Host system requirements & instruction specificity

Include a lesson learned for it, too.

Discussion of included README & its lesson learned

Included also is a code listing of mounting the iso, and the like, which
required use of a new LaTeX package.

Discuss CCS CD included in package.

This yielded a lesson learned, so that is herein added as well.

A new reference was also added for the discussion of GPLv2§3(a).

Rework & remove some text from final paragraph

This is now possible since the longer introduction material is
available.

Write out "CCS" when first mentioned in chapter.

Also, add FIXME for when more material is available to link to.

Move ThinkPenguin CCS case study to first one.

The original text for this case study was developed as the final
chapter, as sort of a "you heard about the rest, now try the best"
approach. However, I think we want to put this one first. "Hope before
despair" is perhaps a better attitude?

The diff on this one didn't come out so clean, so it's a bit difficult
to see that I'm just moving a big block of text up.

I diffed it against a version of this file, from:
commit 2f2e5f9e4c32e2ea0de694f60b65ec98b4d3958a on 2014-10-15 22:14:45 -0400

that was before work began on this chapter, and the diff was relatively
clean.

Hack to get all menus to appear in right places.

The only way I could figure out how to get different output for
monolithic and section-based versions was to do this rather odd hack,
which uses tex4ht.usr to conditionally insert specific bootstrap HTML
for the mention that will allow proper formatting.

URLs should always use \url{URL}, not \verb0URL0

I just decided this should be done even when the URLs are fake ones in
example.{com,org}.

Copyright notice updates.

Joshua Gay made contributions to all the files earlier in 2014 (see git
log) which were copyrighted by the FSF, so FSF's copyright needs
refreshed to include this year.

Denver recently added a section to the enforcement-case-studies.tex, so
his copyright notice needs to go there and at the top file.

I made changes to enforcement-case-studies.tex on top of Denver's.

Also, remove commented-out copyright notices -- the ones in the actual
text are now primary and should be maintained directly.

Prefer footnotes at bottom of each page.

Without "fn-in" option, the footnotes each get their own page, which
seems silly.

This fixes that.

Also included are more rm files, so htlatex doesn't freak when it gets
run again after html files have been moved to public_html.

Additional CSS to beautify the Guide.

HT jgay who pasted this to me on IRC.

BOOK_CLASS_FILE is not used.

It was a vestige from old Makefile.

Hack tex4ht's overlib stuff to use jQuery tooltip

tex4ht supports "overlib" for footnote popups. The hack is pretty
straightforward; it dumps a Javascript area into a .js file that can
then be used by overlib to popup stuff.

This hack is to use that output to make the same thing work with jQuery
UI's tooltip widget.

Note that we run with overlib support first, then *without* it in the
Makefile setup. This is to force the needed .js file to be generated,
but make sure the HTML doesn't try to load overlib (which is default).

(This should be adapted as a patch to upstream tex4ht ultimately.)

Also included herein are improvements to the Makefile to build the HTML
output.

A few temporary formatting hacks.

Put \verb0_0 around _'s and use \url{} for the url.

Add rootfs and U-Boot install notes to case study

This change also fixes the location of the multiple image note, which
is better included after the note added in 3c15418 so that it's clear
what "This step" refers to.

Also added were notes on how we checked to confirm the kernel was
corresponding and commentary on why the toolchain issue was much less
severe than the toolchain issues we usually see.

Add compliance tips on tricky steps to case study

Additionally, remove an unneeded FIXME and clarify an existing FIXME
so we know the title is ok for now, but the section needs format fix.

Fix typo in name: "ThinkPengiun" -> "ThinkPenguin"

This typo was introduced when the section was first added, in 5c22a2b.

Add chapter on router with included source CD

Note that this chapter is not properly TeX-formatted. Some work will
need to be done to make it compile correctly. It should also be
generally expanded and made to flow more nicely, in the spirit of the
other case study chapters.

Reaame TODOS/README.md to TODO.md

I think we should just put this in the top level directory.

Investigate USA-specific-ness of "derivative work"

This FIXME is to remind me to look into this issue later.

Rework over-abundant use of term "derivative work"

The older portions of this tutorial tended to favor the term "derivative
work", since that was the popular catch-all term used at the time the
text was written.

However, as the newer text regarding GPLv3 now states, FSF abandoned the
use of the term "derivative work" in the text of GPLv3 itself, for
various reasons we already discuss in the tutorial.

Therefore, the tutorial text itself should likely not rely so heavily on
the phrase "derivative work" throughout. This change herein reworks a
number of places where "derivative work" was used in the tutorial and
replaced it with other terms.

Ultimately, some word-smithing happened as part of the process of doing
this patch.

Update this situation status.

This situation is still unresolved, but it's not necessarily accurate to
say that negotiations continue per se, since the issue in question is
now widely known by the entire Free Software community and remains an
issue. (It should be obvious to the careful and informed observer what
situation this is.)

derivative works matter less than you think.

Given the wealth of text this chapter offers regarding derivative works,
this section really is necessary to give context on this point and
assure that the reader is not unduly swayed to believe that the
derivative work discussion is a central tenant of understanding
copyleft.

Long term, it may make sense to move the entire chapter on derivative
works to a different part of the tutorial. Historically, it was placed
here because when teaching courses on the subject based on this text, I
found as an instructor that questions about derivative works became so
rampant from students during discussions of GPLv2§2 / GPLv3§5 that
derivative works discussion ahead of time was the only way to quell the
onslaught of ultimately off-topic questions.

Thus, the placement of the derivative works section in this location may
in fact be merely an historical artifact that this text was written
originally to accompany an in-course presentation. While I'd still
recommend organizing a classroom presentation of these topics in that
order, I no longer believe the written materials must follow suit.

Move details of exclusive power to a footnote.

enyst was quite correct that more explanation was needed here about how
an entity achieves exclusive relicensing rights. However, the details
are somewhat off-point to what the section is trying to explain, so the
details are best placed in a footnote.

I've also separated out copyright assignment from generating all of
one's own copyrights. This may be a distinction without a difference,
but a laundry list seemed appropriate here. Perhaps this should be
shortened in future.

Strictly speaking, for proprietary relicensing 'only' unconditional permissions are needed.

Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>

Possible fixes for incomplete or unclear phrases

Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>

Fixes for typos

Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>

Explain GPLv2 implicit private modification rights

I've long been aware that GPLv2 "technically" governed private
modifications and that generally there were probably more requirements
on privately modified versions of GPLv2'd works than most people assumed
in practice, including commonly held public interpretation by FSF.

HT Wolvereness, who pointed out to me that GPLv3 solved that problem.
When I spoke to Fontana about it, he was indeed aware that this text was
"missing" in GPLv2 and that GPLv3 properly added it, through some
politics during the GPLv3 process.

I've added herein the ultimate historical conclusions about GPLv2's
interpretation and how GPLv3 clarified it. I've left out the color
about the politics of how it got added, not because they are not
interesting, relevant and germane to tutorial, but because we don't have
a good place yet in the tutorial for discussion of GPLv3 drafting
politics, and frankly if we have such a section, Fontana ought to write
it, not me.

GPLv2§2 is for *distributing* modified versions.

This text needs to be clear that GPLv2§2 doesn't govern merely the act
of modification, but distributing modified versions (in whole or in
part). The previous text here wasn't clear on that point.

GPLv3 clarifies private modification permission.

While both GPLv2 and GPLv3 have long been considered to grant unabridged
right to private modification, GPLv3 has much clearer and explicit
wording to this effect.

This should be noted when that paragraph is explained. This change
herein does that.

HT Wolvereness for pointing this difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 out
to me.

Rework these two paragraphs.

As previously written, these two paragraphs were saying very little with
a lot of words. I've attempted to rework it a bit.

Opposite meaning was what was desired here.

HT Bob Hogg for discovering this error.

Credit Martin with his copy editing work in each part.
This required some page reformatting (fewer space skipping).

Remove bogus? reference to Darvik

The text talks about Bortez and suddenly there are two references to
Darvik.