Copyleft/guide Changeset - 1dd7d7b4cc56

Changeset - 1dd7d7b4cc56

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 1 0

donaldr3 - 10 years ago 2014-03-21 20:50:11
donald@copyrighteous.office.fsf.org

the gpl and restriction/condition

1 file changed with 3 insertions and 3 deletions:

gpl-lgpl.tex

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... @@
 holder of \worki{} would not have been permitted to distribute \gplusi{};
 copyright law forbids it without the expressed permission of the copyright
 holder of \workg{}. (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a proprietary
 product --- would its copyright holders  give you permission to create and distribute
 \gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?)  The license of \workg{}, the
 GPL, states the  options for the copyright holder of \worki{}
 who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}.  GPL's pre-granted
+who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}. The  GPL's pre-granted
 permission to create and distribute derivative works, provided the terms
 of GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
+of the GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
 would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license.  (Thus, to
-say that this restriction is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.)
+say that this condition is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.)
 \medskip
 \label{GPLv2s2-at-no-charge}
 The next phrase of note in GPLv2~\S2(b) is ``licensed \ldots at no charge.''
 This phrase  confuses many.  The sloppy reader points out this as ``a

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)