From 07a02b0b1c6d3ac2af9ed21b2a563abcf44d3d0f 2014-03-19 23:17:52 From: Bradley M. Kuhn Date: 2014-03-19 23:17:52 Subject: [PATCH] Merge various texts to a coherent section on "modify" & internationalization. Ultimately, some of the text related to "modify" made good seed material to explain the internationalization motivations of GPLv3. That text is moved and expanded, and the various parts about the "modify" definition are merged together into one subsection. --- diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index 65db37cd694ba2354e03fc43ae89269d5eabb98b..3f41f455fe0742b7bda51c29e23ed2298da161fa 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -2241,6 +2241,18 @@ 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. +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 statue. 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''} One of lawyers' most common complaints about GPLv2 is that defined terms in @@ -2261,82 +2273,55 @@ 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. -% FIXME: it's now five, ``Modify'' - -GPLv3~\S0 includes definitions of four new terms not found in any form in -GPLv2: ``covered work'', ``propagate'', ``convey'', and ``Appropriate Legal -Notices''. +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} + +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. However, +ironically, the 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\footnote{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.}. Admittedly, 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. + +The goal and intention of GPLv2 was always to cover all rights governed by +relevant copyright law, in the USA and elsewhere. GPLv3 therefore takes the +task of internationalizing the license further by removing references to +derivative works and by providing a more globally useful definition. The new +definition 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. -% FIXME: modify needs more discussion -We have made further improvements to the important definitions of ``modify'' -and ``based on,'' providing a complete definition of ``modify'' that refers -to basic copyright rights, and using this definition of ``modify'' to define -``modified version of'' and ``work based on,'' now presented as synonyms. +%FIXME: transition -% FIXME: Transition, GPLv2 ref needed. +While ``covered by this license'' is a phrase found in GPLv2, defining it +more complete in a single as ``covered work'' enables some of the wording in +GPLv3 to be simpler and clearer than its GPLv2 counterparts. -Although the definition of ``work based on the Program'' made use of a legal -term of art, ``derivative work,'' peculiar to USA copyright law, we did not -believe that this presented difficulties as significant as those associated -with the use of the term ``distribution.'' After all, differently-labeled -concepts corresponding to the derivative work are recognized in all copyright -law systems. That these counterpart concepts might differ to some degree in -scope and breadth from the USA derivative work was simply a consequence of -varying national treatment of the right of altering a copyrighted work. %FIXME: should we keep this? maybe a footnote? -Ironically, the criticism we have received regarding the use of -USA-specific legal terminology in the ``work based on the Program'' -definition has come not primarily from readers outside the USA, but -from those within it, and particularly from members of the technology -licensing bar. They have argued that the definition of ``work based -on the Program'' effectively misstates what a derivative work is under -USA law, and they have contended that it attempts, by indirect means, -to extend the scope of copyleft in ways they consider undesirable. -They have also asserted that it confounds the concepts of derivative -and collective works, two terms of art that they assume, questionably, -to be neatly disjoint under USA law. - -% FIXME: As above - -We do not agree with these views, and we were long puzzled by the -energy with which they were expressed, given the existence of many -other, more difficult legal issues implicated by the GPL. -Nevertheless, we realized that here, too, we can eliminate usage of -local copyright terminology to good effect. Discussion of GPLv3 will -be improved by the avoidance of parochial debates over the -construction of terms in one imperfectly-drafted copyright statute. -Interpretation of the license in all countries will be made easier by -replacement of those terms with neutral terminology rooted in -description of behavior. %FIXME: GPLv3, reword a bit. -Draft 2 therefore takes the task of internationalizing the license -further by removing references to derivative works and by providing a -more globally useful definition of a work ``based on'' another work. -We return to the basic principles of users' freedom and 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. The GPL operates to grant this right to successive -generations of users, particularly through the copyleft conditions set -forth in section 5 of GPLv3, which applies to the conveying of works -based on the Program. In section 0 we simply define a work based on -another work to mean ``any modified version for which permission is -necessary under applicable copyright law,'' without further qualifying -the nature of that permission, though we make clear that modification -includes the addition of material.\footnote{We have also removed the -paragraph in section 5 that makes reference to ``derivative or -collective works based on the Program.''} - -%FIXME: transition - -While ``covered by this license'' is a phrase found in GPLv2, defining it -more complete in a single as ``covered work'' enables some of the wording in -GPLv3 to be simpler and clearer than its GPLv2 counterparts. % FIXME: does propagate definition still work the same way in final draft?