values personal accountability when things go wrong.  Copyright holders

  often require that you name someone within the violating company

  officially responsible for Free Software license compliance, and that this

  individual serve as the key public contact for the community when

  compliance concerns arise.

\item {\bf Periodic Compliance Reports.}  Many copyright holders wish to

  monitor future compliance for some period of time after the violation.

  For some period, your company may be required to send regular reports on

  how many distributions of binary and source have occurred.

\end{itemize}

These are just a few possible requirements for reinstatement.  In the

context of a GPL violation, and particularly under v2's termination

provision, the copyright holder may have a range of requests in exchange

for reinstatement of rights.  These software developers are talented

professionals from whose work your company has benefited.  Indeed, you are

unlikely to find a better value or more generous license terms for similar

software elsewhere.  Treat the copyright holders with the same respect you

treat your corporate partners and collaborators.

\chapter{Special Topics in Compliance}

There are several other issues that are less common, but also relevant in

a GPL compliance situation.  To those who face them, they tend to be of

particular interest.

\section{LGPL Compliance}

\label{lgpl}

GPL compliance and LGPL compliance mostly involve the same issues.  As we

discussed in \S~\ref{derivative-works}, questions of modified versions of

overview document.  The LGPL adds some additional complexity to the

analysis.  Namely, the various LGPL versions permit proprietary licensing

(in accordance with LGPLv3) what part of the work is the ``Application''

and what portions of the source are ``Minimal Corresponding Source'', then

``Minimal Corresponding Source''.

LGPL also requires that you provide a mechanism to combine the Application

with a modified version of the library, and outlines some options for

this.  Also, the license of the whole work must permit ``reverse

engineering for debugging such modifications'' to the library.  Therefore,

you should take care that the EULA used for the Application does not

contradict this permission.

%FIXME-URGENT: integrate

Under the terms of LGPL, they must also refrain from license terms on works

based on the licensed work that prohibit replacement of the licensed

components of the larger non-LGPL’d work, or prohibit decompilation or

reverse engineering in order to enhance or fix bugs in the LGPL’d components.

Section 2(a) states that if a licensed work is a software library (defined in

\S0 as ``a collection of software functions and/or data prepared so as to be

conveniently linked with application programs (which use some of those

functions and data) to form executables'') permission is given to distribute

modified versions only if those versions are themselves libraries. LGPLv2.1

code can therefore not be compliantly taken from its context in a library and

placed in a non-library modified version or work based on the work. Section 6

does not provide an exception for this rule: a combination may be made of a

modified version of an LGPL’d library with other code, but the LGPL’d code

must continue to be structured as a library, and to that library the terms of

the license continue to apply.

%FIXME-URGENT: END

\section{Upstream Providers}

\label{upstream}

%% Some have asked us to address the difficulties of internationalization

%% by including, or permitting the inclusion of, a choice of law

%% provision.  We maintain that this is the wrong approach.  Free

%% software licenses should not contain choice of law clauses, for both

%% legal and pragmatic reasons.  Choice of law clauses are creatures of

%% contract, but the substantive rights granted by the GPL are defined

%% under applicable local copyright law. Contractual free software

%% licenses can operate only to diminish these rights.  Choice of law

%% clauses also raise complex questions of interpretation when works of

%% software are created by combination and extension.  There is also the

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

%% that is hostile to free software principles.

%% % FIXME-LATER: 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.

% FIXME-LATER: does this need to be a section, describing how it was out then in

% then out then in? :)

Finally, the FSF shortened the section on ``How to Apply These

Terms to Your New Programs'' to just the bare essentials.

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

\chapter{The Lesser GPL}

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

designed to cover all possible derivative, modified and/or combined works under copyright law. Our

goal in designing the GPL was to maximize its use of the controls of

copyright law to maximize the number of works that were covered by GPL. 

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

into the world as possible, particular tactical considerations

regarding software freedom dictate different means. Extending the

copyleft effect as far as copyright law allows is not always the most

prudent course in reaching the goal. In particular situations, even

those of us with the goal of building a world where all published

software is Free Software realize that full copyleft does not best

serve us. The GNU Lesser General Public License (``GNU LGPL'') was

designed as a solution for such situations.

% FIXME: integrate

The Lesser General Public License is sometimes described as a ``weak copyleft''

license, because code licensed under LGPL’s terms can be combined with code

under non-free licenses, and is sometimes used in that fashion.

% FIXME-URGENT: end

\section{The First LGPL'd Program}

The first example that FSF encountered where such altered tactics were

needed was when work began on the GNU C Library. The GNU C Library would

become (and today, now is) a drop-in replacement for existing C libraries.

On a Unix-like operating system, C is the lingua franca and the C library

is an essential component for all programs. It is extremely difficult to

construct a program that will run with ease on a Unix-like operating

system without making use of services provided by the C library --- even

if the program is written in a language other than C\@. Effectively, all

\begin{itemize}

\item Allowing a licensing ``upgrade'' from the LGPL to the GPL\@ (in LGPLv2.1~\S3)

%FIXME-URGENT: integrate

But LGPLv2.1 \S3 allows all works under its

terms, copy by copy, to be used instead under the terms of GPLv2 or any later

version. This provides a pathway for those who do not want to use code under

the requirements of LGPLv2.1 to do so under GPLv2 or GPLv3 at their

discretion.

%FIXME-URGENT: end

\item Binary distribution of the library only, covered in LGPLv2.1~\S4,

  which is effectively equivalent to LGPLv2.1~\S3

\item Creating aggregates of libraries that are separate and independent works from

  each other, and distributing them as a unit (in LGPLv2.1~\S7)

\end{itemize}

Due to time constraints, we cannot cover these additional terms in detail,

but they are mostly straightforward. The key to understanding LGPLv2.1 is

understanding the difference between a ``work based on the library'' and a

``work that uses the library.''  Once that distinction is clear, the

remainder of LGPLv2.1 is close enough to GPL that the concepts discussed in

our more extensive GPL unit can be directly applied.

% FIXME-URGENT: integrate

\chapter{LGPLv3}

LGPLv3 was designed to rectify the architectural plan of the GNU family of

licenses, by making the copyleft license from which LGPLv3 is a combination

exception GPLv3. LGPLv3 is therefore an additional permission in the form

provided for in GPLv3 \S7, above.

\section{Section 0: Additional Definitions}

Section 0 defines the ``Library'' it covers as a work that presents one or more

interfaces at which a ``use'' can be made by an ``Application.'' Class

inheritance is ``deemed'' a use of an interface. An ``Application,'' which is

other program code using one or more ``Library'' interfaces can be combined

with the code on the other side of the interfaces it uses to form a ``Combined

Work.''

\section{Section 1: Exception to Section 3 of the GNU GPL}

Section 1 excepts away the interference with use of LGPLv3 code as part of

``effective technological measures'' of access limitation for other copyrighted

works provided otherwise by GPLv3 \S3.

\section{Section 2 Conveying Modified Versions}

Section 2 continues to require, as LGPLv2.1 \S2(d) required, that the Library

not be modified to require keys, tokens, tables, or other global non-argument

data unrelated to function. This is again stated as a ``good faith effort''

requirement, but failure to cure on notice is strong evidence of the absence

of good faith. Use of GPLv3 terms by removal of the additional permission, as

provided for by GPLv3 \S7, is the alternate path to compliance.

\section{Section 3: Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files}