to the Internet are connected via a 56K dial-up connection.  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 have must have a worldwide scope in context, and 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 \S 3.  \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 \S 3.

\medskip

As is shown above, Under \S 3(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'ed software.  For this situation and others like it, \S

3(b) is available.

\S 3(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 \S 3(b) compliant

offer for source, a binary distributor might choose to \emph{also} give a

URL for source code.  Many who would otherwise need a CD with source might

turn out to have those coveted high bandwidth connections, and are able to

download the source instead --- again yielding environmental and financial

windfalls.

However, note that regardless of how many users prefer to get the source

online, that \S 3(b) does place lasting long-term obligations on the

binary distributor.  The binary distributor must be prepared for three

years to honor that offer for source, and ship it out (just as they would

have had to do under \S 3(a)) at a moment's notice when they receive such

a request.  There is real organizational cost here: support engineers for

three years must be trained how to route source requests, and source CD

images for every release version for the last three years must be kept on

hand to burn such CDs quickly.  The requests might not even come from

actual customers; the offer for source must be valid for ``any third

party''.

That phrase is another place where some get confused --- thinking again

that full public distribution of source is required.  The offer for source

must be valid for ``any third party'' because of the freedoms of

redistribution granted by \S\S 1--2.  A company may ship a binary image

and an offer for source to only one customer.  However, under GPL, that

customer has the right to redistribute that software to the world if she

likes.  When she does, that customer has an obligation to make sure that

those who receive the software from her can exercise their freedoms under

GPL --- including the freedom to modify, rebuild, and redistribute the

source code.

This is where \S 3(c) comes into play.  Ultimately, \S 3(b) is a big

compromise.  It separates the binary software from the key tool that

people can use to exercise their freedom.  The GPL permits this separation

because it is good for redistributors, and those users who turn out not to

need the source.  However, to ensure equal rights for all software users,

anyone along the distribution chain must have the right to get the source

and exercise those freedoms that require it.

Meanwhile, \S 3(b)'s compromise primarily benefits companies who

distribute binary software commercially.  Without \S 3(c), that benefit

would be at the detriment of the companies' customers; the burden of

source code provision would be unfairly shifted to the companies'

customers.  A customer, who had received binaries with a \S 3(b)-compliant

offer, would be required under GPL (sans \S 3(c)) to acquire the source,

merely to give a copy of the software to a friend who needed it.  \S 3(c)

reshifts this burden to entity who benefits from \S 3(b).

\S 3(c) allows those who undertake \emph{non-commercial} distribution to

simply pass along a \S 3(b)-compliant source code offer.  The customer who

wished to give a copy to her friend can now do so without provisioning the

source, as long as she gives that offer to her friend.  By contrast, if

she wanted to go into business for herself selling CDs of that software,

she would have to acquire the source and either comply via \S 3(a), or

write her own \S 3(b)-compliant source offer.

This process is precisely the reason why a \S 3(b) source offer must be

valid for all third parties.  At the time the offer is made, there is no

way of knowing who might end up non-commercially receiving a copy of the

software.  Companies who choose to comply via \S 3(b) must thus be

prepared to honor all incoming source code requests.  For this and the

many other additional necessary complications under \S\S 3(b--c), it is

only rarely a better option than complying via \S 3(a).

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

\chapter{Defending Freedom On Many Fronts}

The last chapter presented the core freedom-defending provisions of GPL\@,

which are in \S\S 0--3.  \S\S 4--7 of the GPL are designed to ensure that

copyright law and are not trumped by other copyright agreements or

0--3 are the parts of the license that defend the freedoms of users and

programmers, \S\S 4--7 are the parts of the license that keep the playing

field clear so that \S\S 0--3 can do their jobs.

\section{GPL \S 4: Termination on Violation}

\label{GPLs4}

\S 4--5 are, in my opinion, the heart of the GPL\@. \S\S 0--3 are

doctrine of copyleft.  However, \S 4--5 are the glue that holds \S\S 0--3

together.

\S 4 is GPL's termination clause.  Upon first examination, it seems

strange for a license that has the goal of defending users and programmers

freedoms for perpetuity in an irrevocable way would have such a clause.

However, upon further examination, the difference between irrevocability

and this termination clause becomes clear.

The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder grants

rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the software under

terms of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that grant.  Since the GPL has

license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect\footnote{In

  the USA< due to unfortunate legislation, this is nearly perpetual, even

  though the Constitution forbids it.}.  The copyright holder has the

right to relicense the same work under different licenses (see

Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} of this tutorial), or to stop

distributing the GPL'ed version (assuming \S 3(b) was never used), but the

she may not revoke the rights under GPL already granted.

In fact, when an entity looses their right to copy, modify and distribute

GPL'ed software, it is because of their \emph{own actions}, not that of

the copyright holder.  The copyright holder does not decided when \S 4

termination occurs (if ever), the actions of the licensee does.

Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to

the licensee to perform specific types of copying, modification, and

redistribution.  By default, all other types of copying, modification, and

redistribution are prohibited.  \S 4 says that if you undertake any of

those other types (e.g., redistributing binary-only in violation of \S 3),

then all rights under the license --- even those otherwise permitted for

those who have not violated --- terminate automatically.

\S 4 gives GPL teeth.  If licensees fail to adhere to the license, then

they are stuck.  They must to completely cease and desist from all

copying, modification and distribution of that GPL'ed software.

At that point, violating licensees must gain the forgiveness of the

copyright holder to have their rights restored.  Alternatively, they could

holder.  Both are common practice.

At FSF, it is part of the mission to spread software freedom.  When FSF

enforces GPL, the goal is to bring the violator back into compliance as

quickly as possible, and redress the damage caused by the violation.

with the license and respect freedom.

However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software

AB, a company that produces the GPL'ed MySQL database, upon discovering

GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software license

consider undertaking or even endorsing, it is a legal way for copyright

holders to proceed.

\section{GPL \S 5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}

\label{GPLs5}

Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to

the licensee to perform acts of copying, modification, and redistribution

that would otherwise have been prohibited by default.  Since, barring

special permission from the copyright holder, the GPL is a licensee's one

and only license to the software (thanks to \S 6),

\section{GPL \S 7: ``Give My Software Liberty of Give It Death!''}

\label{GPLs7}

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

\chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}

\section{GPL \S 8}

\label{GPLs8}

\section{GPL \S 9}

\label{GPLs9}

\section{GPL \S 10}

\label{GPLs10}

\section{GPL \S 11}

\label{GPLs11}

There was a case where the disclaimer of a contract was negated because it

was not "conspicuous" to the person entering into the contract.  Therefore,

to make such language "conspicuous" people started placing it in bold or caps it.  My question

has always been, does that mean all the other parts of the document aren't

important such that they too need to be "conspicuous."

As for disclaiming warranties, remember that there are many types of

warranties, and in some jurisdictions some of them cannot be disclaimed.

Therefore, usually agreements will have both a warranty disclaimer and a

limitation of liability.  The former gets rid of everything that can be

gotten rid of, while the latter limits the liability of the actor for any

warranties that cannot be disclaimed (such as personal injury, etc.).

\section{GPL, \S 12}

\label{GPLs12}

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

\chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}

\section{Using Free Software In-House}

\section{Business Models}

\label{Business Models}

\subsection{Redistribution Sales}

\subsection{Custom Modification on Contract}

\subsection{Proprietary Relicensing}

\label{Proprietary Relicensing}

\section{Ongoing Compliance}

\appendix

\chapter{The GNU General Public License}

\begin{center}

{\parindent 0in

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright \copyright\ 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

\bigskip

59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA

\bigskip

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies

of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

}

\end{center}

\begin{center}

{\bf\large Preamble}

\end{center}

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to

share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public License is

intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software---to

make sure the software is free for all its users.  This General Public

License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to

any other program whose authors commit to using it.  (Some other Free

Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public

License instead.)  You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.

Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the

freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service

if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it,

that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs;

and that you know you can do these things.

repair or correction.}

\item

{\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing

will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or

redistribute the program as permitted above, be liable to you for damages,

including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising

out of the use or inability to use the program (including but not limited

to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by

you or third parties or a failure of the program to operate with any other

programs), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the

possibility of such damages.}

\end{enumerate}

\begin{center}

{\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}

\end{center}

\pagebreak[2]

\section*{Appendix: How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs}

If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest

possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it

free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these

terms.

  To do so, attach the following notices to the program.  It is safest to

  attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey

  the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the

  ``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

\begin{quote}

one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does. \\

Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify

it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by

the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or

(at your option) any later version.

This program 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.  See the

GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License

along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software

Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA.

\end{quote}

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this

when it starts in an interactive mode:

\begin{quote}

Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\

Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. \\

This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it

under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

\end{quote}

The hypothetical commands {\tt show w} and {\tt show c} should show the

appropriate parts of the General Public License.  Of course, the commands

you use may be called something other than {\tt show w} and {\tt show c};

they could even be mouse-clicks or menu items---whatever suits your

program.

You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your

school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the program, if

necessary.  Here is a sample; alter the names:

\begin{quote}

Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program \\

`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker. \\

signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989 \\

Ty Coon, President of Vice

\end{quote}

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program

into proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you

may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications

with the library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library

General Public License instead of this License.

\end{document}

% LocalWords:  proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision EULAs

% LocalWords:  Yoyodyne FrontPage improvers Berne copyrightable Stallman's GPLs