Copyleft/guide Changeset - 155d653e278f

...

@@ -334,19 +334,10 @@ covered by the statute, and is copyrighted by default.

However, software, in its natural state without copyright, is Free

Software. In an imaginary world with no copyright, the rules would be

different. In this world, when you received a copy of a program's source

code, there would be no default legal system to restrict you from sharing it

with others, making modifications, or redistributing those modified

versions.\footnote{Note that this is again an oversimplification; the

  complexities with this argument are discussed in

  Section~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.}

% Potential re-write:

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

% Software, in a state of nature, is Free Software.

% In an imaginary world without copyright, when you receive a copy of a program's source

% code, there would be no default legal system to restrict you from sharing it

% with others, making modifications, or redistributing those modified

% versions.\footnote{Note that this is again an oversimplification; the

% complexities with this argument are discussed in % Section~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.}

Software, in a state of nature, is Free Software.

In an imaginary world without copyright, when you receive a copy of a program's source

code, there would be no default legal system to restrict you from sharing it

with others, making modifications, or redistributing those modified

versions.\footnote{Note that this is again an oversimplification; the

complexities with this argument are discussed in Section~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.}

...

@@ -484,6 +475,6 @@ to maximize software freedom.  As a copyleft gets ``weaker'', the copyleft

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

but reach other tactic goals for the community of users and developers of the

but reach other tactical goals for the community of users and developers of the

work.

In other words, strong copyleft licenses place the more requirements on how

In other words, strong copyleft licenses place more requirements on how

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

...

@@ -502,3 +493,3 @@ code\footnote{Copyleft communities' use of the term ``strong copyleft'' is

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

  the license fits \hyperref[Free Software Definition]{Free Software

  the license fits the \hyperref[Free Software Definition]{Free Software

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

...

@@ -514,3 +505,3 @@ The use, modification and distribution of software, like many endeavors,

simultaneously interacts with multiple different legal regimes.  As was noted

early via footnotes, copyright is merely the \textit{most common way} to

earlier via footnotes, copyright is merely the \textit{most common way} to

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

...

@@ -541,3 +532,3 @@ available to subjugate users.  For example:

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

  prohibits users legally from circumventing some of these DRM systems.

  legally prohibits users from circumventing some of these DRM systems.

...

@@ -550,5 +541,5 @@ available to subjugate users.  For example:

Thus, most proprietary software restricts users via multiple interlocking

legal and technological means.  Any license that truly respect the software

legal and technological means.  Any license that truly respects the software

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

but also \textit{prevent} restrictions from other legal and technological

but must also \textit{prevent} restrictions from other legal and technological

means like those listed above.

...

@@ -571,3 +562,3 @@ fully compatible with respecting software freedom, as they are usually

centered around controls that software freedom licenses generally respect,

such as the right of an authors to require proper attribution for their work.

such as the right of an author to require proper attribution for their work.

...

@@ -579,5 +570,5 @@ simplest ways that copyright holders might grant those freedoms to their

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

introduced the idea of \textit{copyleft}: a licensing mechanism to use

introduced the idea of \textit{copyleft}: a licensing mechanism which uses

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

those rights against those who might seek to curtail them.

those rights against the actions of those who might seek to curtail them.

...

@@ -589,3 +580,3 @@ This discussion begins first with some general explanation of what the GPL is

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

in this section, deeper discussion of how GPL accomplishes this in practice

in this section, deeper discussion of how the GPL accomplishes this in practice

follows in the next chapter.

...

@@ -630,3 +621,3 @@ it was deployed noncommercially in academic environments.\footnote{See

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

    ``A bit of history and a bit of fun''}}  However, very

    ``A bit of history and a bit of fun''.}}  However, very

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

...

@@ -641,6 +632,6 @@ The noncommercial users, however, were not concerned when these two

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

that because of the nature of the GPL that improvements that were

that because of the nature of the GPL, improvements that were

distributed in the commercial environment could easily be folded back into

the standard version.  Companies are not permitted to proprietarize

Samba, so the noncommercial users, and even other commercial users are

Samba, so noncommercial users, and even other commercial users, are

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