diff --git a/Case-Study-Ethics/new-case-study-ethics.tex b/Case-Study-Ethics/new-case-study-ethics.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9392866b271d777d56bcc075135e273f0d39ea3a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Case-Study-Ethics/new-case-study-ethics.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,1977 @@
+%      Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL course
+%
+% Copyright (C) 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+% Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in
+% any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+\documentclass[11pt]{book}
+% FILTER_PS:  \input{generate-ps-file}
+% FILTER_PDF: \input{generate-pdf-file}
+% FILTER_HTML: \input{generate-html-file}
+% NOT FOUND \input{one-inch-margins}
+\usepackage{enumerate}
+\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
+%\setlength\parskip{0.7em}
+%\setlength\parindent{0pt}
+
+\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\emph{#1}}
+
+%\pagestyle{empty}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\frontmatter
+
+\begin{titlepage}
+
+\begin{center}
+
+%\vspace{.5in}
+\vfill
+
+\includegraphics{fsf-logo.eps}
+
+\vfill
+
+{\Large
+{\sc GPL Compliance Case Studies} \\
+
+\vfill
+
+%\vspace{.7in}
+
+% \vspace{.3in}
+
+Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA \\
+\vspace{.1in}
+Wednesday, 25 August 2004
+}
+
+% \vspace{.7in}
+\vfill
+
+{\large
+Bradley M. Kuhn
+
+Executive Director
+
+Free Software Foundation
+}
+
+\vspace{.3in}
+
+
+{\large
+Daniel Ravicher
+
+Senior Counsel 
+
+Free Software Foundation
+
+President and Executive Director
+
+Public Patent Foundation
+
+}
+
+\end{center}
+
+\vfill
+
+{\parindent 0in
+Copyright \copyright{} 2003, 2004 \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+\vspace{.3in}
+
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in
+any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+}
+
+\end{titlepage}
+
+\pagestyle{plain}
+
+\pagenumbering{roman}
+
+\chapter*{GPL Compliance Case Studies}
+
+\textit{Stanford University, Stanford, CA 25 August 2004}
+
+\begin{tabular}[t]{ll}
+09:00 - 09:25 & Registration / Check-in / Continental Breakfast\\
+&\\
+09:25 - 09:30 & Welcome\\
+&\\
+09:30 - 09:45 & Overview of FSF's GPL Compliance Lab\\
+&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+09:45 - 10:40 & GPL Violation Case Study A\\
+&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+10:40 - 11:00 & GPL Violation Case Study B\\
+&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+11:00 - 11:10 & Q \& A\\
+&\\
+11:10 - 11:20 & Break\\
+&\\
+11:20 - 11:50 & GPL Violation Case Study C\\
+&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+11:50 - 12:10 & GPL Violation Case Study D\\
+&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+12:10 - 12:20 & Good Practices for GPL Compliance\\
+&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+\end{tabular}
+
+\begin{tabular}[t]{ll}
+12:20 - 12:30 & Q \& A\\
+&\\
+12:30 - 14:00 & Lunch and Lecture ``GPL 3: Prospects and Process''\\
+& \textit{Prof. Eben Moglen}\\
+&\\
+
+14:00 - 15:40 & Ethical Considerations and Legal Practices\\
+&\textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\
+&\\
+15:40 - 15:50 & Q \& A\\
+&\\
+15:50 - 16:00 & Break\\
+&\\
+16:00 - 17:30 & Current Issues in Free Software\\
+& \textit{Prof. Eben Moglen}\\
+&\\
+17:30 - 18:00 & Q \& A\\
+\end{tabular}
+
+\pagebreak
+
+% =====================================================================
+% START OF SECOND DAY SEMINAR SECTION
+% =====================================================================
+
+\chapter*{Preface}
+
+This one-day course presents the details of five different GPL
+compliance cases handled by FSF's GPL Compliance Laboratory. Each case
+offers unique insights into problems that can arise when the terms of
+GPL are not properly followed, and how diplomatic negotiation between
+the violator and the copyright holder can yield positive results for
+both parties.
+
+Attendees should have successfully completely the course, a ``Detailed
+Study and Analysis of the GPL and LGPL,'' as the material from that
+course forms the building blocks for this material.
+
+This course is of most interest to lawyers who have clients or
+employers that deal with Free Software on a regular basis. However,
+technical managers and executives whose businesses use or distribute
+Free Software will also find the course very helpful.
+
+\bigskip
+
+These course materials are merely a summary of the highlights of the
+course presented. Please be aware that during the actual GPL course, class
+discussion supplements this printed curriculum. Simply reading it is
+not equivalent to attending the course.
+
+\tableofcontents
+
+\mainmatter
+
+\pagenumbering{arabic}
+
+\chapter{Overview of FSF's GPL Compliance Lab}
+
+The GPL is a Free Software license with legal teeth. Unlike licenses like
+the X11-style or various BSD licenses, GPL (and by extension, the LGPL) is
+designed to defend as well as grant freedom. We saw in the last course
+that GPL uses copyright law as a mechanism to grant all the key freedoms
+essential in Free Software, but also to ensure that those freedoms
+propagate throughout the distribution chain of the software.
+
+\section{Termination Begins Enforcement}
+
+As we have learned, the assurance that Free Software under GPL remains
+Free Software is accomplished through various terms of GPL: \S 3 ensures
+that binaries are always accompanied with source; \S 2 ensures that the
+sources are adequate, complete and usable; \S 6 and \S 7 ensure that the
+license of the software is always GPL for everyone, and that no other
+legal agreements or licenses trump GPL. It is \S 4, however, that ensures
+that the GPL can be enforced.
+
+Thus, \S 4 is where we begin our discussion of GPL enforcement. This
+clause is where the legal teeth of the license are rooted. As a copyright
+license, GPL governs only the activities governed by copyright law ---
+copying, modifying and redistributing computer software. Unlike most
+copyright licenses, GPL gives wide grants of permission for engaging with
+these activities. Such permissions continue, and all parties may exercise
+them until such time as one party violates the terms of GPL\@. At the
+moment of such a violation (i.e., the engaging of copying, modifying or
+redistributing in ways not permitted by GPL) \S 4 is invoked. While other
+parties may continue to operate under GPL, the violating party loses their
+rights.
+
+Specifically, \S 4 terminates the violators' rights to continue
+engaging in the permissions that are otherwise granted by GPL\@.
+Effectively, their rights revert to the copyright defaults ---
+no permission is granted to copy, modify, nor redistribute the work.
+Meanwhile, \S 5 points out that if the violator has no rights under
+GPL, they are prohibited by copyright law from engaging in the
+activities of copying, modifying and distributing. They have lost
+these rights because they have violated the GPL, and no other license
+gives them permission to engage in these activities governed by copyright law.
+
+\section{Ongoing Violations}
+
+In conjunction with \S 4's termination of violators' rights, there is
+one final industry fact added to the mix: rarely, does one engage in a
+single, solitary act of copying, distributing or modifying software.
+Almost always, a violator will have legitimately acquired a copy of a
+GPL'd program, either making modifications or not, and then begun
+distributing that work. For example, the violator may have put the
+software in boxes and sold them at stores. Or perhaps the software
+was put up for download on the Internet. Regardless of the delivery
+mechanism, violators almost always are engaged in {\em ongoing\/}
+violation of GPL\@.
+
+In fact, when we discover a GPL violation that occurred only once --- for
+example, a user group who distributed copies of a GNU/Linux system without
+source at one meeting --- we rarely pursue it with a high degree of
+tenacity. In our minds, such a violation is an educational problem, and
+unless the user group becomes a repeat offender (as it turns out, they
+never do), we simply forward along a FAQ entry that best explains how user
+groups can most easily comply with GPL, and send them on their merry way.
+
+It is only the cases of {\em ongoing\/} GPL violation that warrant our
+active attention. We vehemently pursue those cases where dozens, hundreds
+or thousands of customers are receiving software that is out of
+compliance, and where the company continually offers for sale (or
+distributes gratis as a demo) software distributions that include GPL'd
+components out of compliance. Our goal is to maximize the impact of
+enforcement and educate industries who are making such a mistake on a
+large scale.
+
+In addition, such ongoing violation shows that a particular company is
+committed to a GPL'd product line. We are thrilled to learn that someone
+is benefiting from Free Software, and we understand that sometimes they
+become confused about the rules of the road. Rather than merely
+giving us a post mortem to perform on a past mistake, an ongoing violation
+gives us an active opportunity to educate a new contributor to the GPL'd
+commons about proper procedures to contribute to the community.
+
+Our central goal is not, in fact, to merely clear up a particular violation.
+In fact, over time, we hope that our compliance lab will be out of
+business. We seek to educate the businesses that engage in commerce
+related to GPL'd software to obey the rules of the road and allow them to
+operate freely under them. Just as a traffic officer would not revel in
+reminding people which side of the road to drive on, so we do not revel in
+violations. By contrast, we revel in the successes of educating an
+ongoing violator about GPL so that GPL compliance becomes a second-nature
+matter, allowing that company to join the GPL ecosystem as a contributor.
+
+\section{How are Violations Discovered?}
+
+Our enforcement of GPL is not a fund-raising effort; in fact, FSF's GPL
+Compliance Lab runs at a loss (in other words, it is subsided by our
+donors). Our violation reports come from volunteers, who have encountered,
+in their business or personal life, a device or software product that
+appears to contain GPL'd software. These reports are almost always sent
+via email to $<$license-violation@fsf.org$>$.
+
+Our first order of business, upon receiving such a report, is to seek
+independent confirmation. When possible, we get a copy of the software
+product. For example, if it is an offering that is downloadable from a
+Web site, we download it and investigate ourselves. When it is not
+possible for us to actually get a copy of the software, we ask the
+reporter to go through the same process we would use in examining the
+software.
+
+By rough estimation, about 95\% of violations at this stage can be
+confirmed by simple commands. Almost all violators have merely made an
+error and have no nefarious intentions. They have made no attempt to
+remove our copyright notices from the software. Thus, given the
+third-party binary, {\tt tpb}, usually, a simple command (on a GNU/Linux
+system) such as the following will find a Free Software copyright notice
+and GPL reference:
+\begin{quotation}
+{\tt strings tpb | grep Copyright}
+\end{quotation}
+In other words, it is usually more than trivial to confirm that GPL'd
+software is included.
+
+Once we have confirmed that a violation has indeed occurred, we must then
+determine whose copyright has been violated. Contrary to popular belief,
+FSF does not have the power to enforce GPL in all cases. Since GPL
+operates under copyright law, the powers of enforcement --- to seek
+redress once \S 4 has been invoked --- lie with the copyright holder of
+the software. FSF is one of the largest copyright holders in the world of
+GPL'd software, but we are by no means the only one. Thus, we sometimes
+discover that while GPL'd code is present in the software, there is no
+software copyrighted by FSF present.
+
+In cases where FSF does not hold copyright interest in the software, but
+we have confirmed a violation, we contact the copyright holders of the
+software, and encourage them to enforce GPL\@. We offer our good offices
+to help negotiate compliance on their behalf, and many times, we help as a
+third party to settle such GPL violations. However, what we will describe
+primarily in this course is FSF's first-hand experience enforcing its own
+copyrights and GPL\@.
+
+\section{First Contact}
+
+The Free Software community is built on a structure of voluntary
+cooperation and mutual help. Our community has learned that cooperation
+works best when you assume the best of others, and only change policy,
+procedures and attitudes when some specific event or occurrence indicates
+that a change is necessary. We treat the process of GPL enforcement in
+the same way. Our goal is to encourage violators to join the cooperative
+community of software sharing, so we want to open our hand in friendship.
+
+Therefore, once we have confirmed a violation, our first assumption is
+that the violation is an oversight or otherwise a mistake due to confusion
+about the terms of the license. We reach out to the violator and ask them
+to work with us in a collaborative way to bring the product into
+compliance. We have received the gamut of possible reactions to such
+requests, and in this course, we examine four specific examples of such
+compliance work.
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{Davrik: Modified GCC SDK}
+
+In our first case study, we will consider Davrik, a company that
+produces software and hardware toolkits to assist OEM vendors, makers
+of consumer electronic devices.
+
+\section{Facts}
+
+One of Davrik's key products is a Software Development Kit (``SDK'')
+designed to assist developers building software for a specific class of
+consumer electronics devices.
+
+FSF received a report that the SDK may be based on the GNU Compiler
+Collection (which is an FSF-copyrighted collection of tools for software
+development in C, C++ and other popular languages). FSF investigated the
+claim, but was unable to confirm the violation. The violation reporter
+was unresponsive to follow-up requests for more information.
+
+Since FSF was unable to confirm the violation, we did not pursue it any
+further. Bogus reports do happen, and we do not want to burden companies
+with specious GPL violation complaints. FSF shelved the matter until
+more evidence was discovered.
+
+FSF was later able to confirm the violation when two additional reports
+surfaced from other violation reporters, both of whom had used the SDK
+professionally and noticed clear similarities to FSF's GNU GCC\@. FSF's
+Compliance Engineer asked the reporters to run standard tests to confirm
+the violation, and it was confirmed that Davrik's SDK was indeed a
+derivative work of GCC\@. Davrik had ported to Windows and added a number
+of features, including support for a specific consumer device chipset and
+additional features to aid in the linking process (``LP'') for those
+specific devices. FSF explained the rights that the GPL afforded these
+customers and pointed out, for example, that Davrik only needed to provide
+source to those in possession of the binaries, and that the users may need
+to request that source (if \S 3(b) was exercised). The violators
+confirmed that such requests were not answered.
+
+FSF brought the matter to the attention of Davrik, who immediately
+escalated the matter to their attorneys. After a long negotiation,
+Davrik acknowledged that their SDK was indeed a derivative work of
+GCC\@. Davrik released most of the source, but some disagreement
+occurred over whether LP was a derivate work of GCC\@. After repeated
+FSF inquiries, Davrik reaudited the source to discover that FSF's
+analysis was correct. Davrik determined that LP included a number of
+source files copied from the GCC code-base.
+
+\label{davrik-build-problems}
+Once the full software release was made available, FSF asked the violation
+reporters if it addressed the problem. Reports came back that the source
+did not properly build. FSF asked Davrik to provide better build
+instructions with the software, and such build instructions were
+incorporated into the next software release.
+
+At FSF's request as well, Davrik informed customers who had previously
+purchased the product that the source was now available by announcing
+the availablity on its Web site and via a customer newsletter.
+
+Davrik did have some concerns regarding patents. They wished to include a
+statement with the software release that made sure they were not granting
+any patent permission other than what was absolutely required by GPL\@.
+They understood that their patent assertions could not trump any rights
+granted by GPL\@. The following language was negotiated into the release:
+
+\begin{quotation}
+Subject to the qualifications stated below, Davrik, on behalf of itself
+and its Subsidiaries, agrees not to assert the Claims against you for your
+making, use, offer for sale, sale, or importation of the Davrik's GNU
+Utilities or derivative works of the Davrik's GNU Utilities
+(``Derivatives''), but only to the extent that any such Derivatives are
+licensed by you under the terms of the GNU General Public License. The
+Claims are the claims of patents that Davrik or its Subsidiaries have
+standing to enforce that are directly infringed by the making, use, or
+sale of an Davrik Distributed GNU Utilities in the form it was distributed
+by Davrik and that do not include any limitation that reads on hardware;
+the Claims do not include any additional patent claims held by Davrik that
+cover any modifications of, derivative works based on or combinations with
+the Davrik's GNU Utilities, even if such a claim is disclosed in the same
+patent as a Claim. Subsidiaries are entities that are wholly owned by
+Davrik.
+
+This statement does not negate, limit or restrict any rights you already
+have under the GNU General Public License version 2.
+\end{quotation}
+
+This quelled Davrik's concerns about other patent licensing they sought to
+do outside of the GPL'd software, and satisfied FSF's concerns that Davrik
+give proper permissions to exercise teachings of patents that were
+exercised in their GPL'd software release.
+
+Finally, a GPL Compliance Officer inside Davrik was appointed to take
+responsibility for all matters of GPL compliance inside the company.
+Darvik is responsible for informing FSF if the position is given to
+someone else inside the company, and making sure that FSF has direct
+contact with Darvik's Compliance Officer.
+
+\section{Lessons}
+
+This case introduces a number of concepts regarding GPL enforcement.
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item {\bf Enforcement should not begin until the evidence is confirmed.}
+  Most companies who distribute GPL'd software do so in compliance, and at
+  times, violation reports are mistaken. Even with extensive efforts in
+  GPL education, many users do not fully understand their rights and the
+  obligations that companies have. By working through the investigation
+  with reporters, the violation can be properly confirmed, and {\bf the
+    user of the software can be educated about what to expect with GPL'd
+    software}. When users and customers of GPL'd products know their
+  rights, what to expect, and how to properly exercise their rights
+  (particularly under \S 3(b)), it reduces the chances for user
+  frustration and inappropriate community outcry about an alleged GPL
+  violation.
+
+\item {\bf GPL compliance requires friendly negotiation and cooperation.}
+  Often, attorneys and managers are legitimately surprised to find out
+  GPL'd software is included in their company's products. Engineers
+  sometimes include GPL'd software without understanding the requirements.
+  This does not excuse companies from their obligations under the license,
+  but it does mean that care and patience are essential for reaching GPL
+  compliance. We want companies to understand that participating and
+  benefiting from a collaborative Free Software community is not a burden,
+  so we strive to make the process of coming into compliance as smooth as
+  possible.
+
+\item {\bf Confirming compliance is a community effort.}  The whole point
+  of making sure that software distributors respect the terms of GPL is to
+  allow a thriving software sharing community to benefit and improve the
+  work. FSF is not the expert on how a compiler for consumer electronic
+  devices should work. We therefore inform the community who originally
+  brought the violation to our attention and ask them to assist in
+  evaluation and confirmation of the product's compliance. Of course, FSF
+  coordinates and oversees the process, but we do not want compliance for
+  compliance's sake; rather, we wish to foster a cooperating community of
+  development around the Free Software in question, and encourage the
+  once-violator to begin participating in that community.
+
+\item {\bf Informing the harmed community is part of compliance.} FSF asks
+  violators to make some attempt --- such as via newsletters and the
+  company's Web site --- to inform those who already have the products as
+  to their rights under GPL\@. One of the key thrusts of GPL's \S 1 and
+  \S 3 is to {\em make sure the user knows she has these rights\/}. If a
+  product was received out of compliance by a customer, she may never
+  actually discover that she has such rights. Informing customers, in a
+  way that is not burdensome but has a high probability of successfully
+  reaching those who would seek to exercise their freedoms, is essential
+  to properly remedy the mistake.
+
+\item {\bf Lines between various copyright, patent, and other legal
+  mechanisms must be precisely defined and considered.}  The most
+  difficult negotiation point of the Davrik case was drafting language
+  that simultaneously protected Davrik's patent rights outside of the
+  GPL'd source, but was consistent with the implicit patent grant in
+  GPL\@. As we discussed in the first course of this series, there is
+  indeed an implicit patent grant with GPL, thanks to \S 6 and \S 7.
+  However, many companies become nervous and wish to make the grant
+  explicit to assure themselves that the grant is sufficiently narrow for
+  their needs. We understand that there is no reasonable way to determine
+  what patent claims read on a company's GPL holdings and which do not, so
+  we do not object to general language that explicitly narrows the patent
+  grant to only those patents that were, in fact, exercised by the GPL'd
+  software as released by the company.
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{Bracken: a Minor Violation in a GNU/Linux Distribution}
+
+In this case study, we consider a minor violation made by a company whose
+knowledge of the Free Software community and its functions is deep.
+
+\section{The Facts} 
+
+Bracken produces a GNU/Linux operating system product that is sold
+primarily to OEM vendors to be placed in appliance devices used for a
+single purpose, such as an Internet-browsing-only device. The product
+is almost 100\% Free Software, mostly licensed under GPL and related
+Free Software licenses.
+
+FSF found out about this violation through a report first posted on a
+  Slashdot\footnote{Slashdot is a popular news and discussion site for
+  technical readers.} comment, and then it was brought to our attention again
+  by another Free Software copyright holder who had discovered the
+  same violation.
+
+Bracken's GNU/Linux product is delivered directly from their Web site.
+This allowed FSF engineers to directly download and confirm the
+violation quickly. Two primary problems were discovered with the
+online distribution:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+
+\item No source code nor offer for source code was provided for a number
+  of components for the distributed GNU/Linux system; only binaries were
+  available
+
+\item An End User License Agreement (``EULA'') was included that
+  contradicted the permissions granted by GPL\@
+
+\end{itemize}
+
+FSF contacted Bracken and gave them the details of the violation. Bracken
+immediately ceased distribution of the product temporarily and set forth
+a plan to bring themselves back into compliance. This plan included the
+following steps:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+
+\item Bracken attorneys would rewrite the EULA to comply with GPL and
+  would vet the new EULA through FSF before use
+
+\item Bracken engineers would provide source side-by-side with the
+  binaries for the GNU/Linux distribution on the site (and on CD's, if
+  ever they distributed that way)
+
+\item Bracken attorneys would run an internal seminar for its engineers
+  regarding proper GPL compliance to help ensure that such oversights
+  regarding source releases would not occur in the future
+
+\item Bracken would resume distribution of the product only after FSF
+  formally restored Bracken's distribution rights
+\end{itemize}
+
+This case was completed in about a month. FSF approved the new EULA
+text. The key portion in the EULA relating to GPL read as follows:
+
+\begin{quotation}
+Many of the Software Programs included in Bracken Software are distributed
+under the terms of agreements with Third Parties (``Third Party
+Agreements'') which may expand or limit the Licensee's rights to use
+certain Software Programs as set forth in [this EULA]. Certain Software
+Programs may be licensed (or sublicensed) to Licensee under the GNU
+General Public License and other similar license agreements listed in part
+in this section which, among other rights, permit the Licensee to copy,
+modify and redistribute certain Software Programs, or portions thereof,
+and have access to the source code of certain Software Programs, or
+portions thereof. In addition, certain Software Programs, or portions
+thereof, may be licensed (or sublicensed) to Licensee under terms stricter
+than those set forth in [this EULA]. The Licensee must review the
+electronic documentation that accompanies certain Software Programs, or
+portions thereof, for the applicable Third Party Agreements. To the
+extent any Third Party Agreements require that Bracken provide rights to
+use, copy or modify a Software Program that are broader than the rights
+granted to the Licensee in [this EULA], then such rights shall take
+precedence over the rights and restrictions granted in this Agreement
+solely for such Software Programs.
+\end{quotation}
+
+FSF restored Bracken's distribution rights shortly after the work was
+completed as described.
+
+\section{Lessons Learned}
+
+This case was probably the most quickly and easily resolved of all GPL
+violations in the history of FSF's Compliance Lab. The ease with which
+the problem was resolved shows a number of cultural factors that play a
+role in GPL compliance.
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item {\bf Companies that understand Free Software culture better have an
+  easier time with compliance.}  Bracken's products were designed and
+  built around the GNU/Linux system and Free Software components. Their
+  engineers were deeply familiar with the Free Software ecosystem, and
+  their lawyers had seen and reviewed GPL before. The violation was
+  completely an honest mistake. Since the culture inside the company had
+  already adapted to the cooperative style of resolution in the Free
+  Software world, there was very little work for either party to bring the
+  product into compliance.
+
+\item {\bf When people in key positions understand the Free Software
+  nature of their software products, compliance concerns are as
+  mundane as minor software bugs.}  Even the most functional system or
+  structure has its problems, and successful business often depends on
+  agile response to the problems that do come up; avoiding problems
+  altogether is a pipe dream. Minor GPL violations can and do happen
+  even with well-informed redistributors. However, resolution is
+  reached quickly when the company --- and in particular, the lawyers,
+  managers, and engineers working on the Free Software product lines
+  --- have adapted to Free Software culture that the lower-level
+  engineer already understood
+
+\item {\bf Legally, distribution must stop when a violation is
+  identified.}  In our opinion, Bracken went above and beyond the call of
+  duty by ceasing distribution while the violation was being resolved.
+  Under GPL \S 4, the redistributor loses the right to distribute the
+  software, and thus they are in ongoing violation of copyright law if
+  they distribute before rights are restored. It is FSF's policy to
+  temporarily allow distribution while compliance negotiations are ongoing
+  and only in the most extreme cases (where the other party appears to be
+  negotiating in bad faith) does FSF even threaten an injunction on
+  copyright grounds. However, Bracken --- as a good Free Software citizen
+  --- chose to be on the safe side and do the legally correct thing while
+  the violation case was pending. From start to finish, it took less
+  than a month to resolve. This lapse in distribution did not, to FSF's
+  knowledge, impact Bracken's business in any way.
+
+\item {\bf EULAs are a common area for GPL problems.}  Often, EULAs
+  are drafted from boilerplate text that a company uses for all its
+  products. Even the most diligent attorneys forget or simply do not
+  know that a product contains software licensed under GPL and other
+  Free Software licenses. Drafting a EULA that accounts for such
+  licenses is straightforward; the text quoted above works just fine.
+  The EULA must be designed so that it does not trump rights and
+  permissions already granted by GPL\@. The EULA must clearly state
+  that if there is a conflict between it and GPL, with regard to GPL'd
+  code, the GPL is the overriding license.
+
+\item {\bf Compliance Officers are rarely necessary when companies are
+  educated about GPL compliance.}  As we saw in the Davrik case, FSF asks
+  that a formal ``GPL Compliance Officer'' be appointed inside a
+  previously violating organization to shepherd the organization to a
+  cooperative approach to GPL compliance. However, when FSF
+  sees that an organization already has such an approach, there is no
+  need to request that such an officer be appointed.
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{Vigorien: Security, Export Controls, and GPL Compliance}
+
+This case study introduces how concerns of ``security through obscurity''
+and regulatory problems can impact GPL compliance matters.
+
+\section{The Facts}
+
+Vigorien distributes a back-up solution product that allows system
+administrators to create encrypted backups of file-systems on
+Unix-like computers. The product is based on GNU tar, a backup utility
+that replaces the standard Unix utility simply called tar, but has
+additional features.
+
+Vigorien's backup solution added cryptographic features to GNU tar, and
+included a suite of utilities and graphical user interfaces surrounding
+GNU tar to make backups convenient.
+
+FSF discovered the violation from a user report, and determined that the
+cryptographic features were the only part of the product that constituted
+a derivative work of GNU tar; the extraneous utilities merely made
+shell calls out to GNU tar. FSF requested that Vigorien come into
+compliance with GPL by releasing the source of GNU tar, with the
+cryptographic modifications, to its customers.
+
+Vigorien released the original GNU tar sources, but kept the cryptographic
+modifications proprietary. They argued that the security of their system
+depending on keeping the software proprietary and that regardless, USA
+export restrictions on cryptographic software prohibited such a release.
+FSF disputed the first claim, pointing out that Vigorien had only one
+option if they did not want to release the source: they would have to
+remove GNU tar from the software and not distribute it further. Vigorien
+rejected this suggestion, since GNU tar was an integral part of the
+product, and the security changes were useless without GNU tar.
+
+Regarding the export control claims, FSF proposed a number of options,
+including release of the source from one of Vigorien's divisions overseas
+where no such restrictions occurred, but Vigorien argued that the problem
+was insoluble because they operated primarily in the USA\@.
+
+The deadlock on the second issue was resolved when those cryptographic
+export restrictions were lifted shortly thereafter, and FSF again raised
+the matter with Vigorien. At that point, they dropped the first claim and
+agreed to release the remaining source module to their customers. They
+did so, and the violation was resolved.
+
+
+\section{Lessons Learned}
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item {\bf Removing the GPL'd portion of the product is always an
+  option.}  Many violators' first response is to simply refuse to
+  release the source code as GPL requires. FSF offers the option to
+  simply remove the GPL'd portions from the product and continue along
+  without them. Every case where this has been suggested has led to
+  the same conclusion. Like Vigorien, the violator argues that the
+  product cannot function without the GPL'd components, and they
+  cannot effectively replace them.
+
+  Such an outcome is simply further evidence that the combined work in
+  question is indeed a derivative work of the original GPL'd component.
+  If the other components cannot stand on their own and be useful without
+  the GPL'd portions, then one cannot effectively argue that the work as a
+  whole is not a derivative of the GPL'd portions.
+
+\item {\bf The whole product is not always covered.}  In this case,
+  Vigorien had additional works aggregated. The backup system was a suite
+  of utilities, some of which were GPL and some of which were not. While
+  the cryptographic routines were tightly coupled with GNU tar and clearly
+  derivative works, the various GUI utilities were separate and
+  independent works merely aggregated with the distribution of the
+  GNU-tar-based product.
+
+
+\item {\bf ``Security'' concerns do not exonerate a distributor from GPL
+  obligations, and ``security through obscurity'' does not work anyway.}
+  The argument that ``this is security software, so it cannot be released
+  in source form'' is not a valid defense for explaining why the terms of
+  the GPL are ignored. If companies do not want to release source code
+  for some reason, then they should not base the work on GPL'd software.
+  No external argument for noncompliance can hold weight if the work as
+  whole is indeed a derivative work of a GPL'd program.
+
+  The ``security concerns'' argument is often floated as a reason to keep
+  software proprietary, but the computer security community has on
+  numerous occasions confirmed that such arguments are entirely specious.
+  Security experts have found --- since the beginnings of the field of
+  cryptography in the ancient world --- that sharing results about systems
+  and having such systems withstand peer review and scrutiny builds the
+  most secure systems. While full disclosure may help some who wish to
+  compromise security, it helps those who want to fix problems even more
+  by identifying them early.
+
+\item {\bf External regulatory problems can be difficult to resolve.}
+  GPL, though grounded in copyright law, does not have the power to trump
+  regulations like export controls. While Vigorien's ``security
+  concerns'' were specious, their export control concerns were not. It is
+  indeed a difficult problem that FSF acknowledges. We want compliance
+  with GPL and respect for users' freedoms, but we certainly do not expect
+  companies to commit criminal offenses for the sake of compliance. We
+  will see more about this issue in our next case study.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{Haxil, Polgara, and Thesulac: Mergers, Upstream Providers and Radio Devices}
+
+This case study considers an ongoing (at the time of writing) violation
+that has occurred. By the end of the investigation period, three
+companies were involved and many complex issues arose.
+
+\section{The Facts}
+
+Haxil produced a consumer electronics device which included a mini
+GNU/Linux distribution to control the device. The device was of interest
+to many technically-minded consumers, who purchased the device and very
+quickly discovered that Free Software was included without source.
+Mailing lists throughout the Free Software community erupted with
+complaints about the problem, and FSF quickly investigated.
+
+FSF confirmed that FSF-copyrighted GPL'd software was included. In
+addition, the whole distribution included GPL'd works from hundreds of
+individual copyright holders, many of whom were, at this point, up in
+arms about the violation.
+
+Meanwhile, Haxil was in the midst of being acquired by Polgara. Polgara
+was as surprised as everyone else to discover the product was based on
+GPL'd software; this fact had not been part of the disclosures made during
+acquisition. FSF contacted Haxil, Polgara, and the product managers
+who had transitioned into the ``Haxil division'' of the newly-merged
+Polgara company. Polgara's General Counsel's office worked with FSF on
+the matter.
+
+FSF formed a coalition with the other primary copyright holders
+to pursue the enforcement effort on their behalf. FSF communicated
+directly with Polgara's representatives to begin working through the
+issues on behalf of itself and the Free Software community at large.
+
+Polgara pointed out that the software distribution they used was mostly
+contributed by an upstream provider, Thesulac, and Haxil's changes to that
+code base were minimal. Polgara negotiated with Thesulac to obtain the
+source, although the issue moved very slowly in the channels between
+Polgara and Thesulac.
+
+FSF encouraged a round-table meeting so that high bandwidth communication
+could occur between FSF, Polgara and Thesulac. Polgara and Thesulac
+agreed, and that discussion began. Thesulac provided nearly complete
+sources to Polgara, and Polgara made a full software release on their
+Web site. At the time of writing, that software still has some build
+problems (similar to those that occurred with Davrik, as described in
+Section~\ref{davrik-build-problems}). FSF continues to negotiate with
+Polgara and Thesulac to resolve these problems, which have a clear path to
+a solution and are expected to resolve.
+
+Similar to the Vigorien case, Thesulac has regulatory concerns. In this
+case, it is not export controls --- an issue that has since been resolved
+--- but radio spectrum regulation. Since this consumer electronic device
+contains a software-programmable radio transmitter, regulations in (at
+least) the USA and Japan prohibit release of those portions of the code
+that operate the device. Since this is a low-level programming issue, the
+changes to operate the device are a derivative work of the kernel named
+Linux. This situation remains unresolved at the time of writing, although
+FSF continues to negotiation with Thesulac and the Linux community
+regarding the problem.
+
+\section{Lessons Learned}
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item {\bf Community outrage, while justified, can often make negotiation
+  more difficult.}  FSF has a strong policy never to publicize names of
+  GPL violators if they are negotiating in a friendly way and operating in
+  good faith toward compliance. Most violations are honest mistakes, and
+  FSF sees no reason to publicly admonish violators who genuinely want to
+  come into compliance with GPL and to work hard staying in compliance.
+
+  This case was so public in the Free Software community that both Haxil's
+  and Polgara's representatives were nearly shell-shocked by the time FSF
+  began negotiations. There was much work required to diffuse the
+  situation. We empathize with our community and their outrage about GPL
+  violations, but we also want to follow a path that leads expediently
+  to compliance. In our experience, public outcry works best as a last
+  resort, not the first.
+
+\item {\bf For software companies, GPL compliance belongs on a corporate
+  acquisition checklist. }  Polgara was truly amazed that Haxil had used
+  GPL'd software in a major new product line but never informed Polgara
+  during the acquisition process. While GPL compliance is not a
+  particularly difficult matter, it is an additional obligation that comes
+  along with the product line. When planning mergers and joint ventures,
+  one should include lists of GPL'd components contained in the products
+  discussed.
+
+\item {\bf Compliance problems of upstream providers do not excuse a
+  violation for the downstream distributor.}  To paraphrase \S 6, upstream
+  providers are not responsible for enforcing compliance of their
+  downstream, nor are downstream distributors responsible for compliance
+  problems of upstream providers. However, engaging in distribution of
+  GPL'd works out of compliance is still just that: a compliance problem.
+  When FSF carries out enforcement, we are patient and sympathetic when
+  the problem appears to be upstream. In fact, we urge the violator to
+  point us to the upstream provider so we may talk to them directly. In
+  this case, we were happy to begin negotiations with Thesulac. However,
+  Polgara still has an obligation to bring their product into compliance,
+  regardless of Thesulac's response.
+
+\item {\bf It behooves upstream providers to advise downstream
+  distributors about compliance matters.}  FSF has encouraged Thesulac to
+  distribute a ``good practices for GPL compliance'' document with their
+  product. Polgara added various software components to Thesulac's
+  product, and it is conceivable that such additions can introduce
+  compliance. In FSF's opinion, Thesulac is in no way legally responsible
+  for such a violation introduced by their customer, but it behooves them
+  from a marketing standpoint to educate their customers about using the
+  product. We can argue whether or not it is your coffee vendor's fault
+  if you burn yourself with their product, but (likely) no one on either
+  side would dispute the prudence of placing a ``caution: hot'' label on
+  the cup.
+
+\item {\bf FSF enforcement often avoids redundant enforcement cases from
+  many parties.}  Most Free Software systems have hundreds of copyright
+  holders. Some have thousands. FSF is in a unique position as one of
+  the largest single copyright holders on GPL'd software and as a
+  respected umpire in the community, neutrally enforcing the rules of the
+  GPL road. FSF works hard in the community to convince copyright
+  holders that consolidating GPL claims through FSF is better for them,
+  and more likely to yield positive compliance results.
+
+  A few copyright holders engage in the ``proprietary relicensing''
+  business, so they use GPL enforcement as a sales channel for that
+  business. FSF, as a community-oriented, not-for-profit organization,
+  seeks only to preserve the freedom of Free Software in its enforcement
+  efforts. As it turns out, most of the community of copyright holders
+  of Free Software want the same thing. Share and share alike is a
+  simple rule to follow, and following that rule to FSF's satisfaction
+  usually means you are following it to the satisfaction of the entire
+  Free Software community.
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{Good Practices for Compliance}
+
+Generally, from the experience of GPL enforcement, we glean the following
+general practices that can help in GPL compliance for organizations that
+distribute products based on GPL'd software:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+
+\item Talk to your software engineers and ask them where they got the
+  components they use in the products they build. Find out if GPL'd
+  components are present.
+
+\item Teach your engineering staff to pay attention to license documents.
+  Give them easy-to-follow policies to get approval for using a Free
+  Software component.
+
+\item Build a ``Free Software Licensing'' committee that handles requests
+  and questions about GPL and other Free Software licenses.
+
+\item Add ``What parts of your products are under GPL or other Free
+  Software licenses?'' to your checklist of questions to ask when you
+  consider mergers, acquisitions, or joint ventures.
+
+\item Encourage your engineers to participate collaboratively with GPL'd
+  software development. The more knowledge about the Free Software world
+  your organization has, the better equipped it is to deal with this
+  rapidly changing field.
+
+\item When someone points out a potential GPL violation in one of your
+  products, do not assume the product line is doomed. GPL is not a virus;
+  merely having GPL'd code in one part of a product does not necessarily
+  mean that every related product must also be GPL'd. And, even if some
+  software needs to be released that was not before, the product will
+  surely survive. In FSF's enforcement efforts, we have not yet
+  seen a product line die because source was released to customers in
+  compliance with GPL.
+
+\end{itemize}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+\backmatter
+
+\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}
+
+
+\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
+of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
+distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
+above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item
+
+You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
+you changed the files and the date of any change.
+
+\item
+
+You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
+whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
+part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
+parties under the terms of this License.
+
+\item
+If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
+when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
+interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
+announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
+notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
+a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
+these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
+License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
+does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
+the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
+identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
+and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
+themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
+sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
+distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
+on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
+this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
+entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
+
+Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
+your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
+exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
+collective works based on the Program.
+
+In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
+with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
+a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
+the scope of this License.
+
+\item
+You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
+under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
+Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item
+
+Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
+source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
+1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+\item
+
+Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
+years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
+cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
+machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
+distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
+customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+\item
+
+Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
+to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
+allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
+received the program in object code or executable form with such
+an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
+making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
+code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
+associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
+control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
+special exception, the source code distributed need not include
+anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
+form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
+operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
+itself accompanies the executable.
+
+If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
+access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
+access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
+distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
+compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
+
+\item
+You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
+except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
+otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
+void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
+However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
+this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
+parties remain in full compliance.
+
+\item
+You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
+signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
+distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
+prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
+modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
+all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
+the Program or works based on it.
+
+\item
+Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
+original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
+these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
+restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
+You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
+this License.
+
+\item
+If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
+infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
+conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
+otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
+excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
+distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
+License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
+may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
+license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
+all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
+the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
+refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
+
+If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
+any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
+apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
+circumstances.
+
+It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
+patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
+such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
+integrity of the Free Software distribution system, which is
+implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
+generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
+through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
+system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
+to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
+impose that choice.
+
+This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
+be a consequence of the rest of this License.
+
+\item
+If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
+certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
+original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
+may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
+those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
+countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
+the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
+
+\item
+The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
+of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
+be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
+address new problems or concerns.
+
+Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
+specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and ``any
+later version,'' you have the option of following the terms and conditions
+either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
+Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
+this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
+Foundation.
+
+\item
+If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
+programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
+to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
+Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
+make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
+of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our Free Software and
+of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large\sc
+No Warranty
+}
+\end{center}
+
+\item
+{\sc Because the program is licensed free of charge, there is no warranty
+for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Except when
+otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties
+provide the program ``as is'' without warranty of any kind, either expressed
+or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of
+merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as
+to the quality and performance of the program is with you. Should the
+program prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing,
+repair or correction.}
+
+\item
+{\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing
+will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or
+redistribute the program as permitted above, be liable to you for damages,
+including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising
+out of the use or inability to use the program (including but not limited
+to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by
+you or third parties or a failure of the program to operate with any other
+programs), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the
+possibility of such damages.}
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}
+\end{center}
+\vfill
+
+\pagebreak[4]
+
+\section*{Appendix: How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs}
+
+If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
+possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
+Free Software which everyone can redistribute and change under these
+terms.
+
+  To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to
+  attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey
+  the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
+  ``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
+
+\begin{quote}
+one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does. \\
+Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\
+
+This program is Free Software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+(at your option) any later version.
+
+This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
+Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA.
+\end{quote}
+
+Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
+
+If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
+when it starts in an interactive mode:
+
+\begin{quote}
+Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\
+Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. \\
+This is Free Software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
+under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
+\end{quote}
+
+
+The hypothetical commands {\tt show w} and {\tt show c} should show the
+appropriate parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands
+you use may be called something other than {\tt show w} and {\tt show c};
+they could even be mouse-clicks or menu items---whatever suits your
+program.
+
+You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
+school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the program, if
+necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
+
+\begin{quote}
+Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program \\
+`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker. \\
+
+signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989 \\
+Ty Coon, President of Vice
+\end{quote}
+
+
+This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
+into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
+may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications
+with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library
+General Public License instead of this License.
+
+
+\chapter{The GNU Lesser General Public License}
+
+\begin{center}
+{\parindent 0in
+
+Version 2.1, February 1999
+
+Copyright \copyright\ 1991, 1999 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.
+
+\bigskip
+
+[This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL. It also counts
+ as the successor of the GNU Library Public License version 2, hence
+ the version number 2.1.]
+}
+
+\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 Licenses are
+intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change Free Software---to
+make sure the software is free for all its users.
+
+This license, the Lesser General Public License, applies to some specially
+designated software packages---typically libraries---of the Free Software
+Foundation and other authors who decide to use it. You can use it too,
+but we suggest you first think carefully about whether this license or the
+ordinary General Public License is the better strategy to use in any
+particular case, based on the explanations below.
+
+When we speak of Free Software, we are referring to freedom of use, 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 and use pieces of it in new
+Free programs; and that you are informed that you can do these things.
+
+To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
+distributors to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender these
+rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you
+if you distribute copies of the library or if you modify it.
+
+For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or
+for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you.
+You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. If
+you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object
+files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the library
+after making changes to the library and recompiling it. And you must show
+them these terms so they know their rights.
+
+We protect your rights with a two-step method: (1) we copyright the
+library, and (2) we offer you this license, which gives you legal
+permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the library.
+
+To protect each distributor, we want to make it very clear that there is
+no warranty for the Free library. Also, if the library is modified by
+someone else and passed on, the recipients should know that what they have
+is not the original version, so that the original author's reputation will
+not be affected by problems that might be introduced by others.
+
+Finally, software patents pose a constant threat to the existence of any
+Free program. We wish to make sure that a company cannot effectively
+restrict the users of a Free program by obtaining a restrictive license
+from a patent holder. Therefore, we insist that any patent license
+obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full
+freedom of use specified in this license.
+
+Most GNU software, including some libraries, is covered by the ordinary
+GNU General Public License. This license, the GNU Lesser General Public
+License, applies to certain designated libraries, and is quite different
+from the ordinary General Public License. We use this license for certain
+libraries in order to permit linking those libraries into non-Free
+programs.
+
+When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a
+shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined
+work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public
+License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits
+its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more
+lax criteria for linking other code with the library.
+
+We call this license the ``Lesser'' General Public License because it does
+Less to protect the user's freedom than the ordinary General Public
+License. It also provides other Free Software developers Less of an
+advantage over competing non-Free programs. These disadvantages are the
+reason we use the ordinary General Public License for many libraries.
+However, the Lesser license provides advantages in certain special
+circumstances.
+
+For example, on rare occasions, there may be a special need to encourage
+the widest possible use of a certain library, so that it becomes a
+de-facto standard. To achieve this, non-Free programs must be allowed to
+use the library. A more frequent case is that a Free library does the
+same job as widely used non-Free libraries. In this case, there is little
+to gain by limiting the Free library to Free Software only, so we use the
+Lesser General Public License.
+
+In other cases, permission to use a particular library in non-Free
+programs enables a greater number of people to use a large body of Free
+software. For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-Free
+programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating system,
+as well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating system.
+
+Although the Lesser General Public License is Less protective of the
+users' freedom, it does ensure that the user of a program that is linked
+with the library has the freedom and the wherewithal to run that program
+using a modified version of the library.
+
+The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
+modification follow. Pay close attention to the difference between a
+``work based on the library'' and a ``work that uses the library.''  The
+former contains code derived from the library, whereas the latter must be
+combined with the library in order to run.
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large \sc GNU Lesser General Public License} \\
+{\Large \sc Terms and Conditions For Copying, Distribution and
+  Modification}
+\end{center}
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
+
+\item
+
+This License Agreement applies to any software library or other program
+which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder or other authorized
+party saying it may be distributed under the terms of this Lesser General
+Public License (also called ``this License''). Each licensee is addressed
+as ``you.''
+
+A ``library'' means a collection of software functions and/or data
+prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs (which
+use some of those functions and data) to form executables.
+
+The ``library,'' below, refers to any such software library or work which
+has been distributed under these terms. A ``work based on the library''
+means either the library or any derivative work under copyright law: that
+is to say, a work containing the library or a portion of it, either
+verbatim or with modifications and/or translated straightforwardly into
+another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without
+limitation in the term ``modification.'')
+
+``Source code'' for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
+modifications to it. For a library, complete source code means all the
+source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
+definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
+installation of the library.
+
+Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
+covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running a
+program using the library is not restricted, and output from such a
+program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
+library (independent of the use of the library in a tool for writing it).
+Whether that is true depends on what the library does and what the program
+that uses the library does.
+  
+\item 
+
+You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the library's complete
+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
+distribute a copy of this License along with the library.
+
+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 library or any portion of it,
+thus forming a work based on the library, and copy and distribute such
+modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that
+you also meet all of these conditions:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+  \item
+
+    The modified work must itself be a software library.
+
+  \item
+
+    You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating
+    that you changed the files and the date of any change.
+
+  \item
+
+    You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to
+    all third parties under the terms of this License.
+
+  \item 
+    If a facility in the modified library refers to a function or a table
+    of data to be supplied by an application program that uses the
+    facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility is
+    invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the
+    event an application does not supply such function or table, the
+    facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose
+    remains meaningful.
+
+(For example, a function in a library to compute square roots has a
+purpose that is entirely well-defined independent of the application.
+Therefore, Subsection 2d requires that any application-supplied function
+or table used by this function must be optional: if the application does
+not supply it, the square root function must still compute square roots.)
+\end{enumerate}
+
+These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
+sections of that work are not derived from the library, and can be
+reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
+this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
+distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
+sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the library, the
+distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
+permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to
+each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
+
+Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your
+rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise
+the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works
+based on the library.
+
+In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the library
+with the library (or with a work based on the library) on a volume of a
+storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
+scope of this License.
+
+\item
+
+You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License
+instead of this License to a given copy of the library. To do this, you
+must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer
+to the ordinary GNU General Public License version 2, instead of to this
+License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General
+Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if
+you wish.)  Do not make any other change in these notices.
+
+Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that
+copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent
+copies and derivative works made from that copy.
+
+This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the
+library into a program that is not a library.
+
+\item
+
+You may copy and distribute the library (or a portion or derivative of it,
+under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
+Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete
+corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed
+under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for
+software interchange.
+
+If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a
+designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code
+from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source
+code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along
+with the object code.
+
+\item
+
+A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the library, but
+is designed to work with the library by being compiled or linked with it,
+is called a ``work that uses the library.''  Such a work, in isolation, is
+not a derivative work of the library, and therefore falls outside the
+scope of this License.
+
+However, linking a ``work that uses the library'' with the library creates
+an executable that is a derivative of the library (because it contains
+portions of the library), rather than a ``work that uses the library.''
+The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states
+terms for distribution of such executables.
+
+When a ``work that uses the library'' uses material from a header file
+that is part of the library, the object code for the work may be a
+derivative work of the library even though the source code is not.
+Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be linked
+without the library, or if the work is itself a library. The threshold
+for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.
+
+If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure
+layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions (ten
+lines or less in length), then the use of the object file is unrestricted,
+regardless of whether it is legally a derivative work. (Executables
+containing this object code plus portions of the library will still fall
+under Section 6.)
+
+Otherwise, if the work is a derivative of the library, you may distribute
+the object code for the work under the terms of Section 6. Any
+executables containing that work also fall under Section 6, whether or not
+they are linked directly with the library itself.
+
+\item
+
+As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a
+``work that uses the library'' with the library to produce a work
+containing portions of the library, and distribute that work under terms
+of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work
+for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
+modifications.
+
+You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the library
+is used in it and that the library and its use are covered by this
+License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during
+execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright
+notice for the library among them, as well as a reference directing the
+user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+  \item
+
+    Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable
+    source code for the library including whatever changes were used in
+    the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above);
+    and, if the work is an executable linked with the library, with the
+    complete machine-readable ``work that uses the library,'' as object
+    code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the library and
+    then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified
+    library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of
+    definitions files in the library will not necessarily be able to
+    recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
+
+  \item
+
+    Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the library.
+    A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
+    library already present on the user's computer system, rather than
+    copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate
+    properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs
+    one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the
+    version that the work was made with.
+
+  \item
+
+    Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three
+    years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a,
+    above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this
+    distribution.
+
+  \item
+
+    If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a
+    designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified
+    materials from the same place.
+
+  \item
+
+    Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or
+    that you have already sent this user a copy.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+For an executable, the required form of the ``work that uses the library''
+must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the
+executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be
+distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
+either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
+and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
+that component itself accompanies the executable.
+
+It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions
+of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the
+operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and
+the library together in an executable that you distribute.
+
+\item
+
+You may place library facilities that are a work based on the library
+side-by-side in a single library together with other library facilities
+not covered by this License, and distribute such a combined library,
+provided that the separate distribution of the work based on the library
+and of the other library facilities is otherwise permitted, and provided
+that you do these two things:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+   \item
+
+     Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work based on
+     the library, uncombined with any other library facilities. This must
+     be distributed under the terms of the Sections above.
+
+   \item
+
+     Give prominent notice with the combined library of the fact that part
+     of it is a work based on the library, and explaining where to find
+     the accompanying uncombined form of the same work.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+\item
+
+  You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the
+  library except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
+  otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the
+  library is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
+  License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you
+  under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as
+  such parties remain in full compliance.
+
+\item  
+
+  You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed
+  it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
+  the library or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by
+  law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or
+  distributing the library (or any work based on the library), you
+  indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and
+  conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the library or works
+  based on it.
+
+\item
+
+  Each time you redistribute the library (or any work based on the
+  library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
+  original licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the library
+  subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
+  restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
+  You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with
+  this License.
+
+\item
+
+  If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
+  infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
+  conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
+  otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
+  excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
+  distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
+  License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
+  may not distribute the library at all. For example, if a patent license
+  would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the library by all those
+  who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way
+  you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely
+  from distribution of the library.
+
+  If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
+  any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
+  apply, and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
+  circumstances.
+
+  It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
+  patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
+  such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
+  integrity of the Free Software distribution system which is implemented
+  by public license practices. Many people have made generous
+  contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that
+  system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to
+  the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute
+  software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that
+  choice.
+
+  This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be
+  a consequence of the rest of this License.
+
+% \pagebreak[4]
+
+
+\item 
+
+  If the distribution and/or use of the library is restricted in certain
+  countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original
+  copyright holder who places the library under this License may add an
+  explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries,
+  so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus
+  excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if
+  written in the body of this License.
+
+\item 
+
+  The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
+  the Lesser General Public License from time to time. Such new versions
+  will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in
+  detail to address new problems or concerns.
+
+  Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the library
+  specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and ``any
+  later version,'' you have the option of following the terms and
+  conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
+  the Free Software Foundation. If the library does not specify a license
+  version number, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
+  Software Foundation.
+
+
+\item
+  
+
+  If you wish to incorporate parts of the library into other Free programs
+  whose distribution conditions are incompatible with these, write to the
+  author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the
+  Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we
+  sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the
+  two goals of preserving the Free status of all derivatives of our Free
+  software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
+
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large\sc
+No Warranty
+}
+\end{center}
+
+\item
+
+{\sc Because the library is licensed free of charge, there is no
+warranty for the library, to the extent permitted by applicable law.
+Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or
+other parties provide the library ``as is'' without warranty of any
+kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the
+implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
+purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the
+library is with you. should the library prove defective, you assume
+the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.}
+
+% \pagebreak[4]
+
+\item
+
+{\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing
+  will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or
+  redistribute the library as permitted above, be liable to you for
+  damages, including any general, special, incidental or consequential
+  damages arising out of the use or inability to use the library
+  (including but not limited to loss of data or data being rendered
+  inaccurate or losses sustained by you or third parties or a failure of
+  the library to operate with any other software), even if such holder or
+  other party has been advised of the possibility of such damages.}
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}
+\end{center}
+\vfill
+
+\pagebreak[4]
+
+\section*{How to Apply These Terms to Your New Libraries}
+           
+If you develop a new library, and you want it to be of the greatest
+possible use to the public, we recommend making it Free Software that
+everyone can redistribute and change. You can do so by permitting
+redistribution under these terms (or, alternatively, under the terms of
+the ordinary General Public License).
+
+To apply these terms, attach the following notices to the library. It is
+safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
+convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
+``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
+
+\begin{quote}
+one line to give the library's name and a brief idea of what it does. \\
+Copyright (C) year  name of author \\
+
+This library is Free Software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
+under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
+the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at
+your option) any later version.
+
+This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
+WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY
+or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public
+License for more details.
+
+You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
+along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
+Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
+\end{quote}
+
+Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
+
+You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
+school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the library, if
+necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
+
+\begin{quote}
+Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program \\
+`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker. \\
+
+signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1990 \\
+Ty Coon, President of Vice
+\end{quote}
+
+That's all there is to it!
+
+\end{document}
+
+% LocalWords:  proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision EULAs
+% LocalWords:  Yoyodyne FrontPage improvers Berne copyrightable Stallman's GPLs
+% LocalWords:  Lessig Lessig's UCITA pre PDAs CDs reshifts GPL's Gentoo glibc
+% LocalWords:  TrollTech administrivia LGPL's MontaVista OpenTV Mitek Arce DVD
+% LocalWords:  unprotectable protectable Unfreedonia chipset CodeSourcery Iqtel
+% LocalWords:  impermissibly Bateman faire minimis Borland uncopyrightable Mgmt
+% LocalWords:  franca downloadable Davrik Davrik's Darvik
+% LocalWords:  Slashdot sublicensed Vigorien Vigorien's Haxil Polgara
+% LocalWords:  Thesulac Polgara's Haxil's Thesulac's SDK CD's
