Copyleft/guide Changeset - f31235afbc80

Changeset - f31235afbc80

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 1 0

enyst - 10 years ago 2014-09-19 22:09:45
engel.nyst@gmail.com

Possible fixes for incomplete or unclear phrases

Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>

1 file changed with 9 insertions and 9 deletions:

gpl-lgpl.tex

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... @@
 The scope of these requirements is narrow.  GPLv3~\S6 introduces the concept
 of a ``User Product'', which includes devices that are sold for personal,
 family, or household use.  Distributors are only required to provide
 Installation Information when they convey object code in a User Product.
 In brief, the right to convey object code in a defined class of ``User
 Products,'' under certain circumstances, on providing whatever information is
 required to enable a recipient to replace the object code with a functioning
 Products,'' under certain circumstances, depends on providing whatever information
 is required to enable a recipient to replace the object code with a functioning
 modified version.
 This was a compromise that was difficult for the FSF to agree to during the
 GPLv3 drafting process.  However, companies and governments that use
 specialized or enterprise-level computer facilities reported that they
 actually \textit{want} their systems not to be under their own control.
@@ ... / @@ -4277,19 +4277,19 @@ equivalents. @@
 Using Free Software in house is certainly helpful, but a thriving
 market for Free Software-oriented business models also exists. There is the
 traditional model of selling copies of Free Software distributions.
 Many companies make substantial revenue
 from this model. Some choose this model because they have
 found that for higher-end hardware, the cost of the profit made from
 proprietary software licensing fees is negligible. The real profit is
 in the hardware, but it is essential that software be stable, reliable
 and dependable, and the users be allowed to have unfettered access to
 it. Free Software, and GPL'd software in particular (because IBM can
 be assured that proprietary versions of the same software will not
 exist to compete on their hardware) is the right choice.
 found that for higher-end hardware, the profit made from proprietary
 software licensing fees is negligible. The real profit is in the hardware,
 but it is essential that software be stable, reliable and dependable, and
 the users be allowed to have unfettered access to it. Free Software, and
 GPL'd software in particular (because IBM can be assured that proprietary
 versions of the same software will not exist to compete on their hardware)
 is the right choice.
 For example, charging a ``convenience fee'' for Free Software,
 when set at a reasonable price (around \$60 or so), can produce some
 profit. Even though Red Hat's system is fully downloadable on their
 Web site, people still go to local computer stores and buy copies of their
 box set, which is simply a printed version of the manual (available under

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)