From 8399b0a7964aaf4fdb392287029220426db9d078 2014-03-18 20:42:04 From: Bradley M. Kuhn Date: 2014-03-18 20:42:04 Subject: [PATCH] Wordsmithing and typo fixes. --- diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index ae40556d8360dc8207d475f281eb5b5edb8701b8..df9614e0300d57cd83b9237e5fcbe74fba85bdee 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ access is and should remain unregulated and unrestricted. \medskip Thus, the GPLv2 protects users fair and unregulated use rights precisely by -not attempting to cover them. Furthermore, the GPLv2 ensures the freedom +not attempting to cover them. Furthermore, the GPLv2 ensures the freedom to run specifically by stating the following: \begin{quote} ''The act of running the Program is not restricted.'' @@ -1020,21 +1020,21 @@ Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by \S 0. \medskip The bulk of \S 0 not yet discussed gives definitions for other terms used -throughout. The only one worth discussing in detail is ``work based on -the Program.'' The reason this definition is particularly interesting is +throughout. The only one worth discussing in detail is ``work based on +the Program''. The reason this definition is particularly interesting is not for the definition itself, which is rather straightforward, but because it clears up a common misconception about the GPL\@. The GPL is often mistakenly criticized because it fails to give a -definition of ``derivative work.'' In fact, it would be incorrect and -problematic if the GPL attempted to define this. A copyright license, in -fact, has no control over what may or may not be a derivative work. This -matter is left up to copyright law, not the licenses that utilize it. +definition of ``derivative work''. In fact, it would be incorrect and +problematic if the GPL attempted to define this. A copyright license, in +fact, has no control over what may or may not be a derivative work. This +matter is left up to copyright law and the courts --- not the licenses that utilize it. It is certainly true that copyright law as a whole does not propose clear and straightforward guidelines for what is and is not a derivative -software work under copyright law. However, no copyright license --- not -even the GNU GPL --- can be blamed for this. Legislators and court +software work under copyright law. However, no copyright license --- not +even the GNU GPL --- can be blamed for this. Legislators and court opinions must give us guidance to decide the border cases. \section{GPLv2 \S 1: Verbatim Copying}