Copyleft/guide Changeset - 4623ebe2ec1c

Changeset - 4623ebe2ec1c

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 1 0

Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-03-20 21:24:31
bkuhn@ebb.org

Reword this paragraph that was just moved here.

1 file changed with 8 insertions and 8 deletions:

gpl-lgpl.tex

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... @@
 freedoms.  Thus, GPLv3 permits users to convey covered works to contractors
 operating exclusively on the users' behalf, under the users' direction and
 control, and to require the contractors to keep the users' copyrighted
 changes confidential, but \textit{only if} the contractor is limited to acting
 on the users' behalf (just as the users' employees would have to act).
 The strict conditions in this ``contractors provision'' are needed so that it
 cannot be twisted to fit other activities, such as making a program available
 to downstream users or customers.  By making the limits on this provision
 very narrow, GPLv3 ensures that, in all other cases, contractors gets the
 full freedoms of the GPL that they deserve.
 Large enterprise users of free software often contract with non-employee
 developers, often working offsite, to make modifications intended for
 the user's private or internal use, and often arrange with other
 companies to operate their data centers.  Whether GPLv2 permits these
 activities is not clear and may depend on variations in copyright law.
 The practices seem basically harmless, so we have decided to make it
 clear they are permitted.
 The FSF was specifically asked to add this ``contractors provisions'' by
 large enterprise users of Free Software, who often contract with non-employee
 developers, working offsite, to make modifications intended for the user's
 private or internal use, and often arrange with other companies to operate
 their data centers.  Whether GPLv2 permits these activities is not clear and
 may depend on variations in copyright law in different jurisdictions.  The
 practices seem basically harmless, so FSF decided to make it clear they are
 permitted.
 GPLv3~\S2's final paragraph includes an explicit prohibition of sublicensing.
 This provision ensures that GPL enforcement is always by the copyright
 holder.  Usually, sublicensing is regarded as a practical convenience or
 necessity for the licensee, to avoid having to negotiate a license with each
 licensor in a chain of distribution.  The GPL solves this problem in another
 way --- through its automatic licensing provision found in GPLv3\~S10 (which
 is discussed in more detail in \S\~ref{GPLv3s10} of this tutorial).
 \section{GPLv3's views on DRM and Device Lock-Down}
 \label{GPLv3-drm}

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)