Copyleft/guide Changeset - af63358d308c

Changeset - af63358d308c

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 1 0

Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-03-19 17:39:22
bkuhn@ebb.org

Minor typo and formatting fixes.

1 file changed with 3 insertions and 3 deletions:

gpl-lgpl.tex

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... @@
 of the software into a file.
 Imagine if authors could truly disclaim those default control of copyright
 law.  If so, the software is in the public domain -- no longer covered by
+law.  If so, the software is in the public domain --- no longer covered by
 copyright.  Since copyright law is the construction allowing for most
 restrictions on software (i.e., prohibition of copying, modification, and
 redistribution), removing the software from the copyright system usually
 yields software freedom for its users.
 Carefully note that software truly in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
 in any way. It is confusing to say software is ``licensed for the
+in any way.  It is confusing to say software is ``licensed for the
 public domain,'' or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave
 express permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
@@ ... / @@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ legal system in play to take them away. @@
 Admittedly, a discussion of public domain software is an oversimplified
 example.
 Because copyright controls are usually automatically granted and because, in
-some jurisdictions, some copyright controls cannot be waived (See
+some jurisdictions, some copyright controls cannot be waived (see
 Section~\ref{non-usa-copyright} for further discussion), many copyright
 holders sometimes incorrectly believe a work has been placed in the public
 domain.  Second, due to aggressive lobbying by the entertainment industry,

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)