2003-05-29  Bradley M. Kuhn  <bkuhn@fsf.org>

	* gpl-business.tex (section{GPL, \S 1: Verbatim Copying}): Wrote

	section.

	(section{GPL \S 2: Share and Share Alike}): Wrote section.

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

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

	out outline some.

	(section{GPL \S 4: Termination on Violation}): Wrote section.

	(section{GPL \S 5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}): Wrote section.

	(section{GPL \S 6: GPL, My One and Only}): Wrote section.

	(section{GPL \S 8: }): Moved to previous chapter.

	Added typo fixes from Ammad.

	(section{GPL \S 7: ``Give Software Liberty of Give It Death!''}):

	Wrote section.

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

	Maded changes based on novalis' feedback.

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

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

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

	section.

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

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

	(subsection{Law Analogy}): Wrote subsection.

	(chapter{Copying, Modifying and Redistributing}): Started chapter.

	(section{GPL, \S 0: Freedom to Run}): Wrote most of the section.

2003-05-27  Bradley M. Kuhn  <bkuhn@fsf.org>

	* gpl-business.tex (section{How Does Software Become Free?}):

	Finished section.

	(subsection{Public Domain Software}): Wrote section.

2003-05-26  Bradley M. Kuhn  <bkuhn@fsf.org>

	* gpl-business.tex (subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}):

	Wrote subsection.

	(subsection{The Freedom to Share Improvements}): Wrote subsection.

	(section{How Does Software Become Free?}): Started section.

2003-05-25  Bradley M. Kuhn  <bkuhn@fsf.org>

	* gpl-business.tex (subsection{The Freedom to Change and Modify}):

	Wrote subsection.

2003-05-24  Bradley M. Kuhn  <bkuhn@fsf.org>

	* gpl-business.tex (section{The Free Software Definition}):

	Started section.

	(subsection{The Freedom to Run}): Wrote subsection.

2003-05-23  Bradley M. Kuhn  <bkuhn@fsf.org>

	* gpl-business.tex (chapter{The GNU General Public License}):

	Formatted GPL for LaTeX.

	Added abstract from website into document.

	(chapter{What Is Free Software?}): Began chapter.

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 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 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 choses,

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 to build a racket by producing very

specialized binaries (perhaps for an obscure architecture), and then

``incantations'' and build plans they used to make that source compile

into the specialized binaries.  Therefore, \S 3 that the source code

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

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

relatively new.  Today, CD is the default, and for larger systems DVD-ROM

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

3(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.

This is where \S 3(c) comes into play.  Ultimately, \S 3(b) is a big

compromise.  It separates 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

0--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--5 are, in my opinion, the heart of the GPL\@. \S\S 0--3 are

important in their efforts to set forth in clear legal language the

doctrine of copyleft.  However, \S 4--5 are the glue that holds \S\S 0--3

together.

\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, this is nearly perpetual, even

  though the Constitution forbids it.}.  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 3(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}

With \S 11, the boilerplate language of all copyright licenses begins.

Sometimes, companies are concerned that there is no default warranty on

GPL'ed software.  However, nearly all proprietary software licensing

agreements disclaim warranty as well.

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.

\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}

\section{Business Models}

\label{Business Models}

\label{Proprietary Relicensing}

\section{Ongoing Compliance}

\appendix

\chapter{The GNU General Public License}

\begin{center}

{\parindent 0in

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright \copyright\ 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

\bigskip

59 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