Copyleft/guide Changeset - 8fd9a6b5d62d

Changeset - 8fd9a6b5d62d

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 0 2

Bradley M. Kuhn - 20 years ago 2004-01-07 21:00:06
bkuhn@fsf.org

* Added initial versions of GPL/LGPL course, based on GPL-Business

2 files changed with 2569 insertions and 0 deletions:

GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl-overview.txt

180

GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl.tex

2389

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl-overview.txt

➞

Show inline comments

 new file 100644
                Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL
 This one-day course gives a section-by-section explanation of the most
 popular Free Software copyright license, the GNU General Public License
 (GNU GPL), and teaches lawyers, software developers, managers and business
 people how to use the GPL (and GPL'ed software) successfully in a new Free
 Software business and in existing, successful enterprises.
 Prerequisites:
      Attendees should have a general familiarity with software development
      processes.  A basic understanding of how copyright law typically
      applies to software is also helpful.
 Audience:
      The course is of most interest to lawyers, software developers and
      managers who run (or have clients who run) software businesses that
      modify and/or redistribute software under terms of the GNU GPL or
      LGPL, or who wish to make use of existing GPL'd and LGPL'd software
      in their enterprise.
 The course will include the topics listed below, along with ample time for
 questions and discussions.  Lunch is included, with a lunch speaker to be
 announced.
   * Free Software Principles and the Free Software Definition
     The ethical principles that motivated the creation of these licenses
     are presented.  Unlike licenses that seek to lock up software in a
     proprietary fashion, the GPL and LGPL are designed to grant freedom to
     innovate, learn and improve.  Those principles influence licensing
     policy decisions.  We present the specific definition of the concept
     of "Free Software" (software whose license grants freedoms to copy,
     share, modify and redistribute the software either gratis or for a
     fee) for-profit companies.
   * Preamble of the GNU General Public License (GPL)
     The preamble presents the intent of the license.  The preamble puts
     forth the motivations for the detailed terms and conditions that
     follow in the license.  We discuss the language of the preamble in
     detail to show how it frames the legal details that follow.
   * GPL, Section 0: Definitions, etc.
     GPL's section 0 defines and presents the terms that make the basis of
     this copyright license.  We discuss those definitions and the
     copyright scope of the license.
   * GPL, Section 1: Grant for Verbatim Source Copying
     Section 1 defines the terms for making source-only copies of software
     programs.  We discuss how those rules work and the requirements and
     obligations for distributors of GPL'd source, whether they choose to
     distribute at no charge or for fees.
   * Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law
     Free Software licensing in general, and the GPL and LGPL in
     particular, relies critically on the concept of derivative work since
     software that is independent (i.e., not derivative) of Free Software
     need not abide by any of the terms of the applicable Free Software
     license. If a work is a derivative work of Free Software, then the
     terms of the license are triggered, and one has obligations 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?"  We will show how the answer to that question
     depends on which court is being asked.  We also present the best
     background information available to build a working understanding of
     what is generally considered a derivate work in the rapidly changing
     field of software copyright law.
   * GPL, Section 2: Grants for Source Derivative Works
     Section 2 sets forth the rules for creation of derivative works of
     GPL'd software.  We discuss the intent of this section of GPL and how
     it relates to the copyright situation discussed in our discussion of
     derivative works.  We also explain the details of preparing derivative
     source in a GPL-compliant way.
   * GPL, Section 3: Grants for Creating Binary Derivative Works
     Source-only distribution works well for technically savvy clients and
     users, but most want runnable binary programs as well.  Section 3
     gives permission for the creation and distribution of such binary
     works.  We explain how GPL's requirement for corresponding source code
     operate, and detail what distribution options are available to
     distributors of binary GPL'd software.  We explore the benefits and
     downsides of each of those options.
   * The Implied Patent Grant in GPL
     Patent rights are most often granted expressly, through detailed
     language in a license.  However, express patent grants are not the
     exclusive way rights in patents are granted by patentees.  Even
     without express language, patent rights can be granted by a patentee's
     actions or behavior.  The GPL contains no express patent grant.  Does
     that mean it grants less rights in the licensor's patents than other
     licenses which do?  Or, does the GPL, in its silence, actually result
     in a grant of patent rights to the licensee greater than occurs
     through many other Free Software and "Open Source" licenses?
     We will consider these questions and provide detailed answers to them.
   * GPL, Section 4: Termination of License
     Section 4 terminates rights under GPL for those who violate it.  We
     discuss how such termination works, what it means for violators, what
     risks one takes in violating, and how rights are typically restored.
     We briefly mention how Section 4 is used as the central tool in GPL
     enforcement.
   * GPL, Section 5: Acceptance of License
     GPL is not a contract, so acceptance of the license works differently
     than it does for contracts.  We discuss how this acceptance works
     under the copyright rules that govern GPL.
   * GPL, Section 6: Prohibition on Further Restrictions
     Other licensing terms cannot be placed on GPL'd software that would
     trump the rights granted under GPL.  We discuss how Section 6 is used
     to ensure that no such additional restrictions occur.  We briefly
     discuss how this leads to the concept of GPL-incompatible Free
     Software licenses.
   * GPL, Section 7: Conflicts with other Agreements or Orders
     Just as additional licensing restrictions cannot trump GPL, outside
     agreements, patent licenses or court orders cannot do so either.  We
     discuss how Section 7 ensures that other rules outside of the direct
     software license cannot take rights away from users, distributors, and
     modifiers of GPL'd software.
   * GPL, Section 8: International Licensing Issues
     Section 8 is rarely used part of the GPL that helps copyright holders
     when certain technologies are prohibited from full international
     distribution due to draconian rules elsewhere in the world.  We
     explain how Section 8 helps such copyright holders.
   * GPL, Section 9: FSF as GPL's Stewards
     We discuss how the update process and release of new GPL versions
     happens.
   * GPL, Section 10: Copyright Holder's Exceptions to GPL
     Section 10 reminds licensees that under copyright law, other
     relicensing arrangements can be made.  We discuss how this can often
     be used as a business model and we explicate that model's benefits and
     downsides.
   * GPL, Section 11: Disclaimer of Warranties
     GPL, Section 12: Limitation of Liability
     Almost all software licenses, including Free Software licenses such as
     the GPL, contain sections, typically in all caps, regarding warranties
     and liability.  The purposes of these sections are lost on most
     non-lawyers, but attorneys understand the importance their language
     provides to both the licensor and the licensee.  Some have argued that
     the GPL's Sections 11 and 12 render it entirely unenforceable.  We
     consider whether that is true, and present the likely interpretation
     and implementation of the GPL's Warranty Disclaimer and Liability
     Limitation provisions.
   * Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
     The LGPL is a "scaled back" version of GPL, designed specifically to
     allow creation of a very well-defined class of proprietary derivative
     works.  However, it does prohibit turning the LGPL'd software itself
     directly into proprietary software.
     We discuss the basic design of LGPL and how it compares and contrasts
     with GPL.  We introduce the two classes of derivative works covered
     by LGPL -- "works that use the library" and "works based on the
     library" -- and give some concrete examples of what proprietary
     derivative works are prohibited and permitted when basing the
     software on an LGPL'd work.

GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

 new file 100644
 % gpl-lgplg.tex                                                  -*- LaTeX -*-
 %      Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL course
+%
 % Copyright (C) 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 % Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in
 % any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
 \documentclass[12pt]{report}
 % FILTER_PS:  \input{generate-ps-file}
 % FILTER_PDF: \input{generate-pdf-file}
 % FILTER_HTML: \input{generate-html-file}
 \input{one-inch-margins}
 %\setlength\parskip{0.7em}
 %\setlength\parindent{0pt}
 \newcommand{\defn}[1]{\emph{#1}}
 %\pagestyle{empty}
 \begin{document}
 \begin{titlepage}
 \begin{center}
 \vspace{.5in}
 {\Large
 {\sc Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL  } \\
 \vspace{.7in}
 Sponsored by the Free Software Foundation \\
 \vspace{.3in}
 Columbia Law School, New York, NY, USA \\
 Tuesday 20 January 2003
 {\large
 Bradley M. Kuhn
 Executive Director
 Free Software Foundation
+}
 {\large
 Daniel Ravicher
 Senior Counsel
 Free Software Foundation
+}
 \end{center}
 \vfill
 {\parindent 0in
 Copyright \copyright{} 2003, 2004 \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 \vspace{.3in}
 Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in
 any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+}
 \end{titlepage}
 \pagestyle{plain}
 \pagenumbering{roman}
 \begin{abstract}
 This one-day course gives a section-by-section explanation of the most
 popular Free Software copyright license, the GNU General Public License
 (GNU GPL), and teaches lawyers, software developers, managers and business
 people how to use the GPL (and GPL'ed software) successfully in a new Free
 Software business and in existing, successful enterprises.
 Attendees should have a general familiarity with software development
 processes.  A vague understanding of how copyright law applies to software
 is also helpful.  The tutorial is of most interest to lawyers, software
 developers and managers who run software businesses that modify and/or
 redistribute software under terms of the GNU GPL (or who wish to do so in
 the future), and those who wish to make use of existing GPL'ed software in
 their enterprise.
 Upon completion of the tutorial, successful attendees can expect to have
 learned the following:
 \begin{itemize}
   \item the freedom-defending purpose of each term of the GNU GPL.
   \item the redistribution options under the GPL.
   \item the obligations when modifying GPL'ed software.
   \item how to build a plan for proper and successful compliance with the GPL.
   \item the business advantages that the GPL provides.
   \item the most common business models used in conjunction with the GPL.
   \item how existing GPL'ed software can be used in existing enterprises.
   \item the basics of the LGPL and how it differs from GPL.
   \item how best to understand the complexities regarding derivative
         works of software.
 \end{itemize}
 \end{abstract}
 \tableofcontents
 \pagebreak
 \pagenumbering{arabic}
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{What Is Free Software?}
 Consideration of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as
 \defn{GNU GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader
 world of Free Software.  The GPL was not created from a void, rather,
 it was created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set
 forth at the founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation
 (FSF)---the organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy
 of software freedom.  A prerequisite for understanding the GPL and its
 terms and conditions is a basic understanding of the principles behind it.
 The GPL is unlike almost all other software licenses in that it is
 designed to defend and uphold these principles.
 \section{The Free Software Definition}
 \label{Free Software Definition}
 The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's website at
 \verb0http://www.fsf.org/0 \verb0philosophy/free-sw.html0.  This section
 presents an abbreviated version that will focus on the parts that are most
 pertinent to the terms of the GPL\@.
 A particular program is Free Software if it grants a particular user of
 that program, the following freedoms:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item the freedom to run the program for any purpose.
 \item the freedom to change and modify the program.
 \item the freedom to copy and share the program.
 \item the freedom to share improved versions of the program.
 \end{itemize}
 The focus on ``a particular user'' is very pertinent here.  It is not
 uncommon for the same version of a specific program to grant these
 freedoms to some subset of its user base, while others have none or only
 some of these freedoms.  Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in
 detail about how this can happen even if a program is released under the
 GPL\@.
 Some people refer to software that gives these freedoms as ``Open
 Source''.  Besides having a different political focus than those who call
 it Free Software\footnote{The political differences between the Free
 Software Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's
 website at
 {\tt http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}},
 those who call the software ``Open Source'' are focused on a side issue.
 User access to the source code of a program is a prerequisite to make use
 of the freedom to modify.  However, the important issue is what freedoms
 are granted in the license of that source code.  Microsoft's ``Shared
 Source'' program, for example, gives various types of access to source
 code, but almost none of the freedoms described in this section.
 One key issue that is central to these freedoms is that there are no
 restrictions on how these freedoms can be exercised.  Specifically, users
 and programmers can exercise these freedoms non-commercially or
 commercially.  Licenses that grant these freedoms for non-commercial
 activities but prohibit them for commercial activities are considered
 non-Free.
 In general, software for which most or all of these freedoms are
 restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software''.  Typically, the
 term ``proprietary software'' is used more or less interchangeably with
 ``non-Free Software''.  Personally, I tend to use the term ``non-Free
 Software'' to refer to non-commercial software that restricts freedom
 (such as ``shareware'') and ``proprietary software'' to refer to
 commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of
 Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).
 The remainder of this section considers each of the four freedoms in
 detail.
 \subsection{The Freedom to Run}
 For a program to be Free Software, the freedom to run the program must be
 completely unrestricted.  This means that any use for that software that
 the user can come up with must be permitted.  Perhaps, for example, the
 user has discovered an innovative new use for a particular program, one
 that the programmer never could have predicted.  Such a use must not be
 restricted.
 It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary
 software; today it is not so rare.  Most End User Licensing Agreements
 (EULAs) that cover most proprietary software restrict some types of use.
 For example, some versions of Microsoft's FrontPage software prohibit use
 of the software to create websites that generate negative publicity for
 Microsoft.  Free Software has no such restrictions; everyone is free to
 use Free Software for any purpose whatsoever.
 \subsection{The Freedom to Change and Modify}
 Free Software programs allow users to change, modify and adapt the
 software to suit their needs.  Access to the source code and related build
 scripts are an essential part of this freedom.  Without the source code
 and the ability to build the binary applications from that source, the
 freedom cannot be properly exercised.
 Programmers can take direct benefit from this freedom, and often do.
 However, this freedom is also important to users who are not programmers.
 Users must have the right to exercise this freedom indirectly in both
 commercial and non-commercial settings.  For example, users often seek
 non-commercial help with the software on email lists and in users groups.
 When they find such help, they must have the freedom to recruit
 programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their software.
 The commercial exercise of this freedom is also essential for users.  Each
 user, or group of users, must have the right to hire anyone they wish in a
 competitive free market to modify and change the software.  This means
 that companies have a right to hire anyone they wish to modify their Free
 Software.  Additionally, such companies may contract with other companies
 to commission software modification.
 \subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}
 Users may share Free Software in a variety of ways.  Free Software
 advocates work to eliminate a fundamental ethical dilemma of the software
 age: choosing between obeying a software license, and friendship (by
 giving away a copy of a program your friend who likes the software you are
 using).  Free Software licenses, therefore, must permit this sort of
 altruistic sharing of software among friends.
 The commercial environment must also have the benefits of this freedom.
 Commercial sharing typically takes the form of selling copies of Free
 Software.  Free Software can be sold at any price to anyone.  Those who
 redistribute Free Software commercially have the freedom to selectively
 distribute (you can pick your customers) and to set prices at any level
 the redistributor sees fit.
 It is true that many people get copies of Free Software very cheaply (and
 sometimes without charge). The competitive free market of Free Software
 tends to keep prices low and reasonable.  However, if someone is willing
 to pay a billion dollars for one copy of the GNU Compiler Collection, such
 a sale is completely permitted.
 Another common instance of commercial sharing is service-oriented
 distribution.  For example, a distribution vendor may provide immediate
 security and upgrade distribution via a special network service.  Such
 distribution is completely permitted for Free Software.
 (Section~\ref{Business Models} of this tutorial talks in detail about
 various Free Software business models that take advantage of the freedom
 to share commercially.)
 \subsection{The Freedom to Share Improvements}
 The freedom to modify and improve is somewhat empty without the freedom to
 share those improvements.  The Free Software community is built on the
 pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software.  Inevitably, a
 Free Software project sprouts a mailing list where improvements are shared
 freely among members of the development community.  Such non-commercial
 sharing must be permitted for Free Software to thrive.
 Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.  For a
 competitive free market for support to exist, all developers --- from
 single-person contractors to large software companies --- must have the
 freedom to market their services as improvers of Free Software.  All forms
 of such service marketing must be equally available to all.
 For example, selling support services for Free Software is fully
 permitted.  Companies and individuals can offer themselves as ``the place
 to call'' when software fails or does not function properly.  For such a
 service to be meaningful, the entity offering that service must have the
 right to modify and improve the software for the customer to correct any
 problems that are beyond mere user error.
 Entities must also be permitted to make available modified versions of
 Free Software.  Most Free Software programs have a ``standard version''
 that is made available from the primary developers of the software.
 However, all who have the software have the ``freedom to fork'' --- that
 is, make available non-trivial modified versions of the software on a
 permanent or semi-permanent basis.  Such freedom is central to vibrant
 developer and user interaction.
 Companies and individuals have the right to make true value-added versions
 of Free Software.  They may use freedom to share improvements to
 distribute distinct versions of Free Software with different functionality
 and features.  Furthermore, this freedom can be exercised to serve a
 disenfranchised subset of the user community.  If the developers of the
 standard version refuse to serve the needs of some of the software's
 users, other entities have the right to create long- or short-lived fork
 that serves that sub-community.
 \section{How Does Software Become Free?}
 The last section set forth the freedoms and rights are respected by Free
 Software.  It presupposed, however, that such software exists.  This
 section discusses how Free Software comes into existence.  But first, it
 addresses how software can be non-free in the first place.
 Software can be made proprietary only because it is governed by copyright
 law\footnote{This statement is a bit of an oversimplification.  Patents
   and trade secrets can cover software and make it effectively non-free,
   one can contract away their rights and freedoms regarding software, or
   source code can be practically obscured in binary-only distribution
   without reliance on any legal system.  However, the primary control
   mechanism for software is copyright.}.  Copyright law, with respect to
 software, governs copying, modifying, and redistributing that
 software\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs ``public
   performance'' of copyrighted works.  There is no generally agreed
   definition for public performance of software and version 2 of the GPL
   does not govern public performance.}.  By law, the copyright holder (aka
 the author) of the work controls how others may copy, modify and/or
 distribute the work.  For proprietary software, these controls are used to
 prohibit these activities.  In addition, proprietary software distributors
 further impede modification in a practical sense by distributing only
 binary code and keeping the source code of the software secret.
 Copyright law is a construction.  In the USA, the Constitution permits,
 but does not require, the creation of copyright law as federal
 legislation.  Software, since it is an idea fixed in a tangible medium, is
 thus covered by the statues, and is copyrighted by default.
 However, this legal construction is not necessarily natural.  Software, in
 its natural state without copyright, is Free Software.  In an imaginary
 world, which has no copyright, the rules would be different.  In this
 world, when you received a copy of a program's source code, there would be
 no default legal system to restrict you from sharing it with others,
 making modifications, or redistributing those modified
 versions\footnote{There could still exist legal systems, like our modern
   patent system, which could restrict the software in other ways.}.
 Software in the real world is copyrighted by default, and that default
 legal system does exist.  However, it is possible to move software out of
 the domain of the copyright system.  A copyright holder is always
 permitted to \defn{disclaim} their copyright.  If copyright is disclaimed,
 the software is not governed by copyright law.  Software not governed by
 copyright is in the ``public domain''.
 \subsection{Public Domain Software}
 An author can create public domain software by disclaiming all copyright
 interest on the work.  In the USA and other countries that have signed the
 Berne convention on copyright, software is copyrighted automatically by
 the author when she ``fixes the software into a tangible medium''.  In
 the software world, this usually means typing the source code of the
 software into a file.
 However, an author can disclaim that default control given to her by the
 copyright laws.  Once this is done, the software is in the public domain
 --- it is no longer covered by copyright.  Since it is copyright law that
 allows for various controls on software (i.e., prohibition of copying,
 modification, and redistribution), removing the software from the
 copyright system and placing it into the public domain does yield Free
 Software.
 Carefully note that software in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
 in any way.  It is nonsensical to say software is ``licensed for the
 public domain'', or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave
 expressed permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
 By contrast, what the copyright holder has done is renounce her copyright
 controls on the work.  The law gave her controls over the work, and she
 has chosen to waive those controls.  Software in the public domain is
 absent copyright and absent a license.  The software freedoms discussed in
 Section~\ref{Free Software Definition} are all granted because there is no
 legal system in play to take them away.
 \subsection{Why Copyright Free Software?}
 If simply disclaiming copyright on software yields Free Software, then it
 stands to reason that putting software into the public domain is the
 easiest and most straightforward way to produce Free Software.  Indeed,
 some major Free Software projects have chosen this method for making their
 software Free.  However, most of the Free Software in existence \emph{is}
 copyrighted.  In most cases (particularly in that of FSF and the GNU
 Project), this was done due to very careful planning.
 Software released into the public domain does grant freedom to those users
 who receive the standard versions on which the original author disclaimed
 copyright.  However, since the work is not copyrighted, any non-trivial
 modification made to the work is fully copyrightable.
 Free Software released into the public domain initially is Free, and
 perhaps some who modify the software choose to place their work into the
 public domain as well.  However, over time, some entities will choose to
 proprietarize their modified versions.  The public domain body of software
 feeds the proprietary software.  The public commons disappears, because
 fewer and fewer entities have an incentive to contribute back to the
 commons.  They know that any of their competitors can proprietarize their
 enhancements.  Over time, almost no interesting work is left in the public
 domain, because nearly all new work is done by proprietarization.
 A legal mechanism is needed to redress this problem.  FSF was in fact
 originally created primarily as a legal entity to defend software freedom,
 and that work of of defending software freedom is a substantial part of
 its work today.  Specifically because of this ``embrace, proprietarize and
 extend'' cycle, FSF made a conscious choice to copyright its Free Software,
 and then license it under ``copyleft'' terms, and many, including the
 developers of the kernel named Linux, have chosen to follow this paradigm.
 Copyleft is a legal strategy to defend, uphold and propagate software
 freedom.  The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the
 software, license it under terms that give all the software freedoms, but
 use the copyright law controls to ensure that all who receive a copy of
 the software have equal rights and freedom.  In essence, copyleft grants
 freedom, but forbids others to forbid that freedom from anyone else along
 the distribution and modification chains.
 Copyleft is a general concept.  Much like ideas for what a computer might
 do must be \emph{implemented} by a program that actually does the job, so
 too must copyleft be implemented in some concrete legal structure.
 ``Share and share alike'' is a phrase that is often enough to explain the
 concept behind copyleft, but to actually make it work in the real world, a
 true implementation in legal text must exist.  The GPL is the primary
 implementation of copyleft in copyright licensing language.
 \section{An Ecosystem of Equality}
 The GPL uses copyright law to defend freedom and equally ensure users'
 rights.  This ultimately creates an ecosystem of equality for both
 business and non-commercial users.
 \subsection{The Non-Commercial Ecosystem}
 A GPL'ed code base becomes a center of a vibrant development and user
 community.  Traditionally, volunteers, operating non-commercially out of
 keen interest or ``scratch an itch'' motivations, produce initial versions
 of a GPL'ed system.  Because of the efficient distribution channels of the
 Internet, any useful GPL'ed system is adopted quickly by non-commercial
 users.
 Fundamentally, the early release and quick distribution of the software
 gives birth to a thriving non-commercial community.  Users and developers
 begin sharing bug reports and bug fixes across a shared intellectual
 commons.  Users can trust the developers, because they know that if the
 developers fail to address their needs or abandon the project, the GPL
 ensures that someone else has the right to pick up development.
 Developers know that the users cannot redistribute their software without
 passing along the rights granted by GPL, so they are assured that every
 one of their users is treated equally.
 Because of the symmetry and fairness inherent in GPL'ed distribution,
 nearly every GPL'ed package in existence has a vibrant non-commercial user
 and developer base.
 \subsection{The Commercial Ecosystem}
 By the same token, nearly all established GPL'ed software systems have a
 vibrant commercial community.  Nearly every GPL'ed system that has gained
 wide adoption from non-commercial users and developers eventually begins
 to fuel a commercial system around that software.
 For example, consider the Samba file server system that allows Unix-like
 systems (including GNU/Linux) to serve files to Microsoft Windows systems.
 Two graduate students originally developed Samba in their spare time and
 it was deployed non-commercially in academic environments.  However, very
 soon for-profit companies discovered that the software could work for them
 as well, and their system administrators began to use it in place of
 Microsoft Windows NT file-servers.  This served to lower the cost of
 running such servers by orders of magnitude.  There was suddenly room in
 Windows file-server budgets to hire contractors to improve Samba.  Some of
 the first people hired to do such work were those same two graduate
 students who originally developed the software.
 The non-commercial users, however, were not concerned when these two
 fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'ed work.  They knew
 that because of the nature of the GPL that improvements that were
 distributed in the commercial environment could easily be folded back into
 the standard version.  Companies are not permitted to proprietarize
 Samba, so the non-commercial users, and even other commercial users are
 safe in the knowledge that the software freedom ensured by GPL will remain
 protected.
 Commercial developers also work in concert with non-commercial developers.
 Those two now-long-since graduated students continue to contribute to
 Samba altruistically, but also get work doing it.  Priorities change when a
 client is in the mix, but all the code is contributed back to the
 standard version.  Meanwhile, many other individuals have gotten involved
 non-commercially as developers, because they want to ``cut their teeth on
 Free Software'' or because the problems interest them.  When they get good
 at it, perhaps they will move on to another project or perhaps they will
 become commercial developers of the software themselves.
 No party is a threat to another in the GPL software scenario because
 everyone is on equal ground.  The GPL protects rights of the commercial
 and non-commercial contributors and users equally.  The GPL creates trust,
 because it is a level playing field for all.
 \subsection{Law Analogy}
 In his introduction to Stallman's \emph{Free Software, Free Society},
 Lawrence Lessig draws an interesting analogy between the law and Free
 Software.  He argues that the laws of a Free society must be protected
 much like the GPL protects software.  So that I might do true justice to
 Lessig's argument, I quote it verbatim:
 \begin{quotation}
 A ``free society'' is regulated by law. But there are limits that any free
 society places on this regulation through law: No society that kept its
 laws secret could ever be called free. No government that hid its
 regulations from the regulated could ever stand in our tradition. Law
 controls.  But it does so justly only when visibly. And law is visible
 only when its terms are knowable and controllable by those it regulates,
 or by the agents of those it regulates (lawyers, legislatures).
 This condition on law extends beyond the work of a legislature.  Think
 about the practice of law in American courts.  Lawyers are hired by their
 clients to advance their clients' interests. Sometimes that interest is
 advanced through litigation. In the course of this litigation, lawyers
 write briefs.  These briefs in turn affect opinions written by judges.
 These opinions decide who wins a particular case, or whether a certain law
 can stand consistently with a constitution.
 All the material in this process is free in the sense that Stallman means.
 Legal briefs are open and free for others to use.  The arguments are
 transparent (which is different from saying they are good) and the
 reasoning can be taken without the permission of the original lawyers.
 The opinions they produce can be quoted in later briefs.  They can be
 copied and integrated into another brief or opinion.  The ``source code''
 for American law is by design, and by principle, open and free for anyone
 to take. And take lawyers do---for it is a measure of a great brief that
 it achieves its creativity through the reuse of what happened before.  The
 source is free; creativity and an economy is built upon it.
 This economy of free code (and here I mean free legal code) doesn't starve
 lawyers.  Law firms have enough incentive to produce great briefs even
 though the stuff they build can be taken and copied by anyone else.  The
 lawyer is a craftsman; his or her product is public.  Yet the crafting is
 not charity.  Lawyers get paid; the public doesn't demand such work
 without price.  Instead this economy flourishes, with later work added to
 the earlier.
 We could imagine a legal practice that was different---briefs and
 arguments that were kept secret; rulings that announced a result but not
 the reasoning.  Laws that were kept by the police but published to no one
 else.  Regulation that operated without explaining its rule.
 We could imagine this society, but we could not imagine calling it
 ``free.''  Whether or not the incentives in such a society would be better
 or more efficiently allocated, such a society could not be known as free.
 The ideals of freedom, of life within a free society, demand more than
 efficient application.  Instead, openness and transparency are the
 constraints within which a legal system gets built, not options to be
 added if convenient to the leaders.  Life governed by software code should
 be no less.
 Code writing is not litigation.  It is better, richer, more
 productive. But the law is an obvious instance of how creativity and
 incentives do not depend upon perfect control over the products created.
 Like jazz, or novels, or architecture, the law gets built upon the work
 that went before. This adding and changing is what creativity always is.
 And a free society is one that assures that its most important resources
 remain free in just this sense.\footnote{This quotation is Copyright
   \copyright{} 2002, Lawrence Lessig.  It is licensed under the terms of
   \href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/}{the ``Attribution
     License'', version 1.0} or any later version as published by Creative
   Commons.}
 \end{quotation}
 In essence, lawyers are paid to service the shared commons of legal
 infrastructure.  Few citizens defend themselves in court or write their
 own briefs (even though they are legally permitted to do so) because
 everyone would prefer to have an expert do that job.
 The Free Software economy is a market that is ripe for experts.  It
 functions similarly to other well established professional fields like the
 law.  The GPL, in turn, serves as the legal scaffolding that permits the
 creation of this vibrant commercial and non-commercial Free Software
 economy.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Copying, Modifying and Redistributing}
 This chapter begins the deep discussion of the details of the terms of
 GPL\@.  In this chapter, we consider the core terms: GPL \S\S 0--3.  These
 are the sections of the GPL that fundamentally define the legal details of
 how software freedom is respected.
 \section{GPL \S 0: Freedom to Run}
 \label{GPLs0}
 \S 0, the opening section of GPL, sets forth that the work is governed by
 copyright law.  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, \S 0 makes an inference that copyright law is the only
 system under which it is governed.  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 GPL
 (which they cannot; see Sections~\ref{GPLs6} and~\ref{GPLs7}).  This is
 very important, because the Free Software community heavily supports
 users' rights to ``fair use'' and ``unregulated use'' of copyrighted
 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
 example of fair use is the right to quote a very few lines (less than
 seven or so), and reuse them as you with without licensing restrictions.
 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.
 \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:
 \begin{quote}
 The act of running the Program is not restricted
 \end{quote}
 Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by \S 0.
 \medskip
 The bulk of \S 0 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 the
 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, 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{GPL \S 1: Verbatim Copying}
 \label{GPLs1}
 GPL \S 1 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 \S 1.  These are in some ways the most important part of
 the redistribution, which is why they are mentioned by name.  The 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 someone would be
 surprised that the software she got was licensed under GPL\@.  Thus
 throughout the GPL, there are specific reference 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
 proposed state-level UCITA bills (which have never obtained widespread
 adoption), there are little 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{GPLs11} and~\ref{GPLs12} of this tutorial for more on GPL's
 warranty disclaimers.)
 Note finally that \S 1 begins to set forth the important defense of
 commercial freedom.  \S 1 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.)
 \section{GPL \S 2: Share and Share Alike}
 For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software
 freedom along the distribution chain.  \S 2 is the only place in the GPL
 that governs the modification controls of copyright law.  If someone
 modifies a GPL'ed program, she is bound in the making those changes by \S
 .  The goal here is to ensure that the body of GPL'ed software, as it
 continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.
 To achieve that goal, \S 2 first sets forth that the rights of
 redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim
 copying, as presented in \S 1.  Therefore, the details of charging,
 keeping copyright notices intact, and other \S 1 provisions are in tact
 here as well.  However, there are three additional requirements.
 The first (\S 2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent
 notices'' explaining what changes were made and the date of such changes.
 The goal here is not to put forward some specific way of marking changes,
 or controlling the process of how changes get made.  Primarily, \S 2(a)
 seeks to ensure that those receiving modified versions know what path it
 took to them.  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, \S 2(a) serves an academic
 purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic approach
 to understand the software.
 \medskip
 The second requirement (\S 2(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.  It is worth
 the effort to carefully understand what each clause is saying, because \S
 (b) can be a source of great confusion when not properly understood.
 In considering \S 2(b), first note the qualifier: it only applies to
 derivative works that ``you distribute or publish''.  Despite years of
 education efforts by FSF on this matter, many still believe that modifiers
 of GPL'ed software are required by the license to publish or otherwise
 share their changes.  On the contrary, \S 2(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{FSF does maintain that there is an {\bf
     ethical} obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful,
   and often encourages 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 \S 0, 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'ed software, then the requirements of \S 2(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 \S 2(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 \S 2 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 worked 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}{$\mathcal{G}$}
 It is certainly possible to take an existing independent work (called
 \worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'ed 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 derivative work, \gplusi{}, is jointly held by the original copyright
 holder of each of the two works.
 In this case, \S 2 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 Microsoft
 product --- would they give you permission to create and distribute
 \gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?)  The license of \workg{}, the
 GPL, sets forth ahead of time options for the copyright holder of \worki{}
 who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}.  This pre-granted
 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 \S 2(b) is ``licensed ... at no charge''.  This
 is a source of great confusion to many.  Not a month goes by that FSF does
 not receive an email that claims to point out ``a contradiction in GPL''
 because \S 2 says that redistributors cannot charge for modified versions
 of GPL'ed software, but \S 1 says that they can.  The ``at no charge''
 means not that redistributors cannot charge for 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'ed 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.
 \S 2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed ... to all
 third parties''.  This too has led to some confusions, 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 \S 2(b) does require redistributors to license the derivative works in
 a way that is extends to all third parties who may ultimately receive a
 copy of the software.
 In summary, \S 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 GPL.  When an entity \emph{chooses} to redistribute
 a derivative work of GPL'ed software, the license of that whole derivative
 work must be GPL and only GPL\@.  In this manner, \S 2(b) dovetails nicely
 with \S 6 (as discussed in Section~\ref{GPLs6} of this tutorial).
 \medskip
 The final paragraph of \S 2 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'ed
 code-base does not impact the license of other programs.  Actual effort
 must be expended by a programmer to cause a work to fall under the terms
 of the GPL.  Redistributors are always welcome to simply ship GPL'ed
 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'ed.
 \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
 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'') 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'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
 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.  \S 3 addresses the matter of creation and distribution of
 binary versions.
 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
 changes to a software program at the binary level is effectively
 impossible.  \S 3 must ensure that the binaries are never distributed
 without the source code, so that these freedoms are ensured to be passed
 along the distribution chain.
 \S 3 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 \S 3(a).
 \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).
 Under \S 3(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''.  A later paragraph of \S 3
 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, \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
 at all.  Sometimes, companies attempt a GPL-violating cozenage whereby
 they produce very specialized binaries (perhaps for an obscure
 architecture), and then giving source code that does correspond, but not
 giving the ``incantations'' and build plans they used to make that source
 compile into the specialized binaries.  Therefore, \S 3 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.
 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
 recommended that this be the default way that people comply with GPL, the
 GPL does provide options when such distribution is infeasible.
 \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
 , distribution on magnetic tape was still common, and CD was
 relatively new.  Today, CD is the default, and for larger systems DVD-R is
 gaining adoption.  This language 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, 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
 CD-ROM drives are not connected to the Internet, and most people connected
 to the Internet are connected via a 56K dial-up connection.  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 have must have a worldwide scope in context, and 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 \S 3.  \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 \S 3.
 \medskip
 As is shown above, Under \S 3(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)
 prohibit using GPL'ed software.  For this situation and others like it, \S
 (b) is available.
 \S 3(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
 source, and thus the cost of producing the CDs is saved --- a financial
 and environmental windfall.  In addition, along with a \S 3(b) compliant
 offer for source, a binary distributor might choose to \emph{also} give a
 URL for source code.  Many who would otherwise need a CD with source might
 turn out to have those coveted high bandwidth connections, and are able to
 download the source instead --- again yielding environmental and financial
 windfalls.
 However, note that regardless of how many users prefer to get the source
 online, that \S 3(b) does place lasting long-term obligations on the
 binary distributor.  The binary distributor must be prepared for three
 years to honor that offer for source, and ship it out (just as they would
 have had to do under \S 3(a)) at a moment's notice when they receive such
 a request.  There is real organizational cost here: support engineers for
 three years must be trained how to route source requests, and source CD
 images for every release version for the last three years must be kept on
 hand to burn such CDs quickly.  The requests might not even come from
 actual customers; the offer for source must be valid for ``any third
 party''.
 That phrase is another place where some get confused --- thinking again
 that full public distribution of source is required.  The offer for source
 must be valid for ``any third party'' because of the freedoms of
 redistribution granted by \S\S 1--2.  A company may ship a binary image
 and an offer for source to only one customer.  However, under GPL, that
 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.
 \S 3(c) is created to save her some trouble, because by itself \S 3(b)
 would unfairly favor large companies.  compromise.  \S 3(b) allows the
 separation of the binary software from the key tool that people can use
 to exercise their freedom.  The GPL permits this separation because it is
 good for redistributors, and those users who turn out not to need the
 source.  However, to ensure equal rights for all software users, anyone
 along the distribution chain must have the right to get the source and
 exercise those freedoms that require it.
 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
 offer, would be required under GPL (sans \S 3(c)) to acquire the source,
 merely to give a copy of the software to a friend who needed it.  \S 3(c)
 reshifts this burden to entity who benefits from \S 3(b).
 \S 3(c) allows those who undertake \emph{non-commercial} distribution to
 simply pass along a \S 3(b)-compliant source code offer.  The customer who
 wished to give a copy to her friend can now do so without provisioning the
 source, as long as she gives that offer to her friend.  By contrast, if
 she wanted to go into business for herself selling CDs of that software,
 she would have to acquire the source and either comply via \S 3(a), or
 write her own \S 3(b)-compliant source offer.
 This process is precisely the reason why a \S 3(b) source offer must be
 valid for all third parties.  At the time the offer is made, there is no
 way of knowing who might end up non-commercially receiving a copy of the
 software.  Companies who choose to comply via \S 3(b) must thus be
 prepared to honor all incoming source code requests.  For this and the
 many other additional necessary complications under \S\S 3(b--c), it is
 only rarely a better option than complying via \S 3(a).
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Defending Freedom On Many Fronts}
 The last chapter presented the core freedom-defending provisions of GPL\@,
 which are in \S\S 0--3.  \S\S 4--7 of the GPL are designed to ensure that
 \S\S 0--3 are not infringed, are enforceable, are kept to the confines of
 copyright law and are not trumped by other copyright agreements or
 components of other entirely separate legal systems.  In short, while \S\S
 --3 are the parts of the license that defend the freedoms of users and
 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
   the USA, due to unfortunate legislation, the length of copyright is
   nearly perpetual, even though the Constitution forbids perpetual
   copyright.}.  The copyright holder has the right to relicense the same
 work under different licenses (see Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing}
 of this tutorial), or to stop distributing the GPL'ed version (assuming \S
 (b) was never used), but the she may not revoke the rights under GPL
 already granted.
 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.
 Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to
 the licensee to perform specific types of copying, modification, and
 redistribution.  By default, all other types of copying, modification, and
 redistribution are prohibited.  \S 4 says that if you undertake any of
 those other types (e.g., redistributing binary-only in violation of \S 3),
 then all rights under the license --- even those otherwise permitted for
 those who have not violated --- terminate automatically.
 \S 4 gives GPL teeth.  If licensees fail to adhere to the license, then
 they are stuck.  They must to completely cease and desist from all
 copying, modification and distribution of that GPL'ed software.
 At that point, violating licensees must gain the forgiveness of the
 copyright holder to have their rights restored.  Alternatively, they could
 negotiate another agreement, separate from GPL, with the copyright
 holder.  Both are common practice.
 At FSF, it is part of the mission to spread software freedom.  When FSF
 enforces GPL, the goal is to bring the violator back into compliance as
 quickly as possible, and redress the damage caused by the violation.
 That is FSF's steadfast position in a violation negotiation --- comply
 with the license and respect freedom.
 However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software
 freedom as institutionalized by FSF pursue GPL violations differently.  MySQL
 AB, a company that produces the GPL'ed MySQL database, upon discovering
 GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software license
 separately for a fee.  While this practice is not one that FSF would ever
 consider undertaking or even endorsing, it is a legal way for copyright
 holders to proceed.
 \section{GPL \S 5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}
 \label{GPLs5}
 \S 5 brings us to perhaps the most fundamental misconception and common
 confusion about GPL\@.  Because of the prevalence of proprietary software,
 most users, programmers, and lawyers alike tend to be more familiar with
 EULAs.  EULAs are believed by their authors to be contracts, requiring
 formal agreement between the licensee and the software distributor to be
 valid.  This has led to mechanisms like ``shrink-wrap'' and ``click-wrap''
 as mechanisms to perform acceptance ceremonies with EULAs.
 The GPL does not need contract law to ``transfer rights''.  No rights are
 transfered between parties.  By contrast, the GPL is permission slip to
 undertake activities that would otherwise been prohibited by copyright law.
 As such, it needs no acceptance ceremony; the licensee is not even
 required to accept the license.
 However, without the GPL, the activities of copying, modifying and
 distributing the software would have otherwise been prohibited.  So, the
 GPL says that you only accepted the license by undertaking activities that
 you would have otherwise been prohibited without your license under GPL\@.
 This is a certainly subtle point, and requires a mindset quite different
 from the contractual approach taken by EULA authors.
 An interesting side benefit to \S 5 is that the bulk of users of Free
 Software are not required to accept the license.  Undertaking fair and
 unregulated use of the work, for example, does not bind you to the GPL,
 since you are not engaging in activity that is otherwise controlled by
 copyright law.  Only when you engage in those activities that might have an
 impact on the freedom of others does license acceptance occur and the
 terms begin to bind you to fair and equitable sharing of the software.  In
 other words, the GPL only kicks in when it needs to for the sake of
 freedom.
 \section{GPL \S 6: GPL, My One and Only}
 \label{GPLs6}
 A point that was glossed over in Section~\ref{GPLs4}'s discussion of \S 4
 was the irrevocable nature of the GPL\@.  The GPL is indeed irrevocable,
 and it is made so formally \S 6.
 The first sentence in \S 6 ensures that as software propagates down the
 distribution chain, that each licensor can pass along the license to each
 new licensee.  Under \S 6, the act of distributing automatically grants a
 license from the original licensor to the next recipient.  This creates a
 chain of grants that ensure that everyone in the distribution has rights
 under the GPL\@.  In a mathematical sense, this bounds the bottom ---
 making sure that future licensees get no fewer rights than than the
 licensee before.
 The second sentence of \S 6 does the opposite; it bounds from the top.  It
 prohibits any licensor along the distribution chain from placing
 additional restrictions on the user.  In other words, no additional
 requirements may trump the rights and freedoms given by GPL\@.
 The final sentence of \S 6 makes it abundantly clear that no individual
 entity in the distribution chain is responsible for the compliance of any
 other.  This is particularly important for non-commercial users who have
 passed along a source offer under \S 3(c), as they cannot be assured that
 the issuer of the offer will honor their \S 3 obligations.
 In short, \S 6 says that your license for the software is your one and
 only copyright license allowing you to copy, modify and distribute the
 software.
 \section{GPL \S 7: ``Give Software Liberty of Give It Death!''}
 \label{GPLs7}
 In essence, \S 7 is a verbosely worded way of saying for non-copyright
 systems what \S 6 says for copyright.  If there exists any reason that a
 distributor knows of that would prohibit later licensees from exercising
 their full rights under GPL, then distribution is prohibited.
 Originally, this was designed as the title of this section suggests --- as
 a last ditch effort to make sure that freedom was upheld.  However, in
 modern times, it has come to give much more.  Now that the body of GPL'ed
 software is so large, patent holders who would want to be distributors of
 GPL'ed software have a tough choice.  They must choose between avoiding
 distribution of GPL'ed software that exercises the teachings of their
 patents, or grant a royalty-free, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to
 those patents.  Many companies, including IBM, the largest patent holder
 in the world, have chosen the latter.
 Thus, \S 7 is rarely gives software death by stopping its distribution.
 Instead, it is inspiring patent holders to share their patents in the same
 freedom-defending way that they share their copyrighted works.
 \section{GPL \S 8: Excluding Unfreedonia}
 \label{GPLs8}
 \S 8 is rarely used by copyright holders.  Its intention is that, if
 particular country, say Unfreedonia, grant particular patents or allow
 copyrighted interfaces (no country to our knowledge even permits those
 yet), that the GPL'ed software can continue in free and unabated
 distribution in the countries where such controls do not exist.
 It is a partial ``out'' from \S 7.  Without \S 8, if a copyright holder
 knew of a patent in a particular country licensed in a GPL-incompatible
 way, then she could not distribute under GPL, because the work would
 legitimately end up in the hands of citizens of Unfreedonia.
 It is an inevitable but sad reality that some countries are freer than
 others.  \S 8 exists to permit distribution on those countries that are
 free without otherwise negating parts of the license.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}
 \S 0--7 constitute the freedom-defending terms of the GPL.  The balance
 of the GPL handles administrivia and issues concerning warranties and
 liability.
 \section{GPL \S 9: FSF as stewards of GPL}
 \label{GPLs9}
 FSF reserves the exclusive right to publish future versions of the GPL\@;
 \S 9 expresses this.  While the stewardship of the copyrights on the body
 of GPL'ed 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.
 FSF has only released two versions of GPL --- in 1989 and 1991.  GPL,
 version 3, is under current internal drafting.  FSF's plan is to have a
 long and engaging comment period.  The goal of GPL is defend freedom, and
 a gigantic community depends on that freedom now.  FSF hopes to take all
 stakeholders' opinions under advisement.
 \section{GPL \S 10: Relicensing Permitted}
 \label{GPLs10}
 \S 10 reminds the licensee of what is already implied by the nature of
 copyright law.  Namely, the copyright holder of a particular software
 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
 permits the sale of warranty as an additional service, which \S 11
 affirms.
 \section{GPL, \S 12: Limitation of Liability}
 \label{GPLs12}
 There are many types of warranties, and in some jurisdictions some of them
 cannot be disclaimed.  Therefore, usually agreements will have both a
 warranty disclaimer and a limitation of liability, as we have in \S 12.
 \S 11 thus gets rid of all implied warranties that can legally be
 disavowed.  \S 12, in turn, limits the liability of the actor for any
 warranties that cannot legally be disclaimed in a particular jurisdiction.
 So ends the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}
 Since GPL'ed software is now extremely prevalent through the industry, it
 is useful to has some basic knowledge about using GPL'ed software in
 business and how to build business models around GPL'ed software.
 \section{Using GPL'ed Software In-House}
 A discussed in Sections~\ref{GPLs0} and~\ref{GPLs5} of this tutorial, the
 GPL only governs the activities of copying, modifying and distributing the
 software are not governed by the license.  Thus, in FSF's view, simply
 installing the software on a machine and using it is not controlled or
 limited in any way by GPL\@.  Using Free Software in general requires
 substantially fewer agreements and less license compliance activity than
 any known proprietary software.
 Even if a company engages heavily in copying the software throughout the
 enterprise, such copying is not only permitted by \S\S 1 and 3, but it is
 encouraged!  If the company simply deploy unmodified (or even modified)
 Free Software throughout the organization for its employees to use, the
 obligations under the license are very minimal.  Using Free Software has a
 substantially lower cost of ownership --- both in licensing fees and in
 licensing checking and handling -- than the proprietary software
 equivalents.
 \section{Business Models}
 \label{Business Models}
 Using Free Software in house is certainly helpful, but there is also a
 thriving market for Free Software-oriented business models.  There is the
 traditional model of selling copies of Free Software distributions.  Many
 companies, including IBM and Red Hat, make substantial revenue from this
 model.  IBM primarily chooses this model because they have found that for
 higher-end hardware, the cost of the profit made from proprietary software
 licensing fees is negligible.  The real profit is in the hardware, but it is
 essential that software be stable, reliable and dependable, and the users
 be allowed to have unfettered access to it.  Free Software, and GPL'ed
 software in particular (because IBM can be assured that proprietary
 versions of the same software will not exists to compete on their
 hardware) is the right choice.
 Red Hat has actually found that a ``convenience fee'' for Free Software,
 when set at a reasonable price (around \$60 or so), can produce some
 profit.  Even though Red Hat's system is fully downloadable on their
 website, people still go to local computer stores and buy copies of their
 box set, which is simply a printed version of the manual (available under
 a free license as well) and the Free Software system it documents.
 \medskip
 However, custom support, service, and software improvement contracts are
 the most widely used models for GPL'ed software.  The GPL is central to
 their success, because it ensure that the code base remains common, and
 that large and small companies are on equal footing for access to the
 technology.  Consider, for example, the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC).
 Cygnus Solutions, a company started in the early 1990s, was able to grow
 steadily simply by providing services for GCC --- mostly consisting of
 porting GCC to new embedded chipset target platforms.  Eventually, Cygnus
 was so successful that it was purchased by Red Hat where it remains a
 profitable division.
 However, there are very small companies like CodeSourcery, as well as
 other medium sized companies like MontaVista and OpenTV that compete in
 this space.  Because the code-base is protect by GPL, it creates and
 demands industry trust.  Companies can cooperate on the software and
 improve it for everyone.  Meanwhile, companies who rely on GCC for their
 work are happy to pay for improvements, and for ports to new target
 platforms, and nearly all the changes fold back into the standard
 versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.
 \medskip
 \label{Proprietary Relicensing}
 A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is
 proprietary relicensing of a GPL'ed code base.  This is only an option for
 software in which a particular entity is the sole copyright holder.  As
 discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is permitted under
 copyright law to license a software system under her copyright as many
 different ways as she likes to as many different parties as she wishes.
 Some companies, such as MySQL AB and TrollTech, use this to their
 financial advantage with regard to a GPL'ed code base.  The standard
 version is available from the company under the terms of the GPL\@.
 However, parties can purchase separate proprietary software licensing for
 a fee.
 This business model is problematic because it means that the GPL'ed code
 base must be developed in a somewhat monolithic way, because volunteer
 Free Software developers may be reluctant to assign their copyrights to
 the company because it will not promise to always and forever license the
 software as Free Software.  Indeed, the company will surely use such code
 contributions in proprietary versions licensed for fees.
 \section{Ongoing Compliance}
 GPL compliance is in fact a very simple matter -- much simpler than
 typical proprietary software agreements and EULAs.  Usually, the most
 difficult hurdle is changing from a proprietary software mindset to one
 that seeks to foster a community of sharing and mutual support.  Certainly
 complying with the GPL from a users' perspective gives substantially fewer
 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,
 admittedly to the dismay of FSF, many modern and complex software systems
 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
 Compliance Labs at $<$compliance@fsf.org$>$.
 \appendix
 \chapter{The GNU General Public License}
 \begin{center}
 {\parindent 0in
 Version 2, June 1991
 Copyright \copyright\ 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 \bigskip
 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA
 \bigskip
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+}
 \end{center}
 \begin{center}
 {\bf\large Preamble}
 \end{center}
 The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
 share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
 intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software---to
 make sure the software is free for all its users.  This General Public
 License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to
 any other program whose authors commit to using it.  (Some other Free
 Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public
 License instead.)  You can apply it to your programs, too.
 When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.
 Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the
 freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service
 if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it,
 that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs;
 and that you know you can do these things.
 To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to
 deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.  These
 restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
 distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
 For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
 for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have.  You
 must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.  And
 you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
 We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2)
 offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
 distribute and/or modify the software.
 Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that
 everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software.  If
 the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its
 recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any
 problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors'
 reputations.
 Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents.
 We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will
 individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
 proprietary.  To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must
 be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
 The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
 modification follow.
 \begin{center}
 {\Large \sc Terms and Conditions For Copying, Distribution and
   Modification}
 \end{center}
 %\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alpha{enumi}}
 \begin{enumerate}
 \addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
 \item
 This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice
 placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the
 terms of this General Public License.  The ``Program'', below, refers to
 any such program or work, and a ``work based on the Program'' means either
 the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a
 work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with
 modifications and/or translated into another language.  (Hereinafter,
 translation is included without limitation in the term ``modification''.)
 Each licensee is addressed as ``you''.
 Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
 covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
 running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
 is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
 Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
 Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
 \item You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
   code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
   and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
   and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to
   this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
   recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
 You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you
 may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
 \item
 You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
 of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
 distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
 \begin{enumerate}
 \item
 You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
 you changed the files and the date of any change.
 \item
 You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
 whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
 part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
 parties under the terms of this License.
 \item
 If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
 when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
 interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
 announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
 notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
 a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
 these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
 License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
 does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
 the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
 \end{enumerate}
 These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
 identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
 and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
 themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
 sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
 distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
 on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
 this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
 entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
 Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
 your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
 exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
 collective works based on the Program.
 In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
 with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
 a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
 the scope of this License.
 \item
 You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
 under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
 Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
 \begin{enumerate}
 \item
 Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
 source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
 \item
 Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
 years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
 cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
 machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
 distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
 customarily used for software interchange; or,
 \item
 Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
 to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
 allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
 received the program in object code or executable form with such
 an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
 \end{enumerate}
 The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
 making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
 code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
 associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
 control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
 special exception, the source code distributed need not include
 anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
 form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
 operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
 itself accompanies the executable.
 If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
 access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
 access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
 distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
 compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
 \item
 You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
 except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
 otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
 void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
 However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
 this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
 parties remain in full compliance.
 \item
 You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
 signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
 distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
 prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
 modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
 Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
 all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
 the Program or works based on it.
 \item
 Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
 Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
 original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
 these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
 restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
 You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
 this License.
 \item
 If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
 infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
 conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
 otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
 excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
 distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
 License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
 may not distribute the Program at all.  For example, if a patent
 license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
 all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
 the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
 refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
 If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
 any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
 apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
 circumstances.
 It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
 patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
 such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
 integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
 implemented by public license practices.  Many people have made
 generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
 through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
 system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
 to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
 impose that choice.
 This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
 be a consequence of the rest of this License.
 \item
 If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
 certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
 original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
 may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
 those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
 countries not thus excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates
 the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
 \item
 The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
 of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
 be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
 address new problems or concerns.
 Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
 specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and ``any
 later version'', you have the option of following the terms and conditions
 either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
 Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of
 this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
 Foundation.
 \item
 If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
 programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
 to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free
 Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
 make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals
 of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
 of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
 \begin{center}
 {\Large\sc
 No Warranty
+}
 \end{center}
 \item
 {\sc Because the program is licensed free of charge, there is no warranty
 for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law.  Except when
 otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties
 provide the program ``as is'' without warranty of any kind, either expressed
 or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of
 merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.  The entire risk as
 to the quality and performance of the program is with you.  Should the
 program prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing,
 repair or correction.}
 \item
 {\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing
 will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or
 redistribute the program as permitted above, be liable to you for damages,
 including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising
 out of the use or inability to use the program (including but not limited
 to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by
 you or third parties or a failure of the program to operate with any other
 programs), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the
 possibility of such damages.}
 \end{enumerate}
 \begin{center}
 {\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}
 \end{center}
 \pagebreak[2]
 \section*{Appendix: How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs}
 If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
 possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
 free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these
 terms.
   To do so, attach the following notices to the program.  It is safest to
   attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey
   the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
   ``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
 \begin{quote}
 one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does. \\
 Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\
 This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 (at your option) any later version.
 This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
 GNU General Public License for more details.
 You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
 Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA.
 \end{quote}
 Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
 If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
 when it starts in an interactive mode:
 \begin{quote}
 Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\
 Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. \\
 This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
 under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
 \end{quote}
 The hypothetical commands {\tt show w} and {\tt show c} should show the
 appropriate parts of the General Public License.  Of course, the commands
 you use may be called something other than {\tt show w} and {\tt show c};
 they could even be mouse-clicks or menu items---whatever suits your
 program.
 You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
 school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the program, if
 necessary.  Here is a sample; alter the names:
 \begin{quote}
 Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program \\
 `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker. \\
 signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989 \\
 Ty Coon, President of Vice
 \end{quote}
 This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
 into proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you
 may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications
 with the library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library
 General Public License instead of this License.
 \chapter{The GNU Lesser General Public License}
 \begin{center}
 {\parindent 0in
 Version 2.1, February 1999
 Copyright \copyright\ 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 \bigskip
 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA
 \bigskip
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
 \bigskip
 [This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL.  It also counts
  as the successor of the GNU Library Public License, version 2, hence
  the version number 2.1.]
+}
 \end{center}
 \begin{center}
 {\bf\large Preamble}
 \end{center}
 The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
 share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public Licenses are
 intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software---to
 make sure the software is free for all its users.
 This license, the Lesser General Public License, applies to some specially
 designated software packages---typically libraries---of the Free Software
 Foundation and other authors who decide to use it.  You can use it too,
 but we suggest you first think carefully about whether this license or the
 ordinary General Public License is the better strategy to use in any
 particular case, based on the explanations below.
 When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom of use, not
 price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
 have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
 this service if you wish); that you receive source code or can get it if
 you want it; that you can change the software and use pieces of it in new
 free programs; and that you are informed that you can do these things.
 To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
 distributors to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender these
 rights.  These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you
 if you distribute copies of the library or if you modify it.
 For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or
 for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you.
 You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.  If
 you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object
 files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the library
 after making changes to the library and recompiling it.  And you must show
 them these terms so they know their rights.
 We protect your rights with a two-step method: (1) we copyright the
 library, and (2) we offer you this license, which gives you legal
 permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the library.
 To protect each distributor, we want to make it very clear that there is
 no warranty for the free library.  Also, if the library is modified by
 someone else and passed on, the recipients should know that what they have
 is not the original version, so that the original author's reputation will
 not be affected by problems that might be introduced by others.
 Finally, software patents pose a constant threat to the existence of any
 free program.  We wish to make sure that a company cannot effectively
 restrict the users of a free program by obtaining a restrictive license
 from a patent holder.  Therefore, we insist that any patent license
 obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full
 freedom of use specified in this license.
 Most GNU software, including some libraries, is covered by the ordinary
 GNU General Public License.  This license, the GNU Lesser General Public
 License, applies to certain designated libraries, and is quite different
 from the ordinary General Public License.  We use this license for certain
 libraries in order to permit linking those libraries into non-free
 programs.
 When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a
 shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined
 work, a derivative of the original library.  The ordinary General Public
 License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits
 its criteria of freedom.  The Lesser General Public License permits more
 lax criteria for linking other code with the library.
 We call this license the ``Lesser'' General Public License because it does
 Less to protect the user's freedom than the ordinary General Public
 License.  It also provides other free software developers Less of an
 advantage over competing non-free programs.  These disadvantages are the
 reason we use the ordinary General Public License for many libraries.
 However, the Lesser license provides advantages in certain special
 circumstances.
 For example, on rare occasions, there may be a special need to encourage
 the widest possible use of a certain library, so that it becomes a
 de-facto standard.  To achieve this, non-free programs must be allowed to
 use the library.  A more frequent case is that a free library does the
 same job as widely used non-free libraries.  In this case, there is little
 to gain by limiting the free library to free software only, so we use the
 Lesser General Public License.
 In other cases, permission to use a particular library in non-free
 programs enables a greater number of people to use a large body of free
 software.  For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-free
 programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating system,
 as well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating system.
 Although the Lesser General Public License is Less protective of the
 users' freedom, it does ensure that the user of a program that is linked
 with the Library has the freedom and the wherewithal to run that program
 using a modified version of the Library.
 The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
 modification follow.  Pay close attention to the difference between a
 ``work based on the library'' and a ``work that uses the library''.  The
 former contains code derived from the library, whereas the latter must be
 combined with the library in order to run.
 \begin{center}
 {\Large \sc GNU Lesser General Public License} \\
 {\Large \sc Terms and Conditions For Copying, Distribution and
   Modification}
 \end{center}
 \begin{enumerate}
 \addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
 \item
 This License Agreement applies to any software library or other program
 which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder or other authorized
 party saying it may be distributed under the terms of this Lesser General
 Public License (also called ``this License'').  Each licensee is addressed
 as ``you''.
 A ``library'' means a collection of software functions and/or data
 prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs (which
 use some of those functions and data) to form executables.
 The ``Library'', below, refers to any such software library or work which
 has been distributed under these terms.  A ``work based on the Library''
 means either the Library or any derivative work under copyright law: that
 is to say, a work containing the Library or a portion of it, either
 verbatim or with modifications and/or translated straightforwardly into
 another language.  (Hereinafter, translation is included without
 limitation in the term ``modification''.)
 ``Source code'' for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
 modifications to it.  For a library, complete source code means all the
 source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
 definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
 installation of the library.
 Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
 covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of running a
 program using the Library is not restricted, and output from such a
 program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
 Library (independent of the use of the Library in a tool for writing it).
 Whether that is true depends on what the Library does and what the program
 that uses the Library does.
 \item
 You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Library's complete
 source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
 conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
 copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices
 that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and
 distribute a copy of this License along with the Library.
 You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
 and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a
 fee.
 \item
 You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it,
 thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such
 modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that
 you also meet all of these conditions:
 \begin{enumerate}
   \item
     The modified work must itself be a software library.
   \item
     You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating
     that you changed the files and the date of any change.
   \item
     You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to
     all third parties under the terms of this License.
   \item
     If a facility in the modified Library refers to a function or a table
     of data to be supplied by an application program that uses the
     facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility is
     invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the
     event an application does not supply such function or table, the
     facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose
     remains meaningful.
 (For example, a function in a library to compute square roots has a
 purpose that is entirely well-defined independent of the application.
 Therefore, Subsection 2d requires that any application-supplied function
 or table used by this function must be optional: if the application does
 not supply it, the square root function must still compute square roots.)
 \end{enumerate}
 These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
 identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library,
 and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
 themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
 sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
 distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
 on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
 this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
 entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
 it.
 Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
 your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
 exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
 collective works based on the Library.
 In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Library
 with the Library (or with a work based on the Library) on a volume of
 a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
 the scope of this License.
 . You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
 License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library.  To do
 this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so
 that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2,
 instead of to this License.  (If a newer version than version 2 of the
 ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify
 that version instead if you wish.)  Do not make any other change in
 these notices.
   Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for
 that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all
 subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.
   This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of
 the Library into a program that is not a library.
 . You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or
 derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form
 under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany
 it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which
 must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a
 medium customarily used for software interchange.
   If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy
 from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the
 source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to
 distribute the source code, even though third parties are not
 compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
 . A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
 Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or
 linked with it, is called a ``work that uses the Library''.  Such a
 work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and
 therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
   However, linking a ``work that uses the Library'' with the Library
 creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
 contains portions of the Library), rather than a ``work that uses the
 library''.  The executable is therefore covered by this License.
 Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.
   When a ``work that uses the Library'' uses material from a header file
 that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a
 derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not.
 Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be
 linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library.  The
 threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.
   If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data
 structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline
 functions (ten lines or less in length), then the use of the object
 file is unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative
 work.  (Executables containing this object code plus portions of the
 Library will still fall under Section 6.)
   Otherwise, if the work is a derivative of the Library, you may
 distribute the object code for the work under the terms of Section 6.
 Any executables containing that work also fall under Section 6,
 whether or not they are linked directly with the Library itself.
 . As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or
 link a ``work that uses the Library'' with the Library to produce a
 work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
 under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit
 modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
 engineering for debugging such modifications.
   You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the
 Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
 this License.  You must supply a copy of this License.  If the work
 during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the
 copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference
 directing the user to the copy of this License.  Also, you must do one
 of these things:
     a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding
     machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever
     changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under
     Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked
     with the Library, with the complete machine-readable ``work that
     uses the Library'', as object code and/or source code, so that the
     user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified
     executable containing the modified Library.  (It is understood
     that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the
     Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application
     to use the modified definitions.)
     b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the
     Library.  A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a
     copy of the library already present on the user's computer system,
     rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2)
     will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if
     the user installs one, as long as the modified version is
     interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
     c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at
     least three years, to give the same user the materials
     specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more
     than the cost of performing this distribution.
     d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy
     from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above
     specified materials from the same place.
     e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these
     materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.
   For an executable, the required form of the ``work that uses the
 Library'' must include any data and utility programs needed for
 reproducing the executable from it.  However, as a special exception,
 the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is
 normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
 components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
 which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies
 the executable.
   It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license
 restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally
 accompany the operating system.  Such a contradiction means you cannot
 use both them and the Library together in an executable that you
 distribute.
 . You may place library facilities that are a work based on the
 Library side-by-side in a single library together with other library
 facilities not covered by this License, and distribute such a combined
 library, provided that the separate distribution of the work based on
 the Library and of the other library facilities is otherwise
 permitted, and provided that you do these two things:
     a) Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work
     based on the Library, uncombined with any other library
     facilities.  This must be distributed under the terms of the
     Sections above.
     b) Give prominent notice with the combined library of the fact
     that part of it is a work based on the Library, and explaining
     where to find the accompanying uncombined form of the same work.
 . You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute
 the Library except as expressly provided under this License.  Any
 attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or
 distribute the Library is void, and will automatically terminate your
 rights under this License.  However, parties who have received copies,
 or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses
 terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
 . You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
 signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
 distribute the Library or its derivative works.  These actions are
 prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
 modifying or distributing the Library (or any work based on the
 Library), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
 all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
 the Library or works based on it.
 . Each time you redistribute the Library (or any work based on the
 Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
 original licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the Library
 subject to these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
 restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
 You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with
 this License.
 . If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
 infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
 conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
 otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
 excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
 distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
 License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
 may not distribute the Library at all.  For example, if a patent
 license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library by
 all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
 the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
 refrain entirely from distribution of the Library.
 If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any
 particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply,
 and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
 It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
 patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
 such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
 integrity of the free software distribution system which is
 implemented by public license practices.  Many people have made
 generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
 through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
 system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
 to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
 impose that choice.
 This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
 be a consequence of the rest of this License.
 . If the distribution and/or use of the Library is restricted in
 certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
 original copyright holder who places the Library under this License may add
 an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries,
 so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus
 excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if
 written in the body of this License.
 . The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
 versions of the Lesser General Public License from time to time.
 Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version,
 but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
 Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Library
 specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
 ``any later version'', you have the option of following the terms and
 conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
 the Free Software Foundation.  If the Library does not specify a
 license version number, you may choose any version ever published by
 the Free Software Foundation.
 . If you wish to incorporate parts of the Library into other free
 programs whose distribution conditions are incompatible with these,
 write to the author to ask for permission.  For software which is
 copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free
 Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this.  Our
 decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status
 of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing
 and reuse of software generally.
 			    NO WARRANTY
 . BECAUSE THE LIBRARY IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO
 WARRANTY FOR THE LIBRARY, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.
 EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR
 OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE LIBRARY ``AS IS'' WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY
 KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
 IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
 PURPOSE.  THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE
 LIBRARY IS WITH YOU.  SHOULD THE LIBRARY PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME
 THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
 . IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN
 WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY
 AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE LIBRARY AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU
 FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR
 CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE
 LIBRARY (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING
 RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A
 FAILURE OF THE LIBRARY TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER SOFTWARE), EVEN IF
 SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
 DAMAGES.
 		     END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
            How to Apply These Terms to Your New Libraries
   If you develop a new library, and you want it to be of the greatest
 possible use to the public, we recommend making it free software that
 everyone can redistribute and change.  You can do so by permitting
 redistribution under these terms (or, alternatively, under the terms of the
 ordinary General Public License).
   To apply these terms, attach the following notices to the library.  It is
 safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
 convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
 ``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
     <one line to give the library's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
     Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>
     This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
     modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
     License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
     version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
     This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
     but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
     MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
     Lesser General Public License for more details.
     You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
     License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
     Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA
 Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
 You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
 school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the library, if
 necessary.  Here is a sample; alter the names:
   Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the
   library `Frob' (a library for tweaking knobs) written by James Random Hacker.
   <signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1990
   Ty Coon, President of Vice
 That's all there is to it!
 \end{document}
 % LocalWords:  proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision EULAs
 % LocalWords:  Yoyodyne FrontPage improvers Berne copyrightable Stallman's GPLs
 % LocalWords:  Lessig Lessig's UCITA pre PDAs CDs reshifts GPL's Gentoo
 % LocalWords:  TrollTech

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)