users, other entities have the right to create a long- or short-lived fork

to serve that sub-community.

\section{How Does Software Become Free?}

The previous section set forth key freedoms and rights that are referred to

as ``software freedom''.  This section discusses the licensing mechanisms

used to enable software freedom.  These licensing mechanisms were ultimately

created as a community-oriented ``answer'' to the existing proprietary

software licensing mechanisms.  Thus, first, consider carefully why

proprietary software exists in the first place.

\label{explaining-copyright}

The primary legal regime that applies to software is copyright law.

Proprietary software exists at all only because copyright law governs

software.\footnote{This statement is admittedly an oversimplification. Patents and

  trade secrets can cover software and make it effectively non-Free, and one

  can contract away their rights and freedoms regarding software, or source

  code can be practically obscured in binary-only distribution without

  reliance on any legal system.  However, the primary control mechanism for

  software is copyright, and therefore this section focuses on how copyright

  restrictions make software proprietary.} Copyright law, with respect to

software, typically governs copying, modifying, and redistributing that

software (For details of this in the USA, see

\href{http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106}{\S~106} and

\href{http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117}{\S~117} of

\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17}{Title 17} of the

\textit{United States Code}).\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs

  ``public performance'' of copyrighted works. There is no generally agreed

  definition for public performance of software and both GPLv2 and GPLv3 do

  not restrict public performance.} By law (in the USA and in most other

jurisdictions), the copyright holder (most typically, the author) of the work controls

how others may copy, modify and/or distribute the work. For proprietary

software, these controls are used to prohibit these activities. In addition,

proprietary software distributors further impede modification in a practical

sense by distributing only binary code and keeping the source code of the

software secret.

Copyright is not a natural state; it is a legal construction. In the USA, the

Constitution permits, but does not require, the creation of copyright law as

federal legislation.  Software, since it is an ``original work of authorship

fixed in any tangible medium of expression ...  from which they can be

perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the

aid of a machine or device'' (as stated in

\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102}{17 USC \S~102}), is thus

covered by the statute, and is copyrighted by default.

% Potential re-write: 

% +-----------------+ 

% Come back to this. The idea that software has a copyright-less natural 

% state contradicts copyright law as it exists, which assumes copyright 

% (as stated in the prev. paragraph.) Not even sure if my rewrite is correct.

Software in the real world is copyrighted by default and is automatically covered by 

such a legal system.  However, it is possible to move software out of the domain of the 

copyright system.  A copyright holder can often \defn{disclaim} their copyright. (For 

example, under United States copyright law, it is possible for a copyright holder to 

engage in conduct resulting in abandonment of copyright.) If copyright is disclaimed, 

the software is effectively no longer restricted by copyright law.  Software not 

restricted by copyright is in the ``public domain.''

\subsection{Public Domain Software} In the USA and other countries that are parties to 

the Berne Convention on Copyright, software is copyrighted automatically by the author 

when she fixes the software in a tangible medium.  In the software world, this usually 

means typing the source code of the software into a file. Imagine if authors could 

truly disclaim those default controls of copyright law.  If so, the software is in the 

public domain --- no longer covered by copyright.  Since copyright law is the 

construction allowing for most restrictions on software (i.e., prohibition of copying, 

modification, and redistribution), removing the software from the copyright system 

usually yields software freedom for its users. Carefully note that software truly in 

the public domain is \emph{not} licensed in any way.  It is confusing to say software 

is ``licensed for the public domain,'' or any phrase that implies the copyright holder 

gave express permission to take actions governed by copyright law. Copyright holders 

who state that they are releasing their code into the public domain are effectively 

renouncing copyright controls on the work.  The law gave the copyright holders 

exclusive controls over the work, and they chose to waive those controls.  Software 

that is, in this sense, in the public domain is conceptualized by the developer as 

having no copyright and thus no license. The software freedoms discussed in 

Section~\ref{Free Software Definition} are all granted because there is no legal system 

in play to take them away. Admittedly, a discussion of public domain software is an 

oversimplified example.  Because copyright controls are usually automatically granted 

and because, in some jurisdictions, some copyright controls cannot be waived (see 

Section~\ref{non-usa-copyright} for further discussion), many copyright holders 

sometimes incorrectly believe a work has been placed in the public domain.  Second, due 

to aggressive lobbying by the entertainment industry, the ``exclusive Right'' of 

copyright, which was supposed to only exist for ``Limited Times'' according to the 

United States Constitution, appears to be infinite: simply `purchased' on the 

installment plan rather than in whole.  Thus, we must assume no works of software will 

fall into the public domain merely due to the passage of time. Nevertheless, under USA 

law it is likely that the typical disclaimers of copyright or public domain dedications 

we see in the Free Software world would be interpreted by courts as copyright 

abandonment, leading to a situation in which the user effectively receives a maximum 

grant of copyright freedoms, similar to a maximally-permissive Free Software license.

The best example of software known to truly be in the public domain is software that is 

published by the United States government.  Under 

Copyleft is a strategy of utilizing copyright law to pursue the policy goal

of fostering and encouraging the equal and inalienable right to copy, share,

modify, and improve creative works of authorship.  Copyleft (as a general

term) describes any method that utilizes the copyright system to achieve the

aforementioned goal.  Copyleft as a concept is usually implemented in the

details of a specific copyright license, such as the

\hyperref[GPLv3-full-text]{GNU General Public License (GPL)} and the Creative

Commons Attribution Share Alike License (the latter of which is the license

of this work itself).  Copyright holders of creative work can unilaterally

implement these licenses for their own works to build communities that

collaboratively share and improve those copylefted creative works.

Copyleft uses functional parts of the copyright system to achieve an unusual

result (legal protection for free sharing). Copyleft modifies, or ``hacks''

copyright law, which is usually employed to strengthen the rights of authors

or publishers, to strengthen instead the rights of users.  Thus, Copyleft is

a legal strategy and mechanism to defend, uphold and propagate software

freedom. The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the

software, license it under terms that give all the software freedoms, but use

the copyright law's controls to ensure that all who receive a copy of the

software have equal rights and freedom. In essence, copyleft grants freedom,

but forbids others to forbid that freedom to anyone else along the

distribution and modification chains.

Copyleft's ``reciprocity'' or ``share and share alike'' rule protects both

developers, who avoid facing a ``prioritized'' competitor of their project,

and users, who can be sure that they will have all four software freedoms ---

not only in the present version of the program they use, but in all its

future improved versions.

Copyleft is a general concept. Much like ideas for what a computer might

do must be \emph{implemented} by a program that actually does the job, so

too must copyleft be implemented in some concrete legal structure.

``Share and share alike'' is a phrase that is used often enough to explain the

concept behind copyleft, but to actually make it work in the real world, a

true implementation in legal text must exist, written as a ``copyright

license''.  The GPL implements the concept of copyleft for software-oriented

and other functional works of a technical nature.  The ``CC BY SA'' license

implements copyleft for works of textual, musical and visual authorship, such

as this tutorial.

Copyleft advocates often distinguish between the concept of a ``strong

copyleft'' or a ``weak copyleft''.  However, ``strong vs. weak'' copyleft is

not a dichotomy, it's a spectrum.  The strongest copylefts use the

exclusive rights that copyright  grants authors as extensively as possible

to maximize software freedom.  As a copyleft gets ``weaker'', the copyleft

license typically makes ``trade offs'' that might impede software freedom,

work.

``the work'' is licensed.  The unit of copyright law is ``the work''.  In

that sense, the ``work'' referenced by the licenses is anything that can be

copyrighted or will be subject to the terms of copyright law.  Strong

copyleft licenses exercise their scope fully.  Anything which is ``a work''

or a ``work based on a work'' licensed under a strong copyleft is subject to

its requirements, including the requirement of complete, corresponding source

code\footnote{Copyleft communities' use of the term ``strong copyleft'' is

  undoubtedly imprecise.  For example, most will call the GNU GPL a ``strong

  copyleft'' license, even though the GPL itself has various exceptions, such

  as the \hyperref[GPLv3-system-library-exception]{GPLv3's system library

    exception} written into the text of the license itself.  Furthermore, the

  copyleft community continues to debate where the a license cross the line

  from ``strong copyleft'' to ``license that fails to respect software

  freedom'', although ultimately these debates are actually regarding whether

    definition} at all.}.  Thus, copyleft licenses, particularly strong ones,

seek to ensure the same license covers every version of ``work based on the

work'', as recognized by local copyright law, and thereby achieve the

specific strategic policy aim of ensuring software freedom for all users,

developers, authors, and readers who encounter the copylefted work.

\subsection{Software and Non-Copyright Legal Regimes}

\label{software-and-non-copyright}

The use, modification and distribution of software, like many endeavors,

simultaneously interacts with multiple different legal regimes.  As was noted

restrict users' rights to copy, share, modify and/or redistribute software.

However, proprietary software licenses typically use every mechanism

available to subjugate users.  For example:

\begin{itemize}

\item Unfortunately, despite much effort by many in the software freedom

  community to end patents that read on software (i.e., patents on

  computational ideas), they still exist.  As such, a software

  program might otherwise seem to be unrestricted, but a patent might read on

  the software and ruin everything for its users.\footnote{See

  \S\S~\ref{gpl-implied-patent-grant},~\ref{GPLv2s7},~\ref{GPLv3s11} for more

  discussion on how the patent system interacts with copyleft, and read

  Richard M.~Stallman's essay,

  \href{http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/richard-stallman-software-patents/}{\textit{Let's

      Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can't Eliminate Them}}

  for more information on the problems these patents present to society.}

\item Digital Restrictions Management (usually called \defn{DRM}) is often

  used to impose technological restrictions on users' ability to exercise

  software freedom that they might otherwise be granted.\footnote{See

    \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} for more information on how GPL deals with this issue.}

  The simplest (and perhaps oldest) form of DRM, of course, is separating

  software source code (read by humans), from their compiled binaries (read

  only by computers).  Furthermore,

  \href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201}{17 USC~\S1201} often

\item Most EULAs also include a contractual agreement that bind users further

  by forcing them to agree to a contractual, prohibitive software license

  before ever even using the software.

\end{itemize}

Thus, most proprietary software restricts users via multiple interlocking

freedom of all users must not only grant appropriate copyright permissions,

means like those listed above.

\subsection{Non-USA Copyright Regimes}

\label{non-usa-copyright}

Generally speaking, copyright law operates similarly enough in countries that

have signed the Berne Convention on Copyright, and software freedom licenses

have generally taken advantage of this international standardization of

copyright law.  However, copyright law does differ from country to country,

and commonly, software freedom licenses like the GPL must be considered under the

copyright law in the jurisdiction where any licensing dispute occurs.

Those who are most familiar with the USA's system of copyright often are

surprised to learn that there are certain copyright controls that cannot be

waived nor disclaimed.  Specifically, many copyright regimes outside the USA

recognize a concept of moral rights of authors.  Typically, moral rights are

fully compatible with respecting software freedom, as they are usually

centered around controls that software freedom licenses generally respect,

\section{A Community of Equality}

The previous section described the principles of software freedom, a brief

introduction to mechanisms that typically block these freedoms, and the

simplest ways that copyright holders might grant those freedoms to their

users for their copyrighted works of software.  The previous section also

copyright to not only grant software freedom to users, but also to uphold

Copyleft, as defined in \S~\ref{copyleft-definition}, is a general term for this

mechanism.  The remainder of this text will discuss details of various

real-world implementations of copyleft -- most notably, the GPL\@.

This discussion begins first with some general explanation of what the GPL is

able to do in software development communities.  After that brief discussion

follows in the next chapter.

Simply put, though, the GPL ultimately creates a community of equality for

both business and noncommercial users.

\subsection{The Noncommercial Community}

A GPL'd code base becomes a center of a vibrant development and user

community.  Traditionally, volunteers, operating noncommercially out of

keen interest or ``scratch an itch'' motivations, produce initial versions

of a GPL'd system.  Because of the efficient distribution channels of the

Internet, any useful GPL'd system is adopted quickly by noncommercial

users.

Fundamentally, the early release and quick distribution of the software

gives birth to a thriving noncommercial community.  Users and developers

begin sharing bug reports and bug fixes across a shared intellectual

commons.  Users can trust the developers, because they know that if the

developers fail to address their needs or abandon the project, the GPL

ensures that someone else has the right to pick up development.

Developers know that the users cannot redistribute their software without

passing along the rights granted by the GPL, so they are assured that every

one of their users is treated equally.

Because of the symmetry and fairness inherent in GPL'd distribution,

nearly every GPL'd package in existence has a vibrant noncommercial user

and developer base.

\subsection{The Commercial Community}

By the same token, nearly all established GPL'd software systems have a

vibrant commercial community.  Nearly every GPL'd system that has gained

wide adoption from noncommercial users and developers eventually begins

to fuel a commercial system around that software.

For example, consider the Samba file server system that allows Unix-like

systems (including GNU/Linux) to serve files to Microsoft Windows systems.

Two graduate students originally developed Samba in their spare time and

it was deployed noncommercially in academic environments.\footnote{See

  \href{http://turtle.ee.ncku.edu.tw/docs/samba/history}{Andrew Tridgell's

soon for-profit companies discovered that the software could work for them

as well, and their system administrators began to use it in place of

Microsoft Windows NT file-servers.  This served to lower the cost of

running such servers by orders of magnitude. There was suddenly room in

Windows file-server budgets to hire contractors to improve Samba.  Some of

the first people hired to do such work were those same two graduate

students who originally developed the software.

The noncommercial users, however, were not concerned when these two

fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'd work.  They knew

distributed in the commercial environment could easily be folded back into

the standard version.  Companies are not permitted to proprietarize

safe in the knowledge that the software freedom ensured by the GPL will remain

protected.

Commercial developers also work in concert with noncommercial

developers.  Those two now-long-since graduated students continue to

contribute to Samba altruistically, but also get paid work doing it.

Priorities change when a client is in the mix, but all the code is

contributed back to the standard version.  Meanwhile, many other

individuals have gotten involved noncommercially as developers,

because they want to ``cut their teeth on Free Software,'' or because

the problems interest them.  When they get good at it, perhaps they

will move on to another project, or perhaps they will become

commercial developers of the software themselves.

No party is a threat to another in the GPL software scenario because

everyone is on equal ground.  The GPL protects rights of the commercial

and noncommercial contributors and users equally. The GPL creates trust,

because it is a level playing field for all.

\subsection{Law Analogy}

In his introduction to Stallman's \emph{Free Software, Free Society},

Lawrence Lessig draws an interesting analogy between the law and Free

Software. He argues that the laws of a free society must be protected

much like the GPL protects software.  So that I might do true justice to

Lessig's argument, I quote it verbatim:

\begin{quotation}

A ``free society'' is regulated by law. But there are limits that any free

society places on this regulation through law: No society that kept its

laws secret could ever be called free.  No government that hid its

regulations from the regulated could ever stand in our tradition. Law

controls.  But it does so justly only when visibly.  And law is visible

only when its terms are knowable and controllable by those it regulates,

or by the agents of those it regulates (lawyers, legislatures).

This condition on law extends beyond the work of a legislature.  Think

about the practice of law in American courts.  Lawyers are hired by their

clients to advance their clients' interests.  Sometimes that interest is

advanced through litigation. In the course of this litigation, lawyers

write briefs. These briefs in turn affect opinions written by judges.

These opinions decide who wins a particular case, or whether a certain law

can stand consistently with a constitution.

All the material in this process is free in the sense that Stallman means.

Legal briefs are open and free for others to use.  The arguments are

transparent (which is different from saying they are good), and the