Changeset - bf85191e636f
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-11-12 16:32:05
bkuhn@ebb.org
Add subsections for GPLv2§2 discussion.

The GPLv2§2 has gotten long enough that it really needed subsections.
1 file changed with 3 insertions and 1 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -1540,120 +1540,122 @@ In fact, while derivative work preparation is perhaps the most exciting area
 
of legal issues to consider, the more mundane ways to create a new work
 
covered by GPL are much more common.  For example, copyright statutes
 
generally require permission from the copyright holder to grant explicit
 
permission to modify a work in any manner.  As discussed in the next chapter,
 
the GPL {\em does} grants such permission, but requires the modified work must
 
also be licensed under the terms of the GPL (and only GPL:
 
see\S~\label{GPLv2s6} in this tutorial).  Determining whether software was
 
modified is a substantially easier analysis than the derivative work
 
discussions and considerations in this chapter.
 

	
 
The question of derivative works, when and how they are made, is undoubtedly
 
an essential discussion in the interpretation and consideration of copyleft.
 
That is why this chapter was included in this tutorial.  However, as we
 
return from this digression and resume discussion of the detailed text of the
 
GPLv2, we must gain a sense of perspective: most GPL questions center around
 
questions of modification and distribution, not preparation of derivative
 
works.  Derivative work preparation is ultimately a small subset of the types
 
of modified versions of the software a developer might create, thus, while an
 
excessive focus on derivative works indulges us in the more exciting areas of
 
copyleft, we must keep a sense of perspective regarding their relative
 
importance.
 

	
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 

	
 
\chapter{Modified Source and Binary Distribution}
 
\label{source-and-binary}
 

	
 
In this chapter, we discuss the two core sections that define the rights
 
and obligations for those who modify, improve, and/or redistribute GPL'd
 
software. These sections, GPLv2~\S\S2--3, define the central core rights and
 
requirements of GPLv2\@.
 

	
 
\section{GPLv2~\S2: Share and Share Alike}
 
\label{GPLv2s2}
 

	
 
For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software
 
freedom upon redistribution.  GPLv2~\S2 is the only place in GPLv2
 
that governs the modification controls of copyright law.  If users
 
distribute modified versions a GPLv2'd program, they must follow the terms of GPLv2~\S2 in making
 
those changes.  Thus, this sections ensures that the body of GPL'd software, as it
 
continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.
 

	
 
To achieve that goal, GPLv2~\S2 first sets forth that the rights of
 
redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim
 
copying, as presented in GPLv2~\S1.  Therefore, the details of charging money,
 
keeping copyright notices intact, and other GPLv2~\S1 provisions are intact
 
here as well.  However, there are three additional requirements.
 

	
 
\subsection{The Simpler Parts of GPLv2~\S2}
 

	
 
The first (GPLv2~\S2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent
 
notices'' explaining what changes were made and the date of such
 
changes. This section does not prescribe some specific way of
 
marking changes nor does it control the process of how changes are made.
 
Primarily, GPLv2~\S2(a) seeks to ensure that those receiving modified
 
versions know the history of changes to the software.  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, GPLv2~\S2(a) serves an academic
 
purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic
 
approach to understand the software.
 

	
 
GPLv2~\S2(c), a relatively simple section, requires that any program which
 
(before modification) ``normally reads commands interactively when run'' and
 
displays or prints legal information also display all copyright notices,
 
warranty disclaimer, modification indications and a pointer to the license,
 
even in modified versions.  The requirement is relatively simple, and relates
 
to an important policy goal of copyleft: downstream users should be informed
 
of their rights.  Its implications and details are straightforward and
 
simple.
 

	
 
\medskip
 
\subsection{GPLv2~\S2(b)}
 

	
 
Meanwhile, GPLv2~\S2(b) requires careful and extensive study.  Its four short lines embody
 
the some of the essential legal details of ``share and share alike''.  These 46 words are
 
considered by some to be the most worthy of careful scrutiny because
 
GPLv2~\S2(b), and they
 
can be a source of great confusion when not properly understood.
 

	
 
In considering GPLv2~\S2(b), first note the qualifier: it \textit{only} applies to
 
derivative, combined and/or modified works that ``you distribute or publish''.  Despite years of
 
education efforts on this matter, many still believe that modifiers
 
of GPL'd software \textit{must} publish or otherwise
 
share their changes.  On the contrary, GPLv2~\S2(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{Most Free Software enthusiasts believe there is a {\bf
 
    moral} obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful,
 
  and they often encourage 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 GPLv2~\S0, 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 copyright law.
 
If, under copyright law, the modified version ``contains or is
 
derived from'' the GPL'd software, then the requirements of GPLv2~\S2(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 GPLv2~\S2(b) describes what the licensee must do if she
 
distributes or publishes a modified version of the work --- 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 GPLv2~\S2 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 work distributed to
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)