Copyleft/guide Changeset - fd9a2353f4c9

...

@@ -134,50 +134,51 @@ designed to defend and uphold these principles.

The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's website at

\href{http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html}{http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html}.

This section presents an abbreviated version that will focus on the parts

that are most pertinent to the terms of the GPL\@.

A particular program is Free Software if it grants a particular user of

that program, the following freedoms:

\begin{itemize}

\item the freedom to run the program for any purpose.

\item the freedom to change and modify the program.

\item the freedom to copy and share the program.

\item the freedom to share improved versions of the program.

\end{itemize}

The focus on ``a particular user'' is very pertinent here.  It is not

uncommon for the same version of a specific program to grant these

freedoms to some subset of its user base, while others have none or only

some of these freedoms.  Section~\ref{relicensing} talks in detail about

how this can happen even if a program is released under the GPL\@.

some of these freedoms.  Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in

detail about how this can happen even if a program is released under the

GPL\@.

Some people refer to software that gives these freedoms as ``Open

Source''.  Besides having a different political focus than those who call

it Free Software\footnote{The political differences between the Free

Software Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's

website at

\href{http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}

{http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}.},

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

User access to the source code of a program is a prerequisite to make use

of the freedom to modify.  However, the important issue is what freedoms

are granted in the license of that source code.  Microsoft's ``Shared

Source'' program, for example, gives various types of access to source

code, but almost none of the freedoms described in this section.

One key issue that is central to these freedoms is that there are no

restrictions on how these freedoms can be exercised.  Specifically, users

and programmers can exercise these freedoms non-commercially or

commercially.  Licenses that grant these freedoms for non-commercial

activities but prohibit them for commercial activities are considered

non-Free.

In general, software for which most or all of these freedoms are

restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software''.  Typically, the

...

@@ -949,49 +950,49 @@ 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.

\midskip

\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

...

@@ -1029,99 +1030,182 @@ 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}

\section{GPL, Section 4}

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 enforcable, are kept to the confines of

copyright law and are not trumped by other copyright agreements or

components of other entirely seperate 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}

\section{GPL, Section 5}

\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 langauge 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 pregoative, 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, seperate 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 negotation --- comply

with the license and respect freedom.

However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software

freedom as institiualized by FSF persue GPL violations differently.  MySQL

AB, a company that produces the GPL'ed MySQL database, upon discovering

GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software license

sepearately 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}

\section{GPL, Section 6}

Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to

the licensee to perform acts of copying, modification, and redistribution

that would otherwise have been prohibited by default.  Since, barring

special permission from the copyright holder, the GPL is a licensee's one

and only license to the software (thanks to \S 6),

\section{GPL \S 6: GPL, My One and Only}

\label{GPLs6}

\section{GPL, Section 7}

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

\label{GPLs7}

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

\chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}

\section{GPL \S 8}

\label{GPLs8}

\section{GPL \S 9}

\label{GPLs9}

\section{GPL \S 10}

\label{GPLs10}

\section{GPL \S 11}

\label{GPLs11}

There was a case where the disclaimer of a contract was negated because it

was not "conspicuous" to the person entering into the contract.  Therefore,

to make such language "conspicuous" people started placing it in bold or caps it.  My question

has always been, does that mean all the other parts of the document aren't

important such that they too need to be "conspicuous."

As for disclaiming warranties, remember that 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.  The former gets rid of everything that can be

gotten rid of, while the latter limits the liability of the actor for any

warranties that cannot be disclaimed (such as personal injury, etc.).

\section{GPL, \S 12}

\label{GPLs12}

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

\chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}

\section{Using Free Software In-House}

\section{Business Models}

\label{Business Models}

\subsection{Redistribution Sales}

\subsection{Custom Modification on Contract}

\subsection{Proprietary Relicensing}

\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}