%FIXME: rewrite, FSF third person,e tc.

Even within a single country and language, the term distribution may be

ambiguous; as a legal term of art, distribution varies significantly in

meaning among those countries that recognize it.  For example, we have been

told that in at least one country distribution may not include network

transfers of software but may include interdepartmental transfers of physical

copies within an organization.  In many countries the term ``making available

to the public'' or ``communicating to the public'' is the closest counterpart

to the generalized notion of distribution that exists under USA law.

Therefore, the GPL defines the term ``propagate'' by reference to activities

that require permission under ``applicable copyright law'', but excludes

execution and private modification from the definition.  GPLv3's definition

also gives examples of activities that may be included within ``propagation''

but it also makes clear that, under the copyright laws of a given country,

``propagation'' may include other activities as well.

% FIXME: probably merge this in

Propagation is defined by behavior, and not by categories drawn from some

particular national copyright statute.  We believe that such factually-based

terminology has the added advantage of being easily understood and applied by

  ``Complete Corresponding Source''.  Meanwhile, use of the acronym ``CCS''

  (sometimes, ``C\&CS'') was so widespread among GPL enforcers that its use

  continues even though GPLv3-focused experts tend to say just the defined

  term of ``Corresponding Source''.}, or, as GPLv3 officially calls it,

``Corresponding Source'', is given in GPLv3~\S1\P4.  This definition is as

broad as necessary to protect users' exercise of their rights under the

GPL\@.  We follow the definition with particular examples to remove any doubt

that they are to be considered Complete Corresponding Source Code.  We wish to

make completely clear that a licensee cannot avoid complying with the

requirements of the GPL by dynamically linking an add-on component to the

original version of a program.

Though the definition of Complete Corresponding Source Code in the

second paragraph of section 1 is expansive, it is not sufficient to

protect users' freedoms in many circumstances.  For example, a GPL'd

program, or a modified version of such a program, might need to be

signed with a key or authorized with a code in order for it to run on

a particular machine and function properly. Similarly, a program that

produces digitally-restricted files might require a decryption code in

order to read the output.  

% FIXME: Standard Interface

% FIXME: System Libraries: it's in a different place and changed in later drafts

The final paragraph of section 1 revises the exception to the source code

distribution requirement in GPLv2 that we have sometimes called the system

library exception. This exception has been read to prohibit certain

distribution arrangements that we consider reasonable and have not sought to

prevent, such as distribution of gcc linked with a non-free C library that is

included as part of a larger non-free system. This is not to say that such

non-free libraries are legitimate; rather, preventing free software from

linking with these libraries would hurt free software more than it would hurt

them.

% FIXME: propagate and convey

Section 2 distinguishes between activities of a licensee that are permitted

without limitation and activities that trigger additional requirements. The

second paragraph of section 2 guarantees the basic freedoms of privately

modifying and running the program. However, the right to privately modify and

run the program is terminated if the licensee brings a patent infringement

lawsuit against anyone for activities relating to a work based on the

program.

% FIXME: new section here, just to talk DRM before the other section.

Technological measures to defeat users' rights --- often described by such

Orwellian phrases as ``digital rights management,'' which actually means

limitation or outright destruction of users' legal rights, or ``trusted

computing,'' which actually means selling people computers they cannot trust

--- are alike in one basic respect.  They all employ technical means to turn

the system of copyright law, where the powers of the copyright holder are

limited exceptions to general freedom, into a prison, where everything not

specifically permitted is utterly forbidden, and indeed, if the full extent

of their ambition is realized, would be technically impossible.  This system

of ``para-copyright'' has been created since the adoption of GPLv2, through

\section{GPLv3~\S4: Verbatim Copying}

% FIXME: there appear to be minor changes here in later drafts, fix that.

Section 4 has been revised from its corresponding section in GPLv2 in light

of the new section 7 on license compatibility. A distributor of verbatim

copies of the program's source code must obey any existing additional terms

that apply to parts of the program. In addition, the distributor is required

to keep intact all license notices, including notices of such additional

terms.

\section{GPLv3~\S5: Modified Source}

% FIXME: 5(a) is slightly different in final version

Section 5 contains a number of changes relative to the corresponding section

in GPLv2. Subsection 5a slightly relaxes the requirements regarding notice of

changes to the program. In particular, the modified files themselves need no

longer be marked. This reduces administrative burdens for developers of

modified versions of GPL'd software.

Under subsection 5a, as in the corresponding provision of GPLv2, the notices

must state ``the date of any change,'' which we interpret to mean the date of

Complete Corresponding Source Code includes any such encryption,

authorization, and decryption codes. By requiring the inclusion of this

information whenever the GPL requires distribution of Complete Corresponding

Source Code, we thwart efforts to obstruct the goals of the GPL, and we

ensure that users will remain in control over their own machines. We

recognize an exception where use of the program normally implies that the

user already has the codes. For example, in secure systems a computer owner

might possess any keys needed to run a program, while the distributor of the

program might not have the keys.

% FIXME: installation information

% FIXME: this came from Section 1 but is now mostly in Section 6

In section 1, we have tried to limit as precisely as possible the situation

in which an encryption or signing key is part of the Corresponding Source

Code of a GPL'd work.  Where someone is provided a GPL'd work, he must

receive the whole of the power to use and modify the work that was available

to preceding licensors whose permissions he automatically receives.  If a key

would be necessary to install a fully functional version of the GPL'd work

from source code, the user who receives the binary must receive the key along

with the source.  The requirement of full functionality, which we have

illustrated with examples, is no more optional than it would be if GPL'd

software were redistributed with an additional license condition, rather than

a technical limitation, on the uses to which modified versions could be

put.\footnote{There is a clear distinction between this situation and the

  situation of authenticated modules or plug-ins distributed as part of a

  multi-component software system, so that instances of the software can

  verify for the user the integrity of the collection.  So long as the

  decision about whether to run a modified version is the user's decision,

  not controlled by a preceding licensor or a third party, the vendor's

  authentication key would also not qualify as part of the Corresponding

  Source under the language we have adopted for Draft 2.}

\section{Understanding License Compatibility}

\label{license-compatibility}

% FIXME: more about license compatibility here.

A challenge that faced the Free Software community heavily through out the

early 2000s was the proliferation of incompatible Free Software licenses.  Of

course, we cannot make the GPL compatible with all such licenses. GPLv3

contains provisions that are designed to reduce license incompatibility by

making it easier for developers to combine code carrying non-GPL terms with

GPL'd code.

agree not exercise the right of termination; the copyright holder may choose

to grant or refuse this request.

% FIXME: needs to be updated to describe more complex termination

If a licensee who is in violation of GPLv3 acts to correct the violation and

enter into compliance, and the licensee receives no notice of the past

violation within 60 days, then the licensee need not worry about termination

of rights under the license.

\section{GPLv3~\S9: Acceptance}

\section{GPLv3~\S10: Explicit Downstream License}

\section{GPLv3~\S11: Explicit Patent Licensing}

\label{GPLv3s11}

% FIXME: just brought in words here, needs rewriting.

is rooted in the basic principles of the GPL.

Our license has always stated that distributors may not impose further

restrictions on users' exercise of GPL rights.  To make the suggested

distinction between contribution and distribution is to allow a

distributor to demand patent royalties from a direct or indirect

recipient, based on claims embodied in the distributed code. This

undeniably burdens users with an additional legal restriction on their

rights, in violation of the license.

%FIXME: possible useful text, but maybe not.

real danger that a choice of law clause will specify a jurisdiction

that is hostile to free software principles.

% FIXME: reword into tutorial, \ref to section 7.

Our revised version of section 7 makes explicit our view that the

inclusion of a choice of law clause by a licensee is the imposition of

an additional requirement in violation of the GPL.  Moreover, if a

program author or copyright holder purports to supplement the GPL with

a choice of law clause, section 7 now permits any licensee to remove

that clause.

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

\chapter{The Lesser GPL}

As we have seen in our consideration of the GPL, its text is specifically

designed to cover all possible derivative works under copyright law. Our

goal in designing GPL was to make sure that any derivative work of GPL'd

software was itself released under GPL when distributed. Reaching as far

as copyright law will allow is the most direct way to reach that goal.

However, while the strategic goal is to bring as much Free Software

into the world as possible, particular tactical considerations

regarding software freedom dictate different means. Extending the