diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index 65db37cd694ba2354e03fc43ae89269d5eabb98b..3f41f455fe0742b7bda51c29e23ed2298da161fa 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -2241,6 +2241,18 @@ shorter GPL\@. Ultimately, the FSF gave priority to making GPLv3 a better copyleft in the spirit of past GPL's. Obsession for concision should never trump software freedom. +The FSF had many different, important goals in seeking to upgrade to GPLv3. +However, one important goal that is often lost in the discussion of policy +minutia is a rather simple but important issue. Namely, FSF sought to assure +that GPLv3 was more easily internationalized than GPLv2. In particular, the +FSF sought to ease interpretation of GPL in other countries by replacement of +USA-centric\footnote{See Section~\ref{non-usa-copyright} of this tutorial for + a brief discussion about non-USA copyright systems.} copyright phrases and +wording with neutral terminology rooted in description of behavior rather +than specific statue. As can be seen in the section-by-section discussion of +GPLv3 that follows, nearly every section had changes related to issues of +internationalization. + \section{GPLv3~\S0: Giving In On ``Defined Terms''} One of lawyers' most common complaints about GPLv2 is that defined terms in @@ -2261,82 +2273,55 @@ adds one. Most of these defined terms are somewhat straightforward and bring forward better worded definitions from GPLv2. Herein, this tutorial discusses a few of the new ones. -% FIXME: it's now five, ``Modify'' - -GPLv3~\S0 includes definitions of four new terms not found in any form in -GPLv2: ``covered work'', ``propagate'', ``convey'', and ``Appropriate Legal -Notices''. +GPLv3~\S0 includes definitions of five new terms not found in any form in +GPLv2: ``modify'' ``covered work'', ``propagate'', ``convey'', and +``Appropriate Legal Notices''. + +\subsection{Modify and the Work Based on the Program} + +GPLv2 included a defined term, ``work based on the Program'', but also used +the term ``modify'' and ``based on'' throughout the license. GPLv2's ``work +based on the Program'' definition made use of a legal term of art, +``derivative work'', which is peculiar to USA copyright law. However, +ironically, the most criticism of USA-specific legal terminology in GPLv2's +``work based on the Program'' definition historically came not primarily from +readers outside the USA, but from those within it\footnote{The FSF noted in + that it did not generally agree with these views, and expressed puzzlement + by the energy with which they were expressed, given the existence of many + other, more difficult legal issues implicated by the GPL. Nevertheless, + the FSF argued that it made sense to eliminate usage of local copyright + terminology to good effect.}. Admittedly, even though differently-labeled +concepts corresponding to the derivative work are recognized in all copyright +law systems, these counterpart concepts might differ to some degree in scope +and breadth from the USA derivative work. + +The goal and intention of GPLv2 was always to cover all rights governed by +relevant copyright law, in the USA and elsewhere. GPLv3 therefore takes the +task of internationalizing the license further by removing references to +derivative works and by providing a more globally useful definition. The new +definition returns to the common elements of copyright law. Copyright +holders of works of software have the exclusive right to form new works by +modification of the original --- a right that may be expressed in various +ways in different legal systems. GPLv3 operates to grant this right to +successive generations of users (particularly through the copyleft conditions +set forth in GPLv3~\S5, as described later in this tutorial in its +\S~\ref{GPLv3s5}). Here in GPLv3~\S0, ``modify'' refers to basic copyright +rights, and then this definition of ``modify'' is used to define ``modified +version of'' and ``work based on,'' as synonyms. -% FIXME: modify needs more discussion -We have made further improvements to the important definitions of ``modify'' -and ``based on,'' providing a complete definition of ``modify'' that refers -to basic copyright rights, and using this definition of ``modify'' to define -``modified version of'' and ``work based on,'' now presented as synonyms. +%FIXME: transition -% FIXME: Transition, GPLv2 ref needed. +While ``covered by this license'' is a phrase found in GPLv2, defining it +more complete in a single as ``covered work'' enables some of the wording in +GPLv3 to be simpler and clearer than its GPLv2 counterparts. -Although the definition of ``work based on the Program'' made use of a legal -term of art, ``derivative work,'' peculiar to USA copyright law, we did not -believe that this presented difficulties as significant as those associated -with the use of the term ``distribution.'' After all, differently-labeled -concepts corresponding to the derivative work are recognized in all copyright -law systems. That these counterpart concepts might differ to some degree in -scope and breadth from the USA derivative work was simply a consequence of -varying national treatment of the right of altering a copyrighted work. %FIXME: should we keep this? maybe a footnote? -Ironically, the criticism we have received regarding the use of -USA-specific legal terminology in the ``work based on the Program'' -definition has come not primarily from readers outside the USA, but -from those within it, and particularly from members of the technology -licensing bar. They have argued that the definition of ``work based -on the Program'' effectively misstates what a derivative work is under -USA law, and they have contended that it attempts, by indirect means, -to extend the scope of copyleft in ways they consider undesirable. -They have also asserted that it confounds the concepts of derivative -and collective works, two terms of art that they assume, questionably, -to be neatly disjoint under USA law. - -% FIXME: As above - -We do not agree with these views, and we were long puzzled by the -energy with which they were expressed, given the existence of many -other, more difficult legal issues implicated by the GPL. -Nevertheless, we realized that here, too, we can eliminate usage of -local copyright terminology to good effect. Discussion of GPLv3 will -be improved by the avoidance of parochial debates over the -construction of terms in one imperfectly-drafted copyright statute. -Interpretation of the license in all countries will be made easier by -replacement of those terms with neutral terminology rooted in -description of behavior. %FIXME: GPLv3, reword a bit. -Draft 2 therefore takes the task of internationalizing the license -further by removing references to derivative works and by providing a -more globally useful definition of a work ``based on'' another work. -We return to the basic principles of users' freedom and the common -elements of copyright law. Copyright holders of works of software -have the exclusive right to form new works by modification of the -original, a right that may be expressed in various ways in different -legal systems. The GPL operates to grant this right to successive -generations of users, particularly through the copyleft conditions set -forth in section 5 of GPLv3, which applies to the conveying of works -based on the Program. In section 0 we simply define a work based on -another work to mean ``any modified version for which permission is -necessary under applicable copyright law,'' without further qualifying -the nature of that permission, though we make clear that modification -includes the addition of material.\footnote{We have also removed the -paragraph in section 5 that makes reference to ``derivative or -collective works based on the Program.''} - -%FIXME: transition - -While ``covered by this license'' is a phrase found in GPLv2, defining it -more complete in a single as ``covered work'' enables some of the wording in -GPLv3 to be simpler and clearer than its GPLv2 counterparts. % FIXME: does propagate definition still work the same way in final draft?