Copyleft/guide Changeset - 224e1913909c

% gpl-lgpl.tex                                                  -*- LaTeX -*-

%      Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL course

% License: CC-By-SA-4.0

% The copyright holders hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify, convey,

% Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative

% Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License.

% This text is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but

% WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of

% MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

% You should have received a copy of the license with this document in

% a file called 'CC-By-SA-4.0.txt'.  If not, please visit

% https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode to receive

% the license text.

% FIXME-LATER: I should make a macro like the Texinfo @xref stuff for places

%      where I'm saying ``see section X in this tutorial'', so that the extra

%      verbiage isn't there in the HTML versions that I'll eventually do.

%      Maybe something like that already exists?  In the worst case, I could

%      adapt @xref from texinfo.texi for it.

\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\emph{#1}}

\part{Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related Licenses}

\label{gpl-lgpl-part}

\tutorialpartsplit{This tutorial}{This part of the tutorial} gives a

comprehensive explanation of the most popular Free Software copyright

license, the GNU General Public License (``GNU GPL'', or sometimes just

``GPL'') -- both version 2 (``GPLv2'') and version 3 (``GPLv3'') -- and

teaches lawyers, software developers, managers and businesspeople how to use

the GPL (and GPL'd software) successfully both as a community-building

``Constitution'' for a software project, and to incorporate copylefted

software into a new Free Software business and in existing, successful

enterprises.

To benefit from this part of the tutorial, readers should

have a general familiarity with software development processes.  A basic

understanding of how copyright law applies to software is also helpful.  The

tutorial is of most interest to lawyers, software developers and managers who

run or advise software businesses that modify and/or redistribute software

under the terms of the GNU GPL (or who wish to do so in the future), and those

who wish to make use of existing GPL'd software in their enterprise.

Upon completion of this part of the tutorial, readers can expect

to have learned the following:

\begin{itemize}

  \item The freedom-defending purpose of various terms in the GNU GPLv2 and GPLv3.

  \item The differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3.

  \item The redistribution options under the GPLv2 and GPLv3.

  \item The obligations when modifying GPLv2'd or GPLv3'd software.

  \item How to build a plan for proper and successful compliance with the GPL.

  \item The business advantages that the GPL provides.

  \item The most common business models used in conjunction with the GPL.

  \item How existing GPL'd software can be used in existing enterprises.

  \item The basics of LGPLv2.1 and LGPLv3, and how they

    differ from the GPLv2 and GPLv3, respectively.

  \item The basics to begin understanding the complexities regarding

    derivative and combined works of software.

\end{itemize}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% END OF ABSTRACTS SECTION

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% START OF DAY ONE COURSE

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\chapter{What Is Software Freedom?}

Study of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as \defn{GNU

  GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader world

of software freedom. The GPL was not created in a vacuum. Rather, it was

created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set forth at the

founding of the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) -- the

preeminent organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy of software

freedom. A prerequisite for understanding both of the popular versions

of the GPL

(GPLv2 and GPLv3) and their terms and conditions is a basic understanding of

the principles behind them.  The GPL family of licenses are unlike nearly all

other software licenses in that they are designed to defend and uphold these

principles.

\section{The Free Software Definition}

\label{Free Software Definition}

The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's website at

\verb0http://fsf.org/0 \verb0philosophy/free-sw.html0. This section presents

an abbreviated version that will focus on the parts that are most pertinent

to the GPL\@.

A particular user has software freedom with respect to a particular program if that

user has the following freedoms:

\begin{itemize}

\item The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

\item The freedom to study how the program works, and modify it

\item The freedom to redistribute copies.

\item The freedom to distribute copies of  modified versions to others.

\end{itemize}

The focus on ``a particular user'' is particularly pertinent here.  It is not

uncommon for a subset of a specific program's user base to have these freedoms, while other

users of the same version the program have none or only some of these freedoms.

Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in detail about how

this can unfortunately happen even if a program is released under the GPL\@.

Many people refer to software with these freedoms as ``Open Source.''

Besides having a different political focus from those who call such software

by the name ``Free

Software'',\footnote{The political differences between the Free Software

  Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's Web site at

  \url{http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html}.},

 those who call the software ``Open Source'' are often focused on a side

issue.  Specifically, user access to the source code of a program is a

prerequisite to make use of the freedom to modify.  However, the important

issue is what freedoms are granted in the license that applies to that source code.

Software freedom is only complete when no restrictions are imposed on how

these freedoms are exercised.  Specifically, users and programmers can

exercise these freedoms noncommercially or commercially.  Licenses that grant

these freedoms for noncommercial activities but prohibit them for commercial

activities are considered non-free.  The Open Source Initiative

(\defn{OSI}) (the arbiter of what is considered ``Open Source'') also regards

such licenses as inconsistent with its ``Open Source Definition''.

In general, software for which any of these freedoms are restricted in any

way is called ``nonfree'' software.  Some use the term ``proprietary

software'' more or less interchangeably with ``nonfree software''.  The FSF

published a useful

\href{http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html}{explanation of various

  types of software and how they relate to one another}.

Keep in mind that none of the terms ``software freedom'', ``open source''

and ``free software'' are known to be trademarked or otherwise legally

restricted by any organization in

any jurisdiction.  As such, it's quite common that these terms are abused and

misused by parties who wish to bank on the popularity of software freedom.

When one considers using, modifying or redistributing a software package that

purports to be Open Source or Free Software, one \textbf{must} verify that

the license grants software freedom.

Furthermore, throughout this text, we generally prefer the term ``software

freedom'', as this is the least ambiguous term available to describe software

that meets the Free Software Definition.  For example, it is well known and

often discussed that the adjective ``free'' has two unrelated meanings in

English: ``free as in freedom'' and ``free as in price''.  Meanwhile, the

term ``open source'' is even more confusing, because it appears to refer only to the

``freedom to study'', which is merely a subset of one of the four freedoms.

The remainder of this section considers each of each component of software

freedom in detail.

\subsection{The Freedom to Run}

\label{freedom-to-run}

The first tenet of software freedom is the user's fully unfettered right to

run the program.  The software's license must permit any conceivable use of

the software.  Perhaps, for example, the user has discovered an innovative

use for a particular program, one that the programmer never could have

predicted.  Such a use must not be restricted.

It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary

software; but such is quite common today. Most End User License Agreements

(EULAs) that cover most proprietary software typically restrict some types of

uses.  Such restrictions of any kind are an unacceptable restriction on

software freedom.

\subsection{The Freedom to Change and Modify}

Perhaps the most useful right of software freedom is the users' right to

change, modify and adapt the software to suit their needs.  Access to the

source code and related build and installation scripts are an essential part

of this freedom.  Without the source code, and the ability to build and

install the binary applications from that source, users cannot effectively

exercise this freedom.

Programmers directly benefit from this freedom.  However, this freedom

remains important to users who are not programmers.  While it may seem

counterintuitive at first, non-programmer users often exercise this freedom

indirectly in both commercial and noncommercial settings.  For example, users

often seek noncommercial help with the software on email lists and in user

groups.  To make use of such help they must either have the freedom to

recruit programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their

software, or to at least follow rote instructions to make basic modifications

themselves.

More commonly, users also exercise this freedom commercially.  Each user, or

group of users, may hire anyone they wish in a competitive free market to

modify and change the software.  This means that companies have a right to

hire anyone they wish to modify their Free Software.  Additionally, such

companies may contract with other companies to commission software

modifications.

\subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}

Users share Free Software in a variety of ways. Software freedom advocates

work to eliminate a fundamental ethical dilemma of the software age: choosing

between obeying a software license and friendship (by giving away a copy of a

program to your friend who likes the software you are using). Licenses that

respect software freedom, therefore, permit altruistic sharing of software

among friends.

The commercial environment also benefits from this freedom.  Commercial sharing

includes selling copies of Free Software: that is, Free Software can

be distributed for any monetary

price to anyone.  Those who redistribute Free Software commercially also have

the freedom to selectively distribute (i.e., you can pick your customers) and

to set prices at any level that redistributor sees fit.

Of course, most people get copies of Free Software very cheaply (and

sometimes without charge).  The competitive free market of Free Software

tends to keep prices low and reasonable.  However, if someone is willing to

pay billions of dollars for one copy of the GNU Compiler Collection, such a

sale is completely permitted.

Another common instance of commercial sharing is service-oriented

distribution.  For example, some distribution vendors provide immediate

security and upgrade distribution via a special network service.  Such

distribution is not necessarily contradictory with software freedom.

(Section~\ref{Business Models} of this tutorial talks in detail about some

common Free Software business models that take advantage of the freedom to

share commercially.)

\subsection{The Freedom to Share Improvements}

The freedom to modify and improve is somewhat empty without the freedom to

share those improvements.  The software freedom community is built on the

pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Historically

it was typical for a

Free Software project to sprout a mailing list where improvements

would be shared

freely among members of the development community.\footnote{This is still

commonly the case, though today there are additional ways of

sharing Free Software.}  Such noncommercial

sharing is the primary reason that Free Software thrives.

Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.

For commercial support to exist in a competitive free market, all

developers -- from single-person contractors to large software

companies -- must have the freedom to market their services as

augmenters of Free Software.  All forms of such service marketing must

be equally available to all.

For example, selling support services for Free Software is fully

permitted. Companies and individuals can offer themselves as ``the place

to call'' when software fails or does not function properly.  For such a

service to be meaningful, the entity offering that service needs the

right to modify and improve the software for the customer to correct any

problems that are beyond mere user error.

Software freedom licenses also permit any entity to distribute modified

versions of Free Software.  Most Free Software programs have a ``standard

version'' that is made available from the primary developers of the software.

However, all who have the software have the ``freedom to fork'' -- that is,

make available nontrivial modified versions of the software on a permanent or

semi-permanent basis.  Such freedom is central to vibrant developer and user

interaction.

Companies and individuals have the right to make true value-added versions

of Free Software.  They may use freedom to share improvements to

distribute distinct versions of Free Software with different functionality

and features.  Furthermore, this freedom can be exercised to serve a

disenfranchised subset of the user community.  If the developers of the

standard version refuse to serve the needs of some of the software's

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.

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}.}

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

covered by that 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 USA 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, that was supposed to only exist for

``Limited Times'' according to the USA 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 USA government.  Under

\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/105}{17 USC 101 \S~105}, all

works published by the USA Government are not copyrightable in the USA.

\subsection{Why Copyright Free Software?}

If simply disclaiming copyright on software yields Free Software, then it

stands to reason that putting software into the public domain is the

easiest and most straightforward way to produce Free Software. Indeed,

some major Free Software projects have chosen this method for making their

software Free. However, most of the Free Software in existence \emph{is}

copyrighted. In most cases (particularly in those of FSF and the GNU

Project), this was done due to very careful planning.

copyrighted.

For some, this is because while it's reasonable to assume that US courts

will recognize abandonment of copyright given a clear enough notice from the

author, that's not necessarily true in all jurisdictions and even if it was,

we don't know what form exactly a dedication should take to convince courts

and prevent confusion or attempted revocations.

For others, it's because authors feel that enforcing through copyright one or

more license condtions, reasonably chosen to correspond to their wishes, is

another way to create Free Software that everyone benefits from.

In the case of FSF and the GNU Project, copyrighting and licensing software

was done due to very careful planning.

Software released into the public domain does grant freedom to those users

who receive the standard versions on which the original author disclaimed

copyright. However, since the work is not copyrighted, any nontrivial

modification made to the work is copyrightable.

% FIXME: can't this be written better?

% The core intention of copyleft is to keep software from being reused in

% proprietary software. [It's the last - not discussed in the guide? - paragraph

% in GPLv2 and v3; though not part of the legal text, I'd argue it pervades it.]

% This means a lot of things, but it doesn't automatically mean that the public

% domain would disappear otherwise, in the simple sense that what is in the public

% domain remains there. If the argument is that there aren't adequate incentives

% for enlarging it, that's different than saying someone can shrink it.

% If there are serious reasons for thinking one can shrink it, then those

% reasons seem worth discussing separately from the incentives issue.

Free Software released into the public domain initially is Free, and

perhaps some who modify the software choose to place their work into the

public domain as well. However, over time, some entities will choose to

proprietarize their modified versions. The public domain body of software

feeds the proprietary software. The public commons disappears, because

fewer and fewer entities have an incentive to contribute back to the

commons. They know that any of their competitors can proprietarize their

enhancements. Over time, almost no interesting work is left in the public

domain, because nearly all new work is done by proprietarization.

A legal mechanism is needed to redress this problem. FSF was in fact

originally created primarily as a legal entity to defend software freedom,

and that work of defending software freedom is a substantial part of

its work today. Specifically because of this ``embrace, proprietarize and

extend'' cycle, FSF made a conscious choice to copyright its Free Software,

and then license it under ``copyleft'' terms. Many, including the

developers of the kernel named Linux, have chosen to follow this paradigm.

\label{copyleft-definition}

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 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 strive to the

exclusive rights that copyright  grants to 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,

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

work.

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

``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

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

    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

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

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

  prohibits users legally from circumventing some of these DRM systems.

\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

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

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

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

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,

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

\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

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

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

those rights against those who might seek to curtail them.

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

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

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

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

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

that because of the nature of the GPL that 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

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

reasoning can be taken without the permission of the original lawyers.

The opinions they produce can be quoted in later briefs.  They can be

copied and integrated into another brief or opinion.  The ``source code''

for American law is by design, and by principle, open and free for anyone

to take. And take lawyers do---for it is a measure of a great brief that

it achieves its creativity through the reuse of what happened before.  The

source is free; creativity and an economy is built upon it.

This economy of free code (and here I mean free legal code) doesn't starve

lawyers.  Law firms have enough incentive to produce great briefs even

though the stuff they build can be taken and copied by anyone else.  The

lawyer is a craftsman; his or her product is public.  Yet the crafting is

not charity. Lawyers get paid; the public doesn't demand such work

without price.  Instead this economy flourishes, with later work added to

the earlier.

We could imagine a legal practice that was different --- briefs and

arguments that were kept secret; rulings that announced a result but not

the reasoning. Laws that were kept by the police but published to no one

else. Regulation that operated without explaining its rule.

We could imagine this society, but we could not imagine calling it

``free.''  Whether or not the incentives in such a society would be better

or more efficiently allocated, such a society could not be known as free.

The ideals of freedom, of life within a free society, demand more than

efficient application.  Instead, openness and transparency are the

constraints within which a legal system gets built, not options to be

added if convenient to the leaders.  Life governed by software code should

be no less.

Code writing is not litigation.  It is better, richer, more

productive.  But the law is an obvious instance of how creativity and

incentives do not depend upon perfect control over the products

created.  Like jazz, or novels, or architecture, the law gets built

upon the work that went before. This adding and changing is what

creativity always is.  And a free society is one that assures that its

most important resources remain free in just this sense.\footnote{This

quotation is Copyright \copyright{} 2002, Lawrence Lessig. It is

licensed under the terms of

\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/}{the ``Attribution

License'' version 1.0} or any later version as published by Creative

Commons.}

\end{quotation}

In essence, lawyers are paid to service the shared commons of legal

infrastructure.  Few citizens defend themselves in court or write their

own briefs (even though they are legally permitted to do so) because

everyone would prefer to have an expert do that job.

The Free Software economy is a market ripe for experts.  It

functions similarly to other well established professional fields like the

law. The GPL, in turn, serves as the legal scaffolding that permits the

creation of this vibrant commercial and noncommercial Free Software

economy.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\chapter{A Tale of Two Copyleft Licenses}

\label{tale-of-two-copylefts}

While determining the proper methodology and criteria to yield an accurate

count remains difficult, the GPL is generally considered one of the most

widely used Free Software licenses.  For most of its history --- for 16 years

from June 1991 to June 2007 --- there was really only one version of the GPL,

version 2.

However, the GPL had both earlier versions before version 2, and, more well

known, a revision to version 3.

\section{Historical Motivations for the General Public License}

The earliest license to grant software freedom was likely the Berkeley

Software Distribution (``BSD'') license.  This license is typical of what are

often called lax, highly permissive licenses.  Not unlike software in the

public domain, these non-copyleft licenses (usually) grant software freedom

to users, but they do not go to any effort to uphold that software freedom

for users.  The so-called ``downstream'' (those who receive the software and

then build new things based on that software) can restrict the software and

distribute further.

The GNU's Not Unix (``GNU'') project, which Richard M.~Stallman (``RMS'')

founded in 1984 to make a complete Unix-compatible operating system

implementation that assured software freedom for all.  However, RMS saw that

using a license that gave but did not assure software freedom would be

counter to the goals of the GNU Project.  RMS invented ``copyleft'' as an

answer to that problem, and began using various copyleft licenses for the

early GNU Project programs.\footnote{RMS writes more fully about this topic in

  his essay entitled simply

  \href{http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html}{\textit{The GNU Project}}.

    For those who want to hear the story in his own voice,

    \href{http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/}{speech recordings} of his talk,

    \textit{The Free Software Movement and the GNU/Linux Operating System}

    are also widely available}

\section{Proto-GPLs And Their Impact}

%FIXME-LATER: bad line break:

%\href{http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/emacs_gpl.html}{The Emacs

%  General Public License}

The earliest copyleft licenses were specific to various GNU programs.  For

example,  The Emacs

General Public License was likely the first copyleft license ever

published.  Interesting to note that even this earliest copyleft license

contains a version of the well-known GPL copyleft clause:

\begin{quotation}

You may modify your copy or copies of GNU Emacs \ldots provided that you also

\ldots cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that in

whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU Emacs or any part

thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third parties on terms identical

to those contained in this License Agreement.

\end{quotation}

This simply stated clause is the fundamental innovation of copyleft.

Specifically, copyleft \textit{uses} the copyright holders' controls on

permission to modify the work to add a conditional requirement.  Namely,

downstream users may only have permission to modify  the work if they pass

along the same permissions on the modified version that came originally to

them.

These original program-specific proto-GPLs give an interesting window into

the central ideas and development of copyleft.  In particular, reviewing them

shows how the text of the GPL we know has evolved to address more of the

issues discussed earlier in \S~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.

\section{The GNU General Public License, Version 1}

\label{GPLv1}

In January 1989, the FSF announced that the GPL had been converted into a

``subroutine'' that could be reused not just for all FSF-copyrighted

programs, but also by anyone else.  As the FSF claimed in its announcement of

the GPLv1:\footnote{The announcement of GPLv1 was published in the

  \href{http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull6.html\#SEC8}{GNU's Bulletin, vol 1,

    number 6 dated January 1989}.  (Thanks very much to Andy Tai for his

  \href{http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/}{consolidation of research on

    the history of the pre-v1 GPL's}.)}

\begin{quotation}

To make it easier to copyleft programs, we have been improving on the

legalbol architecture of the General Public License to produce a new version

that serves as a general-purpose subroutine: it can apply to any program

without modification, no matter who is publishing it.

\end{quotation}

This, like many inventive ideas, seems somewhat obvious in retrospect.  But,

the FSF had some bright people and access to good lawyers when it started.

It took almost five years from the first copyleft licenses to get to a

generalized, reusable GPLv1.  In the context and mindset of the 1980s, this

is not surprising.  The idea of reusable licensing infrastructure was not

only uncommon, it was virtually nonexistent!  Even the early BSD licenses

were simply copied and rewritten slightly for each new use.\footnote{It

  remains an interesting accident of history that the early BSD problematic

  ``advertising clause'' (discussion of which is somewhat beyond the scope of

  this tutorial) lives on into current day, simply because while the

  University of California at Berkeley gave unilateral permission to remove

  the clause from \textit{its} copyrighted works, others who adapted the BSD

  license with their own names in place of UC-Berkeley's never have.}  The

GPLv1's innovation of reusable licensing infrastructure, an obvious fact

today, was indeed a novel invention for its day.\footnote{We're all just

  grateful that the FSF also opposes business method patents, since the FSF's

  patent on a ``method for reusable licensing infrastructure'' would have

  not expired until 2006!}

\section{The GNU General Public License, Version 2}

The GPLv2 was released two and a half years after GPLv1, and over the

following sixteen years, it became the standard for copyleft licensing until

the release of GPLv3 in 2007 (discussed in more detail in the next section).

While this tutorial does not discuss the terms of GPLv1 in detail, it is

worth noting below the three key changes that GPLv2 brought:

\begin{itemize}

\item Software patents and their danger are explicitly mentioned, inspiring

  (in part) the addition of GPLv2~\S\S5--7.  (These sections are discussed in

  detail in \S~\ref{GPLv2s5}, \S~\ref{GPLv2s6} and \S~\ref{GPLv2s7} of this

  tutorial.)

\item GPLv2~\S2's copyleft terms are expanded to more explicitly discuss the

  issue of combined works.  (GPLv2~\S2 is discussed in detail in

  \S~\ref{GPLv2s2} in this tutorial).

\item GPLv2~\S3 includes more detailed requirements, including the phrase

 ``the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the

  executable'', which is a central component of current GPLv2 enforcement.

  (GPLv2~\S3 is discussed in detail in

  \S~\ref{GPLv2s3} in this tutorial).

\end{itemize}

The next chapter discusses GPLv2 in full detail, and readers who wish to dive

into the section-by-section discussion of the GPL should jump ahead now to

that chapter.  However, the most interesting fact to note here is how GPLv2

was published with little fanfare and limited commentary.  This contrasts

greatly with the creation of GPLv3.

\section{The GNU General Public License, Version 3}

RMS began drafting GPLv2.2 in mid-2002, and FSF ran a few discussion groups

during that era about new text of that license.  However, rampant violations

of the GPL required more immediate attention of FSF's licensing staff, and as

such, much of the early 2000's was spent doing GPL enforcement

work.\footnote{More on GPL enforcement is discussed in \tutorialpartsplit{a

    companion tutorial, \textit{A Practical Guide to GPL

      Compliance}}{Part~\ref{gpl-compliance-guide} of this tutorial}.}  In

2006, FSF began in earnest drafting work for GPLv3.

The GPLv3 process began in earnest in January 2006.  It became clear that

many provisions of the GPL could benefit from modification to fit new

circumstances and to reflect what the entire community learned from

experience with version 2.  Given the scale of revision it seems proper to

approach the work through public discussion in a transparent and accessible

manner.

The GPLv3 process continued through June 2007, culminating in publication of

GPLv3 and LGPLv3 on 29 June 2007, AGPLv3 on 19 November 2007, and the GCC

Runtime Library Exception on 27 January 2009.

All told, four discussion drafts of GPLv3, two discussion drafts of LGPLv3

and two discussion drafts of AGPLv3 were published and discussed.

Ultimately, FSF remained the final arbiter and publisher of the licenses, and

RMS himself their primary author, but input was sought from many parties, and

these licenses do admittedly look and read more like legislation as a result.

Nevertheless, all of the ``v3'' group are substantially better and improved

licenses.

GPLv3 and its terms are discussed in detail in Chapter~\ref{GPLv3}.

\section{The Innovation of Optional ``Or Any Later'' Version}

An interesting fact of all GPL licenses is that there are ultimately multiple

choices for use of the license.  The FSF is the primary steward of GPL (as

discussed later in \S~\ref{GPLv2s9} and \S~\ref{GPLv3s14}).  However, those

who wish to license works under GPL are not required to automatically accept

changes made by the FSF for their own copyrighted works.

Each licensor may chose three different methods of licensing, as follows:

\begin{itemize}

\item explicitly name a single version of GPL for their work (usually

  indicated in shorthand by saying the license is ``GPLv$X$-only''), or

\item name no version of the GPL, thus they allow their downstream recipients

  to select any version of the GPL they choose (usually indicated in shorthand

  by saying the license is simply ``GPL''), or

\item name a specific version of GPL and give downstream recipients the

  option to choose that version ``or any later version as published by the

  FSF'' (usually indicated by saying the license is

  ``GPLv$X$-or-later'')\footnote{The shorthand of ``GPL$X+$'' is also popular

    for this situation.  The authors of this tutorial prefer ``-or-later''

    syntax, because it (a) mirrors the words ``or'' and ``later from the

    licensing statement, (b) the $X+$ doesn't make it abundantly clear that

    $X$ is clearly included as a license option and (c) the $+$ symbol has

    other uses in computing (such as with regular expressions) that mean

    something different.}

\end{itemize}

\label{license-compatibility-first-mentioned}

Oddly, this flexibility has received (in the opinion of the authors, undue)

criticism, primarily because of the complex and oft-debated notion of

``license compatibility'' (which is explained in detail in

\S~\ref{license-compatibility}).  Copyleft licenses are generally

incompatible with each other, because the details of how they implement

copyleft differs.  Specifically, copyleft works only because of its

requirement that downstream licensors use the \textit{same} license for

combined and modified works.  As such, software licensed under the terms of

``GPLv2-only'' cannot be combined with works licensed ``GPLv3-or-later''.

This is admittedly a frustrating outcome.

Other copyleft licenses that appeared after GPL, such as the Creative Commons

``Attribution-Share Alike'' licenses, the Eclipse Public License and the

Mozilla Public License \textbf{require} all copyright holders choosing

to use any version of those licenses to automatically allow use of their

copyrighted works under new versions.\footnote{CC-BY-SA-2.0 and greater only

permit licensing of adaptations under future versions; 1.0 did not have

any accomodation for future version compatibility.}  Of course, Creative

Commons, the Eclipse Foundation, and the Mozilla Foundation (like the FSF)

have generally served as excellent stewards of their licenses.  Copyright

holders using those licenses seems to find it acceptable to fully delegate

all future licensing decisions for their copyrights to these organizations

without a second thought.

However, note that FSF gives herein the control of copyright holders to

decide whether or not to implicitly trust the FSF in its work of drafting

future GPL versions.  The FSF, for its part, does encourage copyright holders

to chose by default ``GPLv$X$-or-later'' (where $X$ is the most recent

version of the GPL published by the FSF).  However, the FSF \textbf{does not

  mandate} that a choice to use any GPL requires a copyright holder ceding

its authority for future licensing decisions to the FSF.  In fact, the FSF

considered this possibility for GPLv3 and chose not to do so, instead opting

for the third-party steward designation clause discussed in

Section~\ref{GPLv3s14}.

\section{Complexities of Two Simultaneously Popular Copylefts}

Obviously most GPL advocates would prefer widespread migration to GPLv3, and

many newly formed projects who seek a copyleft license tend to choose a

GPLv3-based license.  However, many existing copylefted projects continue

with GPLv2-only or GPLv2-or-later as their default license.

While GPLv3 introduces many improvements --- many of which were designed to

increase adoption by for-profit companies --- GPLv2 remains a widely used and

extremely popular license.  The GPLv2 is, no doubt, a good and useful

license.

However, unlike GPLv1 before it,

GPLv2 remains an integral part of the copyleft licensing infrastructure.  As such, those who seek to have expertise in current

topics of copyleft licensing need to study both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 family of

licenses.

Furthermore, GPLv3 is more easily understood by first studying GPLv2.

This is not only because of their chronological order, but also because much

of the discussion material available for GPLv3 tends to talk about GPLv3 in

contrast to GPLv2.  As such, a strong understanding of GPLv2 helps in

understanding most of the third-party material found regarding GPLv3.  Thus,

the following chapter begins a deep discussion of GPLv2.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\chapter{Running Software and Verbatim Copying}

\label{run-and-verbatim}

This chapter begins the deep discussion of the details of the terms of

GPLv2\@. In this chapter, we consider the first two sections: GPLv2 \S\S

0--2. These are the straightforward sections of the GPL that define the

simplest rights that the user receives.

\section{GPLv2~\S0: Freedom to Run}

\label{GPLv2s0}

GPLv2~\S0, the opening section of GPLv2, sets forth that copyright law governs

the work.  It specifically points out that it is the ``copyright

holder'' who decides if a work is licensed under its terms and explains

how the copyright holder might indicate this fact.

A bit more subtly, GPLv2~\S0 makes an inference that copyright law is the only

system that can restrict the software.  Specifically, it states:

\begin{quote}

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not

covered by this License; they are outside its scope.

\end{quote}

In essence, the license governs \emph{only} those activities, and all other

activities are unrestricted, provided that no other agreements trump GPLv2

(which they cannot; see Sections~\ref{GPLv2s6} and~\ref{GPLv2s7}).  This is

very important, because the Free Software community heavily supports

users' rights to ``fair use'' and ``unregulated use'' of copyrighted

material.  GPLv2 asserts through this clause that it supports users' rights

to fair and unregulated uses.

Fair use (called ``fair dealing'' in some jurisdictions) of copyrighted

material is an established legal doctrine that permits certain activities

regardless of whether copyright law would otherwise restrict those activities.

Discussion of the various types of fair use activity are beyond the scope of

this tutorial.  However, one important example of fair use is the right to

quote portions of the text in a larger work so as to criticize or suggest

changes.  This fair use right is commonly used on mailing lists when

discussing potential improvements or changes to Free Software.

Fair use is a doctrine established by the courts or by statute.  By

contrast, unregulated uses are those that are not covered by the statue

nor determined by a court to be covered, but are common and enjoyed by

many users.  An example of unregulated use is reading a printout of the

program's source code like an instruction book for the purpose of learning

how to be a better programmer.  The right to read something that you have

access to 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

to run specifically by stating the following:

\begin{quote}

''The act of running the Program is not restricted.''

\end{quote}

Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by GPLv2~\S0.

\medskip

The bulk of GPLv2~\S0 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

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'' or ``combined work''.  In fact, it would be incorrect and

problematic if the GPL attempted to define these terms.  A copyright license, in

fact, has no control over the rules of copyright themselves.  Such rules are

the domain of copyright law and the courts --- not the licenses that utilize

those systems.

Copyright law as a whole does not propose clear and straightforward guidelines

for identifying the derivative and/or combined works of software.  However,

no copyright license --- not even the GNU GPL --- can be blamed for this.

Legislators and court opinions must give us guidance in borderline cases.

Meanwhile, lawyers will likely based their conclusions on the application of rules

made in the context of literary or artistic copyright to the different

context of computer programming and by analyzing the (somewhat limited) case

law and guidance available from various sources.

(Chapter~\ref{derivative-works} discusses this issue in depth.)

\section{GPLv2~\S1: Verbatim Copying}

\label{GPLv2s1}

GPLv2~\S1 covers the matter of redistributing the source code of a program

exactly as it was received. This section is quite straightforward.

However, there are a few details worth noting here.

The phrase ``in any medium'' is important.  This, for example, gives the

freedom to publish a book that is the printed copy of the program's source

code.  It also allows for changes in the medium of distribution.  Some

vendors may ship Free Software on a CD, but others may place it right on

the hard drive of a pre-installed computer.  Any such redistribution media

is allowed.

Preservation of copyright notice and license notifications are mentioned

specifically in GPLv2~\S1.  These are in some ways the most important part of

the redistribution, which is why they are mentioned by name.  GPL

always strives to make it abundantly clear to anyone who receives the

software what its license is.  The goal is to make sure users know their

rights and freedoms under GPL, and to leave no reason that users might be

surprised the software is GPL'd. Thus

throughout the GPL, there are specific references to the importance of

notifying others down the distribution chain that they have rights under

GPL.

GPL disclaims all warranties that legally can be disclaimed (which is

discussed later in sections~\ref{GPLv2s11} and~\ref{GPLv2s12}).  Users

generally rarely expect their software comes with any warranties, since

typically all EULAs and other Free Software licenses disclaim warranties too.

However, since many local laws require ``consipicous'' warranty disclaimers,

GPLv2~\S1 explicitly mentions the importance of keeping warranty disclaimers

in tact upon redistribution.

Note finally that GPLv2~\S1 creates groundwork for the important defense of

commercial freedom.  GPLv2~\S1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim

copies, one may make money.  Re-distributors are fully permitted to charge

for the re-distribution of copies of Free Software. In addition, they may

provide the warranty protection that the GPL disclaims as an additional

service for a fee. (See Section~\ref{Business Models} for more discussion

on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\chapter{Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law}

\label{derivative-works}

As described in the \hyperref[copyleft-definition]{earlier general discussion

  of copyleft}, strong copyleft licenses such as the GPL seek to uphold

software freedom via the copyright system.  This principle often causes

theoretical or speculative dispute among lawyers, because ``the work'' ---

the primary unit of consideration under most copyright rules -- is not a unit

of computer programming. In order to determine whether a ``routine'' an

``object'', a ``function'', a ``library'' or any other unit of software is

part of one ``work'' when combined with other GPL'd code, we must ask a

question that copyright law will not directly answer in the same technical

terms.

Therefore, this chapter digresses from  discussion of GPL's exact text to

consider the matter of combined and/or derivative works --- a concept that we must

understand fully before considering GPLv2~\S\S2--3\@.  At least under USA

copyright law, The GPL, and Free

Software licensing in general, relies critically on the concept of

``derivative work'' since software that is ``independent,'' (i.e., not

``derivative'') of Free Software need not abide by the terms of the

applicable Free Software license. As much is required by \S~106 of the

Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. \S~106 (2002), and admitted by Free Software

licenses, such as the GPL, which (as we have seen) states in GPLv2~\S0 that ``a

`work based on the Program' means either the Program or any derivative

work under copyright law.'' It is being a derivative work of Free Software

that triggers the necessity to comply with the terms of the Free Software

license under which the original work is distributed. Therefore, one is

left to ask, just what is a ``derivative work''? The answer to that

question differs depending on which court is being asked.

The analysis in this chapter sets forth the differing definitions of

derivative work by the circuit courts. The broadest and most

established definition of derivative work for software is the

abstraction, filtration, and comparison test (``the AFC test'') as

created and developed by the Second Circuit. Some circuits, including

the Ninth Circuit and the First Circuit, have either adopted narrower

versions of the AFC test or have expressly rejected the AFC test in

favor of a narrower standard. Further, several other circuits have yet

to adopt any definition of derivative work for software.

As an introductory matter, it is important to note that literal copying of

a significant portion of source code is not always sufficient to establish

that a second work is a derivative work of an original

program. Conversely, a second work can be a derivative work of an original

program even though absolutely no copying of the literal source code of

the original program has been made. This is the case because copyright

protection does not always extend to all portions of a program's code,

while, at the same time, it can extend beyond the literal code of a

program to its non-literal aspects, such as its architecture, structure,

sequence, organization, operational modules, and computer-user interface.

\section{The Copyright Act}

The copyright act is of little, if any, help in determining the definition

of a derivative work of software. However, the applicable provisions do

provide some, albeit quite cursory, guidance. Section 101 of the Copyright

Act sets forth the following definitions:

\begin{quotation}

A ``computer program'' is a set of statements or instructions to be used

directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain

result.

A ``derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,

such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,

fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art

reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work

may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial

revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a

whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ``derivative work.''

\end{quotation}

These are the only provisions in the Copyright Act relevant to the

determination of what constitutes a derivative work of a computer

program. Another provision of the Copyright Act that is also relevant to

the definition of derivative work is \S~102(b), which reads as follows:

\begin{quotation}

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship

extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,

concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is

described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

\end{quotation}

Therefore, before a court can ask whether one program is a derivative work

of another program, it must be careful not to extend copyright protection

to any ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation,

concepts, principles, or discoveries contained in the original program. It

is the implementation of this requirement to ``strip out'' unprotectable

elements that serves as the most frequent issue over which courts

disagree.

\section{Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison Test}

As mentioned above, the AFC test for determining whether a computer

program is a derivative work of an earlier program was created by the

Second Circuit and has since been adopted in the Fifth, Tenth, and

Eleventh Circuits. Computer Associates Intl., Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982

F.2d 693 (2nd Cir. 1992); Engineering Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural

Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335 (5th Cir. 1994); Kepner-Tregoe,

Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 1994); Gates

Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indust., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993);

Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366 (10th Cir. 1997); Bateman

v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996); and, Mitek Holdings,

Inc. v. Arce Engineering Co., Inc., 89 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1996).

Under the AFC test, a court first abstracts from the original program its

constituent structural parts. Then, the court filters from those

structural parts all unprotectable portions, including incorporated ideas,

expression that is necessarily incidental to those ideas, and elements

that are taken from the public domain. Finally, the court compares any and

all remaining kernels of creative expression to the structure of the

second program to determine whether the software programs at issue are

substantially similar so as to warrant a finding that one is the

derivative work of the other.

Often, the courts that apply the AFC test will perform a quick initial

comparison between the entirety of the two programs at issue in order to

help determine whether one is a derivative work of the other. Such a

holistic comparison, although not a substitute for the full application of

the AFC test, sometimes reveals a pattern of copying that is not otherwise

obvious from the application of the AFC test when, as discussed below,

only certain components of the original program are compared to the second

program. If such a pattern is revealed by the quick initial comparison,

the court is more likely to conclude that the second work is indeed a

derivative of the original.

\subsection{Abstraction}

The first step courts perform under the AFC test is separation of the

work's ideas from its expression. In a process akin to reverse

engineering, the courts dissect the original program to isolate each level

of abstraction contained within it. Courts have stated that the

abstractions step is particularly well suited for computer programs

because it breaks down software in a way that mirrors the way it is

typically created. However, the courts have also indicated that this step

of the AFC test requires substantial guidance from experts, because it is

extremely fact and situation specific.

By way of example, one set of abstraction levels is, in descending order

of generality, as follows: the main purpose, system architecture, abstract

data types, algorithms and data structures, source code, and object

code. As this set of abstraction levels shows, during the abstraction step

of the AFC test, the literal elements of the computer program, namely the

source and object code, are defined as particular levels of

abstraction. Further, the source and object code elements of a program are

not the only elements capable of forming the basis for a finding that a

second work is a derivative of the program. In some cases, in order to

avoid a lengthy factual inquiry by the court, the owner of the copyright in

the original work will submit its own list of what it believes to be the

protected elements of the original program. In those situations, the court

will forgo performing its own abstraction, and proceed to the second step of

the AFC test.

\subsection{Filtration}

The most difficult and controversial part of the AFC test is the second

step, which entails the filtration of protectable expression contained in

the original program from any unprotectable elements nestled therein. In

determining which elements of a program are unprotectable, courts employ a

myriad of rules and procedures to sift from a program all the portions

that are not eligible for copyright protection.

First, as set forth in \S~102(b) of the Copyright Act, any and all ideas

embodied in the program are to be denied copyright protection. However,

implementing this rule is not as easy as it first appears. The courts

readily recognize the intrinsic difficulty in distinguishing between ideas

and expression and that, given the varying nature of computer programs,

doing so will be done on an ad hoc basis. The first step of the AFC test,

the abstraction, exists precisely to assist in this endeavor by helping

the court separate out all the individual elements of the program so that

they can be independently analyzed for their expressive nature.

A second rule applied by the courts in performing the filtration step of

the AFC test is the doctrine of merger, which denies copyright protection

to expression necessarily incidental to the idea being expressed. The

reasoning behind this doctrine is that when there is only one way to

express an idea, the idea and the expression merge, meaning that the

expression cannot receive copyright protection due to the bar on copyright

protection extending to ideas. In applying this doctrine, a court will ask

whether the program's use of particular code or structure is necessary for

the efficient implementation of a certain function or process. If so, then

that particular code or structure is not protected by copyright and, as a

result, it is filtered away from the remaining protectable expression.

A third rule applied by the courts in performing the filtration step of

the AFC test is the doctrine of scenes a faire, which denies copyright

protection to elements of a computer program that are dictated by external

factors. Such external factors can include:

\begin{itemize}

  \item The mechanical

specifications of the computer on which a particular program is intended

to operate

  \item Compatibility requirements of other programs with which a

program is designed to operate in conjunction

  \item Computer manufacturers'

design standards

  \item Demands of the industry being serviced, and widely accepted programming practices within the computer industry

\end{itemize}

Any code or structure of a program that was shaped predominantly in

response to these factors is filtered out and not protected by

copyright. Lastly, elements of a computer program are also to be filtered

out if they were taken from the public domain or fail to have sufficient

originality to merit copyright protection.

Portions of the source or object code of a computer program are rarely

filtered out as unprotectable elements. However, some distinct parts of

source and object code have been found unprotectable. For example,

constants, the invariable integers comprising part of formulas used to

perform calculations in a program, are unprotectable. Further, although

common errors found in two programs can provide strong evidence of

copying, they are not afforded any copyright protection over and above the

protection given to the expression containing them.

\subsection{Comparison}

The third and final step of the AFC test entails a comparison of the

original program's remaining protectable expression to a second

program. The issue will be whether any of the protected expression is

copied in the second program and, if so, what relative importance the

copied portion has with respect to the original program overall. The

ultimate inquiry is whether there is ``substantial'' similarity between

the protected elements of the original program and the potentially

derivative work. The courts admit that this process is primarily

qualitative rather than quantitative and is performed on a case-by-case

basis. In essence, the comparison is an ad hoc determination of whether

the protectable elements of the original program that are contained in the

second work are significant or important parts of the original program. If

so, then the second work is a derivative work of the first. If, however,

the amount of protectable elements copied in the second work are so small

as to be de minimis, then the second work is not a derivative work of the

original.

\section{Analytic Dissection Test}

The Ninth Circuit has adopted the analytic dissection test to determine

whether one program is a derivative work of another. Apple Computer,

Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994). The analytic

dissection test first considers whether there are substantial similarities

in both the ideas and expressions of the two works at issue. Once the

similar features are identified, analytic dissection is used to determine

whether any of those similar features are protected by copyright. This

step is the same as the filtration step in the AFC test. After identifying

the copyrightable similar features of the works, the court then decides

whether those features are entitled to ``broad'' or ``thin''

protection. ``Thin'' protection is given to non-copyrightable facts or

ideas that are combined in a way that affords copyright protection only

from their alignment and presentation, while ``broad'' protection is given

to copyrightable expression itself. Depending on the degree of protection

afforded, the court then sets the appropriate standard for a subjective

comparison of the works to determine whether, as a whole, they are

sufficiently similar to support a finding that one is a derivative work of

the other. ``Thin'' protection requires the second work be virtually

identical in order to be held a derivative work of an original, while

``broad'' protection requires only a ``substantial similarity.''

\section{No Protection for ``Methods of Operation''}

The First Circuit has taken the position that the AFC test is inapplicable

when the works in question relate to unprotectable elements set forth in

\S~102(b).  Their approach results in a much narrower definition

of derivative work for software in comparison to other circuits. Specifically,

the

First Circuit holds that ``method of operation,'' as used in \S~102(b) of

the Copyright Act, refers to the means by which users operate

computers. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int'l., Inc., 49 F.3d 807

(1st Cir. 1995).  In Lotus, the court held that a menu command

hierarchy for a computer program was uncopyrightable because it did not

merely explain and present the program's functional capabilities to the

user, but also served as a method by which the program was operated and

controlled. As a result, under the First Circuit's test, literal copying

of a menu command hierarchy, or any other ``method of operation,'' cannot

form the basis for a determination that one work is a derivative of

another.  As a result, courts in the First Circuit that apply the AFC test

do so only after applying a broad interpretation of \S~102(b) to filter out

unprotected elements. E.g., Real View, LLC v. 20-20 Technologies, Inc.,

683 F. Supp.2d 147, 154 (D. Mass. 2010).

\section{No Test Yet Adopted}

Several circuits, most notably the Fourth and Seventh, have yet to

declare their definition of derivative work and whether or not the

AFC, Analytic Dissection, or some other test best fits their

interpretation of copyright law. Therefore, uncertainty exists with

respect to determining the extent to which a software program is a

derivative work of another in those circuits. However, one may presume

that they would give deference to the AFC test since it is by far the

majority rule among those circuits that have a standard for defining

a software derivative work.

\section{Cases Applying Software Derivative Work Analysis}

In the preeminent case regarding the definition of a derivative work for

software, Computer Associates v. Altai, the plaintiff alleged that its

program, Adapter, which was used to handle the differences in operating

system calls and services, was infringed by the defendant's competitive

program, Oscar. About 30\% of Oscar was literally the same code as

that in Adapter. After the suit began, the defendant rewrote those

portions of Oscar that contained Adapter code in order to produce a new

version of Oscar that was functionally competitive with Adapter, without

having any literal copies of its code. Feeling slighted still, the

plaintiff alleged that even the second version of Oscar, despite having no

literally copied code, also infringed its copyrights. In addressing that

question, the Second Circuit promulgated the AFC test.

In abstracting the various levels of the program, the court noted a

similarity between the two programs' parameter lists and macros. However,

following the filtration step of the AFC test, only a handful of the lists

and macros were protectable under copyright law because they were either

in the public domain or required by functional demands on the

program. With respect to the handful of parameter lists and macros that

did qualify for copyright protection, after performing the comparison step

of the AFC test, it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that

they did not warrant a finding of infringement given their relatively minor

contribution to the program as a whole. Likewise, the similarity between

the organizational charts of the two programs was not substantial enough

to support a finding of infringement because they were too simple and

obvious to contain any original expression.

In the case of Oracle America v. Google, 872 F. Supp.2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2012),

the Northern District of California District Court examined the question of

whether the application program interfaces (APIs) associated with the Java

programming language are entitled to copyright protection.  While the

court expressly declined to rule whether all APIs are free to use without

license (872 F. Supp.2d 974 at 1002), the court held that the command

structure and taxonomy of the APIs were not protectable under copyright law.

Specifically, the court characterized the command structure and taxonomy as

both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the

First Circuit's analysis in Lotus) and a ``functional requirement for

compatibility'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and

Sony Computer Ent. v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) as analogies),

and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S~102(b).

Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few other cases involving a highly

detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve

clearer basis for decision, including frequent bad faith on the part of

the defendant or over-aggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.

\section{How Much Do Derivative Works Matter?}

It is certainly true that GPL intends for any work that is determined a

``derivative work'' under copyright law must be licensed as a whole under

GPL\@, as will be discussed in the following chapter.  However, as we finish

up our discussion derivative works, we must note that preparation of a

derivative work in edge cases like the above is by far not the only way to

create a new work covered by GPL\@.

In fact, while questions on the limits of derivative work preparation are

perhaps the most exciting area of legal issues to consider, the more mundane

ways to create a new work covered by GPL are much more common.  For example,

copyright statutes generally require permission from the copyright holder to

grant explicit permission to modify a work in any manner.  As discussed in the

next chapter, the GPL {\em does} grant such permission, but requires the modified

work must also be licensed under the terms of the GPL (and only GPL:

see\S~\label{GPLv2s6} in this tutorial).  Determining whether software was

modified is a substantially easier analysis than the discussions and considerations

in this chapter on other derivative works.

The question of any derivative works, when and how they are made, is undoubtedly

an essential discussion in the interpretation and consideration of copyleft.

That is why this chapter was included in this tutorial.  However, as we

return from this digression and resume discussion of the detailed text of the

GPLv2, we must gain a sense of perspective: most GPL questions center around

questions of modification and distribution, not preparation of derivative

works.  Derivative work preparation is ultimately a small subset of the types

of modified versions of the software a developer might create, thus, while an

excessive focus on derivative works indulges us in the more exciting areas of

copyleft, we must keep a sense of perspective regarding their relative

importance.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\chapter{Modified Source and Binary Distribution}

\label{source-and-binary}

In this chapter, we discuss the two core sections that define the rights

and obligations for those who modify, improve, and/or redistribute GPL'd

software. These sections, GPLv2~\S\S2--3, define the central core rights and

requirements of GPLv2\@.

\section{GPLv2~\S2: Share and Share Alike}

\label{GPLv2s2}

For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software

freedom upon redistribution.  GPLv2~\S2 is the only place in GPLv2

that governs the modification controls of copyright law.  If users

distribute modified versions a GPLv2'd program, they must follow the terms of GPLv2~\S2 in making

those changes.  Thus, this sections ensures that the body of GPL'd software, as it

continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.

To achieve that goal, GPLv2~\S2 first sets forth that the rights of

redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim

copying, as presented in GPLv2~\S1.  Therefore, the details of charging money,

keeping copyright notices intact, and other GPLv2~\S1 provisions are intact

here as well.  However, there are three additional requirements.

\subsection{The Simpler Parts of GPLv2~\S2}

% FIXME: GPLv2~\S2(a) isn't discussed heavily here and more should be

% discussed about it.  There have been developer questions.  One idea I had

% was to write up:

%        http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/03/11/linux-red-hat-gpl.html

% as a compliance case study specific to GPLv2 Section 2(a)

% Another point to discuss here -- or maybe it goes better in the compliance

% case study ? -- is to explain that git logs ARE adequate but possibly

% overkill.

The first (GPLv2~\S2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent

notices'' explaining what changes were made and the date of such

changes. This section does not prescribe some specific way of

marking changes nor does it control the process of how changes are made.

Primarily, GPLv2~\S2(a) seeks to ensure that those receiving modified

versions know the history of changes to the software.  For some users,

it is important to know that they are using the standard version of

program, because while there are many advantages to using a fork,

there are a few disadvantages.  Users should be informed about the

historical context of the software version they use, so that they can

make proper support choices.  Finally, GPLv2~\S2(a) serves an academic

purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic

approach to understand the software.

GPLv2~\S2(c), a relatively simple section, requires that any program which

(before modification) ``normally reads commands interactively when run'' and

displays or prints legal information also display all copyright notices,

warranty disclaimer, modification indications and a pointer to the license,

even in modified versions.  The requirement is relatively simple, and relates

to an important policy goal of copyleft: downstream users should be informed

of their rights.  Its implications and details are straightforward and

simple.

\subsection{GPLv2~\S2(b)}

Meanwhile, GPLv2~\S2(b) requires careful and extensive study.  Its four short lines embody

the some of the essential legal details of ``share and share alike''.  These 46 words are

considered by some to be the most worthy of careful scrutiny because they

can be a source of great confusion when not properly understood.

In considering GPLv2~\S2(b), first note the qualifier: it \textit{only} applies to

derivative, combined and/or modified works that ``you distribute or publish''.  Despite years of

education efforts on this matter, many still believe that modifiers

of GPL'd software \textit{must} publish or otherwise

share their changes.  On the contrary, GPLv2~\S2(b) {\bf does not apply if} the

changes are never distributed.  Indeed, the freedom to make private,

personal, unshared changes to software for personal use only should be

protected and defended.\footnote{Most Free Software enthusiasts believe there is a {\bf

    moral} obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful,

  and they often encourage companies and individuals to do so.  However, there

  is a clear distinction between what one {\bf ought} to do and what one

  {\bf must} do.}

Next, we again encounter the same matter that appears in GPLv2~\S0, in the

following text:

\begin{quote}

``...that in whole or part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof.''

\end{quote}

Again, the GPL relies here on copyright law.

If, under copyright law, the modified version ``contains or is

derived from'' the GPL'd software, then the requirements of GPLv2~\S2(b)

apply.  The GPL invokes its control as a copyright license over the

modification of the work in combination with its control over distribution

of the work.

The final clause of GPLv2~\S2(b) describes what the licensee must do if she

distributes or publishes a modified version of the work --- namely, the following:

\begin{quote}

[The work must] be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties

under the terms of this License.

\end{quote}

That is probably the most tightly-packed phrase in all of the GPL\@.

Consider each subpart carefully.

The work ``as a whole'' is what is to be licensed. This is an important

point that GPLv2~\S2 spends an entire paragraph explaining; thus this phrase is

worthy of a lengthy discussion here.  As a programmer modifies a software

program, she generates new copyrighted material --- fixing expressions of

ideas into the tangible medium of electronic file storage.  That

programmer is indeed the copyright holder of those new changes.  However,

those changes are part and parcel to the original work distributed to

the programmer under GPL\@. Thus, the license of the original work

affects the license of the new whole combined and/or derivative work.

% {\cal I}

\newcommand{\gplusi}{$\mathcal{G\!\!+\!\!I}$}

\newcommand{\worki}{$\mathcal{I}$}

\newcommand{\workg}{$\mathcal{G}$}

\label{separate-and-independent}

It is certainly possible to take an existing independent work (called

\worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'd program (called \workg{}).  The

license of \worki{}, when it is distributed as a separate and independent

work, remains the prerogative of the copyright holder of \worki{}.

However, when \worki{} is combined with \workg{}, it produces a new work

that is the combination of the two (called \gplusi{}). The copyright of

this combined work, \gplusi{}, is held by the original copyright

holder of each of the two works.

In this case, GPLv2~\S2 lays out the terms by which \gplusi{} may be

distributed and copied.  By default, under copyright law, the copyright

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{}. The  GPL's pre-granted

permission to create and distribute combined and/or derivative works, provided the terms

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 condition is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.

The GPL  recognizes what is outside its scope.  When a programmer's work is

``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could be

combined, then the obligations of copyleft do not extend to the work

separately distributed.  Thus, Far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond the

scope of copyright, the licenses explicitly recognize.

Thus, GPL recognizes what is outside its scope.  When a programmer's work is

``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could

be combined, then copyleft obligations do not extend to the independent work

separately distributed.  Thus, far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond

the scope of copyright, GPL explicitly limits the scope of copyleft to the

scope of copyright.

GPL does not, however (as is sometimes suggested) distinguish ``dynamic''

from ``static'' linking of program code.  It is occasionally suggested that a

subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL'd code is, by virtue of the linking

alone, inherently outside the scope of copyleft on the main work.  This is a

misunderstanding.  When two software components are joined together to make

one work (whether a main and some library subroutines, two objects with their

respective methods, or a program and a ``plugin'') the combination infringes

the copyright on the components if the combination required copyright

permission from the component copyright holders, as such permission was

either not available or was available on terms that were not observed.

In other words, when combining other software with GPL'd components, the only

available permission is GPL\@.  The combiner must observe and respect the GPL

observed on the combination as a whole.  It matters not if that combination

is made with a linker before distribution of the executable, is made by the

operating system in order to share libraries for execution efficiency at

runtime, or results from runtime references in the language at runtime (as in

Java programs).

% FIXME-SOON:

%   A commonly asked question is whether or not separated distribution (i.e.,

%   dynamic loading of a module that is expected to be present on the

%   downstream sytem) triggers the copyleft requirement.  The text above

%   hints at that issue, with reference to Java runtime.  However, here would

%   likely be the natural place to discuss that issue in more depth.  I have

%   never actually studied this specific question in a GPLv2 vs. GPLv3

%   analysis, and as such I'd want to do that first.  Furthermore, the FSF

%   has not publicly opined on this question to my knowledge, so I'd want to

%   see possible update to

%   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic to mention

%   this issue before opining about it in the Guide.

%   I'm not aware, BTW, of any dissenting opinions or disagreements among

%   copyleft advocates on this point.  I think it's just a question that is

%   rarely opined on but often asked, so it's fitting for this Guide to cover

%   it, and for addition on this point in the FAQ.

\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

contradiction in GPL'' because (in their confused view) that clause of GPLv2~\S2 says that re-distributors cannot

charge for modified versions of GPL'd software, but GPLv2~\S1 says that

they can.  Avoid this confusion: the ``at no charge'' \textbf{does not} prohibit re-distributors from

charging when performing the acts governed by copyright

law,\footnote{Recall that you could by default charge for any acts not

governed by copyright law, because the license controls are confined

by copyright.} but rather that they cannot charge a fee for the

\emph{license itself}.  In other words, redistributors of (modified

and unmodified) GPL'd works may charge any amount they choose for

performing the modifications on contract or the act of transferring

the copy to the customer, but they may not charge a separate licensing

fee for the software.

GPLv2~\S2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed \ldots to all

third parties.''  This too yields some confusion, and feeds the

misconception mentioned earlier --- that all modified versions must be made

available to the public at large.  However, the text here does not say

that.  Instead, it says that the licensing under terms of the GPL must

extend to anyone who might, through the distribution chain, receive a copy

of the software.  Distribution to all third parties is not mandated here,

but GPLv2~\S2(b) does require re-distributors to license the whole work in

a way that extends to all third parties who may ultimately receive a

copy of the software.

In summary, GPLv2\ 2(b) says what terms under which the third parties must

receive this no-charge license.  Namely, they receive it ``under the terms

of this License'', the GPLv2.  When an entity \emph{chooses} to redistribute

a work based on GPL'd software, the license of that whole

work must be GPL and only GPL\@.  In this manner, GPLv2~\S2(b) dovetails nicely

with GPLv2~\S6 (as discussed in Section~\ref{GPLv2s6} of this tutorial).

\medskip

The final paragraph of GPLv2~\S2 is worth special mention.  It is possible and

quite common to aggregate various software programs together on one

distribution medium.  Computer manufacturers do this when they ship a

pre-installed hard drive, and GNU/Linux distribution vendors do this to

give a one-stop CD or URL for a complete operating system with necessary

applications.  The GPL very clearly permits such ``mere aggregation'' with

programs under any license.  Despite what you hear from its critics, the

GPL is nothing like a virus, not only because the GPL is good for you and

a virus is bad for you, but also because simple contact with a GPL'd

code-base does not impact the license of other programs.  A programmer must

expend actual effort  to cause a work to fall under the terms

of the GPL.  Redistributors are always welcome to simply ship GPL'd

software alongside proprietary software or other unrelated Free Software,

as long as the terms of GPL are adhered to for those packages that are

truly GPL'd.

%FIXME: need discussion of GPLv2's system library exception somewhere in here.

\subsection{Right to Private Modification}

\label{gplv2-private-modification}

The issue of private modifications of GPLv2'd works deserves special

attention.  While these rights are clearly explicit in GPLv3~\S2\P2 (see

\S~\ref{GPLv3S2} of this tutorial for details), the permission to create

private modifications is mostly implicit in GPLv2.  Most notably, the

requirements of GPLv2~\S2 (and GPLv2~\S3, which will be discussed next) are

centered around two different copyright controls: both modification

\emph{and} distribution.  As such, GPLv2~\S2's requirements need only be met

when a modified version is distributed; one need not follow them for modified

versions that are not distributed.\footnote{As a matter of best practice, it's

  useful to assume that all software may eventually be distributed later,

  even if there no plans for distribution at this time.  Too often, GPL

  violations occur because of a late distribution decision of software that

  was otherwise never intended for distribution.}

However, the careful reader of GPLv2 will notice that, unlike GPLv3, no other

clauses of the license actually give explicit permission to make private

modifications.  Since modification of software is a control governed by

copyright, a modifier needs permission from the copyright holder to engage in

that activity.

In practice, however, traditional GPLv2 interpretation has always assumed

that blanket permission to create non-distributed modified versions was

available, and the

\href{http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic}{FSF

  has long opined that distribution of modified versions is never mandatory}.

This issue is one of many where GPLv3 clarifies in explicit text the implicit

policy and intent that was solidified via long-standing interpretation of

GPLv2.

\section{GPLv2~\S3: Producing Binaries}

\label{GPLv2s3}

Software is a strange beast when compared to other copyrightable works.

It is currently impossible to make a film or a book that can be truly

obscured.  Ultimately, the full text of a novel, even one written by

William Faulkner, must be presented to the reader as words in some

human-readable language so that they can enjoy the work.  A film, even one

directed by David Lynch, must be perceptible by human eyes and ears to

have any value.

Software is not so.  While the source code --- the human-readable

representation of software --- is of keen interest to programmers, users and

programmers alike cannot make the proper use of software in that

human-readable form.  Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer

can understand --- must be predicable and attainable for the software to

be fully useful.  Without the binaries, be they in object or executable

form, the software serves only the didactic purposes of computer science.

Under copyright law, binary representations of the software are simply

modified versions (and/or derivative works) of the source code.  Applying a systematic process (i.e.,

``compilation''\footnote{``Compilation'' in this context refers to the

  automated computing process of converting source code into binaries.  It

  has absolutely nothing to do with the term ``compilation'' in copyright statues.}) to a work of source code yields binary code. The binary

code is now a new work of expression fixed in the tangible medium of

electronic file storage.

Therefore, for GPL'd software to be useful, the GPL, since it governs the

rules for creation of modified works, must grant permission for the

generation of binaries.  Furthermore, notwithstanding the relative

popularity of source-based GNU/Linux distributions like Gentoo, users find

it extremely convenient to receive distribution of binary software.  Such

distribution is the redistribution of modified works of the software's

source code.  GPLv2~\S3 addresses the matter of creation and distribution of

binary versions.

Under GPLv2~\S3, binary versions may be created and distributed under the

terms of GPLv2~\S1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies

here.  However, GPLv2~\S3 must go a bit further.  Access to the software's

source code is an incontestable prerequisite for the exercise of the

fundamental freedoms to modify and improve the software.  Making even

the most trivial changes to a software program at the binary level is

effectively impossible.  GPLv2~\S3 must ensure that the binaries are never

distributed without the source code, so that these freedoms are passed

through the distribution chain.

GPLv2~\S3 permits distribution of binaries, and then offers three options for

distribution of source code along with binaries. The most common and the

least complicated is the option given under GPLv2~\S3(a).

\label{GPLv2s3a}

GPLv2~\S3(a) offers the option to directly accompany the source code alongside

the distribution of the binaries.  This is by far the most convenient

option for most distributors, because it means that the source-code

provision obligations are fully completed at the time of binary

distribution (more on that later).

\subsection{Complete, Corresponding Source (CCS)}

Under GPLv2~\S3(a), the source code provided must be the ``corresponding source

code.''  Here ``corresponding'' primarily means that the source code

provided must be that code used to produce the binaries being distributed.

That source code must also be ``complete''.   GPLv2~\S3's penultimate paragraph

explains in detail what is meant by ``complete''.  In essence, it is all

the material that a programmer of average skill would need to actually use

the source code to produce the binaries she has received.  Complete source

is required so that, if the licensee chooses, she should be able to

exercise her freedoms to modify and redistribute changes.  Without the

complete source, it would not be possible to make changes that were

actually directly derived from the version received.

Based on the appearance of those two words, GPL theorists will often refer to

the source code required under the previsions of this section as ``Complete,

Corresponding Source'', sometimes abbreviated as CCS\@.  CCS is not a formal,

defined term in GPLv2, but rather, GPL theorists coined the acronym CCS to

embody not just the concepts of ``complete'' and ``corresponding'' as found

in GPLv2, but the entirety of GPLv2's requirements for source code

provisioning.  In other words, GPL theorists might say: ``the company

provided some source, but it wasn't CCS'', which would mean the source code

failed in some ways to meet some term of GPLv2.

\label{GPLv2s3-build-scripts}

Indeed, CCS needs completely include not just that source which is directly

translated by the compiler into object code, but other materials necessary to

convert the source into equivalent binaries.  Specifically, GPLv2~\S3

requires that the source code include ``meta-material'' like scripts,

interface definitions, and other material that is used to ``control

compilation and installation'' of the binaries.  In this manner, those

further down the distribution chain are assured that they have the unabated

freedom to build their own modified works from the sources provided.

This requirement is not merely of theoretical value.  If you pay a high price

for a copy of GPL'd binaries (which comes with CCS, of course), you have the

freedom to redistribute that work at any fee you choose, or not at all.

Sometimes, companies attempt a GPL-violating cozenage whereby they produce

very specialized binaries (perhaps for an obscure architecture).  They then

give source code that does correspond, but withhold the ``incantations'' and

build plans they used to make that source compile into the specialized

binaries.  Such distributions violate GPL, since the downstream users cannot

effectively ``control compilation and installation'' of the binaries.

\subsection{Additional Source Provision Options}

Software distribution comes in many

forms.  Embedded manufacturers, for example, have the freedom to put

GPL'd software into mobile devices with very tight memory and space

constraints.  In such cases, putting the source right alongside the

binaries on the machine itself might not be an option.  While it is

recommended that this be the default way that people comply with GPL, the

GPL does provide options when such distribution is unfeasible.

\label{GPLv2s3-medium-customarily}

GPLv2~\S3, therefore, allows source code to be provided on any physical

``medium customarily used for software interchange.''  By design, this

phrase covers a broad spectrum --- the phrase seeks to pre-adapt to

changes in  technology.  When GPLv2 was first published in June

1991, distribution on magnetic tape was still common, and CD was

relatively new.  By 2002, CD was the default.  By 2007, DVD's were the

default.  Now, it's common to give software on USB drives and SD cards.  This

language in the license must adapt with changing technology.

Meanwhile, the binding created by the word ``customarily'' is key.  Many

incorrectly believe that distributing binary on CD and source on the

Internet is acceptable.  In the corporate world in industrialized countries, it is indeed customary to

simply download a CDs' worth of data quickly.  However, even today in the USA, many computer users are not connected to the Internet, and most people connected

to the Internet still have limited download speeds.  Downloading

CDs full of data is not customary for them in the least.  In some cities

in Africa, computers are becoming more common, but Internet connectivity

is still available only at a few centralized locations.  Thus, the

``customs'' here are normalized for a worldwide userbase.  Simply

providing source on the Internet --- while it is a kind, friendly and

useful thing to do --- is not usually sufficient.

Note, however, a major exception to this rule, given by the last paragraph

of GPLv2~\S3. \emph{If} distribution of the binary files is made only on the

Internet (i.e., ``from a designated place''), \emph{then} simply providing

the source code right alongside the binaries in the same place is

sufficient to comply with GPLv2~\S3.

\medskip

As is shown above, under GPLv2~\S3(a), embedded manufacturers can put the

binaries on the device and ship the source code along on a CD\@.  However,

sometimes this turns out to be too costly.  Including a CD with every

device could prove too costly, and may practically (although not legally)

prohibit using GPL'd software. For this situation and others like it, GPLv2\S~3(b) is available.

\label{GPLv2s3b}

GPLv2~\S3(b) allows a distributor of binaries to instead provide a written

offer for source code alongside those binaries.  This is useful in two

specific ways.  First, it may turn out that most users do not request the

source, and thus the cost of producing the CDs is saved --- a financial

and environmental windfall.  In addition, along with a GPLv2~\S3(b) compliant

offer for source, a binary distributor might choose to \emph{also} give a