(section{GPL \S 8: Excluding Unfreedonia}): Wrote section.

	Maded changes based on novalis' feedback.

	(chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}): Wrote chapter.

	(section{GPL \S 3: Producing Binaries}): Fixed typo.

	(chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}): Wrote

	chapter.

2003-05-28  Bradley M. Kuhn  <bkuhn@fsf.org>

	* gpl-business.tex (section{An Ecosystem of Equality}): Started

	section.

	(subsection{The Non-Commercial Ecosystem}): Wrote subsection.

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

to fair and unregulated uses.

Fair use of copyrighted material is an established legal doctrine that

permits certain activities.  Discussion of the various types of fair use

activity are beyond the scope of this tutorial.  However, one important

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

\medskip

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

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

to run specifically by stating the following:

\section{GPL \S 3: Producing Binaries}

% FIXME: need name of a novelist who writes very obscurely and obliquely.

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

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

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

electronic file storage.

Therefore, for GPL'ed 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

Under \S 3, binary versions may be created and distributed under the terms

of \S\S 1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies here.

However, \S 3 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

\S 3(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).

Furthermore, \S 3 is defending against a tactic that has in fact been seen

in FSF's GPL enforcement.  Under GPL, if you pay a high price for a copy

of GPL'ed binaries (which comes with corresponding source, of course), you

have the freedom to redistribute that work at any fee you choose, or not

FSF (as authors of GPL) realizes that software distribution comes in many

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

GPL'ed software into their PDAs 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

\S 3, therefore, allows source code to be provided on any physical

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

phrase covers a broad spectrum.  At best, FSF can viably release a new GPL

every ten years or so.  Thus, phrases like this must be adaptive to

changes in the technology.  When GPL version 2 was first published in June

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

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, it is indeed customary to

simply download CDs worth of data over a T1 or email large file

attachments.  However, even today in the USA, many computer users with

customer has the right to redistribute that software to the world if she

likes.  When she does, that customer has an obligation to make sure that

those who receive the software from her can exercise their freedoms under

GPL --- including the freedom to modify, rebuild, and redistribute the

source code.

Meanwhile, \S 3(b)'s compromise primarily benefits companies who

distribute binary software commercially.  Without \S 3(c), that benefit

would be at the detriment of the companies' customers; the burden of

source code provision would be unfairly shifted to the companies'

customers.  A customer, who had received binaries with a \S 3(b)-compliant

programmers, \S\S 4--7 are the parts of the license that keep the playing

field clear so that \S\S 0--3 can do their jobs.

\section{GPL \S 4: Termination on Violation}

\label{GPLs4}

\S 4 is GPL's termination clause.  Upon first examination, it seems

strange for a license that has the goal of defending users and programmers

freedoms for perpetuity in an irrevocable way would have such a clause.

However, upon further examination, the difference between irrevocability

and this termination clause becomes clear.

The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder grants

rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the software under

terms of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that grant.  Since the GPL has

no provision allowing the copyright holder to take such a prerogative, the

license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect\footnote{In

In fact, when an entity looses their right to copy, modify and distribute

GPL'ed software, it is because of their \emph{own actions}, not that of

the copyright holder.  The copyright holder does not decided when \S 4

termination occurs (if ever), the actions of the licensee does.

program has the prerogative to grant alternative agreements under separate

copyright licenses.

\section{GPL \S 11: No Warranty}

\label{GPLs11}

All warranty disclaimer language tends to be shouted in all capital

letters.  Apparently, there was once a case where the disclaimer language

of an agreement was negated because it was not ``conspicuous'' to one of

the parties.  Therefore, to make such language ``conspicuous'', people

started placing it in bold or capitalizing the entire text.  It now seems

to be voodoo tradition of warranty disclaimer writing.

Finally, one important point to remember when reading \S 11 is that \S 1

affirms.

\section{GPL, \S 12: Limitation of Liability}

\label{GPLs12}

There are many types of warranties, and in some jurisdictions some of them

headaches than proprietary license compliance.

For those who go into the business of distributing or distributing

modified versions of GPL'ed software, the burden is a bit higher, but not

by much.  The glib answer that is that it is always easy to comply with

the GPL by releasing the whole product as Free Software.  However,

are built using both proprietary and GPL'ed components that are not

legally derivative works of each other.  Usually, in product development

with Free Software tools, sometimes it is easier simply to improve

existing GPL'ed application than to start from scratch.  In exchange for

that benefit, the license requires that the modifier give back to the

commons that made the work easier.  It is a reasonable trade-off, and it

is a way to help build a better world while also making a profit.

Note that FSF does provide services to assist companies who need

assistance in complying with the GPL.  You can contact FSF's GPL

\appendix

\chapter{The GNU General Public License}

\begin{center}