Changeset - 7ce3980bd6f2
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
donaldr3 - 10 years ago 2014-03-21 20:10:21
donald@copyrighteous.office.fsf.org
multiple copy edits
1 file changed with 4 insertions and 4 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -1054,116 +1054,116 @@ Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by GPLv2~\S0.
 

	
 
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 re distributors to keep the disclaimer very visible. (See
 
GPL requires re-distributors 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.  Re distributors are fully permitted to charge
 
for the redistribution of copies of Free Software. In addition, they may
 
copies, one may make money.  Re-distributors are fully permitted to charge
 
for the re-distribution 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}
 
\label{derivative-works}
 

	
 
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
 
understand fully before considering GPLv2~\S\S2--3\@. The 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
 
provide some, albeit quite cursory, guidance. Section 101 of the Copyright
 
Act sets forth the following definitions:
 

	
 
\begin{quotation}
 
A ``computer program'' is a set of statements or instructions to be used
 
directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain
 
result.
 

	
 
A ``derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
 
such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)