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
...
 
@@ -1090,44 +1090,44 @@ 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.
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)