Changeset - 764802727541
[Not reviewed]
0 2 0
Martin Michlmayr (tbm) - 10 years ago 2014-04-24 23:12:21
tbm@cyrius.com
Typo fixes
2 files changed with 3 insertions and 3 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
compliance-guide.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -237,25 +237,25 @@ structured inventory and process.
 
\section{Track Your Changes and Releases}
 

	
 
As explained in further detail below, the most important component of GPL
 
compliance is the one most often ignored: proper inclusion of CCS in all
 
distributions  of GPL'd
 
software.  To comply with GPL's CCS requirements, the distributor
 
\textit{must} always know precisely what sources generated a given binary
 
distribution.
 

	
 
In an unfortunately large number of our enforcement cases, the violating
 
company's engineering team had difficulty reconstructing the CCS
 
for binaries distributed by the company.  Here are three simple rules to
 
follow to decrease the likelihood of this occurance:
 
follow to decrease the likelihood of this occurrence:
 

	
 
\begin{itemize}
 

	
 
\item Ensure that your
 
developers are using revision control systems properly.
 

	
 
\item Have developers mark or ``tag'' the full source tree corresponding to
 
  builds distributed to customers
 

	
 
\item Check that your developers store all parts of the software
 
development in the revision control system, including {\sc readme}s, build
 
scripts, engineers' notes, and documentation.
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -2120,25 +2120,25 @@ particularly useful in the more than two decades of GPLv2 history.
 
Meanwhile, despite many calls by the FSF (and others) for those licensors who
 
explicitly use this section to come forward and explain their reasoning, no
 
one ever did.  Furthermore, research conducted during the GPLv3 drafting
 
process found exactly one licensor who had invoked this section to add an
 
explicit geographical distribution limitation, and the reasoning for that one
 
invocation was not fitting with FSF's intended spirit of GPLv2~\S8.  As such,
 
GPLv2~\S8 was not included at all in GPLv3.
 

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

	
 
GPLv2~\S\S0--7 constitute the freedom-defending terms of the GPLv2.  The remainder
 
of the GPLv2 handles administrive and issues concerning warranties and
 
of the GPLv2 handles administrivia and issues concerning warranties and
 
liability.
 

	
 
\section{GPLv2~\S9: FSF as Stewards of GPL}
 
\label{GPLv2s9}
 

	
 
FSF reserves the exclusive right to publish future versions of the GPL\@;
 
GPLv2~\S9 expresses this.  While the stewardship of the copyrights on the body
 
of GPL'd software around the world is shared among thousands of
 
individuals and organizations, the license itself needs a single steward.
 
Forking of the code is often regrettable but basically innocuous.  Forking
 
of licensing is disastrous.
 

	
...
 
@@ -3457,25 +3457,25 @@ patent claims.
 
The remaining patent licensing in GPLv3 deals with patent licenses that are
 
granted by conveyance.  The licensing is not as complete or far reaching as
 
the contributor patent licenses discussed in the preceding section.
 

	
 
The term ``patent license,'' as used in GPLv3~\S11\P4--6, is not meant to be
 
confined to agreements formally identified or classified as patent licenses.
 
GPLv3~\S11\P3  makes this clear by defining ``patent
 
license,'' for purposes of the subsequent three paragraphs, as ``any express
 
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
 
(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
 
sue for patent infringement)''
 

	
 
% FIME-LATER: I want to ask Fontana about this before adding it.
 
% FIXME-LATER: I want to ask Fontana about this before adding it.
 

	
 
% The definition does not include patent licenses that arise by
 
% implication or operation of law, because the third through fifth paragraphs
 
% of section 11 are specifically concerned with explicit promises that purport
 
% to be legally enforceable.
 

	
 
GPLv3~\S11\P5 is commonly called GPLv3's downstream shielding provision.  It
 
responds particularly to the problem of exclusive deals between patent
 
holders and distributors, which threaten to distort the free software
 
distribution system in a manner adverse to developers and users.  The
 
fundamental idea is to make a trade-off between assuring a patent license for
 
downstream and making  (possibly patent-encumbered) CCS publicly available.
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)