diff --git a/GPL-Business/gpl-business.tex b/GPL-Business/gpl-business.tex
deleted file mode 100644
index ec1404fdd824bfbf3bebb083c05cd7114d0027af..0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
--- a/GPL-Business/gpl-business.tex
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1852 +0,0 @@
-% gpl-buisness.tex                                                -*- LaTeX -*-
-%      Tutorial Text for the GPL for Businesspeople and Developers course
-%
-% Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-
-% License: CC-By-SA-4.0
-
-% The copyright holders hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify, convey,
-% Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative
-% Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License.
-
-% This text 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.
-
-% You should have received a copy of the license with this document in
-% a file called 'CC-By-SA-4.0.txt'.  If not, please visit
-% https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode to receive
-% the license text.
-
-\documentclass[12pt]{report}
-% FILTER_PS:  \input{generate-ps-file}
-% FILTER_PDF: \input{generate-pdf-file}
-% FILTER_HTML: \input{generate-html-file}
-\input{one-inch-margins}
-
-%\setlength\parskip{0.7em}
-%\setlength\parindent{0pt}
-
-\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\emph{#1}}
-
-%\pagestyle{empty}
-
-\begin{document}
-
-\begin{titlepage}
-
-{\Large
-
-\begin{center}
-
-\vspace{.5in}
-
-{\sc The GNU General Public License for Businesspeople and Developers } \\
-
-\vspace{1in}
-
-A Tutorial By:
-
-\vspace{.3in}
-Bradley M. Kuhn
-
-Executive Director
-
-Free Software Foundation
-
-
-\end{center}
-}
-
-\vfill
-
-{\parindent 0in
-Copyright \copyright{} 2003 \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-
-\vspace{.3in}
-
-The copyright holders hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify, convey,
-Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative Commons
-Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License.  A copy of that license is
-available at \verb=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode=.
-
-}
-
-\end{titlepage}
-
-\pagestyle{plain}
-\pagenumbering{roman}
-
-\begin{abstract}
-
-
-This tutorial gives a section-by-section explanation of the most popular
-Free Software copyright license, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL),
-and teaches software developers, managers and business people how to use
-the GPL and GPL'ed software successfully in a new Free Software business and
-in existing, successful enterprises.
-
-Attendees should have a general familiarity with software development
-processes.  A vague understanding of how copyright law applies to software
-is also helpful.  The tutorial is of most interest to software developers
-and managers who run software businesses that modify and/or redistribute
-software under terms of the GNU GPL (or who wish to do so in the future),
-and those who wish to make use of existing GPL'ed software in their
-enterprise.
-
-This tutorial introduces the GNU GPL and its terms to professionals who
-are not well versed in the details of copyright law.  Presented by a
-software developer and manager, this tutorial informs those who wish to
-have a deeper understanding of how the GNU GPL uses copyright law to
-protect software freedom and to assist in the formation of Free Software
-businesses, and of the organizational motivations behind the GNU GPL.
-
-Upon completion of the tutorial, successful attendees can expect to have
-learned the following:
-
-\begin{itemize}
-
-  \item the freedom-defending purpose of each term of the GNU GPL.
-
-  \item the redistribution options under the GPL.
-
-  \item the obligations when modifying GPL'ed software.
-
-  \item how to properly apply the GPL to a new software.
-
-  \item how to build a plan for proper and successful compliance with the GPL.
-
-  \item the business advantages that the GPL provides.
-
-  \item the most common business models used in conjunction with the GPL.
-
-  \item how existing GPL'ed software can be used in existing enterprises.
-\end{itemize}
-
-\end{abstract}
-
-\tableofcontents
-
-\pagebreak
-
-\pagenumbering{arabic}
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{What Is Free Software?}
-
-Consideration of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as
-\defn{GNU GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader
-world of Free Software.  The GPL was not created from a void, rather,
-it was created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set
-forth at the founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation
-(FSF)---the organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy
-of software freedom.  A prerequisite for understanding the GPL and its
-terms and conditions is a basic understanding of the principles behind it.
-The GPL is unlike almost all other software licenses in that it is
-designed to defend and uphold these principles.
-
-\section{The Free Software Definition}
-\label{Free Software Definition}
-
-The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's website at
-\verb0http://www.fsf.org/0 \verb0philosophy/free-sw.html0.  This section
-presents an abbreviated version that will focus on the parts that are most
-pertinent to the terms of the GPL\@.
-
-A particular program is Free Software if it grants a particular user of
-that program, the following freedoms:
-
-\begin{itemize}
-
-\item the freedom to run the program for any purpose.
-
-\item the freedom to change and modify the program.
-
-\item the freedom to copy and share the program.
-
-\item the freedom to share improved versions of the program.
-
-\end{itemize}
-
-The focus on ``a particular user'' is very pertinent here.  It is not
-uncommon for the same version of a specific program to grant these
-freedoms to some subset of its user base, while others have none or only
-some of these freedoms.  Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in
-detail about how this can happen even if a program is released under the
-GPL\@.
-
-Some people refer to software that gives these freedoms as ``Open
-Source''.  Besides having a different political focus than those who call
-it Free Software\footnote{The political differences between the Free
-Software Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's
-website at
-{\tt http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}},
-those who call the software ``Open Source'' are focused on a side issue.
-User access to the source code of a program is a prerequisite to make use
-of the freedom to modify.  However, the important issue is what freedoms
-are granted in the license of that source code.  Microsoft's ``Shared
-Source'' program, for example, gives various types of access to source
-code, but almost none of the freedoms described in this section.
-
-One key issue that is central to these freedoms is that there are no
-restrictions on how these freedoms can be exercised.  Specifically, users
-and programmers can exercise these freedoms non-commercially or
-commercially.  Licenses that grant these freedoms for non-commercial
-activities but prohibit them for commercial activities are considered
-non-Free.
-
-In general, software for which most or all of these freedoms are
-restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software''.  Typically, the
-term ``proprietary software'' is used more or less interchangeably with
-``non-Free Software''.  Personally, I tend to use the term ``non-Free
-Software'' to refer to non-commercial software that restricts freedom
-(such as ``shareware'') and ``proprietary software'' to refer to
-commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of
-Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).
-
-The remainder of this section considers each of the four freedoms in
-detail.
-
-\subsection{The Freedom to Run}
-
-For a program to be Free Software, the freedom to run the program must be
-completely unrestricted.  This means that any use for that software that
-the user can come up with must be permitted.  Perhaps, for example, the
-user has discovered an innovative new use for a particular program, one
-that the programmer never could have predicted.  Such a use must not be
-restricted.
-
-It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary
-software; today it is not so rare.  Most End User Licensing Agreements
-(EULAs) that cover most proprietary software restrict some types of use.
-For example, some versions of Microsoft's FrontPage software prohibit use
-of the software to create websites that generate negative publicity for
-Microsoft.  Free Software has no such restrictions; everyone is free to
-use Free Software for any purpose whatsoever.
-
-\subsection{The Freedom to Change and Modify}
-
-Free Software programs allow users to change, modify and adapt the
-software to suit their needs.  Access to the source code and related build
-scripts are an essential part of this freedom.  Without the source code
-and the ability to build the binary applications from that source, the
-freedom cannot be properly exercised.
-
-Programmers can take direct benefit from this freedom, and often do.
-However, this freedom is also important to users who are not programmers.
-Users must have the right to exercise this freedom indirectly in both
-commercial and non-commercial settings.  For example, users often seek
-non-commercial help with the software on email lists and in users groups.
-When they find such help, they must have the freedom to recruit
-programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their software.
-
-The commercial exercise of this freedom is also essential for users.  Each
-user, or group of users, must have the right to hire anyone they wish in a
-competitive free market to modify and change the software.  This means
-that companies have a right to hire anyone they wish to modify their Free
-Software.  Additionally, such companies may contract with other companies
-to commission software modification.
-
-\subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}
-
-Users may share Free Software in a variety of ways.  Free Software
-advocates work to eliminate a fundamental ethical dilemma of the software
-age: choosing between obeying a software license, and friendship (by
-giving away a copy of a program your friend who likes the software you are
-using).  Free Software licenses, therefore, must permit this sort of
-altruistic sharing of software among friends.
-
-The commercial environment must also have the benefits of this freedom.
-Commercial sharing typically takes the form of selling copies of Free
-Software.  Free Software can be sold at any price to anyone.  Those who
-redistribute Free Software commercially have the freedom to selectively
-distribute (you can pick your customers) and to set prices at any level
-the redistributor sees fit.
-
-It is true that many people get copies of Free Software very cheaply (and
-sometimes without charge). The competitive free market of Free Software
-tends to keep prices low and reasonable.  However, if someone is willing
-to pay a billion dollars for one copy of the GNU Compiler Collection, such
-a sale is completely permitted.
-
-Another common instance of commercial sharing is service-oriented
-distribution.  For example, a distribution vendor may provide immediate
-security and upgrade distribution via a special network service.  Such
-distribution is completely permitted for Free Software.
-
-(Section~\ref{Business Models} of this tutorial talks in detail about
-various Free Software business models that take advantage of the freedom
-to share commercially.)
-
-\subsection{The Freedom to Share Improvements}
-
-The freedom to modify and improve is somewhat empty without the freedom to
-share those improvements.  The Free Software community is built on the
-pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software.  Inevitably, a
-Free Software project sprouts a mailing list where improvements are shared
-freely among members of the development community.  Such non-commercial
-sharing must be permitted for Free Software to thrive.
-
-Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.  For a
-competitive free market for support to exist, all developers --- from
-single-person contractors to large software companies --- must have the
-freedom to market their services as improvers of Free Software.  All forms
-of such service marketing must be equally available to all.
-
-For example, selling support services for Free Software is fully
-permitted.  Companies and individuals can offer themselves as ``the place
-to call'' when software fails or does not function properly.  For such a
-service to be meaningful, the entity offering that service must have the
-right to modify and improve the software for the customer to correct any
-problems that are beyond mere user error.
-
-Entities must also be permitted to make available modified versions of
-Free Software.  Most Free Software programs have a ``standard version''
-that is made available from the primary developers of the software.
-However, all who have the software have the ``freedom to fork'' --- that
-is, make available non-trivial modified versions of the software on a
-permanent or semi-permanent basis.  Such freedom is central to vibrant
-developer and user interaction.
-
-Companies and individuals have the right to make true value-added versions
-of Free Software.  They may use freedom to share improvements to
-distribute distinct versions of Free Software with different functionality
-and features.  Furthermore, this freedom can be exercised to serve a
-disenfranchised subset of the user community.  If the developers of the
-standard version refuse to serve the needs of some of the software's
-users, other entities have the right to create long- or short-lived fork
-that serves that sub-community.
-
-\section{How Does Software Become Free?}
-
-The last section set forth the freedoms and rights are respected by Free
-Software.  It presupposed, however, that such software exists.  This
-section discusses how Free Software comes into existence.  But first, it
-addresses how software can be non-free in the first place.
-
-Software can be made proprietary only because it is governed by copyright
-law\footnote{This statement is a bit of an oversimplification.  Patents
-  and trade secrets can cover software and make it effectively non-free,
-  one can contract away their rights and freedoms regarding software, or
-  source code can be practically obscured in binary-only distribution
-  without reliance on any legal system.  However, the primary control
-  mechanism for software is copyright.}.  Copyright law, with respect to
-software, governs copying, modifying, and redistributing that
-software\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs ``public
-  performance'' of copyrighted works.  There is no generally agreed
-  definition for public performance of software and version 2 of the GPL
-  does not govern public performance.}.  By law, the copyright holder (aka
-the author) of the work controls how others may copy, modify and/or
-distribute the work.  For proprietary software, these controls are used to
-prohibit these activities.  In addition, proprietary software distributors
-further impede modification in a practical sense by distributing only
-binary code and keeping the source code of the software secret.
-
-Copyright law is a construction.  In the USA, the Constitution permits,
-but does not require, the creation of copyright law as federal
-legislation.  Software, since it is an idea fixed in a tangible medium, is
-thus covered by the statues, and is copyrighted by default.
-
-However, this legal construction is not necessarily natural.  Software, in
-its natural state without copyright, is Free Software.  In an imaginary
-world, which has no copyright, the rules would be different.  In this
-world, when you received a copy of a program's source code, there would be
-no default legal system to restrict you from sharing it with others,
-making modifications, or redistributing those modified
-versions\footnote{There could still exist legal systems, like our modern
-  patent system, which could restrict the software in other ways.}.
-
-Software in the real world is copyrighted by default, and that default
-legal system does exist.  However, it is possible to move software out of
-the domain of the copyright system.  A copyright holder is always
-permitted to \defn{disclaim} their copyright.  If copyright is disclaimed,
-the software is not governed by copyright law.  Software not governed by
-copyright is in the ``public domain''.
-
-\subsection{Public Domain Software}
-
-An author can create public domain software by disclaiming all copyright
-interest on the work.  In the USA and other countries that have signed the
-Berne convention on copyright, software is copyrighted automatically by
-the author when she ``fixes the software into a tangible medium''.  In
-the software world, this usually means typing the source code of the
-software into a file.
-
-However, an author can disclaim that default control given to her by the
-copyright laws.  Once this is done, the software is in the public domain
---- it is no longer covered by copyright.  Since it is copyright law that
-allows for various controls on software (i.e., prohibition of copying,
-modification, and redistribution), removing the software from the
-copyright system and placing it into the public domain does yield Free
-Software.
-
-Carefully note that software in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
-in any way.  It is nonsensical to say software is ``licensed for the
-public domain'', or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave
-expressed permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
-
-By contrast, what the copyright holder has done is renounce her copyright
-controls on the work.  The law gave her controls over the work, and she
-has chosen to waive those controls.  Software in the public domain is
-absent copyright and absent a license.  The software freedoms discussed in
-Section~\ref{Free Software Definition} are all granted because there is no
-legal system in play to take them away.
-
-\subsection{Why Copyright Free Software?}
-
-If simply disclaiming copyright on software yields Free Software, then it
-stands to reason that putting software into the public domain is the
-easiest and most straightforward way to produce Free Software.  Indeed,
-some major Free Software projects have chosen this method for making their
-software Free.  However, most of the Free Software in existence \emph{is}
-copyrighted.  In most cases (particularly in that of FSF and the GNU
-Project), this was done due to very careful planning.
-
-Software released into the public domain does grant freedom to those users
-who receive the standard versions on which the original author disclaimed
-copyright.  However, since the work is not copyrighted, any non-trivial
-modification made to the work is fully copyrightable.
-
-Free Software released into the public domain initially is Free, and
-perhaps some who modify the software choose to place their work into the
-public domain as well.  However, over time, some entities will choose to
-proprietarize their modified versions.  The public domain body of software
-feeds the proprietary software.  The public commons disappears, because
-fewer and fewer entities have an incentive to contribute back to the
-commons.  They know that any of their competitors can proprietarize their
-enhancements.  Over time, almost no interesting work is left in the public
-domain, because nearly all new work is done by proprietarization.
-
-A legal mechanism is needed to redress this problem.  FSF was in fact
-originally created primarily as a legal entity to defend software freedom,
-and that work of of defending software freedom is a substantial part of
-its work today.  Specifically because of this ``embrace, proprietarize and
-extend'' cycle, FSF made a conscious choice to copyright its Free Software,
-and then license it under ``copyleft'' terms, and many, including the
-developers of the kernel named Linux, have chosen to follow this paradigm.
-
-Copyleft is a legal strategy to defend, uphold and propagate software
-freedom.  The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the
-software, license it under terms that give all the software freedoms, but
-use the copyright law controls to ensure that all who receive a copy of
-the software have equal rights and freedom.  In essence, copyleft grants
-freedom, but forbids others to forbid that freedom from anyone else along
-the distribution and modification chains.
-
-Copyleft is a general concept.  Much like ideas for what a computer might
-do must be \emph{implemented} by a program that actually does the job, so
-too must copyleft be implemented in some concrete legal structure.
-``Share and share alike'' is a phrase that is often enough to explain the
-concept behind copyleft, but to actually make it work in the real world, a
-true implementation in legal text must exist.  The GPL is the primary
-implementation of copyleft in copyright licensing language.
-
-\section{An Ecosystem of Equality}
-
-The GPL uses copyright law to defend freedom and equally ensure users'
-rights.  This ultimately creates an ecosystem of equality for both
-business and non-commercial users.
-
-\subsection{The Non-Commercial Ecosystem}
-
-A GPL'ed code base becomes a center of a vibrant development and user
-community.  Traditionally, volunteers, operating non-commercially out of
-keen interest or ``scratch an itch'' motivations, produce initial versions
-of a GPL'ed system.  Because of the efficient distribution channels of the
-Internet, any useful GPL'ed system is adopted quickly by non-commercial
-users.
-
-Fundamentally, the early release and quick distribution of the software
-gives birth to a thriving non-commercial community.  Users and developers
-begin sharing bug reports and bug fixes across a shared intellectual
-commons.  Users can trust the developers, because they know that if the
-developers fail to address their needs or abandon the project, the GPL
-ensures that someone else has the right to pick up development.
-Developers know that the users cannot redistribute their software without
-passing along the rights granted by GPL, so they are assured that every
-one of their users is treated equally.
-
-Because of the symmetry and fairness inherent in GPL'ed distribution,
-nearly every GPL'ed package in existence has a vibrant non-commercial user
-and developer base.
-
-\subsection{The Commercial Ecosystem}
-
-By the same token, nearly all established GPL'ed software systems have a
-vibrant commercial community.  Nearly every GPL'ed system that has gained
-wide adoption from non-commercial users and developers eventually begins
-to fuel a commercial system around that software.
-
-For example, consider the Samba file server system that allows Unix-like
-systems (including GNU/Linux) to serve files to Microsoft Windows systems.
-Two graduate students originally developed Samba in their spare time and
-it was deployed non-commercially in academic environments.  However, very
-soon for-profit companies discovered that the software could work for them
-as well, and their system administrators began to use it in place of
-Microsoft Windows NT file-servers.  This served to lower the cost of
-running such servers by orders of magnitude.  There was suddenly room in
-Windows file-server budgets to hire contractors to improve Samba.  Some of
-the first people hired to do such work were those same two graduate
-students who originally developed the software.
-
-The non-commercial users, however, were not concerned when these two
-fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'ed work.  They knew
-that because of the nature of the GPL that improvements that were
-distributed in the commercial environment could easily be folded back into
-the standard version.  Companies are not permitted to proprietarize
-Samba, so the non-commercial users, and even other commercial users are
-safe in the knowledge that the software freedom ensured by GPL will remain
-protected.
-
-Commercial developers also work in concert with non-commercial developers.
-Those two now-long-since graduated students continue to contribute to
-Samba altruistically, but also get work doing it.  Priorities change when a
-client is in the mix, but all the code is contributed back to the
-standard version.  Meanwhile, many other individuals have gotten involved
-non-commercially as developers, because they want to ``cut their teeth on
-Free Software'' or because the problems interest them.  When they get good
-at it, perhaps they will move on to another project or perhaps they will
-become commercial developers of the software themselves.
-
-No party is a threat to another in the GPL software scenario because
-everyone is on equal ground.  The GPL protects rights of the commercial
-and non-commercial contributors and users equally.  The GPL creates trust,
-because it is a level playing field for all.
-
-\subsection{Law Analogy}
-
-In his introduction to Stallman's \emph{Free Software, Free Society},
-Lawrence Lessig draws an interesting analogy between the law and Free
-Software.  He argues that the laws of a Free society must be protected
-much like the GPL protects software.  So that I might do true justice to
-Lessig's argument, I quote it verbatim:
-
-\begin{quotation}
-
-A ``free society'' is regulated by law. But there are limits that any free
-society places on this regulation through law: No society that kept its
-laws secret could ever be called free. No government that hid its
-regulations from the regulated could ever stand in our tradition. Law
-controls.  But it does so justly only when visibly. And law is visible
-only when its terms are knowable and controllable by those it regulates,
-or by the agents of those it regulates (lawyers, legislatures).
-
-This condition on law extends beyond the work of a legislature.  Think
-about the practice of law in American courts.  Lawyers are hired by their
-clients to advance their clients' interests. Sometimes that interest is
-advanced through litigation. In the course of this litigation, lawyers
-write briefs.  These briefs in turn affect opinions written by judges.
-These opinions decide who wins a particular case, or whether a certain law
-can stand consistently with a constitution.
-
-All the material in this process is free in the sense that Stallman means.
-Legal briefs are open and free for others to use.  The arguments are
-transparent (which is different from saying they are good) and the
-reasoning can be taken without the permission of the original lawyers.
-The opinions they produce can be quoted in later briefs.  They can be
-copied and integrated into another brief or opinion.  The ``source code''
-for American law is by design, and by principle, open and free for anyone
-to take. And take lawyers do---for it is a measure of a great brief that
-it achieves its creativity through the reuse of what happened before.  The
-source is free; creativity and an economy is built upon it.
-
-This economy of free code (and here I mean free legal code) doesn't starve
-lawyers.  Law firms have enough incentive to produce great briefs even
-though the stuff they build can be taken and copied by anyone else.  The
-lawyer is a craftsman; his or her product is public.  Yet the crafting is
-not charity.  Lawyers get paid; the public doesn't demand such work
-without price.  Instead this economy flourishes, with later work added to
-the earlier.
-
-We could imagine a legal practice that was different---briefs and
-arguments that were kept secret; rulings that announced a result but not
-the reasoning.  Laws that were kept by the police but published to no one
-else.  Regulation that operated without explaining its rule.
-
-We could imagine this society, but we could not imagine calling it
-``free.''  Whether or not the incentives in such a society would be better
-or more efficiently allocated, such a society could not be known as free.
-The ideals of freedom, of life within a free society, demand more than
-efficient application.  Instead, openness and transparency are the
-constraints within which a legal system gets built, not options to be
-added if convenient to the leaders.  Life governed by software code should
-be no less.
-
-Code writing is not litigation.  It is better, richer, more
-productive. But the law is an obvious instance of how creativity and
-incentives do not depend upon perfect control over the products created.
-Like jazz, or novels, or architecture, the law gets built upon the work
-that went before. This adding and changing is what creativity always is.
-And a free society is one that assures that its most important resources
-remain free in just this sense.\footnote{This quotation is Copyright
-  \copyright{} 2002, Lawrence Lessig.  It is licensed under the terms of
-  \href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/}{the ``Attribution
-    License'', version 1.0} or any later version as published by Creative
-  Commons.}
-\end{quotation}
-
-In essence, lawyers are paid to service the shared commons of legal
-infrastructure.  Few citizens defend themselves in court or write their
-own briefs (even though they are legally permitted to do so) because
-everyone would prefer to have an expert do that job.
-
-The Free Software economy is a market that is ripe for experts.  It
-functions similarly to other well established professional fields like the
-law.  The GPL, in turn, serves as the legal scaffolding that permits the
-creation of this vibrant commercial and non-commercial Free Software
-economy.
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Copying, Modifying and Redistributing}
-
-This chapter begins the deep discussion of the details of the terms of
-GPL\@.  In this chapter, we consider the core terms: GPL \S\S 0--3.  These
-are the sections of the GPL that fundamentally define the legal details of
-how software freedom is respected.
-
-\section{GPL \S 0: Freedom to Run}
-\label{GPLs0}
-
-\S 0, the opening section of GPL, sets forth that the work is governed by
-copyright law.  It specifically points out that it is the ``copyright
-holder'' who decides if a work is licensed under its terms, and explains
-how the copyright holder might indicate this fact.
-
-A bit more subtly, \S 0 makes an inference that copyright law is the only
-system under which it is governed.  Specifically, it states:
-\begin{quote}
-Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
-covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
-\end{quote}
-In essence, the license governs \emph{only} those activities and all other
-activities are unrestricted, provided that no other agreements trump GPL
-(which they cannot; see Sections~\ref{GPLs6} and~\ref{GPLs7}).  This is
-very important, because the Free Software community heavily supports
-users' rights to ``fair use'' and ``unregulated use'' of copyrighted
-material.  GPL asserts through this clause that it supports users' rights
-to fair and unregulated uses.
-
-Fair use of copyrighted material is an established legal doctrine that
-permits certain activities.  Discussion of the various types of fair use
-activity are beyond the scope of this tutorial.  However, one important
-example of fair use is the right to quote a very few lines (less than
-seven or so), and reuse them as you with without licensing restrictions.
-
-Fair use is a doctrine established by the courts or by statute.  By
-contrast, unregulated uses are those that are not covered by the statue
-nor determined by a court to be covered, but are common and enjoyed by
-many users.  An example of unregulated use is reading a printout of the
-program's source code like an instruction book for the purpose of learning
-how to be a better programmer.
-
-\medskip
-
-Thus, the GPL protects users fair and unregulated use rights precisely by
-not attempting to cover them.  Furthermore, the GPL ensures the freedom
-to run specifically by stating the following:
-\begin{quote}
-The act of running the Program is not restricted
-\end{quote}
-Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by \S 0.
-
-\medskip
-
-The bulk of \S 0 not yet discussed gives definitions for other terms used
-throughout.  The only one worth discussing in detail is ``work based on
-the Program''.  The reason this definition is particularly interesting is
-not for the definition itself, which is rather straightforward, but the
-because it clears up a common misconception about the GPL\@.
-
-The GPL is often mistakenly criticized because it fails to give a
-definition of ``derivative work''.  In fact, it would be incorrect and
-problematic if the GPL attempted to define this.  A copyright license, in
-fact, has no control over what may or may not be a derivative work.  This
-matter is left up to copyright law, not the licenses that utilize it.
-
-It is certainly true that copyright law as a whole does not propose clear
-and straightforward guidelines for what is and is not a derivative
-software work under copyright law.  However, no copyright license --- not
-even the GNU GPL -- can be blamed for this.  Legislators and court
-opinions must give us guidance to decide the border cases.
-
-\section{GPL \S 1: Verbatim Copying}
-\label{GPLs1}
-
-GPL \S 1 covers the matter of redistributing the source code of a program
-exactly as it was received.  This section is quite straightforward.
-However, there are a few details worth noting here.
-
-The phrase ``in any medium'' is important.  This, for example, gives the
-freedom to publish a book that is the printed copy of the program's source
-code.  It also allows for changes in the medium of distribution.  Some
-vendors may ship Free Software on a CD, but others may place it right on
-the hard drive of a pre-installed computer.  Any such redistribution media
-is allowed.
-
-Preservation of copyright notice and license notifications are mentioned
-specifically in \S 1.  These are in some ways the most important part of
-the redistribution, which is why they are mentioned by name.  The GPL
-always strives to make it abundantly clear to anyone who receives the
-software what its license is.  The goal is to make sure users know their
-rights and freedoms under GPL and to leave no reason that someone would be
-surprised that the software she got was licensed under GPL\@.  Thus
-throughout the GPL, there are specific reference to the importance of
-notifying others down the distribution chain that they have rights under
-GPL.
-
-Also mentioned by name is the warranty disclaimer.  Most people today do
-not believe that software comes with any warranty.  Notwithstanding the
-proposed state-level UCITA bills (which have never obtained widespread
-adoption), there are little or no implied warranties with software.
-However, just to be on the safe side, GPL clearly disclaims them, and the
-GPL requires redistributors to keep the disclaimer very visible.  (See
-Sections~\ref{GPLs11} and~\ref{GPLs12} of this tutorial for more on GPL's
-warranty disclaimers.)
-
-Note finally that \S 1 begins to set forth the important defense of
-commercial freedom.  \S 1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim
-copies, one may make money.  Redistributors are fully permitted to charge
-for the redistribution of copies of Free Software.  In addition, they may
-provide the warranty protection that the GPL disclaims as an additional
-service for a fee.  (See Section~\ref{Business Models} for more discussion
-on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)
-
-\section{GPL \S 2: Share and Share Alike}
-
-For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software
-freedom along the distribution chain.  \S 2 is the only place in the GPL
-that governs the modification controls of copyright law.  If someone
-modifies a GPL'ed program, she is bound in the making those changes by \S
-2.  The goal here is to ensure that the body of GPL'ed software, as it
-continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.
-
-To achieve that goal, \S 2 first sets forth that the rights of
-redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim
-copying, as presented in \S 1.  Therefore, the details of charging,
-keeping copyright notices intact, and other \S 1 provisions are in tact
-here as well.  However, there are three additional requirements.
-
-The first (\S 2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent
-notices'' explaining what changes were made and the date of such changes.
-The goal here is not to put forward some specific way of marking changes,
-or controlling the process of how changes get made.  Primarily, \S 2(a)
-seeks to ensure that those receiving modified versions know what path it
-took to them.  For some users, it is important to know that they are using
-the standard version of program, because while there are many advantages
-to using a fork, there are a few disadvantages.  Users should be informed
-about the historical context of the software version they use, so that
-they can make proper support choices.  Finally, \S 2(a) serves an academic
-purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic approach
-to understand the software.
-
-\medskip
-
-The second requirement (\S 2(b)) contains the four short lines that embody
-the legal details of ``share and share alike''.  These 46 words are
-considered by some to be the most worthy of careful scrutiny.  It is worth
-the effort to carefully understand what each clause is saying, because \S
-2(b) can be a source of great confusion when not properly understood.
-
-In considering \S 2(b), first note the qualifier: it only applies to
-derivative works that ``you distribute or publish''.  Despite years of
-education efforts by FSF on this matter, many still believe that modifiers
-of GPL'ed software are required by the license to publish or otherwise
-share their changes.  On the contrary, \S 2(b) {\bf does not apply if} the
-changes are never distributed.  Indeed, the freedom to make private,
-personal, unshared changes to software for personal use only should be
-protected and defended\footnote{FSF does maintain that there is an {\bf
-    ethical} obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful,
-  and often encourages companies and individuals to do so.  However, there
-  is a clear distinction between what one {\bf ought} to do and what one
-  {\bf must} do.}.
-
-Next, we again encounter the same matter that appears in \S 0, in the
-following text:
-\begin{quote}
-... that in whole or part contains or is derived from the Program or any
-  part thereof,
-\end{quote}
-Again, the GPL relies here on what the copyright law says is a derivative
-work.  If, under copyright law, the modified version ``contains or is
-derived from'' the GPL'ed software, then the requirements of \S 2(b)
-apply.  The GPL invokes its control as a copyright license over the
-modification of the work in combination with its control over distribution
-of the work.
-
-The final clause of \S 2(b) describes what the licensee must do if she is
-distributing or publishing a work that is deemed a derivative work under
-copyright law --- namely, the following:
-\begin{quote}
-[The work must] be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
-under the terms of this License.
-\end{quote}
-That is probably the most tightly-packed phrase in all of the GPL\@.
-Consider each subpart carefully.
-
-The work ``as a whole'' is what is to be licensed.  This is an important
-point that \S 2 spends an entire paragraph explaining; thus this phrase is
-worthy of a lengthy discussion here.  As a programmer modifies a software
-program, she generates new copyrighted material --- fixing expressions of
-ideas into the tangible medium of electronic file storage.  That
-programmer is indeed the copyright holder of those new changes.  However,
-those changes are part and parcel to the original worked distributed to
-the programmer under GPL\@.  Thus, the license of the original work
-affects the license of the new whole derivative work.
-
-% {\cal I}
-\newcommand{\gplusi}{$\mathcal{G\!\!+\!\!I}$}
-\newcommand{\worki}{$\mathcal{I}$}
-\newcommand{\workg}{$\mathcal{G}$}
-
-It is certainly possible to take an existing independent work (called
-\worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'ed program (called \workg{}).  The
-license of \worki{}, when it is distributed as a separate and independent
-work, remains the prerogative of the copyright holder of \worki{}.
-However, when \worki{} is combined with \workg{}, it produces a new work
-that is the combination of the two (called \gplusi{}).  The copyright of
-this derivative work, \gplusi{}, is jointly held by the original copyright
-holder of each of the two works.
-
-In this case, \S 2 lays out the terms by which \gplusi{} may be
-distributed and copied.  By default, under copyright law, the copyright
-holder of \worki{} would not have been permitted to distribute \gplusi{};
-copyright law forbids it without the expressed permission of the copyright
-holder of \workg{}.  (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a Microsoft
-product --- would they give you permission to create and distribute
-\gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?)  The license of \workg{}, the
-GPL, sets forth ahead of time options for the copyright holder of \worki{}
-who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}.  This pre-granted
-permission to create and distribute derivative works, provided the terms
-of GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
-would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license.  Thus, to
-say that this restriction is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.
-
-\medskip
-
-The next phrase of note in \S 2(b) is ``licensed ... at no charge''.  This
-is a source of great confusion to many.  Not a month goes by that FSF does
-not receive an email that claims to point out ``a contradiction in GPL''
-because \S 2 says that redistributors cannot charge for modified versions
-of GPL'ed software, but \S 1 says that they can.  The ``at no charge''
-means not that redistributors cannot charge for performing the acts
-governed by copyright law\footnote{Recall that you could by default charge
-  for any acts not governed by copyright law, because the license controls
-  are confined by copyright.}, but rather that they cannot charge a fee
-for the \emph{license itself}.  In other words, redistributors of
-(modified and unmodified) GPL'ed works may charge any amount they choose
-for performing the modifications on contract or the act of transferring
-the copy to the customer, but they may not charge a separate licensing fee
-for the software.
-
-\S 2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed ... to all
-third parties''.  This too has led to some confusions, and feeds the
-misconception mentioned earlier --- that all modified versions must made
-available to the public at large.  However, the text here does not say
-that.  Instead, it says that the licensing under terms of the GPL must
-extend to anyone who might, through the distribution chain, receive a copy
-of the software.  Distribution to all third parties is not mandated here,
-but \S 2(b) does require redistributors to license the derivative works in
-a way that is extends to all third parties who may ultimately receive a
-copy of the software.
-
-In summary, \S 2(b) says what terms under which the third parties must
-receive this no-charge license.  Namely, they receive it ``under the terms
-of this License'', the GPL.  When an entity \emph{chooses} to redistribute
-a derivative work of GPL'ed software, the license of that whole derivative
-work must be GPL and only GPL\@.  In this manner, \S 2(b) dovetails nicely
-with \S 6 (as discussed in Section~\ref{GPLs6} of this tutorial).
-
-\medskip
-
-The final paragraph of \S 2 is worth special mention.  It is possible and
-quite common to aggregate various software programs together on one
-distribution medium.  Computer manufacturers do this when they ship a
-pre-installed hard drive, and GNU/Linux distribution vendors do this to
-give a one-stop CD or URL for a complete operating system with necessary
-applications.  The GPL very clearly permits such ``mere aggregation'' with
-programs under any license.  Despite what you hear from its critics, the
-GPL is nothing like a virus, not only because the GPL is good for you and
-a virus is bad for you, but also because simple contact with a GPL'ed
-code-base does not impact the license of other programs.  Actual effort
-must be expended by a programmer to cause a work to fall under the terms
-of the GPL.  Redistributors are always welcome to simply ship GPL'ed
-software alongside proprietary software or other unrelated Free Software,
-as long as the terms of GPL are adhered to for those packages that are
-truly GPL'ed.
-
-\section{GPL \S 3: Producing Binaries}
-
-% FIXME: need name of a novelist who writes very obscurely and obliquely.
-
-Software is a strange beast when compared to other copyrightable works.
-It is currently impossible to make a film or a book that can be truly
-obscured.  Ultimately, the full text of a novel, even one written by
-Donald Barthelme, must presented to the reader as words in some
-human-readable language so that they can enjoy the work.  A film, even one
-directed by David Lynch, must be perceptible by human eyes and ears to
-have any value.
-
-Software is not so.  While the source code, the human-readable
-representation of software is of keen interest to programmers, users and
-programmers alike cannot make the proper use of software in that
-human-readable form.  Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer
-can understand --- must be predicable and attainable for the software to
-be fully useful.  Without the binaries, be they in object or executable
-form, the software serves only the didactic purposes of computer science.
-
-Under copyright law, binary representations of the software are simply
-derivative works of the source code.  Applying a systematic process (i.e.,
-``compilation'') to a work of source code yields binary code.  The binary
-code is now a new work of expression fixed in the tangible medium of
-electronic file storage.
-
-Therefore, for GPL'ed software to be useful, the GPL, since it governs the
-rules for creation of derivative works, must grant permission for the
-generation of binaries.  Furthermore, notwithstanding the relative
-popularity of source-based GNU/Linux distributions like Gentoo, users find
-it extremely convenient to receive distribution of binary software.  Such
-distribution is the redistribution of derivative works of the software's
-source code.  \S 3 addresses the matter of creation and distribution of
-binary versions.
-
-Under \S 3, binary versions may be created and distributed under the terms
-of \S\S 1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies here.
-However, \S 3 must go a bit further.  Access to the software's source code
-is an incontestable prerequisite for the exercise of the fundamental
-freedoms to modify and improve the software.  Making even the most trivial
-changes to a software program at the binary level is effectively
-impossible.  \S 3 must ensure that the binaries are never distributed
-without the source code, so that these freedoms are ensured to be passed
-along the distribution chain.
-
-\S 3 permits distribution of binaries, and then offers three options for
-distribution of source code along with binaries.  The most common and the
-least complicated is the option given under \S 3(a).
-
-\S 3(a) offers the option to directly accompany the source code alongside
-the distribution of the binaries.  This is by far the most convenient
-option for most distributors, because it means that the source-code
-provision obligations are fully completed at the time of binary
-distribution (more on that later).
-
-Under \S 3(a), the source code provided must be the ``corresponding source
-code''.  Here ``corresponding'' primarily means that the source code
-provided must be that code used to produce the binaries being distributed.
-That source code must also be ``complete''.  A later paragraph of \S 3
-explains in detail what is meant by ``complete''.  In essence, it is all
-the material that a programmer of average skill would need to actually use
-the source code to produce the binaries she has received.  Complete source
-is required so that, if the licensee chooses, she should be able to
-exercise her freedoms to modify and redistribute changes.  Without the
-complete source, it would not be possible to make changes that were
-actually directly derived from the version received.
-
-Furthermore, \S 3 is defending against a tactic that has in fact been seen
-in FSF's GPL enforcement.  Under GPL, if you pay a high price for a copy
-of GPL'ed binaries (which comes with corresponding source, of course), you
-have the freedom to redistribute that work at any fee you choose, or not
-at all.  Sometimes, companies attempt a GPL-violating cozenage whereby
-they produce very specialized binaries (perhaps for an obscure
-architecture), and then giving source code that does correspond, but not
-giving the ``incantations'' and build plans they used to make that source
-compile into the specialized binaries.  Therefore, \S 3 that the source
-code include ``meta-material'' like scripts, interface definitions, and
-other material that is used to ``control compilation and installation'' of
-the binaries.  In this manner, those further down the distribution chain
-are assured that they have the unabated freedom to build their own
-derivative works from the sources provided.
-
-FSF (as authors of GPL) realizes that software distribution comes in many
-forms.  Embedded manufacturers, for example, have the freedom to put
-GPL'ed software into their PDAs with very tight memory and space
-constraints.  In such cases, putting the source right alongside the
-binaries on the machine itself might not be an option.  While it is
-recommended that this be the default way that people comply with GPL, the
-GPL does provide options when such distribution is infeasible.
-
-\S 3, therefore, allows source code to be provided on any physical
-``medium customarily used for software interchange''.  By design, this
-phrase covers a broad spectrum.  At best, FSF can viably release a new GPL
-every ten years or so.  Thus, phrases like this must be adaptive to
-changes in the technology.  When GPL version 2 was first published in June
-1991, distribution on magnetic tape was still common, and CD was
-relatively new.  Today, CD is the default, and for larger systems DVD-R is
-gaining adoption.  This language must adapt with changing technology.
-
-Meanwhile, the binding created by the word ``customarily'' is key.  Many
-incorrectly believe that distributing binary on CD and source on the
-Internet is acceptable.  In the corporate world, it is indeed customary to
-simply download CDs worth of data over a T1 or email large file
-attachments.  However, even today in the USA, many computer users with
-CD-ROM drives are not connected to the Internet, and most people connected
-to the Internet are connected via a 56K dial-up connection.  Downloading
-CDs full of data is not customary for them in the least.  In some cities
-in Africa, computers are becoming more common, but Internet connectivity
-is still available only at a few centralized locations.  Thus, the
-``customs'' here have must have a worldwide scope in context, and simply
-providing source on the Internet --- while it is a kind, friendly and
-useful thing to do --- is not usually sufficient.
-
-Note, however, a major exception to this rule, given by the last paragraph
-of \S 3.  \emph{If} distribution of the binary files is made only on the
-Internet (i.e., ``from a designated place''), \emph{then} simply providing
-the source code right alongside the binaries in the same place is
-sufficient to comply with \S 3.
-
-\medskip
-
-As is shown above, Under \S 3(a), embedded manufacturers can put the
-binaries on the device and ship the source code along on a CD\@.  However,
-sometimes this turns out to be too costly.  Including a CD with every
-device could prove too costly, and may practically (although not legally)
-prohibit using GPL'ed software.  For this situation and others like it, \S
-3(b) is available.
-
-\S 3(b) allows a distributor of binaries to instead provide a written
-offer for source code alongside those binaries.  This is useful in two
-specific ways.  First, it may turn out that most users do not request the
-source, and thus the cost of producing the CDs is saved --- a financial
-and environmental windfall.  In addition, along with a \S 3(b) compliant
-offer for source, a binary distributor might choose to \emph{also} give a
-URL for source code.  Many who would otherwise need a CD with source might
-turn out to have those coveted high bandwidth connections, and are able to
-download the source instead --- again yielding environmental and financial
-windfalls.
-
-However, note that regardless of how many users prefer to get the source
-online, that \S 3(b) does place lasting long-term obligations on the
-binary distributor.  The binary distributor must be prepared for three
-years to honor that offer for source, and ship it out (just as they would
-have had to do under \S 3(a)) at a moment's notice when they receive such
-a request.  There is real organizational cost here: support engineers for
-three years must be trained how to route source requests, and source CD
-images for every release version for the last three years must be kept on
-hand to burn such CDs quickly.  The requests might not even come from
-actual customers; the offer for source must be valid for ``any third
-party''.
-
-That phrase is another place where some get confused --- thinking again
-that full public distribution of source is required.  The offer for source
-must be valid for ``any third party'' because of the freedoms of
-redistribution granted by \S\S 1--2.  A company may ship a binary image
-and an offer for source to only one customer.  However, under GPL, that
-customer has the right to redistribute that software to the world if she
-likes.  When she does, that customer has an obligation to make sure that
-those who receive the software from her can exercise their freedoms under
-GPL --- including the freedom to modify, rebuild, and redistribute the
-source code.
-
-\S 3(c) is created to save her some trouble, because by itself \S 3(b)
-would unfairly favor large companies.  compromise.  \S 3(b) allows the
-separation of the binary software from the key tool that people can use
-to exercise their freedom.  The GPL permits this separation because it is
-good for redistributors, and those users who turn out not to need the
-source.  However, to ensure equal rights for all software users, anyone
-along the distribution chain must have the right to get the source and
-exercise those freedoms that require it.
-
-Meanwhile, \S 3(b)'s compromise primarily benefits companies who
-distribute binary software commercially.  Without \S 3(c), that benefit
-would be at the detriment of the companies' customers; the burden of
-source code provision would be unfairly shifted to the companies'
-customers.  A customer, who had received binaries with a \S 3(b)-compliant
-offer, would be required under GPL (sans \S 3(c)) to acquire the source,
-merely to give a copy of the software to a friend who needed it.  \S 3(c)
-reshifts this burden to entity who benefits from \S 3(b).
-
-\S 3(c) allows those who undertake \emph{non-commercial} distribution to
-simply pass along a \S 3(b)-compliant source code offer.  The customer who
-wished to give a copy to her friend can now do so without provisioning the
-source, as long as she gives that offer to her friend.  By contrast, if
-she wanted to go into business for herself selling CDs of that software,
-she would have to acquire the source and either comply via \S 3(a), or
-write her own \S 3(b)-compliant source offer.
-
-This process is precisely the reason why a \S 3(b) source offer must be
-valid for all third parties.  At the time the offer is made, there is no
-way of knowing who might end up non-commercially receiving a copy of the
-software.  Companies who choose to comply via \S 3(b) must thus be
-prepared to honor all incoming source code requests.  For this and the
-many other additional necessary complications under \S\S 3(b--c), it is
-only rarely a better option than complying via \S 3(a).
-
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Defending Freedom On Many Fronts}
-
-The last chapter presented the core freedom-defending provisions of GPL\@,
-which are in \S\S 0--3.  \S\S 4--7 of the GPL are designed to ensure that
-\S\S 0--3 are not infringed, are enforceable, are kept to the confines of
-copyright law and are not trumped by other copyright agreements or
-components of other entirely separate legal systems.  In short, while \S\S
-0--3 are the parts of the license that defend the freedoms of users and
-programmers, \S\S 4--7 are the parts of the license that keep the playing
-field clear so that \S\S 0--3 can do their jobs.
-
-\section{GPL \S 4: Termination on Violation}
-\label{GPLs4}
-
-\S 4 is GPL's termination clause.  Upon first examination, it seems
-strange for a license that has the goal of defending users and programmers
-freedoms for perpetuity in an irrevocable way would have such a clause.
-However, upon further examination, the difference between irrevocability
-and this termination clause becomes clear.
-
-The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder grants
-rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the software under
-terms of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that grant.  Since the GPL has
-no provision allowing the copyright holder to take such a prerogative, the
-license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect\footnote{In
-  the USA, due to unfortunate legislation, the length of copyright is
-  nearly perpetual, even though the Constitution forbids perpetual
-  copyright.}.  The copyright holder has the right to relicense the same
-work under different licenses (see Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing}
-of this tutorial), or to stop distributing the GPL'ed version (assuming \S
-3(b) was never used), but the she may not revoke the rights under GPL
-already granted.
-
-In fact, when an entity looses their right to copy, modify and distribute
-GPL'ed software, it is because of their \emph{own actions}, not that of
-the copyright holder.  The copyright holder does not decided when \S 4
-termination occurs (if ever), the actions of the licensee does.
-
-Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to
-the licensee to perform specific types of copying, modification, and
-redistribution.  By default, all other types of copying, modification, and
-redistribution are prohibited.  \S 4 says that if you undertake any of
-those other types (e.g., redistributing binary-only in violation of \S 3),
-then all rights under the license --- even those otherwise permitted for
-those who have not violated --- terminate automatically.
-
-\S 4 gives GPL teeth.  If licensees fail to adhere to the license, then
-they are stuck.  They must to completely cease and desist from all
-copying, modification and distribution of that GPL'ed software.
-
-At that point, violating licensees must gain the forgiveness of the
-copyright holder to have their rights restored.  Alternatively, they could
-negotiate another agreement, separate from GPL, with the copyright
-holder.  Both are common practice.
-
-At FSF, it is part of the mission to spread software freedom.  When FSF
-enforces GPL, the goal is to bring the violator back into compliance as
-quickly as possible, and redress the damage caused by the violation.
-That is FSF's steadfast position in a violation negotiation --- comply
-with the license and respect freedom.
-
-However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software
-freedom as institutionalized by FSF pursue GPL violations differently.  MySQL
-AB, a company that produces the GPL'ed MySQL database, upon discovering
-GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software license
-separately for a fee.  While this practice is not one that FSF would ever
-consider undertaking or even endorsing, it is a legal way for copyright
-holders to proceed.
-
-\section{GPL \S 5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}
-\label{GPLs5}
-
-\S 5 brings us to perhaps the most fundamental misconception and common
-confusion about GPL\@.  Because of the prevalence of proprietary software,
-most users, programmers, and lawyers alike tend to be more familiar with
-EULAs.  EULAs are believed by their authors to be contracts, requiring
-formal agreement between the licensee and the software distributor to be
-valid.  This has led to mechanisms like ``shrink-wrap'' and ``click-wrap''
-as mechanisms to perform acceptance ceremonies with EULAs.
-
-The GPL does not need contract law to ``transfer rights''.  No rights are
-transfered between parties.  By contrast, the GPL is permission slip to
-undertake activities that would otherwise been prohibited by copyright law.
-As such, it needs no acceptance ceremony; the licensee is not even
-required to accept the license.
-
-However, without the GPL, the activities of copying, modifying and
-distributing the software would have otherwise been prohibited.  So, the
-GPL says that you only accepted the license by undertaking activities that
-you would have otherwise been prohibited without your license under GPL\@.
-This is a certainly subtle point, and requires a mindset quite different
-from the contractual approach taken by EULA authors.
-
-An interesting side benefit to \S 5 is that the bulk of users of Free
-Software are not required to accept the license.  Undertaking fair and
-unregulated use of the work, for example, does not bind you to the GPL,
-since you are not engaging in activity that is otherwise controlled by
-copyright law.  Only when you engage in those activities that might have an
-impact on the freedom of others does license acceptance occur and the
-terms begin to bind you to fair and equitable sharing of the software.  In
-other words, the GPL only kicks in when it needs to for the sake of
-freedom.
-
-\section{GPL \S 6: GPL, My One and Only}
-\label{GPLs6}
-
-A point that was glossed over in Section~\ref{GPLs4}'s discussion of \S 4
-was the irrevocable nature of the GPL\@.  The GPL is indeed irrevocable,
-and it is made so formally \S 6.
-
-The first sentence in \S 6 ensures that as software propagates down the
-distribution chain, that each licensor can pass along the license to each
-new licensee.  Under \S 6, the act of distributing automatically grants a
-license from the original licensor to the next recipient.  This creates a
-chain of grants that ensure that everyone in the distribution has rights
-under the GPL\@.  In a mathematical sense, this bounds the bottom ---
-making sure that future licensees get no fewer rights than than the
-licensee before.
-
-The second sentence of \S 6 does the opposite; it bounds from the top.  It
-prohibits any licensor along the distribution chain from placing
-additional restrictions on the user.  In other words, no additional
-requirements may trump the rights and freedoms given by GPL\@.
-
-The final sentence of \S 6 makes it abundantly clear that no individual
-entity in the distribution chain is responsible for the compliance of any
-other.  This is particularly important for non-commercial users who have
-passed along a source offer under \S 3(c), as they cannot be assured that
-the issuer of the offer will honor their \S 3 obligations.
-
-In short, \S 6 says that your license for the software is your one and
-only copyright license allowing you to copy, modify and distribute the
-software.
-
-\section{GPL \S 7: ``Give Software Liberty of Give It Death!''}
-\label{GPLs7}
-
-In essence, \S 7 is a verbosely worded way of saying for non-copyright
-systems what \S 6 says for copyright.  If there exists any reason that a
-distributor knows of that would prohibit later licensees from exercising
-their full rights under GPL, then distribution is prohibited.
-
-Originally, this was designed as the title of this section suggests --- as
-a last ditch effort to make sure that freedom was upheld.  However, in
-modern times, it has come to give much more.  Now that the body of GPL'ed
-software is so large, patent holders who would want to be distributors of
-GPL'ed software have a tough choice.  They must choose between avoiding
-distribution of GPL'ed software that exercises the teachings of their
-patents, or grant a royalty-free, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to
-those patents.  Many companies, including IBM, the largest patent holder
-in the world, have chosen the latter.
-
-Thus, \S 7 is rarely gives software death by stopping its distribution.
-Instead, it is inspiring patent holders to share their patents in the same
-freedom-defending way that they share their copyrighted works.
-
-\section{GPL \S 8: Excluding Unfreedonia}
-\label{GPLs8}
-
-\S 8 is rarely used by copyright holders.  Its intention is that, if
-particular country, say Unfreedonia, grant particular patents or allow
-copyrighted interfaces (no country to our knowledge even permits those
-yet), that the GPL'ed software can continue in free and unabated
-distribution in the countries where such controls do not exist.
-
-It is a partial ``out'' from \S 7.  Without \S 8, if a copyright holder
-knew of a patent in a particular country licensed in a GPL-incompatible
-way, then she could not distribute under GPL, because the work would
-legitimately end up in the hands of citizens of Unfreedonia.
-
-It is an inevitable but sad reality that some countries are freer than
-others.  \S 8 exists to permit distribution on those countries that are
-free without otherwise negating parts of the license.
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}
-
-\S 0--7 constitute the freedom-defending terms of the GPL.  The balance
-of the GPL handles administrivia and issues concerning warranties and
-liability.
-
-\section{GPL \S 9: FSF as stewards of GPL}
-\label{GPLs9}
-
-FSF reserves the exclusive right to publish future versions of the GPL\@;
-\S 9 expresses this.  While the stewardship of the copyrights on the body
-of GPL'ed software around the world is shared among thousands of
-individuals and organizations, the license itself needs a single steward.
-Forking of the code is often regrettable but basically innocuous.  Forking
-of licensing is disastrous.
-
-FSF has only released two versions of GPL --- in 1989 and 1991.  GPL,
-version 3, is under current internal drafting.  FSF's plan is to have a
-long and engaging comment period.  The goal of GPL is defend freedom, and
-a gigantic community depends on that freedom now.  FSF hopes to take all
-stakeholders' opinions under advisement.
-
-\section{GPL \S 10: Relicensing Permitted}
-\label{GPLs10}
-
-\S 10 reminds the licensee of what is already implied by the nature of
-copyright law.  Namely, the copyright holder of a particular software
-program has the prerogative to grant alternative agreements under separate
-copyright licenses.
-
-\section{GPL \S 11: No Warranty}
-\label{GPLs11}
-
-All warranty disclaimer language tends to be shouted in all capital
-letters.  Apparently, there was once a case where the disclaimer language
-of an agreement was negated because it was not ``conspicuous'' to one of
-the parties.  Therefore, to make such language ``conspicuous'', people
-started placing it in bold or capitalizing the entire text.  It now seems
-to be voodoo tradition of warranty disclaimer writing.
-
-Finally, one important point to remember when reading \S 11 is that \S 1
-permits the sale of warranty as an additional service, which \S 11
-affirms.
-
-\section{GPL, \S 12: Limitation of Liability}
-\label{GPLs12}
-
-There are many types of warranties, and in some jurisdictions some of them
-cannot be disclaimed.  Therefore, usually agreements will have both a
-warranty disclaimer and a limitation of liability, as we have in \S 12.
-\S 11 thus gets rid of all implied warranties that can legally be
-disavowed.  \S 12, in turn, limits the liability of the actor for any
-warranties that cannot legally be disclaimed in a particular jurisdiction.
-
-So ends the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License.
-
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}
-
-Since GPL'ed software is now extremely prevalent through the industry, it
-is useful to has some basic knowledge about using GPL'ed software in
-business and how to build business models around GPL'ed software.
-
-\section{Using GPL'ed Software In-House}
-
-A discussed in Sections~\ref{GPLs0} and~\ref{GPLs5} of this tutorial, the
-GPL only governs the activities of copying, modifying and distributing the
-software are not governed by the license.  Thus, in FSF's view, simply
-installing the software on a machine and using it is not controlled or
-limited in any way by GPL\@.  Using Free Software in general requires
-substantially fewer agreements and less license compliance activity than
-any known proprietary software.
-
-Even if a company engages heavily in copying the software throughout the
-enterprise, such copying is not only permitted by \S\S 1 and 3, but it is
-encouraged!  If the company simply deploy unmodified (or even modified)
-Free Software throughout the organization for its employees to use, the
-obligations under the license are very minimal.  Using Free Software has a
-substantially lower cost of ownership --- both in licensing fees and in
-licensing checking and handling -- than the proprietary software
-equivalents.
-
-\section{Business Models}
-\label{Business Models}
-
-Using Free Software in house is certainly helpful, but there is also a
-thriving market for Free Software-oriented business models.  There is the
-traditional model of selling copies of Free Software distributions.  Many
-companies, including IBM and Red Hat, make substantial revenue from this
-model.  IBM primarily chooses this model because they have found that for
-higher-end hardware, the cost of the profit made from proprietary software
-licensing fees is negligible.  The real profit is in the hardware, but it is
-essential that software be stable, reliable and dependable, and the users
-be allowed to have unfettered access to it.  Free Software, and GPL'ed
-software in particular (because IBM can be assured that proprietary
-versions of the same software will not exists to compete on their
-hardware) is the right choice.
-
-Red Hat has actually found that a ``convenience fee'' for Free Software,
-when set at a reasonable price (around \$60 or so), can produce some
-profit.  Even though Red Hat's system is fully downloadable on their
-website, people still go to local computer stores and buy copies of their
-box set, which is simply a printed version of the manual (available under
-a free license as well) and the Free Software system it documents.
-
-\medskip
-
-However, custom support, service, and software improvement contracts are
-the most widely used models for GPL'ed software.  The GPL is central to
-their success, because it ensure that the code base remains common, and
-that large and small companies are on equal footing for access to the
-technology.  Consider, for example, the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC).
-Cygnus Solutions, a company started in the early 1990s, was able to grow
-steadily simply by providing services for GCC --- mostly consisting of
-porting GCC to new embedded chipset target platforms.  Eventually, Cygnus
-was so successful that it was purchased by Red Hat where it remains a
-profitable division.
-
-However, there are very small companies like CodeSourcery, as well as
-other medium sized companies like MontaVista and OpenTV that compete in
-this space.  Because the code-base is protect by GPL, it creates and
-demands industry trust.  Companies can cooperate on the software and
-improve it for everyone.  Meanwhile, companies who rely on GCC for their
-work are happy to pay for improvements, and for ports to new target
-platforms, and nearly all the changes fold back into the standard
-versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.
-
-\medskip
-
-\label{Proprietary Relicensing}
-
-A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is
-proprietary relicensing of a GPL'ed code base.  This is only an option for
-software in which a particular entity is the sole copyright holder.  As
-discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is permitted under
-copyright law to license a software system under her copyright as many
-different ways as she likes to as many different parties as she wishes.
-
-Some companies, such as MySQL AB and TrollTech, use this to their
-financial advantage with regard to a GPL'ed code base.  The standard
-version is available from the company under the terms of the GPL\@.
-However, parties can purchase separate proprietary software licensing for
-a fee.
-
-This business model is problematic because it means that the GPL'ed code
-base must be developed in a somewhat monolithic way, because volunteer
-Free Software developers may be reluctant to assign their copyrights to
-the company because it will not promise to always and forever license the
-software as Free Software.  Indeed, the company will surely use such code
-contributions in proprietary versions licensed for fees.
-
-\section{Ongoing Compliance}
-
-GPL compliance is in fact a very simple matter -- much simpler than
-typical proprietary software agreements and EULAs.  Usually, the most
-difficult hurdle is changing from a proprietary software mindset to one
-that seeks to foster a community of sharing and mutual support.  Certainly
-complying with the GPL from a users' perspective gives substantially fewer
-headaches than proprietary license compliance.
-
-For those who go into the business of distributing or distributing
-modified versions of GPL'ed software, the burden is a bit higher, but not
-by much.  The glib answer that is that it is always easy to comply with
-the GPL by releasing the whole product as Free Software.  However,
-admittedly to the dismay of FSF, many modern and complex software systems
-are built using both proprietary and GPL'ed components that are not
-legally derivative works of each other.  Usually, in product development
-with Free Software tools, sometimes it is easier simply to improve
-existing GPL'ed application than to start from scratch.  In exchange for
-that benefit, the license requires that the modifier give back to the
-commons that made the work easier.  It is a reasonable trade-off, and it
-is a way to help build a better world while also making a profit.
-
-Note that FSF does provide services to assist companies who need
-assistance in complying with the GPL.  You can contact FSF's GPL
-Compliance Labs at $<$compliance@fsf.org$>$.
-
-\appendix
-
-\chapter{The GNU General Public License}
-
-\begin{center}
-{\parindent 0in
-
-Version 2, June 1991
-
-Copyright \copyright\ 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-
-\bigskip
-
-59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA
-
-\bigskip
-
-Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
-of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
-}
-\end{center}
-
-\begin{center}
-{\bf\large Preamble}
-\end{center}
-
-
-The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
-share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
-intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software---to
-make sure the software is free for all its users.  This General Public
-License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to
-any other program whose authors commit to using it.  (Some other Free
-Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public
-License instead.)  You can apply it to your programs, too.
-
-When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.
-Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the
-freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service
-if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it,
-that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs;
-and that you know you can do these things.
-
-To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to
-deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.  These
-restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
-distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
-
-For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
-for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have.  You
-must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.  And
-you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
-
-We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2)
-offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
-distribute and/or modify the software.
-
-Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that
-everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software.  If
-the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its
-recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any
-problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors'
-reputations.
-
-Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents.
-We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will
-individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
-proprietary.  To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must
-be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
-
-The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
-modification follow.
-
-\begin{center}
-{\Large \sc Terms and Conditions For Copying, Distribution and
-  Modification}
-\end{center}
-
-
-%\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alpha{enumi}}
-\begin{enumerate}
-
-\addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
-
-\item
-
-This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice
-placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the
-terms of this General Public License.  The ``Program'', below, refers to
-any such program or work, and a ``work based on the Program'' means either
-the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a
-work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with
-modifications and/or translated into another language.  (Hereinafter,
-translation is included without limitation in the term ``modification''.)
-Each licensee is addressed as ``you''.
-
-Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
-covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
-running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
-is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
-Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
-Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
-
-\item You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
-  code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
-  and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
-  and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to
-  this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
-  recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
-
-You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you
-may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
-
-\item
-
-You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
-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}
-
-
-\pagebreak[2]
-
-\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.
-
-\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
-% LocalWords:  TrollTech
