not all cc sharealike licenses are copyleft, so be specific automatic relicensing is an exaggeration cc by-sa case is even more nuanced, briefly mention in fn
@keynote2k was the first to point out that the in-page anchor links in the Guide failed to function properly, due to Bootstrap's fixed navbar.
This mixed solution of CSS and Javascript is the best solution I've been able to come up with for the problem. The CSS solution is obviously preferable, and is used herein for those anchor id attributes in the Guide that have no href of their own.
Due to problems with using a pure CSS solution where the anchor includes both an href and a id attribute. The Javascript solution is specific for those cases. I took care not to have them both happen at once, as they would undoubtedly conflict.
which offers several pure CCS solutions (each with drawbacks and advantages). Unfortunately, none of those solutions consider the question of anchor links that have both href and id attributes, and none of them work properly in that situation.
There was one minor change to the title page on master that isn't represented on 'next'. While I could have rebased, I chose to merge so I didn't have delete the publicly published 'next' branch on gitorious like I have to do when I rebase.
Replace "enforcements" with "enforcement actions".
I think this sounds better. While "enforcement" is a noun and therefore it seems it should be "pluralizable", "enforcements" wasn't in my dictionary as a correctly spelled word, and that made me realize I'd never heard "enforcements" used in a plural before, and it immediately sounded weird. So, I changed it.
The unicode ’ was introduced by the pasted text mention in the previous commits. While I believe LaTeX can be configured to accept Unicode quote equivalents, it seems simpler to me merely to replace the character with an appropriate version that LaTeX expects in this situation by default.
Much of the pasted text here was useful. However, some of the claims were broad reaching, I've reigned those in. (e.g., saying "Taken together, these provisions mean:" was a bit strong).
Also, in that specific spot, the conclusions made in the text were described as applying to LGPLv2.1, but are clearly conclusions about LGPLv3. I've corrected that herein.
Finally, I had to write a bunch of next text to make the pasted text work, and also added one FIXME for later of where things could be improved further.
Often, the PDF file is separated fully from copyleft and distributed. As such, the title page should not only include a link to the sources for patches, but also for the main copyleft.org site for the Guide.
This text was mostly useful as is. However, it failed to make a key point I've often made: that the combinations created by comingling AGPLv3'd code with GPLv3'd code may be difficult to disentangle, and thus in practice, it may turn out that such a combination effectively must be licensed as a whole under AGPLv3, even if technically some copyrights included therein are GPLv3'd.
In practice, this nuance is only a technical barrier, since complying fully with AGPLv3 automatically complies with GPLv3.
Most of this text was useful, particularly since there was a previous FIXME here that GPLv3§10 was not extensively discussed.
However, the same footnote regarding Jaeger's opinion under German copyright law applies to this text, so a reference back to it has herein been added.
Integrate pasted & commented out text for GPLv3§7.
The pasted text, most of which was useful, is now integrated as the desired laundry-list of GPLv3§7 subsection explanations.
This also allowed for easy integration of some of the older commented-out text that originally came from GPLv3 rationale documents.
Meanwhile, however, I discovered, upon more careful examination of the pasted text, a serious and grave error regarding GPLv3§7(d). Specifically, GPLv3§7(d) makes the modern "third clause" of the 3-Clause BSD compatible with the GPL, *not* the problematic old-school BSD advertising clause (from the 4-Clause BSD).
I'm amazed that anyone versed in licensing could make this error, frankly, and readers should be told, since other materials are now disseminated by others, that the point is incorrect. Therefore, I've not only noted the correct compatibility conclusion, but also affirmatively identified the incorrectness of the wrong conclusion that was previously added via the pasted text from SFLC's "Guide".
Finally, on a LaTeX formatting note, the enumitem package is now needed since I'm using that for the list of GPLv3§7 subsections.
This change perhaps is somewhat controversial, but reflects honest reality of this history of additional requirements on GPL. The additional requirements that GPLv3 permits mostly represent historically known situations where GPLv2 permitted license compatibility with Free Software licenses containing such requirements.
Orthodox compatibility theory demands that such additional requirements have explicit codification in a copyleft license, which hints at why GPLv3 needed to include this section.
However, historical copyright holder toleration of these sorts of requirements placed on GPLv2 works is well-documented, and failure to mention it here is a disservice to the reader.
Most of the pasted text was redundant to the existing guide text, but one sentence reiterates a useful point in a creative way, so that sentence is herein integrated into the preceding paragraph.
Upon second reading of this text, I don't know why I saved it. The existing guide already covers these issues adequately, and there is no specific place I could find where this new text worked well as an introductory paragraph (as has been done with others of these pasted texts).
The last commit brought in text that categorically claims: "automatic termination cannot be cured by obtaining additional copies from an alternate supplier". While this position is by far the overwhelming majority position among copyleft advocates, theorists, and legal experts, the small minority dissenting opinion is simply too strongly sourced to ignore.
Specifically, Till Jaeger's position was central to Harald Welte's gpl-violations.org community-oriented GPL enforcement efforts. Therefore, this tutorial must include his position when covering the issue of automatic license reinstatement in this tutorial.
I have told Till that I can't believe his position is possibly correct. (I understand that many other copyleft theorists and legal experts have done so as well.) However, Till remains steadfast that this position is correct, at least under German copyright law. Speaking for myself, I have never met a legal expert as well-versed in both copyleft and German copyright law as Till Jaeger is, and therefore I cannot in good conscience allow this tutorial to remain silent regarding Till's position, lest the tutorial propagate an inappropriate bias for the majority belief.
That said, I still feel that a footnote is the right place for the argument. It *is* a tiny minority position [0] among an overwhelming consensus to the contrary, and therefore adding the point to the main text would only serve to distract the tutorial reader.
[0] In particular, I am convinced Jaeger's argument, if true, is a peculiarity of German law exclusively. For example, French lawyers I've spoken with believe that the standard USA legal position on this issue is also accurate under French copyright law. I therefore conclude the minority position (if accurate) is unrelated to differences between civil law and common law copyright regimes, and is instead a unique peculiarity to German copyright law.
The tutorial did not previously have an adequate description of GPLv2§2(c), so this pasted text is as good as any that I could think of, although I reworded it slightly.
I chose to integrate this text *before* the discussion of GPLv2§2(b) because the latter section requires so much attention, it seems appropriate to get the less complex parts of GPLv2§2 out of the way before diving into that essential discussion of GPLv2§2(b).
This was easily integrated, but I am now not sure what I was thinking with the FIXME note about linking back to the copyleft definition. The right link is a forward-link to the derivative works chapter, and thus I've added that.
Some of the pasted text was useful as a method of introducing briefly the legal details of copyleft, to an appropriate level of detail for this initial copyleft definition found in the tutorial. However, substantial additional text was needed to both properly integrate the pasted text, and also improve the copyleft definition overall in light of the pasted text content.
Meanwhile, part of the pasted text definitely doesn't belong here, but I noticed it likely makes a good addition to the introductory paragraph in the derivative works section.
I wrote a pretty good copyleft definition, originally based on the one found on Wikipedia, for use on the front page of copyleft.org. Herein it is integrated with the tutorial as well.
The inspiration for this section came from the pasted text, which ultimately whitewashed this well-known and complex situation. While my new text likely has the biases inherent in a COGEO-oriented focused document, so perhaps future patches that soften that side of it would be helpful.
However, I believe generally that the new section describes the situation substantially better than the terse pasted text that lauded it.
Finally, this section is written to build up to some level of crescendo, since the conclusion immediately follows it.
Again, upon careful reading of the pasted text, it was clearly not as useful as it first appeared, and is in fact somewhat misleading.
This rewrite does a better job explaining the necessary focus required for an M&A situation. The section could use some work, but generally speaking IMO this new does a better job than both the pasted text and other texts on the issues I've read elsewhere.
Upon closer inspection, this pasted paragraph contained a clear error: as written. Specifically, it stated that compliance was automatic if you merely "pass along" the CCS received from upstream. It's IOTTMCO that this is wrong. I've corrected it and integrated the text.
Upon a more detailed reading, it's clear this pasted text belongs in the LGPL license analysis section, but that in fact some other text was needed to improve the end of the section on LGPL in the compliance guide.
Since so little material is currently given on LGPL compliance, it's likely best to link back to the chapter on LGPL compliance.
Besides, I don't think there really is anything additional the compliance guide can add regarding LGPL compliance, other than the detail license analysis on LGPL already available in that part of the text.
(Note labels had to be added for the chapters that didn't previously exist.)
Much of the existing pasted text had subtle condescension toward developers, which I've cleaned up here. Admittedly, I may have over compensated and added subtle condescension toward lawyers.
After rereading this text a few times, I realized that it doesn't actually say anything of value. It looks pretty but is devoid of meaning (or, less glibly, it doesn't express any concept not already covered by other text in the tutorial), so I'm cutting it entirely.
Rework two compliance guide sections in Background
Some of the text pasted in earlier commits was certainly useful, but needed a complete rework.
Also, the text pasted was far too terse, and more detail was needed.
Therefore, I've moved text around and build a more comprehensive Background section. I've moved the burgeoning "Understanding Who's Enforcing" section into the Background chapter and made it complete.
Probably the most bizarre (?) change I've made here is coining this acronym COGEO. This is non-optimal for sure, and I've added a FIXME to seek a better term.
The enforcement section now has an integrated paragraph describing how enforcement relates to copyright, and refers back to a related section much earlier in the tutorial.
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one; however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile, the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material. Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly, a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies. Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein, I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document, as well as those in individual parts, are updated to include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy §3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already CC BY SA 4.0 International.
Most redistributors, at least with regard to embedded systems, typically include the kernel named Linux with their distribution. As such, even when GPLv2-or-later and/or GPLv3-{only, or-later} works are included in the aggregation, the termination implications are effectively those of GPLv2-only, since it's unlikely in any event the violator will remove the GPLv2-only work (particularly if it's Linux).