Changeset - 22b7012fcf87
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
vbejdo - 4 years ago 2020-06-15 20:03:36
bejdo@uw.edu
Continued editing for clarity until Pt. 1, Ch. 3.
1 file changed with 20 insertions and 20 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -774,12 +774,12 @@ 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
 
The GNU's Not Unix (``GNU'') project was founded in 1984 by Richard M.~Stallman 
 
(``RMS'') 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
 
contrary to the goals of the GNU Project.  RMS invented ``copyleft'' as an
 
answer to that problem, and began using various copyleft licenses for 
 
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}}.
...
 
@@ -796,8 +796,8 @@ early GNU Project programs.\footnote{RMS writes more fully about this topic in
 
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:
 
published.  It is interesting to note that even this earliest copyleft license
 
contains a version of the following well-known GPL copyleft clause:
 

	
 
\begin{quotation}
 
You may modify your copy or copies of GNU Emacs \ldots provided that you also
...
 
@@ -809,8 +809,8 @@ to those contained in this License Agreement.
 

	
 
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
 
permission to modify the work to add a conditional requirement; namely, that
 
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.
 

	
...
 
@@ -898,12 +898,12 @@ 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.
 
2006, FSF began drafting work for GPLv3 in earnest.
 

	
 
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
 
experience with version 2.  Given the scale of this revision, it seemed proper to
 
approach the work through public discussion in a transparent and accessible
 
manner.
 

	
...
 
@@ -924,12 +924,12 @@ 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
 
choices that can be made by licensors 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:
 
Each licensor may choose three different methods of licensing, as follows:
 

	
 
\begin{itemize}
 

	
...
 
@@ -959,7 +959,7 @@ 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
 
copyleft differ.  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''.
...
 
@@ -974,17 +974,17 @@ 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
 
holders using those licenses seem 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
 
However, note that the FSF gives copyright holders the control 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
 
to choose 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
 
  mandate} that a choice to use any GPL requires a copyright holder to cede
 
their 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}.
...
 
@@ -1009,8 +1009,8 @@ 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,
 
contrast to GPLv2.  Therefore, a strong understanding of GPLv2 helps in
 
understanding most of the third-party commentary found regarding GPLv3.  Thus,
 
the following chapter begins a deep discussion of GPLv2.
 

	
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)