diff --git a/GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl.tex b/GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl.tex index 3e9fd45e66f1dc9fe4154b47dbbdfb9004df07b6..7ecba7e239238181dfc3a0aed8b808b67ca5281c 100644 --- a/GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ % FILTER_PDF: \input{generate-pdf-file} % FILTER_HTML: \input{generate-html-file} \input{one-inch-margins} +\usepackage{enumerate} %\setlength\parskip{0.7em} %\setlength\parindent{0pt} @@ -598,12 +599,12 @@ creation of this vibrant commercial and non-commercial Free Software economy. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -\chapter{Copying, Modifying and Redistributing} +\chapter{Running Software And Verbatim Copying} 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. +GPL\@. In this chapter, we consider the first two sections: GPL \S\S +0--2. These are the straightforward sections of the GPL that define the +simplest rights that the user receives. \section{GPL \S 0: Freedom to Run} \label{GPLs0} @@ -712,6 +713,340 @@ 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.) +%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% + +\chapter{Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law} + +We digress for this chapter from our discussion of GPL's exact text to +consider the matter of derivative works --- a concept that we must +understand fully before considering \SS 2--3 of GPL\@. GPL, and Free +Software licensing in general, relies critically on the concept of +``derivative work'' since software that is ``independent,'' (i.e., not +``derivative'') of free software need not abide by the terms of the +applicable Free Software license. As much is required by \S 106 of the +Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. \S 106 (2002), and admitted by Free Software +licenses, such as the GPL, which (as we have seen) states in \S 0 that ``a +'work based on the Program' means either the Program or any derivative +work under copyright law.'' It is being a derivative work of Free Software +that triggers the necessity to comply with the terms of the Free Software +license under which the original work is distributed. Therefore, one is +left to ask, just what is a ``derivative work?'' The answer to that +question differs depending on which court is being asked. + +The analysis in this chapter sets forth the differing definitions of +derivative work by Circuit. The broadest and most established definition +of derivative work for software is the abstraction, filtration, and +comparison test (``the AFC test'') as created and developed by the Second +Circuit. Some Circuits, including the Ninth Circuit and the First Circuit, +have either adopted narrower versions of the AFC test or have expressly +rejected the AFC test in favor of a narrower standard. Further, several +other Circuits have yet to adopt any definition of derivative work for +software. + +As an introductory matter, it is important to note that literal copying of +a significant portion of source code is not always sufficient to establish +that a second work is a derivative work of an original +program. Conversely, a second work can be a derivative work of an original +program even though absolutely no copying of the literal source code of +the original program has been made. This is the case because copyright +protection does not always extend to all portions of a program’s code, +while, at the same time, it can extend beyond the literal code of a +program to its non-literal aspects, such as its architecture, structure, +sequence, organization, operational modules, and computer-user interface. + +\section{The Copyright Act} + +The copyright act is of little, if any, help in determining the definition +of a derivative work of software. However, the applicable provisions do +provide some, albeit quite cursory, guidance. Section 101 of the Copyright +Act sets forth the following definitions: + +A ``computer program'' is a set of statements or instructions to be used +directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain +result. + +A ``derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, +such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, +fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art +reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work +may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial +revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a +whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ``derivative work''. + +These are the only provisions in the Copyright Act relevant to the +determination of what constitutes a derivative work of a computer +program. Another provision of the Copyright Act that is also relevant to +the definition of derivative work is \S 102(b), which reads as follows: + +\begin{quotation} +In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship +extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, +concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is +described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. +\end{quotation} + +Therefore, before a court can ask whether one program is a derivative work +of another program, it must be careful not to extend copyright protection +to any ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, +concepts, principles, or discoveries contained in the original program. It +is the implementation of this requirement to ``strip out'' unprotectable +elements that serves as the most frequent issue over which courts +disagree. + +\section{Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison Test} + +As mentioned above, the AFC test for determining whether a computer +program is a derivative work of an earlier program was created by the +Second Circuit and has since been adopted in the Fifth, Tenth, and +Eleventh Circuits. Computer Associates Intl., Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 +F.2d 693 (2nd Cir. 1992); Engineering Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural +Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335 (5th Cir. 1994); Kepner-Tregoe, +Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 1994); Gates +Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indust., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993); +Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366 (10th Cir. 1997); 5 Bateman +v. Mnemonics,Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996); and, Mitek Holdings, +Inc. v. Arce Engineering Co., Inc., 89 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1996). + +Under the AFC test, a court first abstracts from the original program its +constituent structural parts. Then, the court filters from those +structural parts all unprotectable portions, including incorporated ideas, +expression that is necessarily incidental to those ideas, and elements +that are taken from the public domain. Finally, the court compares any and +all remaining kernels of creative expression to the structure of the +second program to determine whether the software programs at issue are +substantially similar so as to warrant a finding that one is the +derivative work of the other. + +Often, the courts that apply the AFC test will perform a quick initial +comparison between the entirety of the two programs at issue in order to +help determine whether one is a derivative work of the other. Such an +holistic comparison, although not a substitute for the full application of +the AFC test, sometimes reveals a pattern of copying that is not otherwise +obvious from the application of the AFC test when, as discussed below, +only certain components of the original program are compared to the second +program. If such a pattern is revealed by the quick initial comparison, +the court is more likely to conclude that the second work is indeed a +derivative of the original. + +\subsection{Abstraction} + +The first step courts perform under the AFC test is separation of the +work’s ideas from its expression. In a process akin to reverse +engineering, the courts dissect the original program to isolate each level +of abstraction contained within it. Courts have stated that the +abstractions step is particularly well suited for computer programs +because it breaks down software in a way that mirrors the way it is +typically created. However, the Courts have also indicated that this step +of the AFC test requires substantial guidance from experts, because it is +extremely fact and situation specific. + +By way of example, one set of abstraction levels is, in descending order +of generality, as follows: the main purpose, system architecture, abstract +data types, algorithms and data structures, source code, and object +code. As this set of abstraction levels shows, during the abstraction step +of the AFC test, the literal elements of the computer program, namely the +source and object code, are defined as particular levels of +abstraction. Further, the source and object code elements of a program are +not the only elements capable of forming the basis for a finding that a +second work is a derivative of the program. In some cases, in order to +avoid a length factual inquiry by the court, the owner of the copyright in +the original work will submit its own list of what it believes to be the +protected elements of the original program. In those situations, the court +will forgo performing its own abstraction, and proceed to second step of +the AFC test. + +\subsection{Filtration} + +The most difficult and controversial part of the AFC test is the second +step, which entails the filtration of protectable expression contained in +the original program from any unprotectable elements nestled therein. In +determining which elements of a program are unprotectable, courts employ a +myriad of rules and procedures to sift from a program all the portions +that are not eligible for copyright protection. + +First, as set forth in \S 102(b) of the Copyright Act, any and all ideas +embodied in program are to be denied copyright protection. However, +implementing this rule is not as easy as it first appears. The courts +readily recognize the intrinsic difficulty in distinguishing between ideas +and expression and that, given the varying nature of computer programs, +doing so will be done on an ad hoc basis. The first step of the AFC test, +the abstraction, exists precisely to assist in this endeavor by helping +the court separate out all the individual elements of the program so that +they can be independently analyzed for their expressive nature. + +A second rule applied by the courts in performing the filtration step of +the AFC test is the doctrine of merger, which denies copyright protection +to expression necessarily incidental to the idea being expressed. The +reasoning behind this doctrine is that when there is only one way to +express an idea, the idea and the expression merge, meaning that the +expression cannot receive copyright protection due to the bar on copyright +protection extending to ideas. In applying this doctrine, a court will ask +whether the program's use of particular code or structure is necessary for +the efficient implementation of a certain function or process. If so, then +that particular code or structure is not protected by copyright and, as a +result, it is filtered away from the remaining protectable expression. + +A third rule applied by the courts in performing the filtration step of +the AFC test is the doctrine of scenes a faire, which denies copyright +protection to elements of a computer program that are dictated by external +factors. Such external factors can include: + +\begin{enumerate} + \renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alph{enumi}} + \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\textup{(\theenumi)}} + +\item the mechanical +specifications of the computer on which a particular program is intended +to operate; + +\item compatibility requirements of other programs with which a +program is designed to operate in conjunction; + +\item computer manufacturers' +design standards; + +\item demands of the industry being serviced; and + +widely accepted programming practices within the computer industry. + +\end{enumerate} + +Any code or structure of a program that was shaped predominantly in +response to these factors is filtered out and not protected by +copyright. Lastly, elements of a computer program are also to be filtered +out if they were taken from the public domain or fail to have sufficient +originality to merit copyright protection. + +Portions of the source or object code of a computer program are rarely +filtered out as unprotectable elements. However, some distinct parts of +source and object code have been found unprotectable. For example, +constant s, the invariable integers comprising part of formulas used to +perform calculations in a program, are unprotectable. Further, although +common errors found in two programs can provide strong evidence of +copying, they are not afforded any copyright protection over and above the +protection given to the expression containing them. + +\subsection{Comparison} + +The third and final step of the AFC test entails a comparison of the +original program's remaining protectable expression to a second +program. The issue will be whether any of the protected expression is +copied in the second program and, if so, what relative importance the +copied portion has with respect to the original program overall. The +ultimate inquiry is whether there is ``substantial'' similarity between +the protected elements of the original program and the potentially +derivative work. The courts admit that this process is primarily +qualitative rather than quantitative and is performed on a case-by-case +basis. In essence, the comparison is an ad hoc determination of whether +the protectable elements of the original program that are contained in the +second work are significant or important parts of the original program. If +so, then the second work is a derivative work of the first. If, however, +the amount of protectable elements copied in the second work are so small +as to be de minimis, then the second work is not a derivative work of the +original. + +\section{Analytic Dissection Test} + +The Ninth Circuit has adopted the analytic dissection test to determine +whether one program is a derivative work of another. Apple Computer, +Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994). The analytic +dissection test first considers whether there are substantial similarities +in both the ideas and expressions of the two works at issue. Once the +similar features are identified, analytic dissection is used to determine +whether any of those similar features are protected by copyright. This +step is the same as the filtration step in the AFC test. After identifying +the copyrightable similar features of the works, the court then decides +whether those features are entitled to ``broad'' or ``thin'' +protection. ``Thin'' protection is given to non-copyrightable facts or +ideas that are combined in a way that affords copyright protection only +from their alignment and presentation, while ``broad'' protection is given +to copyrightable expression itself. Depending on the degree of protection +afforded, the court then sets the appropriate standard for a subjective +comparison of the works to determine whether, as a whole, they are +sufficiently similar to support a finding that one is a derivative work of +the other. ``Thin'' protection requires the second work be virtually +identical in order to be held a derivative work of an original, while +``broad'' protection requires only a ``substantial similarity.'' + +\section{No Protection for ``Methods of Operation''} + +The First Circuit expressly rejected the AFC test and, instead, takes a +much narrower view of the meaning of derivative work for software. The +First Circuit holds that ``method of operation,'' as used in \S 102(b) of +the Copyright Act, refers to the means by which users operate +computers. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int’l., Inc., 49 F.3d 807 +(1st Cir. 1995). More specifically, the court held that a menu command +hierarchy for a computer program was uncopyrightable because it did not +merely explain and present the program’s functional capabilities to the +user, but also served as a method by which the program was operated and +controlled. As a result, under the First Circuit’s test, literal copying +of a menu command hierarchy, or any other ``method of operation,'' can not +form the basis for a determination that one work is a derivative of +another. It is also reasonable to expect that the First Circuit will read +the unprotectable elements set forth in \S 102(b) broadly, and, as such, +promulgate a definition of derivative work that is much narrower than that +which exists under the AFC test. + +\section{No Test Yet Adopted} + +Several circuits, including most notably the Fourth and Seventh, have yet +to declare their definition of derivative work and whether or not the AFC, +Analytic Dissection, or some other test best fits their interpretation of +copyright law. Therefore, uncertainty exists with respect to determining +the extent to which a software program is a derivative work of another in +those circuits. However, one may presume that they would give deference to +the AFC test since it is by far the majority rule amongst those circuits +that have a standard for defining a software derivative work. + +\section{Cases Applying Software Derivative Work Analysis} + +In the preeminent case regarding the definition of a derivative work for +software, Computer Associates v. Altai, the plaintiff alleged that the its +program, Adapter, which was used to handle the differences in operating +system calls and services, was infringed by the defendant's competitive +program, Oscar. About 30 percent of Oscar was literally the same code as +that in Adapter. After the suit began, the defendant rewrote those +portions of Oscar that contained Adapter code in order to produce a new +version of Oscar that was functionally competitive with Adapter, without +have any literal copies of its code. Feeling slighted still, the +plaintiff alleged that even the second version of Oscar, despite having no +literally copied code, also infringed its copyrights. In addressing that +question, the Second Circuit promulgated the AFC test. + +In abstracting the various levels of the program, the court noted a +similarity between the two programs' parameter lists and macros. However, +following the filtration step of the AFC test, only a handful of the lists +and macros were protectable under copyright law because they were either +in the public domain or required by functional demands on the +program. With respect to the handful of parameter lists and macros that +did qualify for copyright protection, after performing the comparison step +of the AFC test, it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that +they did not warrant a finding of infringement given their relative minor +contribution to the program as a whole. Likewise, the similarity between +the organizational charts of the two programs was not substantial enough +to support a finding of infringement because they were too simple and +obvious to contain any original expression. + +Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few cases involving a highly +detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve +clearer basis for decision, including frequent bad faith on the part of +the defendant or over aggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff. +However, no cases involving free software licensing have ever gone to +court. As free software becomes an ever increasingly important part of +the economy, it remains to be seen whether or not battle lines will be +drawn over whether particular programs infringe the rights of free +software developers or whether the entire community, including industry, +adopts norms avoiding such risk. + +%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% + +\chapter{Modified Source and Binary Distribution} + +In this chapter, we discuss the two core sections that define the rights +and obligations for those who modify, improve, and/or redistribute GPL'd +software. These sections, \SS 2--3, define the central core rights and +requirements of GPL\@. + \section{GPL \S 2: Share and Share Alike} For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software @@ -1073,6 +1408,125 @@ 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{The Implied Patent Grant in GPL} + +We digress again briefly from our section-by-section consideration of GPL +to consider the interaction between the terms of GPL and patent law. The +GPL, despite being silent with respect to patents, actually confers on its +licensees more rights to a licensor's patents than those licenses that +purport to address the issue. This is the case because patent law, under +the doctrine of implied license, gives to each distribute of a patented +article a license from the distributor to practice any patent claims owned +or held by the distributor that cover the distributed article. The +implied license also extends to any patent claims owned or held by the +distributor that cover ``reasonably contemplated uses'' of the patented +article. To quote the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the highest court +for patent cases other than the Supreme Court: + +\begin{quotation} +Generally, when a seller sells a product without restriction, it in +effect promises the purchaser that in exchange for the price paid, it will +not interfere with the purchaser's full enjoyment of the product +purchased. The buyer has an implied license under any patents of the +seller that dominate the product or any uses of the product to which the +parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put. +\end{quotation} +Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg. Corp., Inc., 123 F.3d +1445 (Fed. Cir. 1997). + +Of course, free software is licensed, not sold, and there are indeed +restrictions placed on the licensee, but those differences are not likely +to prevent the application of the implied license doctrine to free +software, because software licensed under the GPL grants the licensee the +right to make, use, and sell the software, each of which are exclusive +rights of a patent holder. Therefore, although the GPL does not expressly +grant the licensee the right to do those things under any patents the +licensor may have that cover the software or its reasonably contemplated +uses, by licensing the software under the GPL, the distributor impliedly +licenses those patents to the GPL licensee with respect to the GPL +licensed software. + +An interesting issue regarding this implied patent license of GPL'd +software is what would be considered ``uses of the [software] to which the +parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.'' A clever +advocate may argue that the implied license granted by GPL is larger in +scope than the express license in other free software licenses with +express patent grants, in that, the patent license clause of many of those +licenses are specifically limited to the patent claims covered by the code +as licensed by the patentee. + +To the contrary, GPL's implied patent license grants the GPL licensee a +patent license to do much more than just that because the GPL licensee, +under the doctrine of implied patent license, is free to practice any +patent claims held by the licensor that cover ``reasonably contemplated +uses'' of the GPL'd code, which may very well include creation and +distribution of derivative works since the GPL's terms, under which the +patented code is distributed, expressly permits such activity. + +Further supporting this result is the Federal Circuit's pronouncement that +the recipient of a patented article has, not only an implied license to +make, use, and sell the article, but also an implied patent license to +repair the article to enable it to function properly. Bottom Line Mgmt., +Inc. v. Pan Man, Inc., 228 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Additionally, the +Federal Circuit extended that rule to include any future recipients of the +patented article, not just the direct recipient from the distributor. +This theory comports well with the idea of free software, whereby software +is distributed amongst many entities within the community for the purpose +of constant evolution and improvement. In this way, the law of implied +patent license used by the GPL ensures that the community mutually +benefits from the licensing of patents to any single community member. + +Note that simply because GPL'd software has an implied patent license does +not mean that any patents held by a distributor of GPL'd code become +worthless. To the contrary, the patents are still valid and enforceable +against either: + +\begin{enumerate} + \renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alph{enumi}} + \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\textup{(\theenumi)}} + +\item any software other than that licensed under the GPL by the patent + holder, and + +\item any party that does not comply with the GPL +with respect to the licensed software. +\end{enumerate} + +\newcommand{\compB}{$\mathcal{B}$} +\newcommand{\compA}{$\mathcal{A}$} + +For example, if Company \compA has a patent on advanced web browsing, but +also licenses a web browsing software program under the GPL, then it +cannot assert the patent against any party that takes a license to its +program under the GPL. However, if a party uses that program without +complying with the GPL, then Company \compA can assert, not just copyright +infringement claims against the non-GPL-compliant party, but also +infringement of the patent, because the implied patent license only +extends to use of the software in accordance with the GPL. Further, if +Company \compB distributes a competitive advanced web browsing program, +Company \compA is free to assert its patent against any user or +distributor of that product. It is irrelevant whether Company \compB's +program is distributed under the GPL, as Company \compB can not grant +implied licenses to Company \compA's patent. + +This result also reassures companies that they need not fear loosing their +proprietary value in patents to competitors through the GPL implied patent +license, as only those competitors who adopt and comply with the GPL's +terms can benefit from the implied patent license. To continue the +example above, Company \compB does not receive a free ride on Company +\compA's patent, as Company \compB has not licensed-in and then +redistributed Company A's advanced web browser under the GPL. If Company +\compB does do that, however, Company \compA still has not lost +competitive advantage against Company \compB, as Company \compB must then, +when it re-distributes Company \compA's program, grant an implied license +to any of its patents that cover the program. Further, if Company \compB +relicenses an improved version of Company A's program, it must do so under +the GPL, meaning that any patents it holds that cover the improved version +are impliedly licensed to any licensee. As such, the only way Company +\compB can benefit from Company \compA's implied patent license, is if it, +itself, distributes Company \compA's software program and grants an +implied patent license to any of its patents that cover that program. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \chapter{Defending Freedom On Many Fronts} @@ -1284,28 +1738,43 @@ copyright licenses. \label{GPLs11} All warranty disclaimer language tends to be shouted in all capital -letters. Apparently, there was once a case where the disclaimer language +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 +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. +Some have argued the GPL is unenforceable in some jurisdictions because +its disclaimer of warranties is impermissibly broad. However, \S 11 +contains a jurisdictional savings provision, which states that it is to be +interpreted only as broadly as allowed by applicable law. Such a +provision ensures that both it, and the entire GPL, is enforceable in any +jurisdiction, regardless of any particular law regarding the +permissibility of certain warranty disclaimers. + 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. +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 +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. +Again, some have argued the GPL is unenforceable in some jurisdictions +because its limitation of liability is impermissibly broad. However, \S +12, just like its sister, \S 11, contains a jurisdictional savings +provision, which states that it is to be interpreted only as broadly as +allowed by applicable law. As stated above, such a provision ensures that +both \S 12, and the entire GPL, is enforceable in any jurisdiction, +regardless of any particular law regarding the permissibility of limiting +liability. +So ends the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \chapter{The Lesser GPL} @@ -1988,11 +2457,9 @@ modification follow. \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 @@ -2933,4 +3400,6 @@ That's all there is to it! % LocalWords: proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision EULAs % LocalWords: Yoyodyne FrontPage improvers Berne copyrightable Stallman's GPLs % LocalWords: Lessig Lessig's UCITA pre PDAs CDs reshifts GPL's Gentoo glibc -% LocalWords: TrollTech administrivia LGPL's MontaVista OpenTV +% LocalWords: TrollTech administrivia LGPL's MontaVista OpenTV Mitek Arce +% LocalWords: unprotectable protectable Unfreedonia chipset CodeSourcery +% LocalWords: impermissibly