URGENT: end
GPLv3~\S6 clarifies and revises GPLv2~\S3. It requires distributors of GPL'd
object code to provide access to the corresponding source code, in one of
four specified ways. As noted in \S~\ref{GPLv3s0}, ``object code'' in GPLv3
is defined broadly to mean any non-source version of a work.
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
GPLv3~\S6(a--b) now apply specifically to distribution of object code in a
physical product. Physical products include embedded systems, as well as
physical software distribution media such as CDs. As in GPLv2~\S3 (discussed
in \S~\ref{GPLv2s3} of this tutorial), the distribution of object code may
either be accompanied by the machine-readable source code, or it may be
accompanied by a valid written offer to provide the machine-readable source
code. However, unlike in GPLv2, that offer cannot be exercised by any third
party; rather, only those ``who possess the object code'' can exercise
the offer. (Note that this is a substantial narrowing of requirements of
offer fulfillment, and is a wonderful counterexample to dispute claims that
the GPLv3 has more requirements than GPLv2.)
% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
GPLv3~\S6(b) further revises the requirements for the written offer to
provide source code. As before, the offer must remain valid for at least
three years. In addition, even after three years, a distributor of a product
containing GPL'd object code must offer to provide source code for as long as
the distributor also continues to offer spare parts or customer support for
the product model. This is a reasonable and appropriate requirement; a
distributor should be prepared to provide source code if he or she is
prepared to provide support for other aspects of a physical product.
GPLv3~\S6(a--b) clarifies that the medium for software interchange on which
the machine-readable source code is provided must be a durable physical
medium. GPLv3~\S6(b)(2), however, permits a distributor to instead offer to
provide source code from a network server instead, which is yet another
example GPLv3 looser in its requirements than GPLv2 (see
\S~\ref{GPLv2s3-medium-customarily} for details).
% FIXME-LATER: more information about source provision, cost of physically
% performing, reasonable fees, medium customary clearly being said durable
% connecting back to previous text
GPLv3\S6(c) gives narrower permission than GPLv2\S3(c). The ``pass along''
option for GPLv3\S6(c)(1) offers is now available only for individual
distribution of object code; moreover, such individual distribution can occur
only ``occasionally and noncommercially.'' A distributor cannot comply with
the GPL merely by making object code available on a publicly-accessible
network server accompanied by a copy of the written offer to provide source
code received from an upstream distributor.
%FIXME-LATER: tie back to the discussion of the occasional offer pass along
% stuff in GPLv2 this tutorial.
GPLv3~\S6(d) revises and improves GPLv2~\S3's final paragraph. When object
code is provided by offering access to copy the code from a designated place
(such as by enabling electronic access to a network server), the distributor
must merely offer equivalent access to copy the source code ``in the same way
through the same place''. This wording also permits a distributor to offer a
third party access to both object code and source code on a single network
portal or web page, even though the access may include links to different
physical servers. For example, a downstream distributor may provide a link
to an upstream distributor's server and arrange with the operator of that
server to keep the source code available for copying for as long as the
downstream distributor enables access to the object code. This codifies
formally the typical historical interpretation of GPLv2.
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
This provision allows, for the first time, for third-party provision of
complete and corresponding source code in commercial distribution
situations. The obligation remains on the party distributing the non-source
form to point prominently (``next to'' the non-source download) to the
third-party source code provisioning server, and to ensure that this
third-party server remains in operation for required period.
% FIXME-URGENT: end
% FIXME-LATER: perhaps in enforcement section, but maybe here, note about
% ``slow down'' on source downloads being a compliance problem.
Furthermore, under GPLv3~\S6(d), distributors may charge for the conveyed
object code; however, those who pay to obtain the object code must be given
equivalent and gratis access to obtain the CCS. (If distributors convey the
object code gratis, distributors must likewise make CCS available without
charge.) Those who do not obtain the object code from that distributors
(perhaps because they choose not to pay the fee for object code) are outside
the scope of the provision; distributors are under no specific obligation to
give CCS to someone who has not purchased an object code download under
GPLv3~\S6(d). (Note: this does not change nor impact any obligations under
GPLv3~\S6(b)(2); GPLv3~\S6(d) is a wholly different provision.)
\subsection{GPLv3~\S6(e): Peer-to-Peer Sharing Networks}
% FIXME-urgent: integrate
Section 6 also allows the provision of source via such a server when the
binary or other non-source form is distributed by peer-to-peer protocols such
as BitTorrent. Here the requirement is only that each peer be effectively
informed of the location of the source code on a server as above.
% FIXME-URGENT: end
Certain decentralized forms of peer-to-peer file sharing present a challenge
to the unidirectional view of distribution that is implicit in GPLv2 and
Draft 1 of GPLv3. Identification of an upstream/downstream link in
BitTorrent distribution is neither straightforward nor reasonable; such
distribution is multidirectional, cooperative and anonymous. In peer-to-peer
distribution systems, participants act both as transmitters and recipients of
blocks of a particular file, but they perceive the experience merely as users
and receivers, and not as distributors in any conventional sense. At any
given moment of time, most peers will not have the complete file.
Meanwhile, GPLv3~\S6(d) permits distribution of a work in object code form
over a network, provided that the distributor offers equivalent access to
copy the Corresponding Source Code ``in the same way through the same
place''. This wording might be interpreted to permit peer-to-peer
distribution of binaries \textit{if} they are packaged together with the CCS,
but such packaging is impractical, for at least three reasons. First, even if
the CCS is packaged with the object code, it will only be available to a
non-seeding peer at the end of the distribution process, but the peer will
already have been providing parts of the binary to others in the network.
Second, in practice, peer-to-peer forms of transmission are poorly suited
means for distributing CCS. In large distributions, packaging CCS with the
object code may result in a substantial increase in file size and
transmission time. Third, in current practice, CCS packages themselves tend
\textit{not} to be transmitted through BitTorrent --- owing to reduced demand
-- thus, there generally will be too few participants downloading the same
source package at the same time to enable effective seeding and distribution.
GPLv3~\S6(e) addresses these issues. If a licensee conveys such a work of
object code using peer-to-peer transmission, that licensee is in compliance
with GPLv3~\S6 if the licensee informs other peers where the object code and
its CCS are publicly available at no charge under subsection GPLv3~\S6(d).
The CCS therefore need not be provided through the peer-to-peer system that
was used for providing the binary.
Second, GPLv3\S9 also clarifies that ancillary propagation of a covered work
that occurs as part of the process of peer-to-peer file transmission does not
require acceptance, just as mere receipt and execution of the Program does
not require acceptance. Such ancillary propagation is permitted without
limitation or further obligation.
% FIXME-LATER: Would be nice to explain much more about interactions between
% the various options of GPLv3~\S6(a-e), which might all be in play at once!
\subsection{User Products, Installation Information and Device Lock-Down}
As discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} of this tutorial, GPLv3 seeks to thwart
technical measures such as signature checks in hardware to prevent
modification of GPL'd software on a device.
To address this issue, GPLv3~\S6 requires that parties distributing object
code provide recipients with the source code through certain means. When
those distributors pass on the CCS, they are also required to pass on any
information or data necessary to install modified software on the particular
device that included it. (This strategy is not unlike that used in LGPLv2.1
to enable users to link proprietary programs to modified libraries.)
% FIXME-LATER: LGPLv2.1 section should talk about this explicitly and this
% should be a forward reference here
\subsubsection{User Products}
\label{user-product}
The scope of these requirements is narrow. GPLv3~\S6 introduces the concept
of a ``User Product'', which includes devices that are sold for personal,
family, or household use. Distributors are only required to provide
Installation Information when they convey object code in a User Product.
In brief, the right to convey object code in a defined class of ``User
Products,'' under certain circumstances, depends on providing whatever information
is required to enable a recipient to replace the object code with a functioning
modified version.
This was a compromise that was difficult for the FSF to agree to during the
GPLv3 drafting process. However, companies and governments that use
specialized or enterprise-level computer facilities reported that they
actually \textit{want} their systems not to be under their own control.
Rather than agreeing to this as a concession, or bowing to pressure, they ask
for this as a \textit{preference}. It is not clear that the GPL should interfere
here, since the main problem lies elsewhere.
While imposing technical barriers to modification is wrong regardless of
circumstances, the areas where restricted devices are of the greatest
practical concern today fall within the User Product definition. Most, if
not all, technically-restricted devices running GPL-covered programs are
consumer electronics devices. Moreover, the disparity in clout between the
manufacturers and these users makes it difficult for the users to reject
technical restrictions through their weak and unorganized market power. Even
limited to User Products, this provision addresses the fundamental problem.
% FIXME-LATER: link \href to USC 2301
The core of the User Product definition is a subdefinition of ``consumer
product'' adapted from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal
consumer protection law in the USA found in 15~USC~\S2301: ``any tangible
personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household
purposes.'' The USA has had three decades of experience of liberal
judicial and administrative interpretation of this definition in a manner
favorable to consumer rights.\footnote{The Magnuson-Moss consumer product
definition itself has been influential in the USA and Canada, having been
adopted in several state and provincial consumer protection laws.}
Ideally, this body of interpretation\footnote{The FSF, however, was very
clear that incorporation of such legal interpretation was in no way
intended to work as a general choice of USA law for GPLv3.} will guide
interpretation of the consumer product subdefinition in GPLv3~\S6, and this
will hopefully provide a degree of legal certainty advantageous to device
manufacturers and downstream licensees alike.
One well-established interpretive principle under Magnuson-Moss is that
ambiguities are resolved in favor of coverage. That is, in cases where
it is not clear whether a product falls under the definition of consumer
product, the product will be treated as a consumer product.\footnote{16
CFR~\S\ 700.1(a); \textit{McFadden v.~Dryvit Systems, Inc.}, 54
UCC~Rep.~Serv.2d 934 (D.~Ore.~2004).} Moreover, for a given product,
``normally used'' is understood to refer to the typical use of that type
of product, rather than a particular use by a particular buyer.
Products that are commonly used for personal as well as commercial
purposes are consumer products, even if the person invoking rights is a
commercial entity intending to use the product for commercial
purposes.\footnote{16 CFR \S \ 700.1(a). Numerous court decisions
interpreting Magnuson-Moss are in accord; see, e.g., \textit{Stroebner
Motors, Inc.~v.~Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.}, 459 F.~Supp.2d 1028,
1033 (D.~Hawaii 2006).} Even a small amount of ``normal'' personal use
is enough to cause an entire product line to be treated as a consumer
product under Magnuson-Moss\footnote{\textit{Tandy Corp.~v.~Marymac
Industries, Inc.}, 213 U.S.P.Q.~702 (S.D.~Tex.~1981). In this case, the
court concluded that TRS-80 microcomputers were consumer products, where
such computers were designed and advertised for a variety of users,
including small businesses and schools, and had only recently been
promoted for use in the home.}.
However, Magnuson-Moss is not a perfect fit because in the area of components
of dwellings, the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss is under-inclusive.
Depending on how such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may
not be considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products.\footnote{Building
materials that are purchased directly by a consumer from a retailer, for
improving or modifying an existing dwelling, are consumer products under
Magnuson-Moss, but building materials that are integral component parts of
the structure of a dwelling at the time that the consumer buys the dwelling
are not consumer products. 16 C.F.R.~\S\S~700.1(c)--(f); Federal Trade
Commission, Final Action Concerning Review of Interpretations of
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 64 Fed.~Reg.~19,700 (April 22, 1999); see also,
e.g., \textit{McFadden}, 54 U.C.C.~Rep.~Serv.2d at 934.} Therefore, GPLv3
defines User Products as a superset of consumer products that also includes
``anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.''
Thus, the three sentences in the center of GPLv3's User Product definition
encapsulate the judicial and administrative principles established over the
past three decades in the USA concerning the Magnuson-Moss consumer product
definition. First, it states that doubtful cases are resolved in favor of
coverage under the definition. Second, it indicate that the words ``normally
used'' in the consumer product definition refer to a typical or common use of
a class of product, and not the status of a particular user or expected or
actual uses by a particular user. Third, it clearly states that the
existence of substantial non-consumer uses of a product does not negate a
determination that it is a consumer product, unless such non-consumer uses
represent the only significant mode of use of that product.
It should be clear from these added sentences that it is the general mode of
use of a product that determines objectively whether or not it is a consumer
product. One could not escape the effects of the User Products provisions by
labeling what is demonstrably a consumer product in ways that suggest it is
``for professionals'', for example.
\subsubsection{Installation Information}
\label{GPLv3-installation-information}
With the User Products definition complete, The ``Installation Information''
definition uses that to define what those receiving object code inside a User
Product must receive.
Installation Information is information that is ``required to install and
execute modified versions of a covered work \dots from a modified version of
its'' CCS, in the same User Product for which the covered work is conveyed.
GPLv3 provides guidance concerning how much information must be provided: it
``must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified
object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
modification has been made.'' For example, the information provided would be
insufficient if it enabled a modified version to run only in a disabled
fashion, solely because of the fact of modification (regardless of the actual
nature of the modification). The information need not consist of
cryptographic keys; Installation Information may be ``any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information''.
Note that GPLv3 does not define ``continued functioning'' further. However,
GPLv3 does provide some additional guidance concerning the scope of
GPLv3-compliant action or inaction that distributors of
technically-restricted User Products can take with respect to a downstream
recipient who replaces the conveyed object code with a modified version.
First of all, GPLv3 makes clear that GPLv3 implies no obligation ``to
continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates'' for such a work.
Second, most technically-restricted User Products are designed to communicate
across networks. It is important for both users and network providers to
know when denial of network access to devices running modified versions
becomes a GPL violation. GPLv3 permits denial of access in two cases: ``when
the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the
network,'' and when the modification itself ``violates the rules and
protocols for communication across the network''. The second case is
deliberately drawn in general terms, and it serves as a foundation for
reasonable enforcement policies that respect recipients' right to modify
while recognizing the legitimate interests of network providers.
Note that GPLv3 permits the practice of conveying object code in a mode not
practically susceptible to modification by any party, such as code burned in
ROM or embedded in silicon. The goal of the Installation Information
requirement is to ensure the downstream licensee receives the real right to
modify when the device manufacturer or some other party retains that right.
Accordingly, GPLv3\S6's ante-penultimate paragraph states that the
requirement to provide Installation Information ``does not apply if neither
you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code
on the User Product''.
Finally, GPLv3\S6 makes it clear that there is also no requirement to
provide warranty or support for the User Product itself.
\subsection{GPLv3~\S7: Additional Permissions}
\label{GPLv3s7}
The GPL is a statement of permissions, some of which have conditions.
Additional terms --- terms that supplement those of the GPL --- may come to be
placed on, or removed from, GPL-covered code in certain common ways.
Copyleft licensing theorists have generally called
those added terms ``additional permissions'' if they grant
exceptions from the conditions of the GPL, and ``additional requirements'' if
they add conditions to the basic permissions of the GPL\@. The treatment of
additional permissions and additional requirements under GPLv3 is necessarily
asymmetrical, because they do not raise the same interpretive
issues; in particular, additional requirements, if allowed without careful
limitation, could transform a GPL'd program into a non-free one.
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
While GPLv2 does not allow for any additional restrictive terms, GPLv3 allows
for some specific limited variations, thus varying the strict copyleft of
GPLv2 in the interest of broader compatibility with other licenses.
% FIXME-URGENT: end
With these principles in the background, GPLv3~\S7 answers the following
questions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item How does the presence of additional terms on all or part of a GPL'd program
affect users' rights?
\item When and how may a licensee add terms to code being
distributed under the GPL?
\item When may a licensee remove additional terms?
\end{enumerate}
Additional permissions present the easier case. Since the mid-1990s,
permissive exceptions often appeared alongside GPLv2 to allow combination
with certain non-free code. Typically, downstream
stream recipients could remove those exceptions and operate under pure GPLv2.
Similarly, LGPLv2.1 is in essence a permissive variant of GPLv2,
and it permits relicensing under the GPL\@.
These practices are now generalized via GPLv3~\S7.
A licensee may remove any additional permission from
a covered work, whether it was placed by the original author or by an
upstream distributor. A licensee may also add any kind of additional
permission to any part of a work for which the licensee has, or can give,
appropriate copyright permission. For example, if the licensee has written
that part, the licensee is the copyright holder for that part and can
therefore give additional permissions that are applicable to it.
Alternatively, the part may have been written by someone else and licensed,
with the additional permissions, to that licensee. Any additional
permissions on that part are, in turn, removable by downstream recipients.
As GPLv3~\S7\P1 explains, the effect of an additional permission depends on
whether the permission applies to the whole work or a part.
% FIXME-LATER: LGPLv3 will have its own section
Indeed, LGPLv3 is itself simply a list of additional permissions supplementing the
terms of GPLv3. GPLv3\S7 has thus provided the basis for recasting a
formally complex license as an elegant set of added terms, without changing
any of the fundamental features of the existing LGPL\@. LGPLv3 is thus a model for developers wishing to license their works under the
GPL with permissive exceptions. The removability of additional permissions
under GPLv3\S7 does not alter any existing behavior of the LGPL since the LGPL
has always allowed relicensing under the ordinary GPL\@.
\section{GPLv3~\S7: Understanding License Compatibility}
\label{license-compatibility}
A challenge that faced the Free Software community heavily through out the
early 2000s was the proliferation of incompatible Free Software licenses. Of
course, the GPL cannot possibly be compatible with all such licenses.
However, GPLv3
contains provisions that are designed to reduce license incompatibility by
making it easier for developers to combine code carrying non-GPL terms with
GPL'd code.
This license compatibility issue arises for
three reasons. First, the GPL is a strong copyleft license, requiring
modified versions to be distributed under the GPL\@. Second, the GPL states
that no further restrictions may be placed on the rights of recipients.
Third, all other software freedom respecting licenses in common use contain certain
requirements, many of which are not conditions made by the GPL\@. Thus, when
GPL'd code is modified by combination with code covered by another formal
license that specifies other requirements, and that modified code is then
distributed to others, the freedom of recipients may be burdened by
additional requirements in violation of the GPL. It can be seen that
additional permissions in other licenses do not raise any problems of license
compatibility.
GPLv3 took a new approach to the issue of combining GPL'd code with
code governed by the terms of other software freedom licenses. Traditional
GPLv2 license compatibility theory (which was not explicitly stated in GPLv2
itself, but treated as a license interpretation matter by the FSF) held that GPLv2 allowed such
combinations only if the non-GPL licensing terms permitted distribution under
the GPL and imposed no restrictions on the code that were not also imposed by
the GPL\@. In practice, the FSF historically supplemented that policy with a structure of
exceptions for certain kinds of combinations.
GPLv3~\S7 implements a more explicit policy on license
compatibility. It formalizes the circumstances under which a licensee may
release a covered work that includes an added part carrying non-GPL terms.
GPLv3~\S7 distinguish between terms that provide additional permissions, and terms that
place additional requirements on the code, relative to the permissions and
requirements established by applying the GPL to the code.
As discussed in the previous section of this tutorial, GPLv3~\S7 first and foremost explicitly allows added parts covered by terms with
additional permissions to be combined with GPL'd code. This codifies the
existing practice of regarding such licensing terms as compatible with the
GPL\@. A downstream user of a combined GPL'd work who modifies such an added
part may remove the additional permissions, in which case the broader
permissions no longer apply to the modified version, and only the terms of
the GPL apply to it.
In its treatment of terms that impose additional requirements, GPLv3\S7
extends the range of licensing terms with which the GPL is compatible. An
added part carrying additional requirements may be combined with GPL'd code,
but only if those requirements belong to an set enumerated in GPLv3\S7. There
are, of course, limits on the acceptable additional requirements, which
ensures that enhanced license compatibility does not
defeat the broader software-freedom-defending terms of the GPL\@. Unlike terms that grant
additional permissions, terms that impose additional requirements cannot be
removed by a downstream user of the combined GPL'd work, because only in the
pathological case\footnote{Theoretically, a user could collect copyright
assignment from all known contributors and then do this, but this would
indeed be the pathological case.} would a user have the right to do so.
% FIXME-LATER: It would be good to have detailed info on each of 7a-f.
% Here's some commented-out text that might be useful for 7a-b
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
Section 7(a) – Disclaimer of warranty: Copyright holders can disclaim
warranty or limit liability differently from the terms as provided under \S\S15
\& 16. Internationalization of GPL required the drafters to permit the
variation in such terms necessary to deal with the absence of any
international harmonization of the laws of warranty and disclaimer.
Section 7(b) – Preservation of appropriate legal notices. Section 7 permits
additional terms requiring preservation of legal notices, including on output
from execution of covered works.
Section 7(c) – This provision allows for prohibition of misrepresentation of
original material and makes GPLv3 compatible with permissive licenses that
require modified versions be marked in ``reasonable''ways which are different
from the precise marking requirements of GPL itself.
Section 7(d) – Limiting the use of names of licensor for publicity
purposes. This provision was added to provide compatibility with licenses
which prohibit the use of the licensor’s name on unmodified versions and
other prohibitions on advertising rights. The long-standing and occasionally
troublesome incompatibility with the ``BSD advertising clause'' is an example
of the friction removed by this provision.
Section 7(e) – No grant of rights under Trademark Law. This provision serves
a similar function with respect to ``no trademark grant'' clauses in permissive
licenses.
Section 7(f) – allows for requiring of Indemnification of authors and
licensors, removing one of two primary sources of incompatibility with the
Apache Software License version 2.0.
% FIXME-URGENT: end
%% Under subsections 7a and 7b, the requirements may include preservation of
%% copyright notices, information about the origins of the code or alterations
%% of the code, and different warranty disclaimers. Under subsection 7c, the
%% requirements may include limitations on the use of names of contributors and
%% on the use of trademarks for publicity purposes. In general, we permit these
%% requirements in added terms because many free software licenses include them
%% and we consider them to be unobjectionable. Because we support trademark fair
%% use, the limitations on the use of trademarks may seek to enforce only what
%% is required by trademark law, and may not prohibit what would constitute fair
%% use.
% FIXME-LATER: Say removing additional restrictions
% FIXME-LATER: This text may be useful later:
%% Some have questioned whether section 7 is needed, and some have suggested
%% that it creates complexity that did not previously exist. We point out to
%% those readers that there is already GPLv2-licensed code that carries
%% additional terms. One of the objectives of section 7 is to rationalize
%% existing practices of program authors and modifiers by setting clear
%% guidelines regarding the removal and addition of such terms. With its
%% carefully limited list of allowed additional requirements, section 7
%% accomplishes additional objectives, permitting the expansion of the base of
%% code available for GPL developers, while also encouraging useful
%% experimentation with requirements we do not include in the GPL itself.
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
Any other non-permissive additional terms apart from those stated above are
considered ``further'' restrictions and are prohibited by \S10. If you add any
kind of additional terms in accordance with \S7, you must ensure that the
terms are placed in the relevant source files or provide a conspicuous notice
about where to find the additional terms.
% FIXME-URGENT: end
\section{GPLv3~\S8: A Lighter Termination}
GPLv2 provided for automatic termination of the rights of a person who
copied, modified, sublicensed, or distributed a work in violation of the
license. Automatic termination can be too harsh for those who have committed
an inadvertent violation, particularly in cases involving distribution of
large collections of software having numerous copyright holders. A violator
who resumes compliance with GPLv2 technically needs to obtain forgiveness
from all copyright holders, and even contacting them all might be impossible.
GPLv3~\S8 now grants opportunities for provisional and permanent
reinstatement of rights. The termination procedure provides a limited
opportunity to cure license violations. If a licensee has committed a
first-time violation of the GPL with respect to a given copyright holder, but
the licensee cures the violation within 30 days following receipt of notice
of the violation, then any of the licensee's GPL rights that have been
terminated by the copyright holder are ``automatically reinstated''.
Finally, if a licensee violates the GPL, a contributor may terminate any
patent licenses that it granted under GPLv3~\S11, in addition to any
copyright permissions the contributor granted to the licensee.
% FIXME-LATER: write more here, perhaps linking up to enforcement
\section{GPLv3~\S9: Acceptance}
GPLv3~\S9 means what it says: mere receipt or execution of code neither
requires nor signifies contractual acceptance under the GPL. Speaking more
broadly, GPLv3 is intentionally structured as a unilateral grant
of copyright permissions, the basic operation of which exists outside of any
law of contract. Whether and when a contractual relationship is formed
between licensor and licensee under local law do not necessarily matter to
the working of the license.
\section{GPLv3~\S10: Explicit Downstream License}
\label{GPLv3s10}
% FIXME-LATER: this is a punt: need more time to write!
GPLv3~\S10 ensures that everyone downstream receives licenses from all
copyright holders. It really is a generally straightforward section.
% FIXME-URGENT:
Each time you redistribute a GPL’d program, the recipient automatically
receives a license, under the terms of the GPL involved, from every upstream
licensor whose copyrighted material is present in the work you
redistribute. You can think of this as creating a three-dimensional rather
than linear flow of license rights. Every recipient of the work is ``in
privity,'' or is directly receiving a license from every licensor.
This mechanism of automatic downstream licensing is central to the working of
copyleft. Every licensor independently grants licenses, and every licensor
independently terminates the license on violation.
Parties further downstream from
the infringing party remain licensed, so long as they don’t themselves commit
infringing actions. Their licenses come directly from all the upstream
holders, and are not dependent on the license of the breaching party who
distributed to them. For the same reason, an infringer who acquires another
copy of the program has not thereby acquired any new license rights: once any
upstream licensor of that program has terminated the license for breach of
its terms, no new automatic license will issue to the recipient just by
acquiring another copy.
% FIXME-URGENT: end
% FIXME-LATER: link up this paragraph to above sections.
Note, however, GPLv3 removed the words ``at no charge'' from GPLv2~\S2(b) (in
GPLv3,~\S5(b)) because it contributed to a misconception that the GPL did not
permit charging for distribution of copies. The purpose of the ``at no
charge'' wording was to prevent attempts to collect royalties from third
parties. The removal of these words created the danger that the imposition
of licensing fees would no longer be seen as a license violation. Therefore,
GPLv3~\S10 adds a new explicit prohibition on imposition of licensing fees or
royalties. This section is an appropriate place for such a clause, since it
is a specific consequence of the general requirement that no further
restrictions be imposed on downstream recipients of GPL-covered code.
% FIXME-LATER: This text needs further study before I can conclude it belongs
% in this tutorial:
%% Careful readers of the GPL have suggested that its explicit prohibition
%% against imposition of further restrictions\footnote{GPLv2, section 6; Draft
%% 3, section 10, third paragraph.} has, or ought to have, implications for
%% those who assert patents against other licensees. Draft 2 took some steps to
%% clarify this point in a manner not specific to patents, by describing the
%% imposition of ``a license fee, royalty, or other charge'' for exercising GPL
%% rights as one example of an impermissible further restriction. In Draft 3 we
%% have clarified further that the requirement of non-imposition of further
%% restrictions has specific consequences for litigation accusing GPL-covered
%% programs of infringement. Section 10 now states that ``you may not initiate
%% litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging
%% that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for
%% sale, or importing the Program (or the contribution of any contributor).''
%% That is to say, a patent holder's licensed permissions to use a work under
%% GPLv3 may be terminated under section 8 if the patent holder files a lawsuit
%% alleging that use of the work, or of any upstream GPLv3-licensed work on
%% which the work is based, infringes a patent.
\section{GPLv3~\S11: Explicit Patent Licensing}
\label{GPLv3s11}
Software patenting is a harmful and unjust policy, and should be abolished;
recent experience makes this all the more evident. Since many countries grant
patents that can apply to and prohibit software packages, in various guises
and to varying degrees, GPLv3 seeks to protect the users of GPL-covered programs
from those patents, while at the same time making it feasible for patent
holders to contribute to and distribute GPL-covered programs as long as they
do not attack the users of those programs.
It is generally understood that GPLv2 implies some limits on a licensee's
power to assert patent claims against the use of GPL-covered works.
However, the patent licensing practices that GPLv2~\S7 (corresponding to
GPLv3~\S12) is designed to prevent is only one of several ways in which
software patents threaten to make free programs non-free and to prevent users
from exercising their rights under the GPL. GPLv3 takes a more comprehensive
approach to combating the danger of patents.
GPLv2~\S7 has seen some success in deterring conduct that would otherwise
result in denial of full downstream enjoyment of GPL rights, and thus it is
preserved in GPLv3~\S12. Experience has shown that more is necessary,
however, to ensure adequate community safety where companies act in concert
to heighten the anticompetitive use of patents that they hold or license.
Therefore, GPLv3 is designed to reduce the patent risks that distort and
threaten the activities of users who make, run, modify and share Free
Software. At the same time, GPLv3 gives favorable consideration to practical
goals such as certainty and administrability for patent holders that
participate in distribution and development of GPL-covered software. GPLv3's
policy requires each such patent holder to provide appropriate levels of
patent assurance to users, according to the nature of the patent holder's
relationship to the program.
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
GPLv3 provides for two classes of patent commitments:
Prohibition of Enforcement of patent claims against those to whom you
distribute: GPLv3 \S10 makes explicit that demands for acceptance of
patent licenses or payment of patent royalties by those to whom a
licensee directly distributes are additional conditions that may not
imposed. This provision establishes a uniform rule of patent exhaustion
with respect to GPL’d programs regardless of the domestic patent law in
any particular system or locale.
Grant of license to claims in contributor versions: Section 11 introduces
an affirmative grant of rights to patent claims by those who contribute
code to GPL’d programs. The intent is to prevent parties within the
commons from aggressively asserting patents against users of code they
have themselves modified, preventing a form of commons betrayal by
``insiders'' to the community. A contributor’s patent claims necessarily
infringed by the version of the program created by the incorporation of
its modifications are licensed to all subsequent users and modifiers of
the program, or programs based on the program. No patent claims only
infringed by subsequent modifications by other parties are thus
licensed. Patent claims acquired after the making of the ``contributor
version'' necessarily infringed by that version are also licensed by this
provision at the time of their acquisition or perfection. When a company
with a large number of such claims acquires the program’s modifier, all
claims held or thereafter acquired by the purchaser are automatically
licensed under this provision. The acquisition of Nokia by Microsoft, for
example, resulted in the automatic licensing of all Microsoft claims now
or hereafter acquired which read on any contributor version of any GPLv3
program ever modified by Nokia. The wholesale decimation of Microsoft
patent claims on GPLv3 programs arising from the purchase of Nokia has so
far been unremarked in the industry.
% FIXME-URGENT: end
\subsection{The Contributor's Explicit Patent License}
Specifically, the ideal might have been for GPLv3 to feature a patent license
grant triggered by all acts of distribution of GPLv3-covered works. The FSF
considered it during the GPLv3 drafting process, but many patent-holding
companies objected to this policy. They have made two objections: (1) the
far-reaching impact of the patent license grant on the patent holder is
disproportionate to the act of merely distributing code without modification
or transformation, and (2) it is unreasonable to expect an owner of vast
patent assets to exercise requisite diligence in reviewing all the
GPL-covered software that it provides to others. Some expressed particular
concern about the consequences of ``inadvertent'' distribution.
The argument that the impact of the patent license grant would be
``disproportionate'', that is to say unfair, is not valid. Since
software patents are weapons that no one should have, and using them for
aggression against free software developers is an egregious act (thus
preventing that act cannot be unfair).
However, the second argument seems valid in a practical sense. A
typical GNU/Linux distribution includes thousands of programs. It would
be quite difficult for a re-distributor with a large patent portfolio to
review all those programs against that portfolio every time it receives
and passes on a new version of the distribution. Moreover, this question
raises a strategic issue. If the GPLv3 patent license requirements
convince patent-holding companies to remain outside the distribution
path of all GPL-covered software, then these requirements, no matter how
strong, will cover few patents.
GPLv3 therefore makes a partial concession
which would lead these companies to feel secure in doing the
distribution themselves. GPLv3~\S11
applies only to those distributors that have
modified the program. The other changes we have made in sections 10 and
11 provide strengthened defenses against patent assertion and compensate
partly for this concession.
Therefore, GPLv3~\S11 introduces the terms ``contributor'', ``contributor version'', and
``essential patent claims'', which are
used in the GPLv3~\S11\P3. Viewed from the perspective of a recipient of the
Program, contributors include all the copyright holders for the Program,
other than copyright holders of material originally licensed under non-GPL
terms and later incorporated into a GPL-covered work. The contributors are
therefore the initial GPLv3 licensors of the Program and all subsequent
upstream licensors who convey, under the terms of GPLv3~\S5, modified covered
works.
Thus, the ``contributor version'' includes the material the contributor has copied from the
upstream version that the contributor has modified. GPLv3~\S11\P3
does not apply to those that redistribute the program
without change.\footnote{An implied patent license from the distributor,
however, often arises. See \S~\ref{gpl-implied-patent-grant} in this tutorial}
In other words, the ``contributor version'' includes not just
the material added or altered by the contributor, but also the pre-existing
material the contributor copied from the upstream version and retained in the
modified version. (GPLv3's usage of ``contributor'' and ``contribution'' should
not be confused with the various other ways in which those terms are used in
certain other free software licenses\footnote{Cf., e.g., Apache License,
version 2.0, section 1; Eclipse Public License, version 1.0, section 1;
Mozilla Public License, version 1.1, section 1.1.}.)
Some details of the ``essential patent claims'' definition deserve special
mention. ``Essential patent claims'', for a given party, are a subset of the
claims ``owned or controlled'' by the party. They do include sublicensable
claims that have been licensed to the contributor by a third
party.\footnote{This issue is typically handled in other software freedom
licenses having patent licensing provisions by use of the unhelpful term
``licensable,'' which is either left undefined or is given an ambiguous
definition.} Most commercial patent license agreements that permit
sublicensing do so under restrictive terms that are inconsistent with the
requirements of the GPL\@. For example, some patent licenses allow the
patent licensee to sublicense but require collection of royalties from any
sublicensees. The patent licensee could not distribute a GPL-covered program
and grant the recipient a patent sublicense for the program without violating
section 12 of GPLv3.\footnote{GPLv3 also provides an example in section 12
that makes this point clear.} In rare cases, however, a conveying party
can freely grant patent sublicenses to downstream recipients without
violating the GPL\@.
Additionally, ``essential patent claims'' are those patents ``that would be
infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or
selling the work''. This intends to make clear that a patent claim is
``essential'' if some mode of usage would infringe that claim, even if there
are other modes of usage that would not infringe.
Finally, ``essential patent claims \ldots do not include
claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further
modification of the work.'' The set of essential patent
claims licensed is fixed by the
particular version of the work that was contributed. The claim set
cannot expand as a work is further modified downstream. (If it could,
then any software patent claim would be included, since any software
patent claim can be infringed by some further modification of the
work.)\footnote{However, ``the work'' should not be understood to be
restricted to a particular mechanical affixation of, or medium for
distributing, a program, where the same program might be provided in
other forms or in other ways that may be captured by other patent claims
held by the contributor.}
\medskip
Ideally, this contributor patent policy will result in fairly frequent licensing of patent
claims by contributors. A contributor is charged with awareness of the fact
that it has modified a work and provided it to others; no act of contribution
should be treated as inadvertent. GPLv3's rule also requires no more work, for a
contributor, than the weaker rule proposed by the patent holders. Under
their rule, the contributor must always compare the entire work against its
patent portfolio to determine whether the combination of the modifications
with the remainder of the work cause it to read on any of the contributor's
patent claims.
\subsection{Conveyors' Patent Licensing}
The remaining patent licensing in GPLv3 deals with patent licenses that are
granted by conveyance. The licensing is not as complete or far reaching as
the contributor patent licenses discussed in the preceding section.
The term ``patent license,'' as used in GPLv3~\S11\P4--6, is not meant to be
confined to agreements formally identified or classified as patent licenses.
GPLv3~\S11\P3 makes this clear by defining ``patent
license,'' for purposes of the subsequent three paragraphs, as ``any express
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
sue for patent infringement)''
% FIXME-LATER: I want to ask Fontana about this before adding it.
% The definition does not include patent licenses that arise by
% implication or operation of law, because the third through fifth paragraphs
% of section 11 are specifically concerned with explicit promises that purport
% to be legally enforceable.
GPLv3~\S11\P5 is commonly called GPLv3's downstream shielding provision. It
responds particularly to the problem of exclusive deals between patent
holders and distributors, which threaten to distort the free software
distribution system in a manner adverse to developers and users. The
fundamental idea is to make a trade-off between assuring a patent license for
downstream and making (possibly patent-encumbered) CCS publicly available.
Simply put, in nearly all cases in which the ``knowingly relying'' test is
met, the patent license will indeed not be sublicensable or generally
available to all on free terms. If, on the other hand, the patent license is
generally available under terms consistent with the requirements of the GPL,
the distributor is automatically in compliance, because the patent license
has already been extended to all downstream recipients. Finally, if the
patent license is sublicensable on GPL-consistent terms, the distributor may
choose to grant sublicenses to downstream recipients instead of causing the
CCS to be publicly available. (In such a case, if the distributor is also a
contributor, it will already have granted a patent sublicense anyway, and so
it need not do anything further to comply with the third paragraph.)
Admittedly, public disclosure of CCS is not necessarily required by other
sections of the GPL, and the FSF in drafting GPLv3 did not necessarily wish
to impose a general requirement to make source code available to all, which
has never been a GPL condition. However, many vendors who produce products
that include copylefted software, and who are most likely to be affected by the
downstream shielding provision, lobbied for the addition of the source code
availability option, so it remains.
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
If A takes a patent license from B that benefits A only, rather than A’s
customers or their distributees, A imposes risk from B’s patents on others
that it does not suffer itself. Under many circumstances, this is an
acceptable outcome. If, however, A is the only possible source of the
program, by taking such a license and distributing in reliance on it, A is in
effect helping B to ``take the program private.''
% FIXME-URGENT: end
Meanwhile, two specific alternatives to the source code availability option
are also available. The distributor may comply by disclaiming the patent
license it has been granted for the conveyed work, or by arranging to extend
the patent license to downstream recipients\footnote{The latter option, if
chosen, must be done ``in a manner consistent with the requirements of this
License''; for example, it is unavailable if extension of the patent
license would result in a violation of GPLv3~\S 12.}. The GPL is intended
to permit private distribution as well as public distribution, and the
addition of these options ensures that this remains the case, even though it
remains likely that distributors in this situation will usually choose the
source code availability option.
Note that GPLv3~\S11\P5 is activated only if the CCS is not already otherwise
publicly available. (Most often it will, in fact, already be available on
some network server operated by a third party.) Even if it is not already
available, the option to ``cause the Corresponding Source to be so
available'' can then be satisfied by verifying that a third party has acted
to make it available. That is to say, the affected distributor need not
itself host the CCS to take advantage of the source code availability option.
This subtlety may help the distributor avoid certain peculiar assumptions of
liability.
Note that GPLv3~\S11\P6--7 are designed to stop distributors from colluding with
third parties to offer selective patent protection. GPLv3 is designed to
ensure that all users receive the same rights; arrangements that circumvent
this make a mockery of free software, and we must do everything in our power
to stop them.
First, GPLv3~\S11\P6 states that any license that protects some recipients of
GPL'd software must be extended to all recipients of the software.
If conveyors arrange to provide patent
protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that
protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software,
no matter how they get it.
Second, GPLv3~\S11\P7
prohibit anyone who made such an agreement from distributing software
released under GPLv3. Conveyors are prohibited from
distributing software under GPLv3 if the conveyor makes an agreement of that
nature in the future.
The date in GPLv3~\S11\P7 likely seems arbitrary to those who did not follow
the GPLv3 drafting process. This issue was hotly debated during the drafting of
GPLv3, but ultimately one specific deal of this type --- a deal between Microsoft
and Novell for Microsoft to provide so-called ``coupons'' to Microsoft customers to redeem
for copies of Novell's GNU/Linux distribution with a Microsoft patent license -- was
designed to be excluded.
The main reason for this was a tactical decision by the FSF. FSF believed they can do more to
protect the community by allowing Novell to use software under GPLv3
than by forbidding it to do so. This is because of
paragraph 6 of section 11 (corresponding to paragraph 4 in Draft 3).
It will apply, under the Microsoft/Novell deal, because of the coupons
that Microsoft has acquired that essentially commit it to participate
in the distribution of the Novell SLES GNU/Linux system.
The FSF also gave a secondary reason: to avoid affecting other kinds of agreements for
other kinds of activities. While GPLv3 sought to
distinguish pernicious deals of the Microsoft/Novell type from
business conduct that is not particularly harmful, the FSF also did not
assume success in that drafting, and thus there remained some risk that other
unchangeable past agreements could fall within the scope of GPLv3~\S11\P7.
In future deals, distributors engaging in ordinary business practices
can structure the agreements so that they do not fall under GPLv3~\S11\P7.
\section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2~\S7}
\label{GPLv3s12}
GPLv2~\S12 remains almost completely unchanged from the text that appears in
GPLv2~\S7. This is an important provision that ensures a catch-all to ensure
that nothing ``surprising'' interferes with the continued conveyance safely
under copyleft.
The wording in the first sentence of GPLv3~\S12 has been revised slightly to
clarify that an agreement -- such as a litigation settlement agreement or a
patent license agreement -- is one of the ways in which conditions may be
``imposed'' on a GPL licensee that may contradict the conditions of the GPL,
but which do not excuse the licensee from compliance with those conditions.
This change codifies the historical interpretation of GPLv2.
GPLv3 removed the limited severability clause of GPLv2~\S7 as a
matter of tactical judgment, believing that this is the best way to ensure
that all provisions of the GPL will be upheld in court. GPLv3 also removed
the final sentence of GPLv2 section 7, which the FSF consider to be unnecessary.
\section{GPLv3~\S13: The Great Affero Compromise}
The Affero GPL was written with the expectation that its
additional requirement would be incorporated into the terms of GPLv3
itself. Many software freedom advocates, including some authors of this
tutorial, advocated heavily for that, and fully expected it to happen.
The FSF, however, chose not to include the Affero clause in GPLv3, due to
what it called ``irreconcilable views from
different parts of the community''. Many
commercial users of Free Software were opposed to the inclusion of a
mandatory Affero-like requirement in the body of GPLv3 itself. In fact, some
wealthier companies even threatened to permanently fund forks of many FSF
copyrighted-programs under GPLv2 if the Affero clause appeared in GPLv3.
Meanwhile, there was disagreement even among copyleft enthusiasts about the
importance of the provision. A coalition never formed, and ultimately the
more powerful interest implicitly allied with the companies who deeply opposed
the Affero clause such that the FSF felt the Affero clause would need its own
license, but one compatible with GPLv3.
GPLv3~\S13 makes GPLv3 compatible with the AGPLv3, so that at least code can
be shared between AGPLv3'd and GPLv3'd projects, even if the Affero clause
does not automatically apply to all GPLv3'd works.
%FIXME-LATER: no time to do this justice, will come back later, instead the
%above.
%% Some of this hostility seemed to be based on a misapprehension that
%% Affero-like terms placed on part of a covered work would somehow extend
%% to the whole of the work.\footnote{It is possible that the presence of
%% the GPLv2-derived copyleft clause in the existing Affero GPL contributed
%% to this misunderstanding.} Our explanations to the contrary did little
%% to satisfy these critics; their objections to 7b4 instead evolved into a
%% broader indictment of the additional requirements scheme of section 7.
%% It was clear, however, that much of the concern about 7b4 stemmed from
%% its general formulation. Many were alarmed at the prospect of GPLv3
%% compatibility for numerous Affero-like licensing conditions,
%% unpredictable in their details but potentially having significant
%% commercial consequences.
%% On the other hand, many developers, otherwise sympathetic to the policy
%% goals of the Affero GPL, have objected to the form of the additional
%% requirement in that license. These developers were generally
%% disappointed with our decision to allow Affero-like terms through
%% section 7, rather than adopt a condition for GPLv3. Echoing their
%% concerns about the Affero GPL itself, they found fault with the wording
%% of the section 7 clause in both of the earlier drafts. We drafted 7b4
%% at a higher level than its Draft 1 counterpart based in part on comments
%% from these developers. They considered the Draft 1 clause too closely
%% tied to the Affero mechanism of preserving functioning facilities for
%% downloading source, which they found too restrictive of the right of
%% modification. The 7b4 rewording did not satisfy them, however. They
%% objected to its limitation to terms requiring compliance by network
%% transmission of source, and to the technically imprecise or inaccurate
%% use of the phrase ``same network session.''
%% We have concluded that any redrafting of the 7b4 clause would fail to
%% satisfy the concerns of both sets of its critics. The first group
%% maintains that GPLv3 should do nothing about the problem of public
%% use. The second group would prefer for GPLv3 itself to have an
%% Affero-like condition, but that seems to us too drastic. By permitting
%% GPLv3-covered code to be linked with code covered by version 2 of the
%% Affero GPL, the new section 13 honors our original commitment to
%% achieving GPL compatibility for the Affero license.
%% Version 2 of the Affero GPL is not yet published. We will work with
%% Affero, Inc., and with all other interested members of our community, to
%% complete the drafting of this license following the release of Draft 3,
%% with a goal of having a final version available by the time of our
%% adoption of the final version of GPLv3. We hope the new Affero license
%% will satisfy those developers who are concerned about the issue of
%% public use of unconveyed versions but who have concerns about the
%% narrowness of the condition in the existing Affero license.
%% As the second sentence in section 13 indicates, when a combined work is
%% made by linking GPLv3-covered code with Affero-covered code, the
%% copyleft on one part will not extend to the other part.\footnote{The
%% plan is that the additional requirement of the new Affero license will
%% state a reciprocal limitation.} That is to say, in such combinations,
%% the Affero requirement will apply only to the part that was brought into
%% the combination under the Affero license. Those who receive such a
%% combination and do not wish to use code under the Affero requirement may
%% remove the Affero-covered portion of the combination.
Meanwhile, those who criticize the permission to link with code under the Affero
GPL should recognize that most other free software licenses also permit
such linking.
%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
% A section on combinations with Affero is necessary anyway here.
When a combined work is made by linking GPLv3-covered code with AGPL-covered
code, the copyleft on one part will not extend to the other part. That is to
say, in such combinations, the Affero requirement will apply only to the part
that was brought into the combination under the Affero license. Those who
receive such a combination and do not wish to use code under the Affero
requirement may remove the Affero-covered portion of the combination.
% FIXME-URGENT: end
\section{GPLv3~\S14: So, When's GPLv4?}
\label{GPLv3s14}
No substantive change has been made in section 14. The wording of the section
has been revised slightly to make it clearer.
It's unclear when the FSF might consider publishing GPLv4. However, this
section makes it clear that the FSF is the sole authority who can decide
such.
The main addition to this section allows a third-party proxy to be appointed
by contributors who wish someone else to make relicensing to new versions of
GPL when they are released. This is a ``halfway'' point between using ``-only''
or ``-or-later'' by consolidating the decision-making on that issue to a
single authority.
% FIXME-LATER: better proxy description
\section{GPLv3~\S15--17: Warranty Disclaimers and Liability Limitation}
No substantive changes have been made in sections 15 and 16.
% FIXME-LATER: more, plus 17
% FIXME-LATER: Section header needed here about choice of law.
% FIXME-LATER: reword into tutorial
%% Some have asked us to address the difficulties of internationalization
%% by including, or permitting the inclusion of, a choice of law
%% provision. We maintain that this is the wrong approach. Free
%% software licenses should not contain choice of law clauses, for both
%% legal and pragmatic reasons. Choice of law clauses are creatures of
%% contract, but the substantive rights granted by the GPL are defined
%% under applicable local copyright law. Contractual free software
%% licenses can operate only to diminish these rights. Choice of law
%% clauses also raise complex questions of interpretation when works of
%% software are created by combination and extension. There is also the
%% real danger that a choice of law clause will specify a jurisdiction
%% that is hostile to free software principles.
%% % FIXME-LATER: reword into tutorial, \ref to section 7.
%% Our revised version of section 7 makes explicit our view that the
%% inclusion of a choice of law clause by a licensee is the imposition of
%% an additional requirement in violation of the GPL. Moreover, if a
%% program author or copyright holder purports to supplement the GPL with
%% a choice of law clause, section 7 now permits any licensee to remove
%% that clause.
% FIXME-LATER: does this need to be a section, describing how it was out then in
% then out then in? :)
Finally, the FSF shortened the section on ``How to Apply These
Terms to Your New Programs'' to just the bare essentials.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{The Lesser GPL}
\label{LGPLv2}
As we have seen in our consideration of the GPL, its text is specifically
designed to cover all possible derivative, modified and/or combined works under copyright law. Our
goal in designing the GPL was to maximize its use of the controls of
copyright law to maximize the number of works that were covered by GPL.
However, while the strategic goal of software freedom is to bring as much Free Software
into the world as possible, particular tactical considerations
regarding software freedom dictate different means. Extending the
copyleft effect as far as copyright law allows is not always the most
prudent course in reaching the goal. In particular situations, even
those of us with the goal of building a world where all published
software is Free Software realize that full copyleft does not best
serve us. The GNU Lesser General Public License (``GNU LGPL'') was
designed as a solution for such situations.
% FIXME: integrate
The Lesser General Public License is sometimes described as a ``weak copyleft''
license, because code licensed under LGPL’s terms can be combined with code
under non-free licenses, and is sometimes used in that fashion.
% FIXME-URGENT: end
\section{The First LGPL'd Program}
The first example that FSF encountered where such altered tactics were
needed was when work began on the GNU C Library. The GNU C Library would
become (and today, now is) a drop-in replacement for existing C libraries.
On a Unix-like operating system, C is the lingua franca and the C library
is an essential component for all programs. It is extremely difficult to
construct a program that will run with ease on a Unix-like operating
system without making use of services provided by the C library --- even
if the program is written in a language other than C\@. Effectively, all
user application programs that run on any modern Unix-like system must
make use of the C library.
By the time work began on the GNU implementation of the C libraries, there
were already many C libraries in existence from a variety of vendors.
Every proprietary Unix vendor had one, and many third parties produced
smaller versions for special purpose use. However, our goal was to create
a C library that would provide equivalent functionality to these other C
libraries on a Free Software operating system (which in fact happens today
on modern GNU/Linux systems, which all use the GNU C Library).
Unlike existing GNU application software, however, the licensing
implications of releasing the GNU C Library (``glibc'') under the GPL were
somewhat different. Applications released under the GPL would never
themselves become part of proprietary software. However, if glibc were
released under the GPL, it would require that any application distributed for
the GNU/Linux platform be released under the GPL\@.
Since all applications on a Unix-like system depend on the C library, it
means that they must link with that library to function on the system. In
other words, all applications running on a Unix-like system must be
combined with the C library to form a new whole work that is
composed of the original application and the C library. Thus, if glibc
were GPL'd, each and every application distributed for use on GNU/Linux
would also need to be GPL'd, since to even function, such applications
would need to be combined into larger works by linking with
glibc.
At first glance, such an outcome seems like a windfall for Free Software
advocates, since it stops all proprietary software development on
GNU/Linux systems. However, the outcome is a bit more subtle. In a world
where many C libraries already exist, many of which could easily be ported
to GNU/Linux, a GPL'd glibc would be unlikely to succeed. Proprietary
vendors would see the excellent opportunity to license their C libraries
to anyone who wished to write proprietary software for GNU/Linux systems.
The de-facto standard for the C library on GNU/Linux would likely be not
glibc, but the most popular proprietary one.
Meanwhile, the actual goal of releasing glibc under the GPL --- to ensure no
proprietary applications on GNU/Linux --- would be unattainable in this
scenario. Furthermore, users of those proprietary applications would also
be users of a proprietary C library, not the Free glibc.
The Lesser GPL was initially conceived to handle this scenario. It was
clear that the existence of proprietary applications for GNU/Linux was
inevitable. Since there were so many C libraries already in existence, a
new one under the GPL would not stop that tide. However, if the new C library
were released under a license that permitted proprietary applications
to link with it, but made sure that the library itself remained Free,
an ancillary goal could be met. Users of proprietary applications, while
they would not have the freedom to copy, share, modify and redistribute
the application itself, would have the freedom to do so with respect to
the C library.
There was no way the license of glibc could stop or even slow the creation
of proprietary applications on GNU/Linux. However, loosening the
restrictions on the licensing of glibc ensured that nearly all proprietary
applications at least used a Free C library rather than a proprietary one.
This trade-off is central to the reasoning behind the LGPL\@.
Of course, many people who use the LGPL today are not thinking in these
terms. In fact, they are often choosing the LGPL because they are looking
for a ``compromise'' between the GPL and the X11-style liberal licensing.
However, understanding FSF's reasoning behind the creation of the LGPL is
helpful when studying the license.
\section{What's the Same?}
Much of the text of the LGPL is identical to the GPL\@. As we begin our
discussion of the LGPL, we will first eliminate the sections that are
identical, or that have the minor modification changing the word
``Program'' to ``Library.''
First, LGPLv2.1~\S1, the rules for verbatim copying of source, are
equivalent to those in GPLv2~\S1.
Second, LGPLv2.1~\S8 is equivalent GPLv2~\S4\@. In both licenses, this
section handles termination in precisely the same manner.
LGPLv2.1~\S9 is equivalent to GPLv2~\S5\@. Both sections assert that
the license is a copyright license, and handle the acceptance of those
copyright terms.
LGPLv2.1~\S10 is equivalent to GPLv2~\S6. They both protect the
distribution system of Free Software under these licenses, to ensure that
up, down, and throughout the distribution chain, each recipient of the
software receives identical rights under the license and no other
restrictions are imposed.
LGPLv2.1~\S11 is GPLv2~\S7. As discussed, it is used to ensure that
other claims and legal realities, such as patent licenses and court
judgments, do not trump the rights and permissions granted by these
licenses, and requires that distribution be halted if such a trump is
known to exist.
LGPLv2.1~\S12 adds the same features as GPLv2~\S8. These sections are
used to allow original copyright holders to forbid distribution in
countries with draconian laws that would otherwise contradict these
licenses.
LGPLv2.1~\S13 sets up the FSF as the steward of the LGPL, just as GPLv2~\S9
does for GPL. Meanwhile, LGPLv2.1~\S14 reminds licensees that copyright
holders can grant exceptions to the terms of LGPL, just as GPLv2~\S10
reminds licensees of the same thing.
Finally, the assertions of no warranty and limitations of liability are
identical; thus LGPLv2.1~\S15 and LGPLv2.1~\S16 are the same as GPLv2~\S11 and \S
12.
As we see, the entire latter half of the license is identical.
The parts which set up the legal boundaries and meta-rules for the license
are the same. It is our intent that the two licenses operate under the
same legal mechanisms and are enforced precisely the same way.
We strike a difference only in the early portions of the license.
Namely, in the LGPL we go into deeper detail of granting various permissions to
create certain types of combinations, modifications and derivations.
The LGPL does not stretch the requirements as far as copyright law does regarding what
works must be relicensed under the same terms. Therefore, LGPL must
in detail explain which works can be proprietary. Thus, we'll see that the front matter of the LGPL is a
bit more wordy and detailed with regards to the permissions granted to
those who modify or redistribute the software.
\section{Additions to the Preamble}
Most of the LGPL's Preamble is identical, but the last seven paragraphs
introduce the concepts and reasoning behind creation of the license,
presenting a more generalized and briefer version of the story with which
we began our consideration of the LGPL\@.
In short, FSF designed the LGPL for those edge cases where the freedom of the
public can better be served by a more lax licensing system. FSF doesn't
encourage use of the LGPL automatically for any software that happens to be a
library; rather, FSF suggests that it only be used in specific cases, such
as the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item To encourage the widest possible use of a Free Software library, so
it becomes a de-facto standard over similar, although not
interface-identical, proprietary alternatives
\item To encourage use of a Free Software library that already has
interface-identical proprietary competitors that are more developed
\item To allow a greater number of users to get freedom, by encouraging
proprietary companies to pick a Free alternative for its otherwise
proprietary products
\end{itemize}
The LGPL's preamble sets forth the limits to which the license seeks to go in
chasing these goals. The LGPL is designed to ensure that users who happen to
acquire software linked with such libraries have full freedoms with
respect to that library. They should have the ability to upgrade to a newer
or modified Free version or to make their own modifications, even if they
cannot modify the primary software program that links to that library.
Finally, the preamble introduces two terms used throughout the license to
clarify between the different types of combined works: ``works that use
the library,'' and ``works based on the library.'' Unlike the GPL, the LGPL must
draw some lines regarding permissibly proprietary combined works. We do this here in this
license because we specifically seek to liberalize the rights afforded to
those who make combined works. In the GPL, we reach as far as copyright law
allows. In the LGPL, we want to draw a line that allows some derivative works
copyright law would otherwise prohibit if the copyright holder exercised
his full permitted controls over the work.
\section{An Application: A Work that Uses the Library}
In the effort to allow certain proprietary works and prohibit
others, the LGPL distinguishes between two classes of works:
``works based on the library,'' and ``works that use the library.'' The
distinction is drawn on the bright line of binary (or runtime) combined
works and modified versions of source code. We will first consider the definition
of a ``work that uses the library,'' which is set forth in LGPLv2.1~\S5.
We noted in our discussion of GPLv2~\S3 (discussed in
Section~\ref{GPLv2s3} of this document) that binary programs when
compiled and linked with GPL'd software are covered as a whole by GPL\@.
This includes both linking that happens at compile-time (when
the binary is created) or at runtime (when the binary -- including library
and main program both -- is loaded into memory by the user). In GPL,
binary works are controlled by the terms of the license (in GPLv2~\S3),
and distributors of such binary works must release full
corresponding source\@.
The LGPL, by contrast, allows partial proprietarization of such binary works.
This scenario, defined in LGPL as ``a work that uses the library,'' works as
follows:
\newcommand{\workl}{$\mathcal{L}$}
\newcommand{\lplusi}{$\mathcal{L\!\!+\!\!I}$}
\begin{itemize}
\item A new copyright holder creates a separate and independent work,
\worki{}, that makes interface calls (e.g., function calls) to the
LGPL'd work, called \workl{}, whose copyright is held by some other
party. Note that since \worki{} and \workl{} are separate and
independent works, there is no copyright obligation on this new copyright
holder with regard to the licensing of \worki{}, at least with regard to
the source code.
\item The new copyright holder, for her software to be useful, realizes
that it cannot run without combining \worki{} and \workl{}.
Specifically, when she creates a running binary program, that running
binary must be a combined work, called \lplusi{}, that the user can
run.
\item Since \lplusi{} is a based on both \worki{} and \workl{},
the license of \workl{} (the LGPL) can put restrictions on the license
of \lplusi{}. In fact, this is what the LGPL does.
\end{itemize}
We will talk about the specific restrictions LGPLv2.1 places on ``works
that use the library'' in detail in Section~\ref{lgpl-section-6}. For
now, focus on the logic related to how the LGPLv2.1 places requirements on
the license of \lplusi{}. Note, first of all, the similarity between
this explanation and that in Section~\ref{separate-and-independent},
which discussed the combination of otherwise separate and independent
works with GPL'd code. Effectively, what LGPLv2.1 does is say that when a
new work is otherwise separate and independent, but has interface
calls out to an LGPL'd library, then it is considered a ``work that
uses the library.''
In addition, the only reason that LGPLv2.1 has any control over the licensing
of a ``work that uses the library'' is for the same reason that GPL has
some say over separate and independent works. Namely, such controls exist
because the {\em binary combination\/} (\lplusi{}) that must be created to
make the separate work (\worki{}) at all useful is a work based on
the LGPLv2.1'd software (\workl{}).
Thus, a two-question test that will help indicate if a particular work is
a ``work that uses the library'' under LGPLv2.1 is as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is the source code of the new copyrighted work, \worki{}, a
completely independent work that stands by itself, and includes no
source code from \workl{}?
\item When the source code is compiled, does it combine into a single work
with \workl{}, either by static (compile-time) or dynamic
(runtime) linking, to create a new binary work, \lplusi{}?
\end{enumerate}
If the answers to both questions are ``yes,'' then \worki{} is most likely
a ``work that uses the library.'' If the answer to the first question
``yes,'' but the answer to the second question is ``no,'' then most likely
\worki{} is neither a ``work that uses the library'' nor a ``work based on
the library.'' If the answer to the first question is ``no,'' but the
answer to the second question is ``yes,'' then an investigation into
whether or not \worki{} is in fact a ``work based on the library'' is
warranted.
\section{The Library, and Works Based On It}
In short, a ``work based on the library'' could be defined as any
work based on the LGPL'd software that cannot otherwise fit the
definition of a ``work that uses the library.'' A ``work based on the
library'' extends the full width and depth of derivative, combined and/or
modified works under copyright law, in the same sense that the GPL does.
Most typically, one creates a ``work based on the library'' by directly
modifying the source of the library. Such a work could also be created by
tightly integrating new software with the library. The lines are no doubt
fuzzy, just as they are with GPL'd works, since copyright law gives us no
litmus test for determining if a given work is a derivative or otherwise a
modified version of another software program.
Thus, the test to use when considering whether something is a ``work
based on the library'' is as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is the new work, when in source form, a derivative and/or modified
work of, and/or a combined work with the LGPL'd work under
copyright law?
\item Is there no way in which the new work fits the definition of a
``work that uses the library''?
\end{enumerate}
If the answer is ``yes'' to both these questions, then you most likely
have a ``work based on the library.'' If the answer is ``no'' to the
first but ``yes'' to the second, you are in a gray area between ``work
based on the library'' and a ``work that uses the library.''
You can also perform a similar same analysis through careful consideration of
the license text itself. LGPLv2~\S2(a) states that if a licensed work is a
software library (defined in LGPLv2~\S0 as ``a collection of software
functions and/or data prepared so as to be conveniently linked with
application programs (which use some of those functions and data) to form
executables''), you have permission to distribute modified versions only if
those versions are themselves libraries. LGPLv2.1 code can therefore not be
compliantly taken from its context in a library and placed in a non-library
modified version or work based on the work. For its part, LGPLv2~\S6 does
not provide an exception for this rule: a combination may be made of a
modified version of an LGPL’d library with other code, but the LGPL’d code
must continue to be structured as a library, and to that library the terms of
the license continue to apply.
Either way you view the rules, these issues are admittedly complicated.
Nevertheless, In our years of work with the LGPLv2.1, however, we have never
seen a work of software that was not clearly one or the other; the line is
quite bright. At times, though, we have seen cases where a particularly large
work in some ways seemed to be both to both a work that used the library and
a work based on the library. We overcame this problem by dividing the work
into smaller subunits. It was soon discovered that what we actually had were
three distinct components: the original LGPL'd work, a specific set of works
that used that library, and a specific set of works that were based on the
library. Once such distinctions are established, the licensing for each
component can be considered independently and the LGPLv2.1 applied to each
work as prescribed.
Finally, note though that, since the LGPLv2.1 can be easily upgraded to
GPLv2-or-later, in the worst case you simply need to comply as if the
software was licensed under GPLv2. The only reason you must consider the
question of whether you have a ``work that uses the library'' or a ``work
based on the library'' is when you wish to take advantage of the ``weak
copyleft'' effect of the Lesser GPL\@. If GPLv2-or-later is an acceptable
license (i.e., if you plan to copyleft the entire work anyway), you may find
this an easier option.
\section{Subtleties in Defining the Application}
In our discussion of the definition of ``works that use the library,'' we
left out a few more complex details that relate to lower-level programming
details. The fourth paragraph of LGPLv2.1~\S5 covers these complexities,
and it has been a source of great confusion. Part of the confusion comes
because a deep understanding of how compiler programs work is nearly
mandatory to grasp the subtle nature of what LGPLv2.1~\S5, \P 4 seeks to
cover. It helps some to note that this is a border case that we cover in
the license only so that when such a border case is hit, the implications
of using the LGPL continue in the expected way.
To understand this subtle point, we must recall the way that a compiler
operates. The compiler first generates object code, which are the binary
representations of various programming modules. Each of those modules is
usually not useful by itself; it becomes useful to a user of a full program
when those modules are {\em linked\/} into a full binary executable.
As we have discussed, the assembly of modules can happen at compile-time
or at runtime. Legally, there is no distinction between the two --- both
create a modified version of the work by copying and combining portions of one work and
mixing them with another. However, under LGPL, there is a case in the
compilation process where the legal implications are different.
To understand this phenomenon, we consider that a ``work that uses the
library'' is typically one whose final binary is a work based on the Program,
but whose source is not. However, sometimes, there
are cases where the object code --- that intermediate step between source
and final binary --- is a work created by copying and modifying code
from the LGPL'd software.
For efficiency, when a compiler turns source code into object code, it
sometimes places literal portions of the copyrighted library code into the
object code for an otherwise separate independent work. In the normal
scenario, the final combined work would not be created until final assembly and
linking of the executable occurred. However, when the compiler does this
efficiency optimization, at the intermediate object code step, a
combined work is created.
LGPLv2.1~\S5\P4 is designed to handle this specific case. The intent of
the license is clearly that simply compiling software to ``make use'' of
the library does not in itself cause the compiled work to be a ``work
based on the library.'' However, since the compiler copies verbatim,
copyrighted portions of the library into the object code for the otherwise
separate and independent work, it would actually cause that object file to be a
``work based on the library.'' It is not FSF's intent that a mere
compilation idiosyncrasy would change the requirements on the users of the
LGPLv2.1'd software. This paragraph removes that restriction, allowing the
implications of the license to be the same regardless of the specific
mechanisms the compiler uses underneath to create the ``work that uses the
library.''
As it turns out, we have only once had anyone worry about this specific
idiosyncrasy, because that particular vendor wanted to ship object code
(rather than final binaries) to their customers and was worried about
this edge condition. The intent of clarifying this edge condition is
primarily to quell the worries of software engineers who understand the
level of verbatim code copying that a compiler often does, and to help
them understand that the full implications of LGPLv2.1 are the same regardless
of the details of the compilation progress.
\section{LGPLv2.1~\S6 \& LGPLv2.1~\S5: Combining the Works}
\label{lgpl-section-6}
Now that we have established a good working definition of works that
``use'' and works that ``are based on'' the library, we will consider the
rules for distributing these two different works.
The rules for distributing ``works that use the library'' are covered in
LGPLv2.1~\S6\@. LGPLv2.1~\S6 is much like GPLv2~\S3, as it requires the release
of source when a binary version of the LGPL'd software is released. Of
course, it only requires that source code for the library itself be made
available. The work that ``uses'' the library need not be provided in
source form. However, there are also conditions in LGPLv2.1~\S6 to make sure
that a user who wishes to modify or update the library can do so.
LGPLv2.1~\S6 lists five choices with regard to supplying library source
and granting the freedom to modify that library source to users. We
will first consider the option given by \S~6(b), which describes the
most common way currently used for LGPLv2.1 compliance on a ``work that
uses the library.''
LGPLv2.1~\S6(b) allows the distributor of a ``work that uses the library'' to
simply use a dynamically linked, shared library mechanism to link with the
library. This is by far the easiest and most straightforward option for
distribution. In this case, the executable of the work that uses the
library will contain only the ``stub code'' that is put in place by the
shared library mechanism, and at runtime the executable will combine with
the shared version of the library already resident on the user's computer.
If such a mechanism is used, it must allow the user to upgrade and
replace the library with interface-compatible versions and still be able
to use the ``work that uses the library.'' However, all modern shared
library mechanisms function as such, and thus LGPLv2.1~\S6(b) is the simplest
option, since it does not even require that the distributor of the ``work
based on the library'' ship copies of the library itself.
LGPLv2.1~\S6(a) is the option to use when, for some reason, a shared library
mechanism cannot be used. It requires that the source for the library be
included, in the typical GPL fashion, but it also has a requirement beyond
that. The user must be able to exercise her freedom to modify the library
to its fullest extent, and that means recombining it with the ``work based
on the library.'' If the full binary is linked without a shared library
mechanism, the user must have available the object code for the ``work
based on the library,'' so that the user can relink the application and
build a new binary.
%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
Under \S6(c), this source code may be offered in writing rather than provided,
or it may be distributed by network under the terms of \S6(d). In addition,
under \S6(e) the distributor may ``verify'' that the user has already received,
or at least that the distributor has already sent to this particular user,
the relevant source. This is evidently intended to prevent requiring
duplicate deliveries in ``whole distribution'' situations.
If the distributor of the combined work intends not to distribute or offer
the source code of the LGPL’d components, the LGPL’d work must be separately
distributed (subject to source code delivery requirements as part of that
separate distribution) and packaged in a ``shared library'' mechanism, which
means
\begin{quotation}
that [it] (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on
the user’s computer system, rather than copying library functions into
the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of
the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is
interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
\end{quotation}
Taken together, these provisions mean:
\begin{itemize}
\item If you create a program that links through a shared library mechanism to
a work that is separately distributed under LGPLv2.1, then you can
distribute the resultant program under a license of your choice and you
need not convey the LGPL’d work’s source code. If you distribute the
library along with your program, or are the separate distributor of the
work in another context or as another product, you must distribute its
corresponding source under the terms of LGPLv2.1 or GPLv2+, at your
option.
\item If you choose to statically link or otherwise combine your program with
an LGPL’d work, you may choose your own license for the work provided the
license terms limitations for user modification, reverse engineering and
debugging are met, and given that the LGPL’d components are still
governed by LGPL’s terms. You must offer or provide complete and
corresponding source code for the LGPL’d components. The source code
material provided must be sufficient to regenerate the combined work with
a user-modified version of the LGPL’d components.
\end{itemize}
%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
\S6 also requires that:
\begin{quotation}
You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the
Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during
execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright
notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the
user to the copy of this License.
\end{quotation}
This is not identical to the roughly parallel requirements of GPLv2 and
GPLv3. Compliance requires slightly different measures with respect to the
``credits'' or ``licenses'' or ``about'' screens in interactive programs.
%FIXME-URGENT: end
The remaining options in LGPLv2.1~\S6 are very similar to the other choices
provided by GPLv2~\S3. There are some additional options, but time does
not permit us in this course to go into those additional options. In
almost all cases of distribution under LGPL, either LGPLv2.1~\S6(a) or LGPLv2.1~\S6(b) are
exercised.
\section{Distribution of the Combined Works}
Essentially, ``works based on the library'' must be distributed under the
same conditions as works under full GPL\@. In fact, we note that
LGPLv2.1~\S2 is nearly identical in its terms and requirements to GPLv2~\S2.
There are again subtle differences and additions, which time does not
permit us to cover in this course.
%FIXME-urgent; integrate
Not only must the source code be complete and corresponding, but it must be
provided in such a way that a modified version of the entire combined work
can be regenerated with a modified version of the LGPL’d work replacing the
version originally provided to the user. When LGPL’d code is statically
linked to a non-copyleft executable, for example, the required source code
must also include sufficient material to split the distributed executable and
relink with a modified version of the library.
%FIXME-URGENT: end
\section{And the Rest}
The remaining variations between the LGPL and the GPL cover the following
conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item Allowing a licensing ``upgrade'' from the LGPL to the GPL\@ (in LGPLv2.1~\S3)
%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
But LGPLv2.1 \S3 allows all works under its
terms, copy by copy, to be used instead under the terms of GPLv2 or any later
version. This provides a pathway for those who do not want to use code under
the requirements of LGPLv2.1 to do so under GPLv2 or GPLv3 at their
discretion.
%FIXME-URGENT: end
\item Binary distribution of the library only, covered in LGPLv2.1~\S4,
which is effectively equivalent to LGPLv2.1~\S3
\item Creating aggregates of libraries that are separate and independent works from
each other, and distributing them as a unit (in LGPLv2.1~\S7)
\end{itemize}
Due to time constraints, we cannot cover these additional terms in detail,
but they are mostly straightforward. The key to understanding LGPLv2.1 is
understanding the difference between a ``work based on the library'' and a
``work that uses the library.'' Once that distinction is clear, the
remainder of LGPLv2.1 is close enough to GPL that the concepts discussed in
our more extensive GPL unit can be directly applied.
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
\chapter{LGPLv3}
\label{LGPLv3}
LGPLv3 was designed to rectify the architectural plan of the GNU family of
licenses, by making the copyleft license from which LGPLv3 is a combination
exception GPLv3. LGPLv3 is therefore an additional permission in the form
provided for in GPLv3 \S7, above.
\section{Section 0: Additional Definitions}
Section 0 defines the ``Library'' it covers as a work that presents one or more
interfaces at which a ``use'' can be made by an ``Application.'' Class
inheritance is ``deemed'' a use of an interface. An ``Application,'' which is
other program code using one or more ``Library'' interfaces can be combined
with the code on the other side of the interfaces it uses to form a ``Combined
Work.''
\section{Section 1: Exception to Section 3 of the GNU GPL}
Section 1 excepts away the interference with use of LGPLv3 code as part of
``effective technological measures'' of access limitation for other copyrighted
works provided otherwise by GPLv3 \S3.
\section{Section 2 Conveying Modified Versions}
Section 2 continues to require, as LGPLv2.1 \S2(d) required, that the Library
not be modified to require keys, tokens, tables, or other global non-argument
data unrelated to function. This is again stated as a ``good faith effort''
requirement, but failure to cure on notice is strong evidence of the absence
of good faith. Use of GPLv3 terms by removal of the additional permission, as
provided for by GPLv3 \S7, is the alternate path to compliance.
\section{Section 3: Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files}
Section 3 disposes entirely [FIXME: with deep technical discussion of
combination mechanisms] in the use of header files and other such forms of
Library material covered by LGPLv2.1 \S5 by stating a rule applicable at the
user’s discretion to all such uses within copyright scope: giving notice that
the library is used in the program and providing copies of GPLv3 and LGPLv3
along with the work.
\section{ Section 4: Combined Works}
Section 4 is the combination permission at the heart of LGPLv3. It restates
the license limitation provision of LGPLv2.1 \S2 to clarify that the terms on
the Combined Work may not prohibit user modification of the Library code, or
the debugging of such modifications to the Library code by means of whatever
reverse engineering is necessary.
Section 4(d)(0) contains the source provision requirement, for the Minimal
Corresponding Source, which ``means the Corresponding Source for the Combined
Work, excluding any source code for portions of the Combined Work that,
considered in isolation, are based on the Application, and not on the Linked
Version [of the Library].'' The alternative to the provision of source code is
distribution by way of the ``shared library'' mechanism under \S4(d)(1),
described with respect to LGPLv2.1 \S6, above.
In addition, \S4(e) requires the delivery of ``installation information''
required to install the modified version of the Library in ``user products''
under GPLv3 \S6. Where Library Minimal Corresponding Source is not made
available under \S4(d)(1), \S4(e) reaffirms that ``installation information''
must still be compliantly delivered under the terms of GPLv3 \S6.
All other provisions of GPLv3 are in force as previously described, and are
not excepted by the additional permission granted in LGPLv3.
%FIXME-URGENT: end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% FIXME-LATER: There should be a chapter on GPL Exceptions generally.
% Here is some CC-By-SA text from another source that would make an
% acceptable introduction to a section on the GCC RTL Exception if such a
% chapter is written:
% This GCC Runtime Library Exception (``Exception'') is an additional
% permission as provided by Section 7 of GPLv3. The purpose of this Exception
% is to allow compilation of non-GPL (including proprietary) programs making
% use of the header files and runtime libraries covered by this Exception and
% containing code from the copyleft toolchain embedded by the compiler in the
% object code of the program as part of the compilation process. The GCC
% Runtime Library Exception covers any file that has a notice in its license
% headers stating that the exception applies.
% FIXME-LATER: end
\chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}
Since GPL'd software is now extremely prevalent through the industry, it
is useful to have some basic knowledge about using GPL'd software in
business and how to build business models around GPL'd software.
\section{Using GPL'd Software In-House}
As discussed in Sections~\ref{GPLv2s0} and~\ref{GPLv2s5} of this tutorial,
the GPL only governs the activities of copying, modifying and
distributing software programs that are not governed by the license.
Thus, in FSF's view, simply installing the software on a machine and
using it is not controlled or limited in any way by the GPL\@. Using Free
Software in general requires substantially fewer agreements and less
license compliance activity than any known proprietary software.
Even if a company engages heavily in copying the software throughout the
enterprise, such copying is not only permitted by GPLv2~\S\S1 and 3, but it is
encouraged! If the company simply deploys unmodified (or even modified)
Free Software throughout the organization for its employees to use, the
obligations under the license are very minimal. Using Free Software has a
substantially lower cost of ownership --- both in licensing fees and in
licensing checking and handling -- than the proprietary software
equivalents.
\section{Business Models}
\label{Business Models}
Using Free Software in house is certainly helpful, but a thriving
market for Free Software-oriented business models also exists. There is the
traditional model of selling copies of Free Software distributions.
Many companies make substantial revenue
from this model. Some choose this model because they have
found that for higher-end hardware, the profit made from proprietary
software licensing fees is negligible. The real profit is in the hardware,
but it is essential that software be stable, reliable and dependable, and
the users be allowed to have unfettered access to it. Free Software, and
GPL'd software in particular (because IBM can be assured that proprietary
versions of the same software will not exist to compete on their hardware)
is the right choice.
For example, charging a ``convenience fee'' for Free Software,
when set at a reasonable price (around \$60 or so), can produce some
profit. Even though Red Hat's system is fully downloadable on their
Web site, people still go to local computer stores and buy copies of their
box set, which is simply a printed version of the manual (available under
a Free license as well) and the Free Software system it documents.
\medskip
However, custom support, service, and software improvement contracts
are the most widely used models for GPL'd software. The GPL is
central to their success, because it ensures that the code base
remains common, and that large and small companies are on equal
footing for access to the technology. Consider, for example, the GNU
Compiler Collection (GCC). Cygnus Solutions, a company started in the
early 1990s, was able to grow steadily simply by providing services
for GCC --- mostly consisting of new ports of GCC to different or new,
embedded targets. Eventually, Cygnus was so successful that
it was purchased by Red Hat where it remains a profitable division.
However, there are very small companies that compete in
this space. Because the code-base is protected by the GPL, it creates and
demands industry trust. Companies can cooperate on the software and
improve it for everyone. Meanwhile, companies who rely on GCC for their
work are happy to pay for improvements, and for ports to new target
platforms. Nearly all the changes fold back into the standard
versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.
\medskip
\label{Proprietary Relicensing}
A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is
proprietary relicensing of a GPL'd code base. This is only an option for
software in which a particular entity holds exclusive rights to
relicense\footnote{Entities typically hold exclusive relicensing rights
either by writing all the software under their own copyrights, collecting
copyright assignments from all contributors, or by otherwise demanding
unconditional relicensing permissions from all contributors via some legal
agreement}. As discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is
permitted under copyright law to license a software system under her
copyright as many different ways as she likes to as many different parties as
she wishes.
Some companies use this to their
financial advantage with regard to a GPL'd code base. The standard
version is available from the company under the terms of the GPL\@.
However, parties can purchase separate proprietary software licensing for
a fee.
This business model is at best problematic and at worst predatory because it means that the GPL'd code
base must be developed in a somewhat monolithic way, because volunteer
Free Software developers may be reluctant to assign their copyrights to
the company because it will not promise to always and forever license the
software as Free Software. Indeed, the company will surely use such code
contributions in proprietary versions licensed for fees.
\section{Ongoing Compliance}
GPL compliance is in fact a very simple matter --- much simpler than
typical proprietary software agreements and EULAs. Usually, the most
difficult hurdle is changing from a proprietary software mindset to one
that seeks to foster a community of sharing and mutual support. Certainly
complying with the GPL from a users' perspective gives substantially fewer
headaches than proprietary license compliance.
For those who go into the business of distributing {\em modified}
versions of GPL'd software, the burden is a bit higher, but not by
much. The glib answer is that by releasing the whole product as Free
Software, it is always easy to comply with the GPL. However,
admittedly to the dismay of FSF, many modern and complex software
systems are built using both proprietary and GPL'd components that are
clearly and legally separate and independent works, merely aggregated
together on the same device.
However, it's sometimes is easier, quicker, and cheaper to simply to
improve existing GPL'd application than to start from scratch. In
exchange for this amazing benefit, the license requires that the modifier gives
back to the commons that made the work easier in the first place. It is a
reasonable trade-off and a way to help build a better world while also
making a profit.
Note that FSF does provide services to assist companies who need
assistance in complying with the GPL. You can contact FSF's GPL
Compliance Labs at $<$licensing@fsf.org$>$.
%FIXME-LATER: should have \tutorialpart
If you are particularly interested in matters of GPL compliance, we
recommend the next two parts, which include both recommendations on good
compliance and compliance case studies.
% =====================================================================
% END OF FIRST DAY SEMINAR SECTION
% =====================================================================
%% LocalWords: Sebro Novalis Ravicher GPLv GPL'd copylefted LGPLv OSI USC
%% LocalWords: noncommercially counterintuitive Berne copyrightable DRM UC
%% LocalWords: proprietarize proprietarization Stallman's Tridgell's RMS
%% LocalWords: Lessig Lessig's Stallman Proto GPLs proto Tai pre GPL's ful
%% LocalWords: legalbol AGPLv Runtime licensor licensors relicense UCITA
%% LocalWords: unprotectable Intl nd th Kepner Tregoe Bando Indust Mitel
%% LocalWords: Iqtel Bateman Mitek Arce protectable hoc faire de minimis
%% LocalWords: Borland Int'l uncopyrightable LLC APIs Ent Connectix DVD's
%% LocalWords: redistributor diachronic unshared subpart redistributors
%% LocalWords: CDs userbase reshifts licensor's distributee impliedly Mgmt
%% LocalWords: patentee relicenses irrevocability Jacobsen Katzer TRW CCS
%% LocalWords: Unfreedonia administrivia Relicensing impermissibly centric
%% LocalWords: permissibility firehose bytecode minified Javascript DLLs
%% LocalWords: preprocessors functionalities offsite sublicensing DMCA CFR
%% LocalWords: anticircumvention WIPO BitTorrent multidirectional Magnuson
%% LocalWords: subdefinition Dryvit Stroebner Tandy TRS superset LGPL SLES
%% LocalWords: cryptographic relicensing removability sublicensed Novell
%% LocalWords: anticompetitive administrability sublicensable licensable
%% LocalWords: sublicense sublicensees sublicenses affixation Novell's
%% LocalWords: severability Affero LGPL'd lingua franca glibc facto LGPL's
%% LocalWords: relicensed runtime subunits relink downloadable MontaVista
%% LocalWords: CodeSourcery OpenTV MySQL TrollTech
|