warranty'' in two places, which is a rather bulk term.  Also, experience with

GPLv2 and other licenses that grant software freedom showed throughout the

1990s that the scope of types of notices that need preservation upon

conveyance were more broad that merely the copyright notices.  The

Appropriate Legal Notice definition consolidates the material that GPLv2

traditionally required preserved into one definition.

\section{Other Defined Terms}

Note finally that not all defined terms in GPLv3 appear in GPLv3~\S0.

Specifically, those defined terms that are confined in use to a single

section are defined in the section in which they are used, and GPLv3~\S1

contains those definitions focused on source code.  In this tutorial, those

defined terms are discussed in the section where they are defined and/or

used.

\section{GPLv3~\S1: Understanding CCS}

Ensuring that users have the source code to the software they receive and the

freedom to modify remains the paramount right embodied in the Free Software

Definition (found in \S~\ref{Free Software Definition} of this tutorial).  As

such, GPLv3~\S1 is likely one of the most important sections of GPLv3, as it

contains all the defined terms related to this important software freedom.

\subsection{Source Code Definition}

First, GPLv3\~S1 retains GPLv2's definition of ``source code'' and adds an

explicit definition of ``object code'' as ``any non-source version of a

work''.  Object code is not restricted to a narrow technical meaning and is

understood broadly to include any form of the work other than the preferred

form for making modifications to it.  Object code therefore includes any kind

of transformed version of source code, such as bytecode or minified

Javascript.  The definition of object code also ensures that licensees cannot

escape their obligations under the GPL by resorting to shrouded source or

obfuscated programming.

\subsection{CCS Definition}

The definition of CCS\footnote{Note that the preferred term for those who

  work regularly with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 is ``Complete Corresponding

  Source'', abbreviated to ``CCS''.  Admittedly, the word ``complete'' no

  longer appears in GPLv3 (which uses the word ``all'' instead).  However,

  both GPLv2 and the early drafts of GPLv3 itself used the word ``complete'',

  and early GPLv3 drafts even called this defined term ``Complete

  Corresponding Source''.  Meanwhile, use of the acronym ``CCS'' (sometimes,

  ``C\&CS'') was so widespread among GPL enforcers that its use continues

  even though GPLv3-focused experts tend to say just the defined term of

  ``Corresponding Source''.}, or, as GPLv3 officially calls it,

``Corresponding Source'' in GPLv3~\S1\P4 is possibly the most complex

definition in the license.

The CCS definition is broad so as to protect users' exercise of their rights

under the GPL\@.  The definition includes with particular examples to remove

any doubt that they are to be considered CCS\@.  GPLv3 seeks to make it

completely clear that a licensee cannot avoid complying with the requirements

of the GPL by dynamically linking a subprogram component to the original

version of a program.  The example also clarifies that the shared libraries

and dynamically linked subprograms that are included in Corresponding Source

are those that the work is ``specifically'' designed to require, which

clarifies that they do not include libraries invoked by the work that can be

readily substituted by other existing implementations.  While copyleft

advocates never doubted this was required under GPLv2's definition of CCS,

making it abundantly clear with an extra example.

GPL, as always, seeks to ensure users are truly in a position to install and

run their modified versions of the program; the CCS definition is designed to

be expansive to ensure this software freedom.  However, although the

definition of CCS is expansive, it is not sufficient to protect users'

freedoms in many circumstances.  For example, a GPL'd program, or a modified

version of such a program, might be locked-down and restricted.  The

requirements in GPLv3~\S6 (discussed in Section~\ref{GPLv3s6} of this

tutorial) handle that issue.  (Early drafts of GPLv3 included those

requirements in the definition of CCS; however, given that the lock-down

issue only comes up in distribution of object code, it is more logical to

place those requirements with the parts of GPLv3 dealing directly with object

code distribution).

The penultimate paragraph in GPLv3\S2 notes that GPLv3's CCS definition does

not require source that can be automatically generated.  Many code

generators, preprocessors and take source code as input and sometimes even

have output that is still source code.  Source code should always be whatever

the original programmer preferred to modify.

GPLv3\S1's final paragraph removes any ambiguity about what should be done on

source-only distributions.  Specifically, the right to convey source code

that does not compile, does not work, or otherwise is experimental

in-progress work is fully permitted, \textit{provided that} no object code

form is conveyed as well.  Indeed, when combined with the permissions in

GPLv3\S~5, it is clear that if one conveys \textit{only} source code, one can

never be required to provide more than that.  One always has the right to

modify a source code work by deleting any part of it, and there can be no

requirement that free software source code be a whole functioning program.

\section{The System Library Exception}

The previous section skipped over one part of the CCS definition, the

so-called system library exception.  The ``System Libraries'' definition (and

the ``Standard Interface'' and ``Major Component'' definitions, which it

includes) are designed as part

to permit certain distribution arrangements that are considered reasonable by

copyleft advocates.  The system library exception is designed to allow

copylefted software to link with these libraries when such linking would hurt

software freedom more than it would hurt proprietary software.

The system library exception has two parts.  Part (a) rewords the GPLv2

exception for clarity replaces GPLv2's words ``unless that component itself

accompanies the executable'' with ``which is not part of the Major

Component''.  The goal here is to not require disclosure of source code of

certain libraries, such as necessary Microsoft Windows DLLs (which aren't

part of Windows' kernel but accompany it) that are required for functioning

of copylefted programs compiled for Windows.

However, in isolation, (a) would be too permissive, as it would sometimes

allowing distributors to evade important GPL requirements.  Part (b) reigns

in (a).  Specifically, (b) specifies only a few functionalities that a the

system library may provide and still qualify for the exception.  The goal is

to ensure system libraries are truly adjunct to a major essential operating

system component, compiler, or interpreter.  The more low-level the

functionality provided by the library, the more likely it is to be qualified

for this exception.

Admittedly, the system library exception is a frequently discussed topic of

obsessed GPL theorists.  The amount that has been written on the system

library exception (both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 versions of it), if included

herein,  could easily increase this section of the tutorial to a length

greater than all the others.

Like any exception to the copyleft requirements of GPL, would-be GPL

violators frequently look to the system library exception as a potential

software freedom circumvention technique.  When considering whether or not a

library qualifies for the system library exception, here is a pragmatic

thesis to consider, based on the combined decades of experience in GPL

interpretation of this tutorial's authors: the harder and more strained the

reader must study and read the system library exception, the more likely it

is that the library in question does not qualify for it.

\section{GPLv3~\S2: Basic Permissions}

GPLv3~\S2 can roughly be considered as an equivalent to GPLv2~\S0 (discussed

in \S~\ref{GPLv2sS0} of this tutorial).  However, the usual style of

improvements found in GPLv3 are found here as well.  For example, the first

sentence of GPLv3~\S2 furthers the goal internationalization.  Under the

copyright laws of some countries, it may be necessary for a copyright license

to include an explicit provision setting forth the duration of the rights

being granted. In other countries, including the USA, such a provision is

unnecessary but permissible.

GPLv3~\S2\P1 also acknowledges that licensees under the GPL enjoy rights of

copyright fair use, or the equivalent under applicable law.  These rights are

compatible with, and not in conflict with, the freedoms that the GPL seeks to

protect, and the GPL cannot and should not restrict them.

However, note that (sadly to some copyleft advocates) the unlimited freedom

to run is confined to the \textit{unmodified} Program.  This confinement is

unfortunately necessary since Programs that do not qualify as a User Product

in GPLv3~\S6 (see \S~\ref{user-product} in this tutorial) might have certain

unfortunate restrictions on the freedom to run\footnote{See

  \S~ref{freedom-to-run} of this tutorial for the details on ``the freedom to

  run''.}

GPLv3~\S2\P2 distinguishes between activities of a licensee that are

permitted without limitation and activities that trigger additional

requirements.  Specifically, GPLv3~\S2\P2 guarantees the basic freedoms of

privately modifying and running the program.

Also, GPLv3~\S2\P2 gives an explicit permission for a client to provide a

copy of its modified software to a contractor exclusively for that contractor

to modify it further, or run it, on behalf of the client.  However, the

client can \textit{only} exercise this control over its own copyrighted

changes to the GPL-covered program.  The parts of the program it obtained

from other contributors must be provided to the contractor with the usual GPL

freedoms.  Thus, GPLv3 permits users to convey covered works to contractors

operating exclusively on the users' behalf, under the users' direction and

control, and to require the contractors to keep the users' copyrighted

changes confidential, but \textit{only if} the contractor is limited to acting

on the users' behalf (just as the users' employees would have to act).

The strict conditions in this ``contractors provision'' are needed so that it

cannot be twisted to fit other activities, such as making a program available

to downstream users or customers.  By making the limits on this provision

very narrow, GPLv3 ensures that, in all other cases, contractors gets the

full freedoms of the GPL that they deserve.

GPLv3~\S2's final paragraph includes an explicit prohibition of sublicensing.

This provision ensures that GPL enforcement is always by the copyright

holder.  Usually, sublicensing is regarded as a practical convenience or

necessity for the licensee, to avoid having to negotiate a license with each

licensor in a chain of distribution.  The GPL solves this problem in another

way --- through its automatic licensing provision found in GPLv3\~S10 (which

is discussed in more detail in \S\~ref{GPLv3s10} of this tutorial).

Technological measures to defeat users' rights --- often described by such

Orwellian phrases as ``digital rights management,'' which actually means

limitation or outright destruction of users' legal rights, or ``trusted

computing,'' which actually means selling people computers they cannot trust

--- are alike in one basic respect.  They all employ technical means to turn

the system of copyright law, where the powers of the copyright holder are

limited exceptions to general freedom, into a prison, where everything not

specifically permitted is utterly forbidden, and indeed, if the full extent

of their ambition is realized, would be technically impossible.  This system

of ``para-copyright'' has been created since the adoption of GPLv2, through

legislation in the United States, the European Union, and elsewhere that

makes it a serious civil or even criminal offense to escape from these

restrictions, even where the purpose in doing so is to restore the users'

legal rights that the technology wrongfully prevents them from exercising.

% FIXME: Remove FSF specific parts

As a digital rights organization, we would not be following our mission if we

did not oppose these injustices.  But the reason our license must respond to

these practices at all is the result of a remarkable irony. Those who wish to

impose DRM on the public would like to do so by using software covered by the

GPL, a license that is intended to preserve the very freedom that they seek

to crush.  They are not satisfied merely with publishing programs having

limited capability, which free software permits. They seek to go further, to

prevent the user from removing those limits, turning Freedom 1, the freedom

to modify, into a sham.

GPLv2 did not address the use of technical measures to take back the rights

that the GPL granted, because such measures did not exist in 1991, and would

have been irrelevant to the forms in which software was then delivered to

users.  But GPLv3 must address these issues: free software is ever more

widely embedded in devices that impose technical limitations on the user's

freedom to change it.

These unjust measures must not be confused with legitimate applications that

give users control, as by enabling them to choose higher levels of system or

data security within their networks, or by allowing them to protect the

security of their communications using keys they can generate or copy to

other devices for sending or receiving messages.  These technologies present

no obstacles to the freedom of free software. The user is presented with

choices, and figuratively as well as literally retains all the keys to the

digital home.

By contrast, technical restrictions that allow other parties to control the

user have no legitimate social purpose.  In existing applications where the

user is not afforded the same degree of real power to modify the free

software in his system that vendors or distributors have retained, or have

conveyed to third parties, the software has been delivered in a fashion that

violates the spirit of the GPL, regardless of whether it complies with the

letter of the license. The freedoms the GPL grants have actually been

withdrawn by technical means.  It may even be a crime for the user to modify

that free software to escape from those restrictions and regain control over

what is still, at least nominally, his own system.

% FIXME: reference \S6 and \S3 stuff.

We believe that these provisions, taken together, are a minimalist set of

terms sufficient to protect the free software community against the threat of

invasive para-copyright.

Large enterprise users of free software often contract with non-employee

developers, often working offsite, to make modifications intended for

the user's private or internal use, and often arrange with other

companies to operate their data centers.  Whether GPLv2 permits these

activities is not clear and may depend on variations in copyright law.

The practices seem basically harmless, so we have decided to make it

clear they are permitted.

\section{GPLv3~\S3: What Hath DMCA Wrought}

\label{GPLv3s3}

% FIXME: reference the section in DMCA about this, maybe already there in

%        GPLv2 section?

% FIXME: Wrong paragraph now.

What was the second paragraph of section 3 in Draft 2, concerning so-called

anticircumvention law, has been broken up into two paragraphs.  In the first

paragraph we have replaced the reference to the Digital Millennium Copyright

Act, a United States statute, with a corresponding international legal

reference to anticircumvention laws enacted pursuant to the 1996 WIPO treaty

and any similar laws.  Lawyers outside the United States have worried that a

United States statutory reference could be read as indicating a choice for

application of United States law to the license as a whole, which of course

was not our intention.  Further research has caused us to doubt the view that

only one or the other paragraph of section 3 will typically be effective in a

country that has enacted an anticircumvention law.  Moreover, we believe that

several national anticircumvention laws have been or will be structured more

similarly to the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium

Copyright Act than to the counterpart provisions of the European Union

Copyright Directive.

The second paragraph of section 3 declares that no GPL'd program is part of

an effective technological protection measure, regardless of what the program

does. Ill-advised legislation in the United States and other countries has

prohibited circumvention of such technological measures. If a covered work is

distributed as part of a system for generating or accessing certain data, the

effect of this paragraph is to prevent someone from claiming that some other

GPL'd program that accesses the same data is an illegal circumvention.

we now state more precisely that a conveying party waives the power to forbid

circumvention of technological measures only to the extent that such

circumvention is accomplished through the exercise of GPL rights in the

conveyed work. We have made two changes in the disclaimer of intention

regarding limitations on the design and use of the work. First, we make clear

that the referenced ``legal rights'' are specifically rights arising under

anticircumvention law.  Second, we now refer to the conveying party's rights

in addition to third party rights, as in some cases the conveying party will

also be the party legally empowered to enforce or invoke rights arising under

anticircumvention law.

% FIXME: this needs rewritten 

In section 3, which has been retitled as well as redrafted, we have

specifically stated the rule, previously implicit, that modes of

distribution that establish limitations on use or modification that

are inconsistent with the terms of the license are not permitted by

the license.  In addition, we have added disclaimers, based on advice

of counsel from nations that have enacted para-copyright provisions

akin to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US or pursuant to

the European Union Copyright Directive.  We believe these disclaimers

by each licensor of any intention to use GPL'd software to stringently

control access to other copyrighted works should practically prevent

any private or public parties from invoking DMCA-like laws against

users who escape technical restriction measures implemented by GPL'd

software.

This section shields users from being subjected to liability under

anti-circumvention law for exercising their rights under the GPL, so far as

the GPL can do so.  Some readers seem to have assumed that this provision

contains a prohibition on DRM; it does not (no part of GPLv3 forbids DRM).

\section{GPLv3~\S4: Verbatim Copying}

% FIXME: there appear to be minor changes here in later drafts, fix that.

Section 4 has been revised from its corresponding section in GPLv2 in light

of the new section 7 on license compatibility. A distributor of verbatim

copies of the program's source code must obey any existing additional terms

that apply to parts of the program. In addition, the distributor is required

to keep intact all license notices, including notices of such additional

terms.

% FIXME: needs context, needs match up to current text, and removal of stuff

%        that's no longer there

The original wording of this clause was meant to

make clear that the GPL permits one to charge for the distribution of

software.  Despite our efforts to explain this in the license and in

other documents, there are evidently some who believe that the GPL

allows charging for services but not for selling software, or that the

GPL requires downloads to be gratis.  We referred to charging a ``fee'';

the term ``fee'' is generally used in connection with services.  Our

original wording also referred to ``the physical act of transferring.''

The intention was to distinguish charging for transfers from attempts to

impose licensing fees on all third parties.  ``Physical'' might be read,

however, as suggesting ``distribution in a physical medium only.''  In

our revised wording we use ``price'' in place of ``fee,'' and we remove

the term ``physical.''

% FIXME: say more and tie it to the text

There is no harm in explicitly pointing out what ought to be obvious: that

those who convey GPL-covered software may offer commercial services for the

support of that software.

\section{GPLv3~\S5: Modified Source}

% FIXME: 5(a) is slightly different in final version

Section 5 contains a number of changes relative to the corresponding section

in GPLv2. Subsection 5a slightly relaxes the requirements regarding notice of

changes to the program. In particular, the modified files themselves need no

longer be marked. This reduces administrative burdens for developers of

modified versions of GPL'd software.

Under subsection 5a, as in the corresponding provision of GPLv2, the notices

must state ``the date of any change,'' which we interpret to mean the date of

one or more of the licensee's changes.  The best practice would be to include

the date of the latest change.  However, in order to avoid requiring revision

of programs distributed under ``GPL version 2 or later,'' we have retained

the existing wording.

% FIXME:  It's now (b) and (c).  Also, ``validity'' of proprietary

%         relicensing?  Give me a break.  I'll fix that.

Subsection 5b is the central copyleft provision of the license.  It now

states that the GPL applies to the whole of the work.  The license must be

unmodified, except as permitted by section 7, which allows GPL'd code to be

combined with parts covered by certain other kinds of free software licensing