diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index e66d75c54ea0c0ccb2a664450f34bba4f6b397a3..2461871d6e863a59e65173cc0dabab7140e0ba3d 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ Software'' to refer to noncommercial software that restricts freedom commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings). -Keep in mind that the none of the terms ``software freedom'', ``open source'' +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 @@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ 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 -modification. +modifications. \subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share} @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ 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 of this freedom. Commercial sharing +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 @@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ 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 +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 @@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ 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, + \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}.)}: @@ -858,8 +858,8 @@ worth noting below the three key changes that GPLv2 brought: \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 + 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} @@ -949,7 +949,7 @@ 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 +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 @@ -1042,7 +1042,7 @@ access to is and should remain unregulated and unrestricted. \medskip -Thus, the GPLv2 protects users fair and unregulated use rights precisely by +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} @@ -1304,9 +1304,7 @@ 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 + \item Demands of the industry being serviced, and widely accepted programming practices within the computer industry \end{itemize} @@ -1466,7 +1464,7 @@ requirements of GPLv2\@. 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 -modifies a GPLv2'd program, they must follow the terms of GPLv2~\S2 in making +modify 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. @@ -1593,7 +1591,7 @@ 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 made +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 @@ -1798,7 +1796,7 @@ 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 who +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' @@ -1980,7 +1978,7 @@ 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 looses their right to copy, modify and distribute +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 @@ -2005,7 +2003,7 @@ 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. + explains further} key differences between these two very different uses of GPL. \section{GPLv2~\S5: Acceptance, Copyright Style} \label{GPLv2s5} @@ -2217,7 +2215,7 @@ So end the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License. \chapter{GPL Version 3} \label{GPLv3} -This chapter discussed the text of GPLv3. Much of this material herein +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. @@ -2259,8 +2257,8 @@ 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 in the spirit of past GPL's. Obsession for concision should never -trump software freedom. +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 @@ -2329,7 +2327,7 @@ 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. +version of'' and ``work based on'' as synonyms. \subsection{The Covered Work} @@ -2507,7 +2505,7 @@ 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 the +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 @@ -2549,7 +2547,7 @@ 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 +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''.} @@ -2851,7 +2849,7 @@ 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 typical historical interpretation of GPLv2. +formally the typical historical interpretation of GPLv2. % FIXME-LATER: perhaps in enforcement section, but maybe here, note about % ``slow down'' on source downloads being a compliance problem. @@ -2914,7 +2912,7 @@ limitation or further obligation. \subsection{User Products, Installation Information and Device Lock-Down} -As discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} of this tutorial, GPLv3 seeks thwart +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. @@ -3103,7 +3101,7 @@ limitation, could transform a GPL'd program into a non-free one. With these principles in the background, GPLv3~\S7 answers the following questions: \begin{enumerate} -\item How do the presence of additional terms on all or part of a GPL'd program +\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 @@ -3432,7 +3430,7 @@ 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 -the particular version of the work that was contributed. The claim set +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 @@ -3569,7 +3567,7 @@ can structure the agreements so that they do not fall under GPLv3~\S11\P7. \section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2~\S7} -GPLv2~\S12 remains almost completely unchanged from the text that appears +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. @@ -3608,7 +3606,7 @@ 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' projects, even if the Affero clause +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 @@ -4249,7 +4247,7 @@ 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 -exists to compete on their hardware) is the right choice. +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 @@ -4312,7 +4310,7 @@ 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\\} +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,