diff --git a/GPL-LGPL/new-gpl-lgpl.tex b/GPL-LGPL/new-gpl-lgpl.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cba0e882a4c11b7701821ea6db482223e62aca5e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/GPL-LGPL/new-gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,3513 @@
+%      Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL course
+%
+% Copyright (C) 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+% Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in
+% any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+\documentclass[11pt]{book}
+% FILTER_PS:  \input{generate-ps-file}
+% FILTER_PDF: \input{generate-pdf-file}
+% FILTER_HTML: \input{generate-html-file}
+% NOT FOUND \input{one-inch-margins}
+\usepackage{enumerate}
+\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
+
+%\setlength\parskip{0.7em}
+%\setlength\parindent{0pt}
+
+\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\emph{#1}}
+
+%\pagestyle{empty}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\frontmatter
+
+\begin{titlepage}
+
+\begin{center}
+
+%\vspace{.5in}
+\vfill
+
+\includegraphics{fsf-logo.eps}
+
+\vfill
+
+{\Large
+{\sc Detailed Study and Analysis of the GPL and LGPL  } \\
+
+\vfill
+
+%\vspace{.7in}
+
+
+
+% \vspace{.3in}
+
+Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA \\
+\vspace{.1in}
+Tuesday, 24 August 2004
+}
+
+%\vspace{.7in}
+\vfill
+
+{\large
+Bradley M. Kuhn
+
+Executive Director
+
+Free Software Foundation
+}
+
+\vspace{.3in}
+
+
+{\large
+Daniel Ravicher
+
+Senior Counsel 
+
+Free Software Foundation
+
+President and Executive Director
+
+Public Patent Foundation
+
+}
+
+\end{center}
+
+\vfill
+
+{\parindent 0in
+Copyright \copyright{} 2003, 2004 \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+\vspace{.3in}
+
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in
+any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+}
+
+\end{titlepage}
+
+\pagestyle{plain}
+
+\pagenumbering{roman}
+
+\chapter*{Detailed Study and Analysis of the GPL and LGPL}
+
+\textit{Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 24 August 2004}
+
+\begin{tabular}[t]{ll}
+09:00 - 09:25 & Registration / Check-in / Continental Breakfast\\
+&\\
+09:25 - 09:30 & Welcome\\
+&\\
+09:30 - 10:00 & Free Software Principles and the Free Software Definition\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+10:00 - 10:10 & Preamble of the GNU General Public License (GPL)\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+10:10 - 10:35 & GPL, \S 0: Definitions, etc.\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+10:35 - 10:50 & GPL, \S 1: Grant for Verbatim Source Copying\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+10:50 - 11:00 & Q \& A\\
+&\\
+11:00 - 11:10 & Break\\
+&\\
+11:10 - 11:55 & Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law\\
+& \textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\
+&\\
+\end{tabular}
+
+\begin{tabular}[t]{ll}
+11:55 - 12:20 & GPL, \S 2: Grants for Source Derivative Works\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+12:20 - 12:30 & Q \& A\\
+&\\
+12:30 - 14:00 & Lunch with Lecture "Patents and Free Software"\\
+& \textit{Prof. Eben Moglen}\\
+&\\
+14:00 - 14:20 & GPL, \S 3 Grants for Creating Binary Derivative Works\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+14:20 - 14:40 & The Implied Patent Grant in the GPL\\
+& \textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\
+&\\
+14:40 - 15:25 & GPL, \S 4: Termination of License\\
+& GPL, \S 5: Acceptance of License\\
+& GPL, \S 6: Prohibition on Further Restrictions\\
+& GPL, \S 7: Conflicts with other Agreements or Orders\\
+& GPL, \S 8: International Licensing Issues\\
+& GPL, \S 10: Copyright Holder's Exceptions to the GPL\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+15:25 - 15:35 & GPL, \S 11: Disclaimer of Warranties\\
+& GPL, \S 12: Limitation of Liability\\
+& \textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\
+&\\
+15:35 - 15:45 & Q \& A\\
+&\\
+15:45 - 16:00 & Break\\
+&\\
+16:00 - 17:30 & GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+17:30 - 18:00 & Q \& A\\
+\end{tabular}
+
+\chapter*{Preface}
+
+This one-day course gives a section-by-section explanation of the most
+popular Free Software copyright license, the GNU General Public License
+(GNU GPL), and teaches lawyers, software developers, managers and business
+people how to use the GPL (and GPL'd 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 lawyers, 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'd software in
+their enterprise.
+
+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'd 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'd software can be used in existing enterprises
+
+  \item The basics of the LGPL and how it differs from the GPL
+
+  \item How best to understand the complexities regarding derivative
+        works of software
+\end{itemize}
+
+\bigskip
+
+These course materials are merely a summary of the highlights of the
+course presented. Please be aware that during the actual GPL course, class
+discussion supplements this printed curriculum. Simply reading it is
+not equivalent to attending the course.
+
+\tableofcontents
+
+\pagebreak
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% END OF ABSTRACTS SECTION
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% START OF DAY ONE COURSE
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\mainmatter
+
+\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 Web site 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 Web site 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 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 noncommercially or
+commercially. Licenses that grant these freedoms for noncommercial
+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 noncommercial 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 any use for software the user
+can come up with must be permitted. Perhaps, for example, the user
+has discovered an innovative 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 Web sites 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 noncommercial settings. For example, users often seek
+noncommercial 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 to 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 noncommercial
+sharing must be permitted for Free Software to thrive.
+
+Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.
+For commercial support to exist in a competitive free market, 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 nontrivial 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 a long- or short-lived fork
+to serve that sub-community.
+
+\section{How Does Software Become Free?}
+
+The last section set forth the freedoms and rights 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 (a.k.a.
+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 with 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 is
+automatically covered by that legal system. 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 those 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 nontrivial
+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 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. 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 to 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 used 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 noncommercial users.
+
+\subsection{The Noncommercial Ecosystem}
+
+A GPL'd code base becomes a center of a vibrant development and user
+community. Traditionally, volunteers, operating noncommercially out of
+keen interest or ``scratch an itch'' motivations, produce initial versions
+of a GPL'd system. Because of the efficient distribution channels of the
+Internet, any useful GPL'd system is adopted quickly by noncommercial
+users.
+
+Fundamentally, the early release and quick distribution of the software
+gives birth to a thriving noncommercial 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'd distribution,
+nearly every GPL'd package in existence has a vibrant noncommercial user
+and developer base.
+
+\subsection{The Commercial Ecosystem}
+
+By the same token, nearly all established GPL'd software systems have a
+vibrant commercial community. Nearly every GPL'd system that has gained
+wide adoption from noncommercial 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 noncommercially 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 noncommercial users, however, were not concerned when these two
+fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'd 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 noncommercial 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 noncommercial
+developers. Those two now-long-since graduated students continue to
+contribute to Samba altruistically, but also get paid 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 noncommercially 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 noncommercial 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
+\texttt{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 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 noncommercial Free Software
+economy.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{Running Software and Verbatim Copying}
+\label{run-and-verbatim}
+
+
+This chapter begins the deep discussion of the details of the terms of
+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}
+
+\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 would with or 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
+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 the software she got was licensed under GPL\@. Thus
+throughout the GPL, there are specific references 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 few 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.)
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+\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 \S\S 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 the circuit courts. 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:
+
+\begin{quotation}
+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.''
+\end{quotation}
+
+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 a
+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 lengthy 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 the 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 the 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{itemize}
+
+  \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{itemize}
+
+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 Intl., 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 programs 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 Circuits test, literal copying
+of a menu command hierarchy, or any other ``method of operation,'' cannot
+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, 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 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\% 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 relatively 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 overaggressiveness 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 if 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}
+\label{source-and-binary}
+
+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, \S\S 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
+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'd program, she is bound in the making those changes by \S
+2. The goal here is to ensure that the body of GPL'd 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 nor controlling the process of how changes get made.
+Primarily, \S 2(a) seeks to ensure that those receiving modified
+versions know the history of changes to the software. 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 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'd 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'd 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 work 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}{$\mathcal{G}$}
+
+\label{separate-and-independent}
+
+It is certainly possible to take an existing independent work (called
+\worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'd 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 combined work, \gplusi{}, is 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 pregranted
+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'd software, but \S 1 says that
+they can. The ``at no charge'' does not prohibit redistributors from
+charging when 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'd 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 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'd 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'd
+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'd
+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'd.
+
+\section{GPL \S 3: Producing Binaries}
+\label{GPL-Section-3}
+% 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
+William Faulkner, 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'd 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 passed
+through 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'd 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). They then give source code that does
+correspond, but withhold the ``incantations'' and build plans they
+used to make that source compile into the specialized binaries.
+Therefore, \S 3 requires 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'd 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 must be normalized for a worldwide userbase. 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'd 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, \S 3(b) does place lasting long-term obligations on the
+binary distributor. The binary distributor must be prepared to honor
+that offer for source for three years 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 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. \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{noncommercial} distribution to
+simply pass along a \S 3(b)-compliant source code offer. The customer who
+wishes 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 noncommercially 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{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 distributee 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 losing 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}
+
+Chapters~\ref{run-and-verbatim} and ~\ref{source-and-binary} 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 that a license with 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'd version (assuming \S
+3(b) was never used), but she may not revoke the rights under GPL
+already granted.
+
+In fact, when an entity looses their right to copy, modify and distribute
+GPL'd 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 completely cease and desist from all
+copying, modification and distribution of that GPL'd 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'd 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 a permission
+slip to undertake activities that would otherwise have 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 by \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 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 noncommercial 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 or 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'd
+software is so large, patent holders who would want to be distributors of
+GPL'd software have a tough choice. They must choose between avoiding
+distribution of GPL'd 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 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 a
+particular country, say Unfreedonia, grants particular patents or allows
+copyrighted interfaces (no country to our knowledge even permits those
+yet), that the GPL'd 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 could
+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 in 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 remainder
+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'd 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 to 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.
+
+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.
+
+\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.
+
+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 end the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{The Lesser GPL}
+
+As we have seen in our consideration of the GPL, its text is specifically
+designed to cover all possible derivative works under copyright law. Our
+goal in designing GPL was to make sure that any derivative work of GPL'd
+software was itself released under GPL when distributed. Reaching as far
+as copyright law will allow is the most direct way to reach that goal.
+
+However, while the strategic goal is to bring as much Free Software
+into the world as possible, particular tactical considerations
+regarding software freedom dictate different means. Extending the
+copyleft effect as far as copyright law allows is not always the most
+prudent course in reaching the goal. In particular situations, even
+those of us with the goal of building a world where all published
+software is Free Software realize that full copyleft does not best
+serve us. The GNU Lesser General Public License (``GNU LGPL'') was
+designed as a solution for such situations.
+
+\section{The First LGPL'd Program}
+
+The first example that FSF encountered where such altered tactics were
+needed was when work began on the GNU C Library. The GNU C Library would
+become (and today, now is) a drop-in replacement for existing C libraries.
+On a Unix-like operating system, C is the lingua franca and the C library
+is an essential component for all programs. It is extremely difficult to
+construct a program that will run with ease on a Unix-like operating
+system without making use of services provided by the C library --- even
+if the program is written in a language other than C\@. Effectively, all
+user application programs that run on any modern Unix-like system must
+make use of the C library.
+
+By the time work began on the GNU implementation of the C libraries, there
+were already many C libraries in existence from a variety of vendors.
+Every proprietary Unix vendor had one, and many third parties produced
+smaller versions for special purpose use. However, our goal was to create
+a C library that would provide equivalent functionality to these other C
+libraries on a Free Software operating system (which in fact happens today
+on modern GNU/Linux systems, which all use the GNU C Library).
+
+Unlike existing GNU application software, however, the licensing
+implications of releasing the GNU C Library (``glibc'') under GPL were
+somewhat different. Applications released under GPL would never
+themselves become part of proprietary software. However, if glibc were
+released under GPL, it would require that any application distributed for
+the GNU/Linux platform be released under GPL\@.
+
+Since all applications on a Unix-like system depend on the C library, it
+means that they must link with that library to function on the system. In
+other words, all applications running on a Unix-like system must be
+combined with the C library to form a new whole derivative work that is
+composed of the original application and the C library. Thus, if glibc
+were GPL'd, each and every application distributed for use on GNU/Linux
+would also need to be GPL'd, since to even function, such applications
+would need to be combined into larger derivative works by linking with
+glibc.
+
+At first glance, such an outcome seems like a windfall for Free Software
+advocates, since it stops all proprietary software development on
+GNU/Linux systems. However, the outcome is a bit more subtle. In a world
+where many C libraries already exist, many of which could easily be ported
+to GNU/Linux, a GPL'd glibc would be unlikely to succeed. Proprietary
+vendors would see the excellent opportunity to license their C libraries
+to anyone who wished to write proprietary software for GNU/Linux systems.
+The de-facto standard for the C library on GNU/Linux would likely be not
+glibc, but the most popular proprietary one.
+
+Meanwhile, the actual goal of releasing glibc under GPL --- to ensure no
+proprietary applications on GNU/Linux --- would be unattainable in this
+scenario. Furthermore, users of those proprietary applications would also
+be users of a proprietary C library, not the Free glibc.
+
+The Lesser GPL was initially conceived to handle this scenario. It was
+clear that the existence of proprietary applications for GNU/Linux was
+inevitable. Since there were so many C libraries already in existence, a
+new one under GPL would not stop that tide. However, if the new C library
+were released under a license that permitted proprietary applications
+to link with it, but made sure that the library itself remained Free,
+an ancillary goal could be met. Users of proprietary applications, while
+they would not have the freedom to copy, share, modify and redistribute
+the application itself, would have the freedom to do so with respect to
+the C library.
+
+There was no way the license of glibc could stop or even slow the creation
+of proprietary applications on GNU/Linux. However, loosening the
+restrictions on the licensing of glibc ensured that nearly all proprietary
+applications at least used a Free C library rather than a proprietary one.
+This trade-off is central to the reasoning behind the LGPL\@.
+
+Of course, many people who use the LGPL today are not thinking in these
+terms. In fact, they are often choosing the LGPL because they are looking
+for a ``compromise'' between the GPL and the X11-style liberal licensing.
+However, understanding FSF's reasoning behind the creation of the LGPL is
+helpful when studying the license.
+
+
+\section{What's the Same?}
+
+Much of the text of the LGPL is identical to the GPL\@. As we begin our
+discussion of the LGPL, we will first eliminate the sections that are
+identical, or that have the minor modification changing the word
+``Program'' to ``Library.''
+
+First, \S 1 of LGPL, the rules for verbatim copying of source, are
+equivalent to those in GPL's \S 1.
+
+Second, \S 8 of LGPL is equivalent \S 4 of GPL\@. In both licenses, this
+section handles termination in precisely the same manner.
+
+\S 9 in LGPL is equivalent to \S 5 in GPL\@. Both sections assert that
+the license is a copyright license, and handle the acceptance of those
+copyright terms.
+
+LGPL's \S 10 is equivalent to GPL's \S 6. They both protect the
+distribution system of Free Software under these licenses, to ensure that
+up, down, and throughout the distribution chain, each recipient of the
+software receives identical rights under the license and no other
+restrictions are imposed.
+
+LGPL's \S 11 is GPL's \S 7. As discussed, it is used to ensure that
+other claims and legal realities, such as patent licenses and court
+judgments, do not trump the rights and permissions granted by these
+licenses, and requires that distribution be halted if such a trump is
+known to exist.
+
+LGPL's \S 12 adds the same features as GPL's \S 8. These sections are
+used to allow original copyright holders to forbid distribution in
+countries with draconian laws that would otherwise contradict these
+licenses.
+
+LGPL's \S 13 sets up FSF as the steward of the LGPL, just as GPL's \S 9
+does for GPL. Meanwhile, LGPL's \S 14 reminds licensees that copyright
+holders can grant exceptions to the terms of LGPL, just as GPL's \S 10
+reminds licensees of the same thing.
+
+Finally, the assertions of no warranty and limitations of liability are
+identical; thus LGPL's \S 15 and \S 16 are the same as GPL's \S 11 and \S
+12.
+
+As we see, the entire latter half of the license is identical.
+The parts which set up the legal boundaries and meta-rules for the license
+are the same. It is our intent that the two licenses operate under the
+same legal mechanisms and are enforced precisely the same way.
+
+We strike a difference only in the early portions of the license.
+Namely, in the LGPL we go into deeper detail of granting various permissions to
+create derivative works, so the redistributors can make
+some proprietary derivatives. Since we simply do not allow the
+license to stretch as far as copyright law does regarding what
+derivative works must be relicensed under the same terms, we must go
+further to explain which derivative works we will allow to be
+proprietary. Thus, we'll see that the front matter of the LGPL is a
+bit more wordy and detailed with regards to the permissions granted to
+those who modify or redistribute the software.
+
+\section{Additions to the Preamble}
+
+Most of LGPL's Preamble is identical, but the last seven paragraphs
+introduce the concepts and reasoning behind creation of the license,
+presenting a more generalized and briefer version of the story with which
+we began our consideration of LGPL\@.
+
+In short, FSF designed LGPL for those edge cases where the freedom of the
+public can better be served by a more lax licensing system. FSF doesn't
+encourage use of LGPL automatically for any software that happens to be a
+library; rather, FSF suggests that it only be used in specific cases, such
+as the following:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+
+\item To encourage the widest possible use of a Free Software library, so
+  it becomes a de-facto standard over similar, although not
+  interface-identical, proprietary alternatives
+
+\item To encourage use of a Free Software library that already has
+  interface-identical proprietary competitors that are more developed
+
+\item To allow a greater number of users to get freedom, by encouraging
+  proprietary companies to pick a Free alternative for its otherwise
+  proprietary products
+
+\end{itemize}
+
+LGPL's preamble sets forth the limits to which the license seeks to go in
+chasing these goals. LGPL is designed to ensure that users who happen to
+acquire software linked with such libraries have full freedoms with
+respect to that library. They should have the ability to upgrade to a newer
+or modified Free version or to make their own modifications, even if they
+cannot modify the primary software program that links to that library.
+
+Finally, the preamble introduces two terms used throughout the license to
+clarify between the different types of derivative works: ``works that use
+the library,'' and ``works based on the library.''  Unlike GPL, LGPL must
+draw some lines regarding derivative works. We do this here in this
+license because we specifically seek to liberalize the rights afforded to
+those who make derivative works. In GPL, we reach as far as copyright law
+allows. In LGPL, we want to draw a line that allows some derivative works
+copyright law would otherwise prohibit if the copyright holder exercised
+his full permitted controls over the work.
+
+\section{A Work that Uses the Library}
+
+In the effort to allow certain proprietary derivative works and prohibit
+others, LGPL distinguishes between two classes of derivative works:
+``works based on the library,'' and ``works that use the library.''  The
+distinction is drawn on the bright line of binary (or runtime) derivative
+works and source code derivatives. We will first consider the definition
+of a ``work that uses the library,'' which is set forth in LGPL \S 5.
+
+We noted in our discussion of GPL \S 3 (discussed in
+Section~\ref{GPL-Section-3} of this document) that binary programs when
+compiled and linked with GPL'd software are derivative works of that GPL'd
+software. This includes both linking that happens at compile-time (when
+the binary is created) or at runtime (when the binary -- including library
+and main program both -- is loaded into memory by the user). In GPL,
+binary derivative works are controlled by the terms of the license (in GPL
+\S 3), and distributors of such binary derivatives must release full
+corresponding source\@.
+
+In the case of LGPL, these are precisely the types of derivative works
+we wish to permit. This scenario, defined in LGPL as ``a work that uses
+the library,'' works as follows:
+
+\newcommand{\workl}{$\mathcal{L}$}
+\newcommand{\lplusi}{$\mathcal{L\!\!+\!\!I}$}
+
+\begin{itemize}
+
+\item A new copyright holder creates a separate and independent work,
+  \worki{}, that makes interface calls (e.g., function calls) to the
+  LGPL'd work, called \workl{}, whose copyright is held by some other
+  party. Note that since \worki{} and \workl{} are separate and
+  independent works, there is no copyright obligation on this new copyright
+  holder with regard to the licensing of \worki{}, at least with regard to
+  the source code.
+
+\item The new copyright holder, for her software to be useful, realizes
+  that it cannot run without combining \worki{} and \workl{}.
+  Specifically, when she creates a running binary program, that running
+  binary must be a derivative work, called \lplusi{}, that the user can
+  run.
+
+\item Since \lplusi{} is a derivative work of both \worki{} and \workl{},
+  the license of \workl{} (the LGPL) can put restrictions on the license
+  of \lplusi{}. In fact, this is what LGPL does.
+
+\end{itemize}
+
+We will talk about the specific restrictions LGPL places on ``works
+that use the library'' in detail in Section~\ref{lgpl-section-6}. For
+now, focus on the logic related to how the LGPL places requirements on
+the license of \lplusi{}. Note, first of all, the similarity between
+this explanation and that in Section~\ref{separate-and-independent},
+which discussed the combination of otherwise separate and independent
+works with GPL'd code. Effectively, what LGPL does is say that when a
+new work is otherwise separate and independent, but has interface
+calls out to an LGPL'd library, then it is considered a ``work that
+uses the library.''
+
+In addition, the only reason that LGPL has any control over the licensing
+of a ``work that uses the library'' is for the same reason that GPL has
+some say over separate and independent works. Namely, such controls exist
+because the {\em binary combination\/} (\lplusi{}) that must be created to
+make the separate work (\worki{}) at all useful is a derivative work of
+the LGPL'd software (\workl{}).
+
+Thus, a two-question test that will help indicate if a particular work is
+a ``work that uses the library'' under LGPL is as follows:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item Is the source code of the new copyrighted work, \worki{}, a
+  completely independent work that stands by itself, and includes no
+  source code from \workl{}?
+
+\item When the source code is compiled, does it create a derivative work
+  by combining with \workl{}, either by static (compile-time) or dynamic
+  (runtime) linking, to create a new binary work, \lplusi{}?
+\end{enumerate}
+
+If the answers to both questions are ``yes,'' then \worki{} is most likely
+a ``work that uses the library.''  If the answer to the first question
+``yes,'' but the answer to the second question is ``no,'' then most likely
+\worki{} is neither a ``work that uses the library'' nor a ``work based on
+the library.''  If the answer to the first question is ``no,'' but the
+answer to the second question is ``yes,'' then an investigation into
+whether or not \worki{} is in fact a ``work based on the library'' is
+warranted.
+
+\section{A Work Based on the Library}
+
+In short, a ``work based on the library'' could be defined as any
+derivative work of LGPL'd software that cannot otherwise fit the
+definition of a ``work that uses the library.''  A ``work based on the
+library'' extends the full width and depth of copyright derivative works,
+in the same sense that GPL does.
+
+Most typically, one creates a ``work based on the library'' by directly
+modifying the source of the library. Such a work could also be created by
+tightly integrating new software with the library. The lines are no doubt
+fuzzy, just as they are with GPL'd works, since copyright law gives us no
+litmus test for derivative works of a software program.
+
+Thus, the test to use when considering whether something is a ``work
+based on the library'' is as follows:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item Is the new work, when in source form, a derivative work under
+  copyright law of the LGPL'd work?
+
+\item Is there no way in which the new work fits the definition of a
+  ``work that uses the library''?
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+If the answer is ``yes'' to both these questions, then you most likely
+have a ``work based on the library.''  If the answer is ``no'' to the
+first but ``yes'' to the second, you are in a gray area between ``work
+based on the library'' and a ``work that uses the library.''
+
+In our years of work with the LGPL, however, we have never seen a work
+of software that was not clearly one or the other; the line is quite
+bright. At times, though, we have seen cases where a derivative work
+appeared in some ways to be a work that used the library and in other
+ways a work based on the library. We overcame this problem by
+dividing the work into smaller subunits. It was soon discovered that
+what we actually had were three distinct components: the original
+LGPL'd work, a specific set of works that used that library, and a
+specific set of works that were based on the library. Once such
+distinctions are established, the licensing for each component can be
+considered independently and the LGPL applied to each work as
+prescribed.
+
+
+\section{Subtleties in Works that Use the Library}
+
+In our discussion of the definition of ``works that use the library,'' we
+left out a few more complex details that relate to lower-level programming
+details. The fourth paragraph of LGPL's \S 5 covers these complexities,
+and it has been a source of great confusion. Part of the confusion comes
+because a deep understanding of how compiler programs work is nearly
+mandatory to grasp the subtle nature of what \S 5, \P 4 seeks to
+cover. It helps some to note that this is a border case that we cover in
+the license only so that when such a border case is hit, the implications
+of using LGPL continue in the expected way.
+
+To understand this subtle point, we must recall the way that a compiler
+operates. The compiler first generates object code, which are the binary
+representations of various programming modules. Each of those modules is
+usually not useful by itself; it becomes useful to a user of a full program
+when those modules are {\em linked\/} into a full binary executable.
+
+As we have discussed, the assembly of modules can happen at compile-time
+or at runtime. Legally, there is no distinction between the two --- both
+create a derivative work by copying and combining portions of one work and
+mixing them with another. However, under LGPL, there is a case in the
+compilation process where the legal implications are different.
+Specifically, while we know that a ``work that uses the library'' is one
+whose final binary is a derivative work, but whose source is not, there
+are cases where the object code --- that intermediate step between source
+and final binary --- is a derivative work created by copying verbatim code
+from the LGPL'd software.
+
+For efficiency, when a compiler turns source code into object code, it
+sometimes places literal portions of the copyrighted library code into the
+object code for an otherwise separate independent work. In the normal
+scenario, the derivative would not be created until final assembly and
+linking of the executable occurred. However, when the compiler does this
+efficiency optimization, at the intermediate object code step, a
+derivative work is created.
+
+LGPL's \S 5, \P 4 is designed to handle this specific case. The intent of
+the license is clearly that simply compiling software to ``make use'' of
+the library does not in itself cause the compiled work to be a ``work
+based on the library.''  However, since the compiler copies verbatim,
+copyrighted portions of the library into the object code for the otherwise
+separate and independent work, it would actually cause that object file to be a
+``work based on the library.''  It is not FSF's intent that a mere
+compilation idiosyncrasy would change the requirements on the users of the
+LGPL'd software. This paragraph removes that restriction, allowing the
+implications of the license to be the same regardless of the specific
+mechanisms the compiler uses underneath to create the ``work that uses the
+library.''
+
+As it turns out, we have only once had anyone worry about this specific
+idiosyncrasy, because that particular vendor wanted to ship object code
+(rather than final binaries) to their customers and was worried about
+this edge condition. The intent of clarifying this edge condition is
+primarily to quell the worries of software engineers who understand the
+level of verbatim code copying that a compiler often does, and to help
+them understand that the full implications of LGPL are the same regardless
+of the details of the compilation progress.
+
+\section{LGPL \S 6: Distributing Works that Use the Library}
+\label{lgpl-section-6}
+Now that we have established a good working definition of works that
+``use'' and works that ``are based on'' the library, we will consider the
+rules for distributing these two different works.
+
+The rules for distributing ``works that use the library'' are covered in
+\S 6 of LGPL\@. \S 6 is much like GPL's \S 3, as it requires the release
+of source when a binary version of the LGPL'd software is released. Of
+course, it only requires that source code for the library itself be made
+available. The work that ``uses'' the library need not be provided in
+source form. However, there are also conditions in LGPL \S 6 to make sure
+that a user who wishes to modify or update the library can do so.
+
+LGPL \S 6 lists five choices with regard to supplying library source
+and granting the freedom to modify that library source to users. We
+will first consider the option given by \S 6(b), which describes the
+most common way currently used for LGPL compliance on a ``work that
+uses the library.''
+
+\S 6(b) allows the distributor of a ``work that uses the library'' to
+simply use a dynamically linked, shared library mechanism to link with the
+library. This is by far the easiest and most straightforward option for
+distribution. In this case, the executable of the work that uses the
+library will contain only the ``stub code'' that is put in place by the
+shared library mechanism, and at runtime the executable will combine with
+the shared version of the library already resident on the user's computer.
+If such a mechanism is used, it must allow the user to upgrade and
+replace the library with interface-compatible versions and still be able
+to use the ``work that uses the library.''  However, all modern shared
+library mechanisms function as such, and thus \S 6(b) is the simplest
+option, since it does not even require that the distributor of the ``work
+based on the library'' ship copies of the library itself.
+
+\S 6(a) is the option to use when, for some reason, a shared library
+mechanism cannot be used. It requires that the source for the library be
+included, in the typical GPL fashion, but it also has a requirement beyond
+that. The user must be able to exercise her freedom to modify the library
+to its fullest extent, and that means recombining it with the ``work based
+on the library.''  If the full binary is linked without a shared library
+mechanism, the user must have available the object code for the ``work
+based on the library,'' so that the user can relink the application and
+build a new binary.
+
+The remaining options in \S 6 are very similar to the other choices
+provided by GPL \S 3. There are some additional options, but time does
+not permit us in this course to go into those additional options. In
+almost all cases of distribution under LGPL, either \S 6(a) or \S 6(b) are
+exercised.
+
+\section{Distribution of Works Based on the Library}
+
+Essentially, ``works based on the library'' must be distributed under the
+same conditions as works under full GPL\@. In fact, we note that LGPL's
+\S 2 is nearly identical in its terms and requirements to GPL's \S 2.
+There are again subtle differences and additions, which time does not
+permit us to cover in this course.
+
+\section{And the Rest}
+
+The remaining variations between LGPL and GPL cover the following
+conditions:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+
+\item Allowing a licensing ``upgrade'' from LGPL to GPL\@ (in LGPL \S 3)
+
+\item Binary distribution of the library only, covered in LGPL \S 4,
+  which is effectively equivalent to LGPL \S 3
+
+\item Creating aggregates of libraries that are not derivative works of
+  each other, and distributing them as a unit (in LGPL \S 7)
+
+\end{itemize}
+
+
+Due to time constraints, we cannot cover these additional terms in detail,
+but they are mostly straightforward. The key to understanding LGPL is
+understanding the difference between a ``work based on the library'' and a
+``work that uses the library.''  Once that distinction is clear, the
+remainder of LGPL is close enough to GPL that the concepts discussed in
+our more extensive GPL unit can be directly applied.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}
+
+Since GPL'd software is now extremely prevalent through the industry, it
+is useful to have some basic knowledge about using GPL'd software in
+business and how to build business models around GPL'd software.
+
+\section{Using GPL'd Software In-House}
+
+As discussed in Sections~\ref{GPLs0} and~\ref{GPLs5} of this tutorial,
+the GPL only governs the activities of copying, modifying and
+distributing software programs that 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 deploys 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 a thriving
+market for Free Software-oriented business models also exists. There is the
+traditional model of selling copies of Free Software distributions.
+Many companies, 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'd 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
+Web site, people still go to local computer stores and buy copies of their
+box set, which is simply a printed version of the manual (available under
+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'd software. The GPL is
+central to their success, because it ensures 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 new ports of GCC to different or new,
+embedded targets. 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. 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'd 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'd 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'd 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 {\em modified\\}
+versions of GPL'd software, the burden is a bit higher, but not by
+much. The glib answer is that by releasing the whole product as Free
+Software, it is always easy to comply with the GPL. However,
+admittedly to the dismay of FSF, many modern and complex software
+systems are built using both proprietary and GPL'd components that are
+not legally derivative works of each other. Sometimes, it is easier simply to
+improve existing GPL'd 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 in the first place. It is a
+reasonable trade-off and 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$>$.
+
+If you are particularly interested in matters of GPL compliance, we
+recommend the second course in this series, {\em GPL Compliance Case
+  Studies and Legal Ethics in Free Software Licensing\/}, in which we
+discuss some real GPL violation cases that FSF has worked to resolve.
+Consideration of such cases can help give insight on how to handle GPL
+compliance in new situations.
+
+\backmatter
+
+\appendix
+
+\chapter{The GNU General Public License}
+
+\begin{center}
+{\parindent 0in
+
+Version 2, June 1991
+
+Copyright \copyright\ 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+\bigskip
+
+59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA
+
+\bigskip
+
+Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
+of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+}
+\end{center}
+
+\begin{center}
+{\bf\large Preamble}
+\end{center}
+
+
+The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom
+to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
+intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change Free
+Software---to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
+General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
+Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
+using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
+the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
+your programs, too.
+
+When we speak of Free Software, we are referring to freedom, not price.
+Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the
+freedom to distribute copies of Free Software (and charge for this service
+if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it,
+that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new Free programs;
+and that you know you can do these things.
+
+To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to
+deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These
+restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
+distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
+
+For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
+for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You
+must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And
+you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
+
+We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2)
+offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
+distribute and/or modify the software.
+
+Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that
+everyone understands that there is no warranty for this Free Software. If
+the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its
+recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any
+problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors'
+reputations.
+
+Finally, any Free program is threatened constantly by software patents.
+We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a Free program will
+individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
+proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must
+be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
+
+The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
+modification follow.
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large \sc Terms and Conditions For Copying, Distribution and
+  Modification}
+\end{center}
+
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
+\item
+
+This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice
+placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the
+terms of this General Public License. The ``Program,'' below, refers to
+any such program or work, and a ``work based on the Program'' means either
+the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a
+work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with
+modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter,
+translation is included without limitation in the term ``modification.'')
+Each licensee is addressed as ``you.''
+
+Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
+covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
+running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
+is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
+Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
+Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
+
+\item You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
+  code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
+  and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
+  and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to
+  this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
+  recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
+
+You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you
+may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
+
+\item
+
+You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
+of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
+distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
+above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item
+
+You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
+you changed the files and the date of any change.
+
+\item
+
+You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
+whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
+part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
+parties under the terms of this License.
+
+\item
+If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
+when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
+interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
+announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
+notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
+a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
+these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
+License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
+does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
+the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
+identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
+and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
+themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
+sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
+distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
+on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
+this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
+entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
+
+Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
+your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
+exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
+collective works based on the Program.
+
+In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
+with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
+a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
+the scope of this License.
+
+\item
+You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
+under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
+Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item
+
+Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
+source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
+1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+\item
+
+Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
+years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
+cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
+machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
+distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
+customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+\item
+
+Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
+to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
+allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
+received the program in object code or executable form with such
+an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
+making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
+code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
+associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
+control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
+special exception, the source code distributed need not include
+anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
+form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
+operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
+itself accompanies the executable.
+
+If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
+access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
+access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
+distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
+compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
+
+\item
+You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
+except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
+otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
+void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
+However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
+this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
+parties remain in full compliance.
+
+\item
+You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
+signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
+distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
+prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
+modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
+all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
+the Program or works based on it.
+
+\item
+Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
+original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
+these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
+restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
+You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
+this License.
+
+\item
+If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
+infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
+conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
+otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
+excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
+distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
+License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
+may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
+license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
+all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
+the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
+refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
+
+If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
+any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
+apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
+circumstances.
+
+It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
+patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
+such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
+integrity of the Free Software distribution system, which is
+implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
+generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
+through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
+system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
+to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
+impose that choice.
+
+This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
+be a consequence of the rest of this License.
+
+\item
+If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
+certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
+original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
+may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
+those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
+countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
+the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
+
+\item
+The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
+of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
+be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
+address new problems or concerns.
+
+Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
+specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and ``any
+later version,'' you have the option of following the terms and conditions
+either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
+Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
+this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
+Foundation.
+
+\item
+If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
+programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
+to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
+Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
+make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
+of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our Free Software and
+of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large\sc
+No Warranty
+}
+\end{center}
+
+\item
+{\sc Because the program is licensed free of charge, there is no warranty
+for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Except when
+otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties
+provide the program ``as is'' without warranty of any kind, either expressed
+or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of
+merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as
+to the quality and performance of the program is with you. Should the
+program prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing,
+repair or correction.}
+
+\item {\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to
+    in writing will any copyright holder, or any other party who may
+    modify and/or redistribute the program as permitted above, be
+    liable to you for damages, including any general, special,
+    incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use or
+    inability to use the program (including but not limited to loss of
+    data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by you
+    or third parties or a failure of the program to operate with any
+    other programs), even if such holder or other party has been
+    advised of the possibility of such damages.}
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}
+\end{center}
+\vfill
+
+\pagebreak[4]
+
+\section*{Appendix: How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs}
+
+If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
+possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
+Free Software which everyone can redistribute and change under these
+terms.
+
+  To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to
+  attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey
+  the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
+  ``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
+
+\begin{quote}
+one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does. \\
+Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\
+
+This program is Free Software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+(at your option) any later version.
+
+This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
+Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA.
+\end{quote}
+
+Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
+
+If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
+when it starts in an interactive mode:
+
+\begin{quote}
+Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\
+Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. \\
+This is Free Software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
+under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
+\end{quote}
+
+
+The hypothetical commands {\tt show w} and {\tt show c} should show the
+appropriate parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands
+you use may be called something other than {\tt show w} and {\tt show c};
+they could even be mouse-clicks or menu items---whatever suits your
+program.
+
+You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
+school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the program, if
+necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
+
+\begin{quote}
+Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program \\
+`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker. \\
+
+signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989 \\
+Ty Coon, President of Vice
+\end{quote}
+
+
+This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
+into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
+may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications
+with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library
+General Public License instead of this License.
+
+
+\chapter{The GNU Lesser General Public License}
+
+\begin{center}
+{\parindent 0in
+
+Version 2.1, February 1999
+
+Copyright \copyright\ 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+\bigskip
+
+59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA
+
+\bigskip
+
+Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
+of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+
+\bigskip
+
+[This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL. It also counts
+ as the successor of the GNU Library Public License version 2, hence
+ the version number 2.1.]
+}
+
+\end{center}
+
+\begin{center}
+{\bf\large Preamble}
+\end{center}
+
+The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
+share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public Licenses are
+intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change Free Software---to
+make sure the software is free for all its users.
+
+This license, the Lesser General Public License, applies to some specially
+designated software packages---typically libraries---of the Free Software
+Foundation and other authors who decide to use it. You can use it too,
+but we suggest you first think carefully about whether this license or the
+ordinary General Public License is the better strategy to use in any
+particular case, based on the explanations below.
+
+When we speak of Free Software, we are referring to freedom of use, not
+price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
+have the freedom to distribute copies of Free Software (and charge for
+this service if you wish); that you receive source code or can get it if
+you want it; that you can change the software and use pieces of it in new
+Free programs; and that you are informed that you can do these things.
+
+To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
+distributors to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender these
+rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you
+if you distribute copies of the library or if you modify it.
+
+For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or
+for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you.
+You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. If
+you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object
+files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the library
+after making changes to the library and recompiling it. And you must show
+them these terms so they know their rights.
+
+We protect your rights with a two-step method: (1) we copyright the
+library, and (2) we offer you this license, which gives you legal
+permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the library.
+
+To protect each distributor, we want to make it very clear that there is
+no warranty for the Free library. Also, if the library is modified by
+someone else and passed on, the recipients should know that what they have
+is not the original version, so that the original author's reputation will
+not be affected by problems that might be introduced by others.
+
+Finally, software patents pose a constant threat to the existence of any
+Free program. We wish to make sure that a company cannot effectively
+restrict the users of a Free program by obtaining a restrictive license
+from a patent holder. Therefore, we insist that any patent license
+obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full
+freedom of use specified in this license.
+
+Most GNU software, including some libraries, is covered by the ordinary
+GNU General Public License. This license, the GNU Lesser General Public
+License, applies to certain designated libraries, and is quite different
+from the ordinary General Public License. We use this license for certain
+libraries in order to permit linking those libraries into non-Free
+programs.
+
+When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a
+shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined
+work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public
+License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits
+its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more
+lax criteria for linking other code with the library.
+
+We call this license the ``Lesser'' General Public License because it does
+Less to protect the user's freedom than the ordinary General Public
+License. It also provides other Free Software developers Less of an
+advantage over competing non-Free programs. These disadvantages are the
+reason we use the ordinary General Public License for many libraries.
+However, the Lesser license provides advantages in certain special
+circumstances.
+
+For example, on rare occasions, there may be a special need to encourage
+the widest possible use of a certain library, so that it becomes a
+de-facto standard. To achieve this, non-Free programs must be allowed to
+use the library. A more frequent case is that a Free library does the
+same job as widely used non-Free libraries. In this case, there is little
+to gain by limiting the Free library to Free Software only, so we use the
+Lesser General Public License.
+
+In other cases, permission to use a particular library in non-Free
+programs enables a greater number of people to use a large body of Free
+software. For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-Free
+programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating system,
+as well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating system.
+
+Although the Lesser General Public License is Less protective of the
+users' freedom, it does ensure that the user of a program that is linked
+with the library has the freedom and the wherewithal to run that program
+using a modified version of the library.
+
+The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
+modification follow. Pay close attention to the difference between a
+``work based on the library'' and a ``work that uses the library.''  The
+former contains code derived from the library, whereas the latter must be
+combined with the library in order to run.
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large \sc GNU Lesser General Public License} \\
+{\Large \sc Terms and Conditions For Copying, Distribution and
+  Modification}
+\end{center}
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
+
+\item
+
+This License Agreement applies to any software library or other program
+which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder or other authorized
+party saying it may be distributed under the terms of this Lesser General
+Public License (also called ``this License''). Each licensee is addressed
+as ``you.''
+
+A ``library'' means a collection of software functions and/or data
+prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs (which
+use some of those functions and data) to form executables.
+
+The ``library,'' below, refers to any such software library or work which
+has been distributed under these terms. A ``work based on the library''
+means either the library or any derivative work under copyright law: that
+is to say, a work containing the library or a portion of it, either
+verbatim or with modifications and/or translated straightforwardly into
+another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without
+limitation in the term ``modification.'')
+
+``Source code'' for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
+modifications to it. For a library, complete source code means all the
+source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
+definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
+installation of the library.
+
+Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
+covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running a
+program using the library is not restricted, and output from such a
+program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
+library (independent of the use of the library in a tool for writing it).
+Whether that is true depends on what the library does and what the program
+that uses the library does.
+  
+\item 
+
+You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the library's complete
+source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
+conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
+copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices
+that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and
+distribute a copy of this License along with the library.
+
+You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
+and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a
+fee.
+
+\item
+
+You may modify your copy or copies of the library or any portion of it,
+thus forming a work based on the library, and copy and distribute such
+modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that
+you also meet all of these conditions:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+  \item
+
+    The modified work must itself be a software library.
+
+  \item
+
+    You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating
+    that you changed the files and the date of any change.
+
+  \item
+
+    You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to
+    all third parties under the terms of this License.
+
+  \item 
+    If a facility in the modified library refers to a function or a table
+    of data to be supplied by an application program that uses the
+    facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility is
+    invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the
+    event an application does not supply such function or table, the
+    facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose
+    remains meaningful.
+
+(For example, a function in a library to compute square roots has a
+purpose that is entirely well-defined independent of the application.
+Therefore, Subsection 2d requires that any application-supplied function
+or table used by this function must be optional: if the application does
+not supply it, the square root function must still compute square roots.)
+\end{enumerate}
+
+These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
+sections of that work are not derived from the library, and can be
+reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
+this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
+distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
+sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the library, the
+distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
+permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to
+each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
+
+Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your
+rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise
+the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works
+based on the library.
+
+In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the library
+with the library (or with a work based on the library) on a volume of a
+storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
+scope of this License.
+
+\item
+
+You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License
+instead of this License to a given copy of the library. To do this, you
+must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer
+to the ordinary GNU General Public License version 2, instead of to this
+License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General
+Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if
+you wish.)  Do not make any other change in these notices.
+
+Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that
+copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent
+copies and derivative works made from that copy.
+
+This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the
+library into a program that is not a library.
+
+\item
+
+You may copy and distribute the library (or a portion or derivative of it,
+under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
+Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete
+corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed
+under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for
+software interchange.
+
+If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a
+designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code
+from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source
+code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along
+with the object code.
+
+\item
+
+A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the library, but
+is designed to work with the library by being compiled or linked with it,
+is called a ``work that uses the library.''  Such a work, in isolation, is
+not a derivative work of the library, and therefore falls outside the
+scope of this License.
+
+However, linking a ``work that uses the library'' with the library creates
+an executable that is a derivative of the library (because it contains
+portions of the library), rather than a ``work that uses the library.''
+The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states
+terms for distribution of such executables.
+
+When a ``work that uses the library'' uses material from a header file
+that is part of the library, the object code for the work may be a
+derivative work of the library even though the source code is not.
+Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be linked
+without the library, or if the work is itself a library. The threshold
+for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.
+
+If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure
+layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions (ten
+lines or less in length), then the use of the object file is unrestricted,
+regardless of whether it is legally a derivative work. (Executables
+containing this object code plus portions of the library will still fall
+under Section 6.)
+
+Otherwise, if the work is a derivative of the library, you may distribute
+the object code for the work under the terms of Section 6. Any
+executables containing that work also fall under Section 6, whether or not
+they are linked directly with the library itself.
+
+\item
+
+As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a
+``work that uses the library'' with the library to produce a work
+containing portions of the library, and distribute that work under terms
+of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work
+for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
+modifications.
+
+You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the library
+is used in it and that the library and its use are covered by this
+License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during
+execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright
+notice for the library among them, as well as a reference directing the
+user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+  \item
+
+    Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable
+    source code for the library including whatever changes were used in
+    the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above);
+    and, if the work is an executable linked with the library, with the
+    complete machine-readable ``work that uses the library,'' as object
+    code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the library and
+    then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified
+    library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of
+    definitions files in the library will not necessarily be able to
+    recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
+
+  \item
+
+    Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the library.
+    A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
+    library already present on the user's computer system, rather than
+    copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate
+    properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs
+    one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the
+    version that the work was made with.
+
+  \item
+
+    Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three
+    years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a,
+    above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this
+    distribution.
+
+  \item
+
+    If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a
+    designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified
+    materials from the same place.
+
+  \item
+
+    Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or
+    that you have already sent this user a copy.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+For an executable, the required form of the ``work that uses the library''
+must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the
+executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be
+distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
+either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
+and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
+that component itself accompanies the executable.
+
+It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions
+of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the
+operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and
+the library together in an executable that you distribute.
+
+\item
+
+You may place library facilities that are a work based on the library
+side-by-side in a single library together with other library facilities
+not covered by this License, and distribute such a combined library,
+provided that the separate distribution of the work based on the library
+and of the other library facilities is otherwise permitted, and provided
+that you do these two things:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+   \item
+
+     Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work based on
+     the library, uncombined with any other library facilities. This must
+     be distributed under the terms of the Sections above.
+
+   \item
+
+     Give prominent notice with the combined library of the fact that part
+     of it is a work based on the library, and explaining where to find
+     the accompanying uncombined form of the same work.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+\item
+
+  You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the
+  library except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
+  otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the
+  library is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
+  License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you
+  under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as
+  such parties remain in full compliance.
+
+\item  
+
+  You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed
+  it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
+  the library or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by
+  law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or
+  distributing the library (or any work based on the library), you
+  indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and
+  conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the library or works
+  based on it.
+
+\item
+
+  Each time you redistribute the library (or any work based on the
+  library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
+  original licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the library
+  subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
+  restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
+  You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with
+  this License.
+
+\item
+
+  If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
+  infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
+  conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
+  otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
+  excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
+  distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
+  License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
+  may not distribute the library at all. For example, if a patent license
+  would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the library by all those
+  who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way
+  you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely
+  from distribution of the library.
+
+  If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
+  any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
+  apply, and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
+  circumstances.
+
+  It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
+  patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
+  such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
+  integrity of the Free Software distribution system which is implemented
+  by public license practices. Many people have made generous
+  contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that
+  system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to
+  the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute
+  software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that
+  choice.
+
+  This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be
+  a consequence of the rest of this License.
+
+
+% \pagebreak[4]
+
+
+\item 
+
+  If the distribution and/or use of the library is restricted in certain
+  countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original
+  copyright holder who places the library under this License may add an
+  explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries,
+  so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus
+  excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if
+  written in the body of this License.
+
+\item 
+
+  The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
+  the Lesser General Public License from time to time. Such new versions
+  will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in
+  detail to address new problems or concerns.
+
+  Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the library
+  specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and ``any
+  later version,'' you have the option of following the terms and
+  conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
+  the Free Software Foundation. If the library does not specify a license
+  version number, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
+  Software Foundation.
+
+
+\item
+  
+
+  If you wish to incorporate parts of the library into other Free programs
+  whose distribution conditions are incompatible with these, write to the
+  author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the
+  Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we
+  sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the
+  two goals of preserving the Free status of all derivatives of our Free
+  software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
+
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large\sc
+No Warranty
+}
+\end{center}
+
+\item
+
+{\sc Because the library is licensed free of charge, there is no
+warranty for the library, to the extent permitted by applicable law.
+Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or
+other parties provide the library ``as is'' without warranty of any
+kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the
+implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
+purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the
+library is with you. should the library prove defective, you assume
+the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.}
+
+% \pagebreak[4]
+
+\item
+
+{\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing
+  will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or
+  redistribute the library as permitted above, be liable to you for
+  damages, including any general, special, incidental or consequential
+  damages arising out of the use or inability to use the library
+  (including but not limited to loss of data or data being rendered
+  inaccurate or losses sustained by you or third parties or a failure of
+  the library to operate with any other software), even if such holder or
+  other party has been advised of the possibility of such damages.}
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}
+\end{center}
+\vfill
+
+\pagebreak[4]
+
+\section*{How to Apply These Terms to Your New Libraries}
+           
+If you develop a new library, and you want it to be of the greatest
+possible use to the public, we recommend making it Free Software that
+everyone can redistribute and change. You can do so by permitting
+redistribution under these terms (or, alternatively, under the terms of
+the ordinary General Public License).
+
+To apply these terms, attach the following notices to the library. It is
+safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
+convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
+``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
+
+\begin{quote}
+one line to give the library's name and a brief idea of what it does. \\
+Copyright (C) year  name of author \\
+
+This library is Free Software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
+under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
+the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at
+your option) any later version.
+
+This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
+WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY
+or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public
+License for more details.
+
+You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
+along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
+Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
+\end{quote}
+
+Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
+
+You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
+school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the library, if
+necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
+
+\begin{quote}
+Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program \\
+`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker. \\
+
+signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1990 \\
+Ty Coon, President of Vice
+\end{quote}
+
+That's all there is to it!
+
+% =====================================================================
+% END OF FIRST DAY SEMINAR SECTION
+% =====================================================================
+
+\end{document}
