Copyleft/guide Changeset - afac70708f95

...

@@ -114,9 +114,10 @@ Study 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 software freedom. The GPL was not created from a void, rather, it was

of software freedom. The GPL was not created in a vacuum. 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 both of the popular versions of GPL

preeminent organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy of software

freedom. A prerequisite for understanding both of the popular versions

of the GPL

(GPLv2 and GPLv3) and their terms and conditions is a basic understanding of

the principles behind it.  The GPL family of licenses are unlike almost all

the principles behind them.  The GPL family of licenses are unlike nearly all

other software licenses in that they are designed to defend and uphold these

...

@@ -159,3 +160,3 @@ Software,\footnote{The political differences between the Free Software

  {\tt http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html}.}

those who call the software ``Open Source'' are often focused on a side

Those who call the software ``Open Source'' are often focused on a side

issue.  Specifically, user access to the source code of a program is a

...

@@ -170,3 +171,3 @@ activities are considered non-free.  Even the Open Source Initiative

(\defn{OSI}) (the arbiter of what is considered ``Open Source'') also rules

such licenses not in fitting with their ``Open Source Definition''.

such licenses not in fitting with its ``Open Source Definition''.

...

@@ -182,3 +183,4 @@ Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).

Keep in mind that the none of the terms ``software freedom'', ``open source''

and ``free software'' are not known to be trademarked by any organization in

and ``free software'' are known to be trademarked or otherwise legally

restricted by any organization in

any jurisdiction.  As such, it's quite common that these terms are abused and

...

@@ -187,3 +189,3 @@ When one considers using, modifying or redistributing a software package that

purports to be Open Source or Free Software, one \textbf{must} verify that

the license grants software freedom

the license grants software freedom.

...

@@ -194,3 +196,3 @@ often discussed that the adjective ``free'' has two unrelated meanings in

English: ``free as in freedom'' and ``free as in price''.  Meanwhile, the

term ``open source'' is even more confusing, because it refers only to the

term ``open source'' is even more confusing, because it appears to refer only to the

``freedom to study'', which is merely a subset of one of the four freedoms.

...

@@ -202,3 +204,3 @@ freedom in detail.

The first tenant of software freedom is the user's fully unfettered right to

The first tenet of software freedom is the user's fully unfettered right to

run the program.  The software's license must permit any conceivable use of

...

@@ -209,3 +211,3 @@ predicted.  Such a use must not be restricted.

It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary

software; but such is quite common today. Most End User Licensing Agreements

software; but such is quite common today. Most End User License Agreements

(EULAs) that cover most proprietary software typically restrict some types of

...

@@ -223,3 +225,3 @@ exercise this freedom.

Programmers take direct benefit from this freedom.  However, this freedom

Programmers directly benefit from this freedom.  However, this freedom

remains important to users who are not programmers.  While it may seem

...

@@ -227,3 +229,3 @@ counterintuitive at first, non-programmer users often exercise this freedom

indirectly in both commercial and noncommercial settings.  For example, users

often seek noncommercial help with the software on email lists and in users

often seek noncommercial help with the software on email lists and in user

groups.  To make use of such help they must either have the freedom to

...

@@ -250,3 +252,4 @@ among friends.

The commercial environment also benefits of this freedom.  Commercial sharing

includes selling copies of Free Software: Free Software can be sold at any

includes selling copies of Free Software: that is, Free Software can

be distribted for any monetary

price to anyone.  Those who redistribute Free Software commercially also have

...

@@ -274,5 +277,9 @@ The freedom to modify and improve is somewhat empty without the freedom to

share those improvements.  The Software freedom 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 noncommercial

pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Historically

it was typical for a

Free Software project to sprout a mailing list where improvements

would be shared

freely among members of the development community.  This is still

commonly the case, though today there are other or additional ways of

sharing Free Software. Such noncommercial

sharing is the primary reason that Free Software thrives.

...

@@ -335,3 +342,3 @@ software (For details of this in the USA, see

  definition for public performance of software and both GPLv2 and GPLv3 do

  not govern public performance.} By law (in the USA and in most other

  not restrict public performance.} By law (in the USA and in most other

jurisdictions), the copyright holder (most typically, the author) of the work controls

...

@@ -343,3 +350,3 @@ software secret.

Copyright is not a natural state, it is a legal construction. In the USA, the

Copyright is not a natural state, it is a legal construction. In the US, the

Constitution permits, but does not require, the creation of copyright law as

...

@@ -350,3 +357,3 @@ aid of a machine or device'' (as stated in

\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102}{17 USC \S~102}), is thus

covered by the statues, and is copyrighted by default.

covered by the statute, and is copyrighted by default.

...

@@ -364,4 +371,6 @@ covered by that legal system.  However, it is possible to move software out

of the domain of the copyright system.  A copyright holder can often

\defn{disclaim} their copyright.  If copyright is disclaimed, the software is

not governed by copyright law.   Software not governed by copyright is in the

\defn{disclaim} their copyright (for example, under US copyright law

it is possible for a copyright holder to engage in conduct resulting

in abandonment of copyright).  If copyright is disclaimed, the software is

effectively no longer restricted by copyright law.   Software not restricted by copyright is in the

``public domain.''