diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index 273f0235584f84fc38617c4078cd4e5a8fb285bf..92f809df426e1e20f112b2c8ed9e5c063c9817f3 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -2349,6 +2349,14 @@ copies within an organization. In many countries the term ``making available to the public'' or ``communicating to the public'' is the closest counterpart to the generalized notion of distribution that exists under USA law. +% FIXME: Connect up with: Indeed or something like that. + +The +copyright laws of many countries other than the United States, 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 GPL 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 @@ -2432,6 +2440,13 @@ make completely clear that a licensee cannot avoid complying with the requirements of the GPL by dynamically linking an add-on component to the original version of a program. +%FIXME: Merge this in with previous paragarph + +The definition of Corresponding Source (``Complete Corresponding Source +Code'' in Draft1) is the most complex definition in the license. + +% FIXME: This needs work + Though the definition of Complete Corresponding Source Code in the second paragraph of section 1 is expansive, it is not sufficient to protect users' freedoms in many circumstances. For example, a GPL'd @@ -2441,6 +2456,20 @@ a particular machine and function properly. Similarly, a program that produces digitally-restricted files might require a decryption code in order to read the output. +% FIXME: FSF third person, and verify it still matches GPLv3 text. + +We clarify that the shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that +are included in Corresponding Source are those that the work is +``specifically'' designed to require, making it clearer that they do not +include libraries invoked by the work that can be readily substituted by +other existing implementations. + + +% FIXME: merge in with a forward-reference to Installation Information. + +s long as users are truly in a position to install and run +their modified versions of the program + % FIXME: Standard Interface % FIXME: System Libraries: it's in a different place and changed in later drafts @@ -2492,6 +2521,14 @@ run the program is terminated if the licensee brings a patent infringement lawsuit against anyone for activities relating to a work based on the program. +% FIXME: transition, and some word smith +The explicit prohibition of sublicensing ensures that enforcement of the GPL +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. + % FIXME: new section here, just to talk DRM before the other section. Technological measures to defeat users' rights --- often described by such @@ -2597,6 +2634,29 @@ that apply to parts of the program. In addition, the distributor is required to keep intact all license notices, including notices of such additional terms. +% FIXME: needs context, needs match up to current text, and removal of stuff +% that's no longer there + +The original wording of this clause was meant to +make clear that the GPL permits one to charge for the distribution of +software. Despite our efforts to explain this in the license and in +other documents, there are evidently some who believe that the GPL +allows charging for services but not for selling software, or that the +GPL requires downloads to be gratis. We referred to charging a ``fee''; +the term ``fee'' is generally used in connection with services. Our +original 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.'' In +our revised wording we use ``price'' in place of ``fee,'' and we remove +the term ``physical.'' + +% FIXME: say more and tie it to the text + +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} % FIXME: 5(a) is slightly different in final version @@ -2743,6 +2803,18 @@ program might not have the keys. % FIXME: installation information +% FIXME: This needs merged in somewhere in here + +The mere fact that use of the work implies that the user \textit{has} the key +may not be enough to ensure the user's freedom in using it. The user must +also be able to read and copy the key; thus, its presence in a special +register inside the computer does not satisfy the requirement. In an +application in which the user's personal key is used to protect privacy or +limit distribution of personal data, the user clearly has the ability to read +and copy the key, which therefore is not included in the Corresponding +Source. On the other hand, if a key is generated based on the object code, or +is present in hardware, but the user cannot manipulate that key, then the key +must be provided as part of the Corresponding Source. % FIXME: this came from Section 1 but is now mostly in Section 6 @@ -2766,7 +2838,11 @@ put.\footnote{There is a clear distinction between this situation and the authentication key would also not qualify as part of the Corresponding Source under the language we have adopted for Draft 2.} -%FIXME: publicly documented format +%FIXME: publicly documented format. This might work as a start on that: + +Our primary objective here was to ensure that the +distributor use a generally-recognized mechanism for packaging source +code. \section{Understanding License Compatibility} \label{license-compatibility} @@ -3054,15 +3130,44 @@ of rights under the license. \section{GPLv3~\S9: Acceptance} -% FIXME +% FIXME: needs some work here + +Section 9 means what it says: mere receipt or execution of code neither +requires nor signifies contractual acceptance under the GPL. Speaking more +broadly, we have intentionally structured our license 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} -% FIXME +% FIXME: needs filled out and more here. + +Draft1 removed the words ``at no charge'' from what is now subsection 5b, the +core copyleft provision, for reasons related to our current changes to the +second paragraph of section 4: it had 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. + +We therefore have added a new explicit prohibition on imposition of licensing +fees or royalties in section 10. 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. \section{GPLv3~\S11: Explicit Patent Licensing} \label{GPLv3s11} +The patent licensing practices that section 7 of GPLv2 (corresponding to +section 12 of GPLv3) was designed to prevent are 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 combatting the danger of patents. + % FIXME: just brought in words here, needs rewriting. is rooted in the basic principles of the GPL. @@ -3212,6 +3317,14 @@ 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: does this need to be a section, describing how it was out then in +% then out then in? :) + +We have removed from this draft the appended section on ``How to Apply These +Terms to Your New Programs.'' For brevity, the license document can instead +refer to a web page containing these instructions as a separate document. + %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \chapter{The Lesser GPL}