The earliest copyleft licenses were specific to various GNU programs.  For

example, \href{http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/emacs_gpl.html}{The Emacs

  General Public License} was likely the first copyleft license ever

published.  Interesting to note that even this earliest copyleft license

contains a version of the well-known GPL copyleft clause:

\begin{quotation}

You may modify your copy or copies of GNU Emacs \ldots provided that you also

\ldots cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that in

whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU Emacs or any part

thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third parties on terms identical

to those contained in this License Agreement.

\end{quotation}

This simply stated clause is the fundamental innovation of copyleft.

Specifically, copyleft \textit{uses} the copyright holders' controls on

permission to modify the work to add a conditional requirement.  Namely,

downstream users may only have permission to modify  the work if they pass

along the same permissions on the modified version that came originally to

them.

These original program-specific proto-GPLs give an interesting window into

the central ideas and development of copyleft.  In particular, reviewing them

shows how the text of the GPL we know has evolved to address more of the

issues discussed earlier in \S~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.

\section{The GNU General Public License, Version 1}

\label{GPLv1}

In January 1989, the FSF announced that the GPL had been converted into a

``subroutine'' that could be reused not just for all FSF-copyrighted

programs, but also by anyone else.  As the FSF claimed in its announcement of

the GPLv1\footnote{The announcement of GPLv1 was published in the

  \href{http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull6.html\#SEC8}{GNU'S Bulletin, vol 1,

    number 6 dated January 1989}.  (Thanks very much to Andy Tai for his

  \href{http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/}{consolidation of research on

    the history of the pre-v1 GPL's}.)}:

\begin{quotation}

To make it easier to copyleft programs, we have been improving on the

legalbol architecture of the General Public License to produce a new version

that serves as a general-purpose subroutine: it can apply to any program

without modification, no matter who is publishing it.

\end{quotation}

This, like many inventive ideas, seems somewhat obvious in retrospect.  But,

the FSF had some bright people and access to good lawyers when it started.

It took almost five years from the first copyleft licenses to get to a

generalized, reusable GPLv1.  In the context and mindset of the 1980s, this

is not surprising.  The idea of reusable licensing infrastructure was not

only uncommon, it was virtually nonexistent!  Even the early BSD licenses

were simply copied and rewritten slightly for each new use\footnote{It

  remains an interesting accident of history that the early BSD problematic

  ``advertising clause'' (discussion of which is somewhat beyond the scope of

  this tutorial) lives on into current day, simply because while the

  University of California at Berkeley gave unilateral permission to remove

  the clause from \textit{its} copyrighted works, others who adapted the BSD

  license with their own names in place of UC-Berkeley's never have.}.  The

GPLv1's innovation of reuable licensing infrastructure, an obvious fact

today, was indeed a novel invention for its day\footnote{We're all just

  grateful that the FSF also opposes business method patents, since the FSF's

  patent on a ``method for reusable licensing infrastructure'' would have

  not expired until 2006!}.

\section{The GNU General Public License, Version 2}

The GPLv2 was released two and a half years after GPLv1, and over the

following sixteen years, it became the standard for copyleft licensing until

the release of GPLv3 in 2007 (discussed in more detail in the next section).

While this tutorial does not discuss the terms of GPLv1 in detail, it is

worth noting below the three key changes that GPLv2 brought:

\begin{itemize}

\item Software patents and their danger are explicitly mentioned, inspiring

  (in part) the addition of GPLv2~\S\S5--7.  (These sections are discussed in

  detail in \S~\ref{GPLv2s5}, \S~\ref{GPLv2s6} and \S~\ref{GPLv2s7} of this

  tutorial.)

\item GPLv2~\S2's copyleft terms are expanded to more explicitly discuss the

  issue of combined works.  (GPLv2~\S2 is discussed in detail in

  \S~\ref{GPLv2s2} in this tutorial).

\item GPLv2~\S3 includes more detailed requirements, including the phrase

 ``the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the

  executable'', which is a central component of current GPLv2 enforcement

  .  (GPLv2~\S3 is discussed in detail in

  \S~\ref{GPLv2s3} in this tutorial).

\end{itemize}

The next chapter discusses GPLv2 in full detail, and readers who wish to dive

into the section-by-section discussion of the GPL should jump ahead now to

that chapter.  However, the most interesting fact to note here is how GPLv2

was published with little fanfare and limited commentary.  This contrasts

greatly with the creation of GPLv3.

\section{The GNU General Public License, Version 3}

RMS began drafting GPLv2.2 in mid-2002, and FSF ran a few discussion groups

during that era about new text of that license.  However, rampant violations

of the GPL required more immediate attention of FSF's licensing staff, and as

such, much of the early 2000's was spent doing GPL enforcement

work\footnote{More on GPL enforcement is discussed in \tutorialpartsplit{a

    companion tutorial, \textit{A Practical Guide to GPL

      Compliance}}{Part~\ref{gpl-compliance-guide} of this tutorial}.}.  In

2006, FSF began in earnest drafting work for GPLv3.

The GPLv3 process began in earnest in January 2006.  It became clear that

many provisions of the GPL could benefit from modification to fit new

circumstances and to reflect what the entire community learned from

experience with version 2.  Given the scale of revision it seems proper to

approach the work through public discussion in a transparent and accessible

manner.

The GPLv3 process continued through June 2007, culminating in publication of

GPLv3 and LGPLv3 on 29 June 2007, AGPLv3 on 19 November 2007, and the GCC

Runtime Library Exception on 27 January 2009.

All told, four discussion drafts of GPLv3, two discussion drafts of LGPLv3

and two discussion drafts of AGPLv3 were published and discussed.

Ultimately, FSF remained the final arbiter and publisher of the licenses, and

RMS himself their primary author, but input was sought from many parties, and

these licenses do admittedly look and read more like legislation as a result.

Nevertheless, all of the ``v3'' group are substantially better and improved

licenses.

GPLv3 and its terms are discussed in detail in Chapter\~ref{GPLv3}.

\section{The Innovation of Optional ``Or Any Later'' Version}

An interesting fact of all GPL licenses is that the are ultimate multiple

choices for use of the license.  The FSF is the primary steward of GPL (as

discussed later in \S~\ref{GPLv2s9} and \S~\ref{GPLv2s14}).  However, those

who wish to license works under GPL are not required to automatically accept

changes made by the FSF for their own copyrighted works.

Each licensor may chose three different methods of licensing, as follows:

\begin{itemize}

\item explicitly name a single version of GPL for their work (usually

  indicated in shorthand by saying the license is ``GPLv$X$-only''), or

\item name no version of the GPL, thus they allow their downstream recipients

  to select any version of the GPL they chose (usually indicated in shorthand

  by saying the license is simply ``GPL''), or

\item name a specific version of GPL and give downstream recipients the

  option to chose that version ``or any later version as published by the

  FSF'' (usually indicated by saying the license is

  ``GPLv$X$-or-later'')\footnote{The shorthand of ``GPL$X+$'' is also popular

    for this situation.  The authors of this tutorial prefer ``-or-later''

    syntax, because it (a) mirrors the words ``or'' and ``later from the

    licensing statement, (b) the $X+$ doesn't make it abundantly clear that

    $X$ is clearly included as a license option and (c) the $+$ symbol has

    other uses in computing (such as with regular expressions) that mean

    something different.}

\end{itemize}

\label{license-compatibility-first-mentioned}

Oddly, this flexibility has received (in the opinion of the authors, undue)

criticism, primarily because of the complex and oft-debated notion of

``license compatibility'' (which is explained in detail in

\S~\ref{license-compatibility}).  Copyleft licenses are generally

incompatible with each other, because the details of how they implement

copyleft differs.  Specifically, copyleft works only because of its

requirement that downstream licensors use the \textit{same} license for

combined and modified works.  As such, software licensed under the terms of

``GPLv2-only'' cannot be combined with works licensed ``GPLv3-or-later''.

This is admittedly a frustrating outcome.

Other copyleft licenses that appeared after GPL, such

as the Creative Commons ``Share Alike'' licenses, the Eclipse Public License

and the Mozilla Public License \textbf{require} all copyright holders chosing

to use any version of those licenses to automatically accept and relicense

their copyrighted works under new versions.  Of course ,Creative Commons, the

Eclipse Foundation, and the Mozilla Foundation (like the FSF) have generally

served as excellent stewards of their licenses.  Copyright holders using

those licenses seems to find it acceptable that to fully delegate all future

licensing decisions for their copyrights to these organizations without a

second thought.

However, note that FSF gives herein the control of copyright holders to

decide whether or not to implicitly trust the FSF in its work of drafting

future GPL versions.  The FSF, for its part, does encourage copyright holders

to chose by default ``GPLv$X$-or-later'' (where $X$ is the most recent

version of the GPL published by the FSF).  However, the FSF \textbf{does not

  mandate} that a choice to use any GPL requires a copyright holder ceding

its authority for future licensing decisions to the FSF.  In fact, the FSF

considered this possibility for GPLv3 and chose not to do so, instead opting

for the third-party steward designation clause discussed in

\section{Complexities of Two Simultaneously Popular Copylefts}

Obviously most GPL advocates would prefer widespread migration to GPLv3, and

many newly formed projects who seek a copyleft license tend to choose a

GPLv3-based license.  However, many existing copylefted projects continue

with GPLv2-only or GPLv2-or-later as their default license.

While GPLv3 introduces many improvements --- many of which were designed to

increase adoption by for-profit companies --- GPLv2 remains a widely used and

extremely popular license.  The GPLv2 is, no doubt, a good and useful

license.

However, unlike GPLv1, which (as pointed out in \S~\ref{GPLv1}), which is

completely out of use by the mid-1990s.  However, unlike GPLv1 before it,

GPLv2 remains a integral part of the copyleft licensing infrastructure for

some time to come.  As such, those who seek to have expertise in current

topics of copyleft licensing need to study both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 family of

licenses.

Furthermore, GPLv3 can is more easily understood by first studying GPLv2.

This is not only because of their chronological order, but also because much

of the discussion material available for GPLv3 tends to talk about GPLv3 in

contrast to GPLv2.  As such, a strong understanding of GPLv2 helps in

understanding most of the third-party material found regarding GPLv3.  Thus,

the following chapter begins a deep discussion of GPLv2.

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

\chapter{GPLv2: Running Software and Verbatim Copying}

\label{run-and-verbatim}

This chapter begins the deep discussion of the details of the terms of

GPLv2\@. In this chapter, we consider the first two sections: GPLv2 \S\S

0--2. These are the straightforward sections of the GPL that define the

simplest rights that the user receives.

\section{GPLv2~\S0: Freedom to Run}

\label{GPLv2s0}

GPLv2~\S0, the opening section of GPLv2, sets forth that the copyright law governs

the work.  It specifically points out that it is the ``copyright

holder'' who decides if a work is licensed under its terms and explains

how the copyright holder might indicate this fact.

A bit more subtly, GPLv2~\S0 makes an inference that copyright law is the only

system that can restrict the software.  Specifically, it states:

\begin{quote}

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not

covered by this License; they are outside its scope.

\end{quote}

In essence, the license governs \emph{only} those activities, and all other

activities are unrestricted, provided that no other agreements trump GPLv2

(which they cannot; see Sections~\ref{GPLv2s6} and~\ref{GPLv2s7}).  This is

very important, because the Free Software community heavily supports

users' rights to ``fair use'' and ``unregulated use'' of copyrighted

material.  GPLv2 asserts through this clause that it supports users' rights

to fair and unregulated uses.

Fair use (called ``fair dealing'' in some jurisdictions) of copyrighted

material is an established legal doctrine that permits certain activities

regardless of whether copyright law would other restrict those activities.

Discussion of the various types of fair use activity are beyond the scope of

this tutorial.  However, one important example of fair use is the right to

quote portions of the text in larger work so as to criticize or suggest

changes.  This fair use rights is commonly used on mailing lists when

discussing potential improvements or changes to Free Software.

Fair use is a doctrine established by the courts or by statute.  By

contrast, unregulated uses are those that are not covered by the statue

nor determined by a court to be covered, but are common and enjoyed by

many users.  An example of unregulated use is reading a printout of the

program's source code like an instruction book for the purpose of learning

how to be a better programmer.  The right to read something that you have

access is and should remain unregulated and unrestricted.

\medskip

Thus, the GPLv2 protects users fair and unregulated use rights precisely by

not attempting to cover them.  Furthermore, the GPLv2 ensures the freedom

to run specifically by stating the following:

\begin{quote}

''The act of running the Program is not restricted.''

\end{quote}

Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by GPLv2~\S0.

\medskip

The bulk of GPLv2~\S0 not yet discussed gives definitions for other terms used

throughout.  The only one worth discussing in detail is ``work based on

the Program''.  The reason this definition is particularly interesting is

not for the definition itself, which is rather straightforward, but

because it clears up a common misconception about the GPL\@.

The GPL is often mistakenly criticized because it fails to give a

definition of ``derivative work''.  In fact, it would be incorrect and

problematic if the GPL attempted to define this.  A copyright license, in

fact, has no control over what may or may not be a derivative work.  This

matter is left up to copyright law and the courts --- not the licenses that utilize it.

It is certainly true that copyright law as a whole does not propose clear

and straightforward guidelines for what is and is not a derivative

software work under copyright law.  However, no copyright license --- not

even the GNU GPL --- can be blamed for this.  Legislators and court

opinions must give us guidance to decide the border cases.

\section{GPLv2~\S1: Verbatim Copying}

\label{GPLv2s1}

GPLv2~\S1 covers the matter of redistributing the source code of a program

exactly as it was received. This section is quite straightforward.

However, there are a few details worth noting here.

The phrase ``in any medium'' is important.  This, for example, gives the

freedom to publish a book that is the printed copy of the program's source

code.  It also allows for changes in the medium of distribution.  Some

vendors may ship Free Software on a CD, but others may place it right on

the hard drive of a pre-installed computer.  Any such redistribution media

is allowed.

Preservation of copyright notice and license notifications are mentioned

specifically in GPLv2~\S1.  These are in some ways the most important part of

the redistribution, which is why they are mentioned by name.  GPL

always strives to make it abundantly clear to anyone who receives the

software what its license is.  The goal is to make sure users know their

rights and freedoms under GPL, and to leave no reason that users might be

surprised the software is GPL'd. Thus

throughout the GPL, there are specific references to the importance of

notifying others down the distribution chain that they have rights under

GPL.

Also mentioned by name is the warranty disclaimer. Most people today do

not believe that software comes with any warranty.  Notwithstanding the

\href{http://mlis.state.md.us/2000rs/billfile/hb0019.htm}{Maryland's} and \href{http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?001+ful+SB372ER}{Virginia's} UCITA bills, there are few or no implied warranties with software.

However, just to be on the safe side, GPL clearly disclaims them, and the

GPL requires redistributors to keep the disclaimer very visible. (See

Sections~\ref{GPLv2s11} and~\ref{GPLv2s12} of this tutorial for more on GPL's

warranty disclaimers.)

Note finally that GPLv2~\S1 creates groundwork for the important defense of

commercial freedom.  GPLv2~\S1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim

copies, one may make money.  Redistributors are fully permitted to charge

for the redistribution of copies of Free Software. In addition, they may

provide the warranty protection that the GPL disclaims as an additional

service for a fee. (See Section~\ref{Business Models} for more discussion

on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)

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

\chapter{Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law}

We digress for this chapter from our discussion of GPL's exact text to

consider the matter of derivative works --- a concept that we must

understand fully before considering GPLv2~\S\S2--3\@. GPL, and Free

Software licensing in general, relies critically on the concept of

``derivative work'' since software that is ``independent,'' (i.e., not

``derivative'') of Free Software need not abide by the terms of the

applicable Free Software license. As much is required by \S~106 of the

Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. \S~106 (2002), and admitted by Free Software

licenses, such as the GPL, which (as we have seen) states in GPLv2~\S0 that ``a

`work based on the Program' means either the Program or any derivative

work under copyright law.'' It is being a derivative work of Free Software

that triggers the necessity to comply with the terms of the Free Software

license under which the original work is distributed. Therefore, one is

left to ask, just what is a ``derivative work''? The answer to that

question differs depending on which court is being asked.

The analysis in this chapter sets forth the differing definitions of

derivative work by the circuit courts. The broadest and most

established definition of derivative work for software is the

abstraction, filtration, and comparison test (``the AFC test'') as

created and developed by the Second Circuit. Some circuits, including

the Ninth Circuit and the First Circuit, have either adopted narrower

versions of the AFC test or have expressly rejected the AFC test in

favor of a narrower standard. Further, several other circuits have yet

to adopt any definition of derivative work for software.

As an introductory matter, it is important to note that literal copying of

a significant portion of source code is not always sufficient to establish

that a second work is a derivative work of an original

program. Conversely, a second work can be a derivative work of an original

program even though absolutely no copying of the literal source code of

the original program has been made. This is the case because copyright

protection does not always extend to all portions of a program's code,

while, at the same time, it can extend beyond the literal code of a

program to its non-literal aspects, such as its architecture, structure,

sequence, organization, operational modules, and computer-user interface.

\section{The Copyright Act}

The copyright act is of little, if any, help in determining the definition

of a derivative work of software. However, the applicable provisions do

and expression and that, given the varying nature of computer programs,

doing so will be done on an ad hoc basis. The first step of the AFC test,

the abstraction, exists precisely to assist in this endeavor by helping

the court separate out all the individual elements of the program so that

they can be independently analyzed for their expressive nature.

A second rule applied by the courts in performing the filtration step of

the AFC test is the doctrine of merger, which denies copyright protection

to expression necessarily incidental to the idea being expressed. The

reasoning behind this doctrine is that when there is only one way to

express an idea, the idea and the expression merge, meaning that the

expression cannot receive copyright protection due to the bar on copyright

protection extending to ideas. In applying this doctrine, a court will ask

whether the program's use of particular code or structure is necessary for

the efficient implementation of a certain function or process. If so, then

that particular code or structure is not protected by copyright and, as a

result, it is filtered away from the remaining protectable expression.

A third rule applied by the courts in performing the filtration step of

the AFC test is the doctrine of scenes a faire, which denies copyright

protection to elements of a computer program that are dictated by external

factors. Such external factors can include:

\begin{itemize}

  \item The mechanical

specifications of the computer on which a particular program is intended

to operate

  \item Compatibility requirements of other programs with which a

program is designed to operate in conjunction

  \item Computer manufacturers'

design standards

  \item Demands of the industry being serviced, and

widely accepted programming practices within the computer industry

\end{itemize}

Any code or structure of a program that was shaped predominantly in

response to these factors is filtered out and not protected by

copyright. Lastly, elements of a computer program are also to be filtered

out if they were taken from the public domain or fail to have sufficient

originality to merit copyright protection.

Portions of the source or object code of a computer program are rarely

filtered out as unprotectable elements. However, some distinct parts of

source and object code have been found unprotectable. For example,

constant s, the invariable integers comprising part of formulas used to

perform calculations in a program, are unprotectable. Further, although

common errors found in two programs can provide strong evidence of

copying, they are not afforded any copyright protection over and above the

protection given to the expression containing them.

\subsection{Comparison}

The third and final step of the AFC test entails a comparison of the

original program's remaining protectable expression to a second

program. The issue will be whether any of the protected expression is

copied in the second program and, if so, what relative importance the

copied portion has with respect to the original program overall. The

ultimate inquiry is whether there is ``substantial'' similarity between

the protected elements of the original program and the potentially

derivative work. The courts admit that this process is primarily

qualitative rather than quantitative and is performed on a case-by-case

basis. In essence, the comparison is an ad hoc determination of whether

the protectable elements of the original program that are contained in the

second work are significant or important parts of the original program. If

so, then the second work is a derivative work of the first. If, however,

the amount of protectable elements copied in the second work are so small

as to be de minimis, then the second work is not a derivative work of the

original.

\section{Analytic Dissection Test}

The Ninth Circuit has adopted the analytic dissection test to determine

whether one program is a derivative work of another. Apple Computer,

Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994). The analytic

dissection test first considers whether there are substantial similarities

in both the ideas and expressions of the two works at issue. Once the

similar features are identified, analytic dissection is used to determine

whether any of those similar features are protected by copyright. This

step is the same as the filtration step in the AFC test. After identifying

the copyrightable similar features of the works, the court then decides

whether those features are entitled to ``broad'' or ``thin''

protection. ``Thin'' protection is given to non-copyrightable facts or

ideas that are combined in a way that affords copyright protection only

from their alignment and presentation, while ``broad'' protection is given

to copyrightable expression itself. Depending on the degree of protection

afforded, the court then sets the appropriate standard for a subjective

comparison of the works to determine whether, as a whole, they are

sufficiently similar to support a finding that one is a derivative work of

the other. ``Thin'' protection requires the second work be virtually

identical in order to be held a derivative work of an original, while

``broad'' protection requires only a ``substantial similarity.''

\section{No Protection for ``Methods of Operation''}

The First Circuit has taken the position that the AFC test is inapplicable 

when the works in question relate to unprotectable elements set forth in 

\S~102(b).  Their approach results in a much narrower definition

of derivative work for software in comparison to other circuits. Specifically, 

the

First Circuit holds that ``method of operation,'' as used in \S~102(b) of

the Copyright Act, refers to the means by which users operate

computers. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int’l., Inc., 49 F.3d 807

(1st Cir. 1995).  In Lotus, the court held that a menu command

hierarchy for a computer program was uncopyrightable because it did not

merely explain and present the program’s functional capabilities to the

user, but also served as a method by which the program was operated and

controlled. As a result, under the First Circuit’s test, literal copying

of a menu command hierarchy, or any other ``method of operation,'' cannot

form the basis for a determination that one work is a derivative of

another.  As a result, courts in the First Circuit that apply the AFC test

do so only after applying a broad interpretation of \S~102(b) to filter out

unprotected elements. E.g., Real View, LLC v. 20-20 Technologies, Inc., 

683 F. Supp.2d 147, 154 (D. Mass. 2010).

\section{No Test Yet Adopted}

Several circuits, most notably the Fourth and Seventh, have yet to

declare their definition of derivative work and whether or not the

AFC, Analytic Dissection, or some other test best fits their

interpretation of copyright law. Therefore, uncertainty exists with

respect to determining the extent to which a software program is a

derivative work of another in those circuits. However, one may presume

that they would give deference to the AFC test since it is by far the

majority rule amongst those circuits that have a standard for defining

a software derivative work.

\section{Cases Applying Software Derivative Work Analysis}

In the preeminent case regarding the definition of a derivative work for

software, Computer Associates v. Altai, the plaintiff alleged that its

program, Adapter, which was used to handle the differences in operating

system calls and services, was infringed by the defendant's competitive

program, Oscar. About 30\% of Oscar was literally the same code as

that in Adapter. After the suit began, the defendant rewrote those

portions of Oscar that contained Adapter code in order to produce a new

version of Oscar that was functionally competitive with Adapter, without

have any literal copies of its code. Feeling slighted still, the

plaintiff alleged that even the second version of Oscar, despite having no

literally copied code, also infringed its copyrights. In addressing that

question, the Second Circuit promulgated the AFC test.

In abstracting the various levels of the program, the court noted a

similarity between the two programs' parameter lists and macros. However,

following the filtration step of the AFC test, only a handful of the lists

and macros were protectable under copyright law because they were either

in the public domain or required by functional demands on the

program. With respect to the handful of parameter lists and macros that

did qualify for copyright protection, after performing the comparison step

of the AFC test, it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that

they did not warrant a finding of infringement given their relatively minor

contribution to the program as a whole. Likewise, the similarity between

the organizational charts of the two programs was not substantial enough

to support a finding of infringement because they were too simple and

obvious to contain any original expression.

In the case of Oracle America v. Google, 872 F. Supp.2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2012),

the Northern District of California District Court examined the question of 

whether the application program interfaces (APIs) associated with the Java

programming language are entitled to copyright protection.  While the 

court expressly declined to rule whether all APIs are free to use without 

license (872 F. Supp.2d 974 at 1002), the court held that the command 

structure and taxonomy of the APIs were not protectable under copyright law.

Specifically, the court characterized the command structure and taxonomy as

both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the 

First Circuit's analysis in Lotus) and a ``functional requirement for 

compatability'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and

Sony Computer Ent. v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) as analogies),

and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S~102(b). 

Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few other cases involving a highly

detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve

clearer basis for decision, including frequent bad faith on the part of

the defendant or overaggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.  

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

\chapter{Modified Source and Binary Distribution}

\label{source-and-binary}

In this chapter, we discuss the two core sections that define the rights

and obligations for those who modify, improve, and/or redistribute GPL'd

software. These sections, GPLv2~\S\S2--3, define the central core rights and

requirements of GPLv2\@.

\section{GPLv2~\S2: Share and Share Alike}

For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software

freedom upon redistribution.  GPLv2~\S2 is the only place in GPLv2

that governs the modification controls of copyright law.  If users

modifies a GPLv2'd program, they must follow the terms of GPLv2~\S2 in making

those changes.  Thus, this sections ensures that the body of GPL'd software, as it

continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.

To achieve that goal, GPLv2~\S2 first sets forth that the rights of

redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim

copying, as presented in GPLv2~\S1.  Therefore, the details of charging money,

keeping copyright notices intact, and other GPLv2~\S1 provisions are in tact

here as well.  However, there are three additional requirements.

The first (GPLv2~\S2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent

notices'' explaining what changes were made and the date of such

changes. This section does not prescribe some specific way of

marking changes nor does it control the process of how changes are made.

Primarily, GPLv2~\S2(a) seeks to ensure that those receiving modified

versions know the history of changes to the software.  For some users,

it is important to know that they are using the standard version of

program, because while there are many advantages to using a fork,

there are a few disadvantages.  Users should be informed about the

historical context of the software version they use, so that they can

make proper support choices.  Finally, GPLv2~\S2(a) serves an academic

purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic

approach to understand the software.

\medskip

The second requirement (GPLv2~\S2(b)) contains the four short lines that embody

the legal details of ``share and share alike''.  These 46 words are

considered by some to be the most worthy of careful scrutiny because

GPLv2~\S2(b), and they

can be a source of great confusion when not properly understood.

In considering GPLv2~\S2(b), first note the qualifier: it \textit{only} applies to

derivative works that ``you distribute or publish''.  Despite years of

education efforts on this matter, many still believe that modifiers

of GPL'd software \textit{must} to publish or otherwise

share their changes.  On the contrary, GPLv2~\S2(b) {\bf does not apply if} the

changes are never distributed.  Indeed, the freedom to make private,

personal, unshared changes to software for personal use only should be

protected and defended.\footnote{Most Free Software enthusiasts believe there is an {\bf

    moral} obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful,

  and they often encourage companies and individuals to do so.  However, there

  is a clear distinction between what one {\bf ought} to do and what one

  {\bf must} do.}

Next, we again encounter the same matter that appears in GPLv2~\S0, in the

following text:

\begin{quote}

``...that in whole or part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof.''

\end{quote}

Again, the GPL relies here on what the copyright law says is a derivative

work.  If, under copyright law, the modified version ``contains or is

derived from'' the GPL'd software, then the requirements of GPLv2~\S2(b)

apply.  The GPL invokes its control as a copyright license over the

modification of the work in combination with its control over distribution

of the work.

The final clause of GPLv2~\S2(b) describes what the licensee must do if she is

distributing or publishing a work that is deemed a derivative work under

copyright law --- namely, the following:

\begin{quote}

[The work must] be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties

under the terms of this License.

\end{quote}

That is probably the most tightly-packed phrase in all of the GPL\@.

Consider each subpart carefully.

The work ``as a whole'' is what is to be licensed. This is an important

point that GPLv2~\S2 spends an entire paragraph explaining; thus this phrase is

worthy of a lengthy discussion here.  As a programmer modifies a software

program, she generates new copyrighted material --- fixing expressions of

ideas into the tangible medium of electronic file storage.  That

programmer is indeed the copyright holder of those new changes.  However,

those changes are part and parcel to the original work distributed to

the programmer under GPL\@. Thus, the license of the original work

affects the license of the new whole derivative work.

% {\cal I}

\newcommand{\gplusi}{$\mathcal{G\!\!+\!\!I}$}

\newcommand{\worki}{$\mathcal{I}$}

\newcommand{\workg}{$\mathcal{G}$}

\label{separate-and-independent}

It is certainly possible to take an existing independent work (called

\worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'd program (called \workg{}).  The

license of \worki{}, when it is distributed as a separate and independent

work, remains the prerogative of the copyright holder of \worki{}.

However, when \worki{} is combined with \workg{}, it produces a new work

that is the combination of the two (called \gplusi{}). The copyright of

this combined work, \gplusi{}, is held by the original copyright

holder of each of the two works.

In this case, GPLv2~\S2 lays out the terms by which \gplusi{} may be

distributed and copied.  By default, under copyright law, the copyright

holder of \worki{} would not have been permitted to distribute \gplusi{};

copyright law forbids it without the expressed permission of the copyright

holder of \workg{}. (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a proprietary

product --- would its copyright holders  give you permission to create and distribute

\gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?)  The license of \workg{}, the

GPL, states the  options for the copyright holder of \worki{}

who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}.  GPL's pregranted

permission to create and distribute derivative works, provided the terms

of GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one

would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license.  (Thus, to

say that this restriction is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.)

\medskip

The next phrase of note in GPLv2~\S2(b) is ``licensed \ldots at no charge.''

This phrase  confuses many.  The sloppy reader points out this as ``a

contradiction in GPL'' because (in their confused view) that clause of GPLv2~\S2 says that redistributors cannot

charge for modified versions of GPL'd software, but GPLv2~\S1 says that

they can.  Avoid this confusion: the ``at no charge'' \textbf{does not} prohibit redistributors from

charging when performing the acts governed by copyright

law,\footnote{Recall that you could by default charge for any acts not

governed by copyright law, because the license controls are confined

by copyright.} but rather that they cannot charge a fee for the

\emph{license itself}.  In other words, redistributors of (modified

and unmodified) GPL'd works may charge any amount they choose for

performing the modifications on contract or the act of transferring

the copy to the customer, but they may not charge a separate licensing

fee for the software.

GPLv2~\S2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed \ldots to all

third parties.''  This too yields some confusion, and feeds the

misconception mentioned earlier --- that all modified versions must made

available to the public at large.  However, the text here does not say

that.  Instead, it says that the licensing under terms of the GPL must

extend to anyone who might, through the distribution chain, receive a copy

of the software.  Distribution to all third parties is not mandated here,

but GPLv2~\S2(b) does require redistributors to license the derivative works in

a way that extends to all third parties who may ultimately receive a

copy of the software.

In summary, GPLv2\ 2(b) says what terms under which the third parties must

receive this no-charge license.  Namely, they receive it ``under the terms

of this License'', the GPLv2.  When an entity \emph{chooses} to redistribute

a derivative work of GPL'd software, the license of that whole 

work must be GPL and only GPL\@.  In this manner, GPLv2~\S2(b) dovetails nicely

with GPLv2~\S6 (as discussed in Section~\ref{GPLv2s6} of this tutorial).

\medskip

The final paragraph of GPLv2~\S2 is worth special mention.  It is possible and

quite common to aggregate various software programs together on one

distribution medium.  Computer manufacturers do this when they ship a

pre-installed hard drive, and GNU/Linux distribution vendors do this to

give a one-stop CD or URL for a complete operating system with necessary

applications.  The GPL very clearly permits such ``mere aggregation'' with

programs under any license.  Despite what you hear from its critics, the

GPL is nothing like a virus, not only because the GPL is good for you and

a virus is bad for you, but also because simple contact with a GPL'd

code-base does not impact the license of other programs.  A programmer must

expended actual effort  to cause a work to fall under the terms

of the GPL.  Redistributors are always welcome to simply ship GPL'd

software alongside proprietary software or other unrelated Free Software,

as long as the terms of GPL are adhered to for those packages that are

truly GPL'd.

\section{GPLv2~\S3: Producing Binaries}

Software is a strange beast when compared to other copyrightable works.

It is currently impossible to make a film or a book that can be truly

obscured.  Ultimately, the full text of a novel, even one written by

William Faulkner, must presented to the reader as words in some

human-readable language so that they can enjoy the work.  A film, even one

directed by David Lynch, must be perceptible by human eyes and ears to

have any value.

Software is not so.  While the source code --- the human-readable

representation of software is of keen interest to programmers -- users and

programmers alike cannot make the proper use of software in that

human-readable form.  Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer

can understand --- must be predicable and attainable for the software to

be fully useful.  Without the binaries, be they in object or executable

form, the software serves only the didactic purposes of computer science.

Under copyright law, binary representations of the software are simply

derivative works of the source code.  Applying a systematic process (i.e.,

``compilation''\footnote{``Compilation'' in this context refers to the

  automated computing process of converting source code into binaries.  It

  has absolutely nothing to do with the term ``compilation'' in copyright statues.}) to a work of source code yields binary code. The binary

code is now a new work of expression fixed in the tangible medium of

electronic file storage.

Therefore, for GPL'd software to be useful, the GPL, since it governs the

rules for creation of derivative works, must grant permission for the

generation of binaries.  Furthermore, notwithstanding the relative

popularity of source-based GNU/Linux distributions like Gentoo, users find

it extremely convenient to receive distribution of binary software.  Such

distribution is the redistribution of derivative works of the software's

source code.  GPLv2~\S3 addresses the matter of creation and distribution of

binary versions.

Under GPLv2~\S3, binary versions may be created and distributed under the

terms of GPLv2~\S1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies

here.  However, GPLv2~\S3 must go a bit further.  Access to the software's

source code is an incontestable prerequisite for the exercise of the

fundamental freedoms to modify and improve the software.  Making even

the most trivial changes to a software program at the binary level is

effectively impossible.  GPLv2~\S3 must ensure that the binaries are never

distributed without the source code, so that these freedoms are passed

through the distribution chain.

GPLv2~\S3 permits distribution of binaries, and then offers three options for

distribution of source code along with binaries. The most common and the

least complicated is the option given under GPLv2~\S3(a).

GPLv2~\S3(a) offers the option to directly accompany the source code alongside

the distribution of the binaries.  This is by far the most convenient

option for most distributors, because it means that the source-code

provision obligations are fully completed at the time of binary

distribution (more on that later).

Under GPLv2~\S3(a), the source code provided must be the ``corresponding source

code.''  Here ``corresponding'' primarily means that the source code

provided must be that code used to produce the binaries being distributed.

That source code must also be ``complete''.   GPLv2~\S3's penultimate paragraph

explains in detail what is meant by ``complete''.  In essence, it is all

the material that a programmer of average skill would need to actually use

the source code to produce the binaries she has received.  Complete source

is required so that, if the licensee chooses, she should be able to

exercise her freedoms to modify and redistribute changes.  Without the

complete source, it would not be possible to make changes that were

actually directly derived from the version received.

Furthermore, GPLv2~\S3 is defending against a tactic that has in fact been

seen in GPL enforcement.  Under GPL, if you pay a high price for

a copy of GPL'd binaries (which comes with corresponding source, of

course), you have the freedom to redistribute that work at any fee you

choose, or not at all.  Sometimes, companies attempt a GPL-violating

cozenage whereby they produce very specialized binaries (perhaps for

an obscure architecture).  They then give source code that does

correspond, but withhold the ``incantations'' and build plans they

used to make that source compile into the specialized binaries.

Therefore, GPLv2~\S3 requires that the source code include ``meta-material'' like

scripts, interface definitions, and other material that is used to

``control compilation and installation'' of the binaries.  In this

manner, those further down the distribution chain are assured that

they have the unabated freedom to build their own derivative works

from the sources provided.

Software distribution comes in many

forms.  Embedded manufacturers, for example, have the freedom to put

GPL'd software into mobile devices with very tight memory and space

constraints.  In such cases, putting the source right alongside the

binaries on the machine itself might not be an option.  While it is

recommended that this be the default way that people comply with GPL, the

GPL does provide options when such distribution is infeasible.

GPLv2~\S3, therefore, allows source code to be provided on any physical

``medium customarily used for software interchange.''  By design, this

phrase covers a broad spectrum --- the phrase seeks to pre-adapt to

changes in  technology.  When GPLv22 was first published in June

1991, distribution on magnetic tape was still common, and CD was

relatively new.  By 2002, CD is the default.  By 2007, DVD's were the

default.  Now, it's common to give software on USB drives and SD card.  This

language in the license must adapt with changing technology.

Meanwhile, the binding created by the word ``customarily'' is key.  Many

incorrectly believe that distributing binary on CD and source on the

Internet is acceptable.  In the corporate world in industrialized countries, it is indeed customary to

simply download a CDs' worth of data quickly.  However, even today in the USA, many computer users are not connected to the Internet, and most people connected

to the Internet still have limited download speeds.  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 are normalized for a worldwide userbase.  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 GPLv2~\S3. \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 GPLv2~\S3.

\medskip

As is shown above, Under GPLv2~\S3(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)

GPLv2~\S3(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