Copyleft/guide Changeset - 3d7b977f3d88

...

@@ -1042,7 +1042,7 @@ 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

material.  The 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

...

@@ -1050,13 +1050,13 @@ 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

quote portions of a work in a larger work so as to criticize it 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

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

nor determined by a court to be covered, but are held in 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

...

@@ -1082,8 +1082,8 @@ 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

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

 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.

...

@@ -1091,7 +1091,7 @@ 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

Meanwhile, lawyers will likely base 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.

...

@@ -1114,26 +1114,27 @@ 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

redistribution, which is why they are mentioned by name. The 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

rights and freedoms under the 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.

the GPL.

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

The 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,

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

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

in tact upon redistribution.

intact 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

copies, one may make money from their distribution.

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