Files @ 56ec3c68ee58
Branch filter:

Location: Copyleft/guide/gpl-lgpl.tex - annotation

bkuhn
This clearly should have been \ref all along.
   1
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   8
   9
  10
  11
  12
  13
  14
  15
  16
  17
  18
  19
  20
  21
  22
  23
  24
  25
  26
  27
  28
  29
  30
  31
  32
  33
  34
  35
  36
  37
  38
  39
  40
  41
  42
  43
  44
  45
  46
  47
  48
  49
  50
  51
  52
  53
  54
  55
  56
  57
  58
  59
  60
  61
  62
  63
  64
  65
  66
  67
  68
  69
  70
  71
  72
  73
  74
  75
  76
  77
  78
  79
  80
  81
  82
  83
  84
  85
  86
  87
  88
  89
  90
  91
  92
  93
  94
  95
  96
  97
  98
  99
 100
 101
 102
 103
 104
 105
 106
 107
 108
 109
 110
 111
 112
 113
 114
 115
 116
 117
 118
 119
 120
 121
 122
 123
 124
 125
 126
 127
 128
 129
 130
 131
 132
 133
 134
 135
 136
 137
 138
 139
 140
 141
 142
 143
 144
 145
 146
 147
 148
 149
 150
 151
 152
 153
 154
 155
 156
 157
 158
 159
 160
 161
 162
 163
 164
 165
 166
 167
 168
 169
 170
 171
 172
 173
 174
 175
 176
 177
 178
 179
 180
 181
 182
 183
 184
 185
 186
 187
 188
 189
 190
 191
 192
 193
 194
 195
 196
 197
 198
 199
 200
 201
 202
 203
 204
 205
 206
 207
 208
 209
 210
 211
 212
 213
 214
 215
 216
 217
 218
 219
 220
 221
 222
 223
 224
 225
 226
 227
 228
 229
 230
 231
 232
 233
 234
 235
 236
 237
 238
 239
 240
 241
 242
 243
 244
 245
 246
 247
 248
 249
 250
 251
 252
 253
 254
 255
 256
 257
 258
 259
 260
 261
 262
 263
 264
 265
 266
 267
 268
 269
 270
 271
 272
 273
 274
 275
 276
 277
 278
 279
 280
 281
 282
 283
 284
 285
 286
 287
 288
 289
 290
 291
 292
 293
 294
 295
 296
 297
 298
 299
 300
 301
 302
 303
 304
 305
 306
 307
 308
 309
 310
 311
 312
 313
 314
 315
 316
 317
 318
 319
 320
 321
 322
 323
 324
 325
 326
 327
 328
 329
 330
 331
 332
 333
 334
 335
 336
 337
 338
 339
 340
 341
 342
 343
 344
 345
 346
 347
 348
 349
 350
 351
 352
 353
 354
 355
 356
 357
 358
 359
 360
 361
 362
 363
 364
 365
 366
 367
 368
 369
 370
 371
 372
 373
 374
 375
 376
 377
 378
 379
 380
 381
 382
 383
 384
 385
 386
 387
 388
 389
 390
 391
 392
 393
 394
 395
 396
 397
 398
 399
 400
 401
 402
 403
 404
 405
 406
 407
 408
 409
 410
 411
 412
 413
 414
 415
 416
 417
 418
 419
 420
 421
 422
 423
 424
 425
 426
 427
 428
 429
 430
 431
 432
 433
 434
 435
 436
 437
 438
 439
 440
 441
 442
 443
 444
 445
 446
 447
 448
 449
 450
 451
 452
 453
 454
 455
 456
 457
 458
 459
 460
 461
 462
 463
 464
 465
 466
 467
 468
 469
 470
 471
 472
 473
 474
 475
 476
 477
 478
 479
 480
 481
 482
 483
 484
 485
 486
 487
 488
 489
 490
 491
 492
 493
 494
 495
 496
 497
 498
 499
 500
 501
 502
 503
 504
 505
 506
 507
 508
 509
 510
 511
 512
 513
 514
 515
 516
 517
 518
 519
 520
 521
 522
 523
 524
 525
 526
 527
 528
 529
 530
 531
 532
 533
 534
 535
 536
 537
 538
 539
 540
 541
 542
 543
 544
 545
 546
 547
 548
 549
 550
 551
 552
 553
 554
 555
 556
 557
 558
 559
 560
 561
 562
 563
 564
 565
 566
 567
 568
 569
 570
 571
 572
 573
 574
 575
 576
 577
 578
 579
 580
 581
 582
 583
 584
 585
 586
 587
 588
 589
 590
 591
 592
 593
 594
 595
 596
 597
 598
 599
 600
 601
 602
 603
 604
 605
 606
 607
 608
 609
 610
 611
 612
 613
 614
 615
 616
 617
 618
 619
 620
 621
 622
 623
 624
 625
 626
 627
 628
 629
 630
 631
 632
 633
 634
 635
 636
 637
 638
 639
 640
 641
 642
 643
 644
 645
 646
 647
 648
 649
 650
 651
 652
 653
 654
 655
 656
 657
 658
 659
 660
 661
 662
 663
 664
 665
 666
 667
 668
 669
 670
 671
 672
 673
 674
 675
 676
 677
 678
 679
 680
 681
 682
 683
 684
 685
 686
 687
 688
 689
 690
 691
 692
 693
 694
 695
 696
 697
 698
 699
 700
 701
 702
 703
 704
 705
 706
 707
 708
 709
 710
 711
 712
 713
 714
 715
 716
 717
 718
 719
 720
 721
 722
 723
 724
 725
 726
 727
 728
 729
 730
 731
 732
 733
 734
 735
 736
 737
 738
 739
 740
 741
 742
 743
 744
 745
 746
 747
 748
 749
 750
 751
 752
 753
 754
 755
 756
 757
 758
 759
 760
 761
 762
 763
 764
 765
 766
 767
 768
 769
 770
 771
 772
 773
 774
 775
 776
 777
 778
 779
 780
 781
 782
 783
 784
 785
 786
 787
 788
 789
 790
 791
 792
 793
 794
 795
 796
 797
 798
 799
 800
 801
 802
 803
 804
 805
 806
 807
 808
 809
 810
 811
 812
 813
 814
 815
 816
 817
 818
 819
 820
 821
 822
 823
 824
 825
 826
 827
 828
 829
 830
 831
 832
 833
 834
 835
 836
 837
 838
 839
 840
 841
 842
 843
 844
 845
 846
 847
 848
 849
 850
 851
 852
 853
 854
 855
 856
 857
 858
 859
 860
 861
 862
 863
 864
 865
 866
 867
 868
 869
 870
 871
 872
 873
 874
 875
 876
 877
 878
 879
 880
 881
 882
 883
 884
 885
 886
 887
 888
 889
 890
 891
 892
 893
 894
 895
 896
 897
 898
 899
 900
 901
 902
 903
 904
 905
 906
 907
 908
 909
 910
 911
 912
 913
 914
 915
 916
 917
 918
 919
 920
 921
 922
 923
 924
 925
 926
 927
 928
 929
 930
 931
 932
 933
 934
 935
 936
 937
 938
 939
 940
 941
 942
 943
 944
 945
 946
 947
 948
 949
 950
 951
 952
 953
 954
 955
 956
 957
 958
 959
 960
 961
 962
 963
 964
 965
 966
 967
 968
 969
 970
 971
 972
 973
 974
 975
 976
 977
 978
 979
 980
 981
 982
 983
 984
 985
 986
 987
 988
 989
 990
 991
 992
 993
 994
 995
 996
 997
 998
 999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
80295e9c558b
6c9b78d9d570
06b0425089bd
06b0425089bd
aa419884a673
aa419884a673
aa419884a673
aa419884a673
aa419884a673
aa419884a673
aa419884a673
aa419884a673
aa419884a673
aa419884a673
aa419884a673
aa419884a673
aa419884a673
aa419884a673
06b0425089bd
c74733d56798
c74733d56798
c74733d56798
c74733d56798
c74733d56798
c74733d56798
b1a86ee9cd0d
06b0425089bd
de5fbfffa719
82831c9b8161
06b0425089bd
a333f11d1178
a333f11d1178
a333f11d1178
a333f11d1178
ff7790d6085d
a333f11d1178
f6cfb851d6ef
a333f11d1178
a333f11d1178
06b0425089bd
e449a1c3ab78
f6cfb851d6ef
110e1b08fe71
1583f593cae5
110e1b08fe71
f6cfb851d6ef
110e1b08fe71
06b0425089bd
fc0e9f723e70
110e1b08fe71
06b0425089bd
06b0425089bd
06b0425089bd
f6cfb851d6ef
06b0425089bd
337f2e9044cb
06b0425089bd
337f2e9044cb
337f2e9044cb
110e1b08fe71
06b0425089bd
110e1b08fe71
06b0425089bd
110e1b08fe71
06b0425089bd
110e1b08fe71
06b0425089bd
110e1b08fe71
6c9b78d9d570
f6cfb851d6ef
abff2d8c4a3c
6c9b78d9d570
110e1b08fe71
110e1b08fe71
06b0425089bd
06b0425089bd
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
f6ce16a32196
06b0425089bd
ed6fe59dfc88
ed6fe59dfc88
59eec91da752
ed6fe59dfc88
dab88657a43a
59eec91da752
59eec91da752
59eec91da752
ed6fe59dfc88
59eec91da752
ed6fe59dfc88
ed6fe59dfc88
06b0425089bd
06b0425089bd
b1a86ee9cd0d
06b0425089bd
ed6fe59dfc88
ed6fe59dfc88
ed6fe59dfc88
ed6fe59dfc88
06b0425089bd
913a5f4940f0
913a5f4940f0
06b0425089bd
06b0425089bd
06b0425089bd
06b0425089bd
0e0d00163d9e
06b0425089bd
ed6fe59dfc88
06b0425089bd
ed6fe59dfc88
ed6fe59dfc88
ed6fe59dfc88
06b0425089bd
06b0425089bd
06b0425089bd
ed6fe59dfc88
4dfdaa4facbc
4dfdaa4facbc
4dfdaa4facbc
ed6fe59dfc88
ed6fe59dfc88
e665db106eba
1da1b24a1439
1da1b24a1439
1da1b24a1439
ed6fe59dfc88
170f507ac67a
170f507ac67a
ed6fe59dfc88
ed6fe59dfc88
170f507ac67a
ed6fe59dfc88
ed6fe59dfc88
ed6fe59dfc88
ed6fe59dfc88
ed6fe59dfc88
628ffb60207e
628ffb60207e
628ffb60207e
5d8bdec51c27
c5866203ee02
c5866203ee02
c5866203ee02
c5866203ee02
c5866203ee02
c5866203ee02
5d8bdec51c27
85577d597ac5
59eec91da752
59eec91da752
67115cb25737
67115cb25737
67115cb25737
67115cb25737
59eec91da752
67115cb25737
67115cb25737
67115cb25737
67115cb25737
67115cb25737
67115cb25737
59eec91da752
67115cb25737
67115cb25737
67115cb25737
67115cb25737
5d8bdec51c27
06b0425089bd
cb18441ebafd
06b0425089bd
59eec91da752
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
06b0425089bd
5d8bdec51c27
59eec91da752
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
5d8bdec51c27
5d8bdec51c27
5d8bdec51c27
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
59eec91da752
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
59eec91da752
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
1b5161f40204
85577d597ac5
5d8bdec51c27
5d8bdec51c27
5d8bdec51c27
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
85577d597ac5
59eec91da752
16917f85a2ae
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
5d8bdec51c27
5d8bdec51c27
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
5d8bdec51c27
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
e6ee7fa2b935
f8562aaf5502
5d8bdec51c27
5d8bdec51c27
5d8bdec51c27
85577d597ac5
59eec91da752
59eec91da752
59eec91da752
59eec91da752
9641e72df0b0
2a390dd465cb
9641e72df0b0
f58d197fe1b4
5d8bdec51c27
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
f58d197fe1b4
f58d197fe1b4
16917f85a2ae
80295e9c558b
5d8bdec51c27
5d8bdec51c27
80295e9c558b
f58d197fe1b4
f58d197fe1b4
5d8bdec51c27
5d8bdec51c27
5d8bdec51c27
f58d197fe1b4
f58d197fe1b4
f58d197fe1b4
f58d197fe1b4
f58d197fe1b4
f58d197fe1b4
f58d197fe1b4
5d8bdec51c27
5d8bdec51c27
f58d197fe1b4
5d8bdec51c27
f58d197fe1b4
f58d197fe1b4
f8562aaf5502
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
5d8bdec51c27
5d8bdec51c27
5d8bdec51c27
135533708853
135533708853
9bbbda9847d8
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
2ce793aa0513
2ce793aa0513
2ce793aa0513
2ce793aa0513
2ce793aa0513
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
54d57e9281d9
54d57e9281d9
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
59eec91da752
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
70772b5f7168
135533708853
14e09b0b1814
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
54d57e9281d9
59eec91da752
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
135533708853
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
1cf4f1749dec
59eec91da752
1cf4f1749dec
59eec91da752
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
d775398748a0
a625e05c30c9
87f0f9e7879a
a625e05c30c9
a625e05c30c9
e391b67596af
e391b67596af
2880f4eebb1b
af63358d308c
62a0c3b4fb65
62a0c3b4fb65
62a0c3b4fb65
62a0c3b4fb65
b1a86ee9cd0d
a625e05c30c9
af63358d308c
80295e9c558b
a625e05c30c9
b1a86ee9cd0d
a625e05c30c9
a625e05c30c9
e7ff8ce2af19
a625e05c30c9
a625e05c30c9
a625e05c30c9
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
d775398748a0
a625e05c30c9
d775398748a0
af63358d308c
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
d775398748a0
a7dbd07c8981
a625e05c30c9
a625e05c30c9
a625e05c30c9
a625e05c30c9
a625e05c30c9
a625e05c30c9
a625e05c30c9
a7dbd07c8981
54d57e9281d9
a7dbd07c8981
62a0c3b4fb65
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
f8562aaf5502
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
f8562aaf5502
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
fcd203294aee
b1a86ee9cd0d
79e474e4d12d
79e474e4d12d
00ac5cfb9ad5
00ac5cfb9ad5
00ac5cfb9ad5
00ac5cfb9ad5
00ac5cfb9ad5
00ac5cfb9ad5
00ac5cfb9ad5
00ac5cfb9ad5
00ac5cfb9ad5
00ac5cfb9ad5
00ac5cfb9ad5
a1b059184c96
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
80295e9c558b
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
a1b059184c96
e36a9a4f4cb2
d2e67f88c3e3
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
a1b059184c96
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
e36a9a4f4cb2
b1a86ee9cd0d
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
652ff1928562
652ff1928562
b15c4c2a2419
5d93036c5347
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
74899d7d1c08
74899d7d1c08
b15c4c2a2419
b15c4c2a2419
c6521ae3031a
c6521ae3031a
9641e72df0b0
9641e72df0b0
c6521ae3031a
c6521ae3031a
c6521ae3031a
6faa16d45750
c6521ae3031a
b15c4c2a2419
d9bdf4e8448f
d9bdf4e8448f
d9bdf4e8448f
d9bdf4e8448f
d9bdf4e8448f
b15c4c2a2419
3215d133acdc
3215d133acdc
3215d133acdc
3215d133acdc
3215d133acdc
3215d133acdc
b2fadd383ca8
b2fadd383ca8
b2fadd383ca8
b2fadd383ca8
b2fadd383ca8
b2fadd383ca8
b2fadd383ca8
0e5e24093f64
b2fadd383ca8
b2fadd383ca8
b2fadd383ca8
b2fadd383ca8
991960d5eb98
991960d5eb98
f83638ca1dd3
991960d5eb98
991960d5eb98
b2fadd383ca8
7e922009ee52
b1a86ee9cd0d
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
83b69e1f5c53
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
9c9c82295147
4098beb70788
9c9c82295147
b1a86ee9cd0d
7e922009ee52
b1a86ee9cd0d
02819d4d979c
325fe11b18bc
b1a86ee9cd0d
325fe11b18bc
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
325fe11b18bc
b1a86ee9cd0d
325fe11b18bc
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
c00788449789
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
7e922009ee52
b1a86ee9cd0d
02819d4d979c
90f1aab65675
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
9641e72df0b0
3a751d848b5e
9641e72df0b0
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
80295e9c558b
90f1aab65675
fcd203294aee
fcd203294aee
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
90f1aab65675
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
80295e9c558b
531f142207b8
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
90f1aab65675
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
90f1aab65675
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
90f1aab65675
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
90f1aab65675
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
90f1aab65675
90f1aab65675
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
90f1aab65675
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
90f1aab65675
90f1aab65675
80295e9c558b
90f1aab65675
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
90f1aab65675
80295e9c558b
90f1aab65675
80295e9c558b
90f1aab65675
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
90f1aab65675
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
f8562aaf5502
f8562aaf5502
b1a86ee9cd0d
90f1aab65675
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
b1a86ee9cd0d
65a3a3fd5701
65a3a3fd5701
618ddec73058
65a3a3fd5701
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
65a3a3fd5701
65a3a3fd5701
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
dab88657a43a
ac74d6348873
dab88657a43a
ac74d6348873
9cbbf7e34cd3
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
9641e72df0b0
ac74d6348873
65a3a3fd5701
65a3a3fd5701
05d02bfff430
05d02bfff430
05d02bfff430
ac74d6348873
05d02bfff430
05d02bfff430
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
ac74d6348873
65a3a3fd5701
5d93036c5347
65a3a3fd5701
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
9641e72df0b0
85577d597ac5
9cbbf7e34cd3
23d356cbf627
9641e72df0b0
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
9641e72df0b0
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
9641e72df0b0
16917f85a2ae
9641e72df0b0
23d356cbf627
23d356cbf627
9641e72df0b0
23d356cbf627
65a3a3fd5701
65a3a3fd5701
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
54d57e9281d9
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
54d57e9281d9
54d57e9281d9
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
54d57e9281d9
3158f32e477d
85577d597ac5
85577d597ac5
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
3158f32e477d
65a3a3fd5701
65a3a3fd5701
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
9641e72df0b0
fa892fe5b61b
9641e72df0b0
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
7f493a236ab9
0c48d8fdd3f2
79941dd33445
65a3a3fd5701
65a3a3fd5701
592a6f08de91
163368ebf89b
9dc94d5869af
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
f0efbf5fa89e
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
e92e89ae55cd
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
b174bad711f2
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
dd20a395b799
dd20a395b799
dd20a395b799
dd20a395b799
dd20a395b799
dd20a395b799
dd20a395b799
dd20a395b799
dd20a395b799
dd20a395b799
dd20a395b799
dd20a395b799
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
163368ebf89b
7a755cf4cbab
79941dd33445
65a3a3fd5701
65a3a3fd5701
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
8310c8947acb
e1ef7578f7ff
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
04bc20eba725
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
a749f38dee49
7f493a236ab9
b1a86ee9cd0d
360d6057f11c
d1de64cafda9
d1de64cafda9
b1a86ee9cd0d
5682a42c827d
337f2e9044cb
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
5682a42c827d
54d57e9281d9
5d93036c5347
5682a42c827d
0b2aa866a7c9
2d58414de7ce
80295e9c558b
5682a42c827d
5682a42c827d
54d57e9281d9
2d58414de7ce
5682a42c827d
5682a42c827d
5682a42c827d
5682a42c827d
80295e9c558b
337f2e9044cb
2d58414de7ce
5682a42c827d
5682a42c827d
2d58414de7ce
5682a42c827d
5682a42c827d
2d58414de7ce
2d58414de7ce
a7f901e4a398
2d58414de7ce
2d58414de7ce
3e526a2589e7
3e526a2589e7
b364be0e4347
5682a42c827d
b364be0e4347
5682a42c827d
5682a42c827d
b364be0e4347
fcd203294aee
07828daf38a4
3e526a2589e7
5682a42c827d
5682a42c827d
5682a42c827d
85577d597ac5
8399b0a7964a
5682a42c827d
5682a42c827d
80295e9c558b
5682a42c827d
54d57e9281d9
5682a42c827d
5682a42c827d
5682a42c827d
54d57e9281d9
8399b0a7964a
8399b0a7964a
80295e9c558b
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
163097cd2b29
5e195ab80a22
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
5e195ab80a22
a1b059184c96
5e195ab80a22
5e195ab80a22
5e195ab80a22
5e195ab80a22
a1b059184c96
54d57e9281d9
5d93036c5347
163097cd2b29
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
54d57e9281d9
163097cd2b29
54d57e9281d9
163097cd2b29
54d57e9281d9
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
54d57e9281d9
3815a3d2252c
163097cd2b29
3815a3d2252c
3815a3d2252c
3815a3d2252c
80295e9c558b
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
40fa2e6685f8
40fa2e6685f8
40fa2e6685f8
40fa2e6685f8
40fa2e6685f8
40fa2e6685f8
40fa2e6685f8
163097cd2b29
ace387b09824
ace387b09824
7ce3980bd6f2
7ce3980bd6f2
163097cd2b29
80295e9c558b
34ae4308af18
163097cd2b29
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
595c64c15878
817aa177f129
b8f084be3a66
b8f084be3a66
b8f084be3a66
b8f084be3a66
b8f084be3a66
b8f084be3a66
e36a9a4f4cb2
954f35615d49
e36a9a4f4cb2
b8f084be3a66
e36a9a4f4cb2
b8f084be3a66
b8f084be3a66
b8f084be3a66
b8f084be3a66
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
54d57e9281d9
54d57e9281d9
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
d1de64cafda9
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
d1de64cafda9
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
54d57e9281d9
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
844bf4ba5b34
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
85577d597ac5
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
fd3be34dc4dc
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
844bf4ba5b34
844bf4ba5b34
e8a8778ae5ec
844bf4ba5b34
844bf4ba5b34
e8a8778ae5ec
817aa177f129
f491e358824e
844bf4ba5b34
817aa177f129
f491e358824e
817aa177f129
f491e358824e
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
844bf4ba5b34
e8a8778ae5ec
844bf4ba5b34
844bf4ba5b34
844bf4ba5b34
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
16917f85a2ae
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
fd3be34dc4dc
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
844bf4ba5b34
844bf4ba5b34
844bf4ba5b34
844bf4ba5b34
844bf4ba5b34
6d6d18f1e6b1
844bf4ba5b34
844bf4ba5b34
844bf4ba5b34
844bf4ba5b34
16917f85a2ae
844bf4ba5b34
e8a8778ae5ec
844bf4ba5b34
844bf4ba5b34
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
16917f85a2ae
817aa177f129
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
fcb21b4a381e
3d402b8cbfad
56ec3c68ee58
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
3d402b8cbfad
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
d1de64cafda9
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
54d57e9281d9
337f2e9044cb
817aa177f129
54d57e9281d9
7a755cf4cbab
163097cd2b29
f8562aaf5502
ace387b09824
ace387b09824
d982de460aff
ace387b09824
f8562aaf5502
163097cd2b29
54d57e9281d9
fcd203294aee
ace387b09824
d638f60cd9fe
ace387b09824
163097cd2b29
bf85191e636f
bf85191e636f
555a72beb114
555a72beb114
555a72beb114
555a72beb114
555a72beb114
555a72beb114
555a72beb114
555a72beb114
555a72beb114
555a72beb114
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
ace387b09824
ace387b09824
54d57e9281d9
ace387b09824
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
ace387b09824
80295e9c558b
ace387b09824
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
5682a42c827d
67bb09ea178e
67bb09ea178e
67bb09ea178e
67bb09ea178e
67bb09ea178e
67bb09ea178e
67bb09ea178e
67bb09ea178e
67bb09ea178e
bf85191e636f
163097cd2b29
67bb09ea178e
67bb09ea178e
d3f9715bce8e
54d57e9281d9
163097cd2b29
ace387b09824
2f2e5f9e4c32
ace387b09824
30389cad6c41
ace387b09824
ace387b09824
f8562aaf5502
30389cad6c41
ace387b09824
ace387b09824
f8562aaf5502
80295e9c558b
163097cd2b29
54d57e9281d9
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
80295e9c558b
163097cd2b29
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
54d57e9281d9
ace387b09824
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
80295e9c558b
54d57e9281d9
ace387b09824
f8562aaf5502
ace387b09824
ace387b09824
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
2f2e5f9e4c32
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
163097cd2b29
ace387b09824
163097cd2b29
f8562aaf5502
f8562aaf5502
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
54d57e9281d9
ace387b09824
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
ace387b09824
ace387b09824
163097cd2b29
ace387b09824
1dd7d7b4cc56
2f2e5f9e4c32
1dd7d7b4cc56
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
954f35615d49
954f35615d49
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
954f35615d49
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
954f35615d49
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
eab5efb42b23
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
c88f72765ad2
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
0adba8392352
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
10b0ade5d5a0
ace387b09824
ace387b09824
4753f14a8279
54d57e9281d9
4753f14a8279
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
ace387b09824
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
ace387b09824
ace387b09824
85577d597ac5
ace387b09824
ace387b09824
f8562aaf5502
ace387b09824
2f2e5f9e4c32
80295e9c558b
f8562aaf5502
163097cd2b29
54d57e9281d9
ace387b09824
ace387b09824
2f2e5f9e4c32
ace387b09824
54d57e9281d9
5682a42c827d
163097cd2b29
5682a42c827d
ace387b09824
163097cd2b29
ace387b09824
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
ace387b09824
ace387b09824
163097cd2b29
02819d4d979c
ace387b09824
f167d0387a6d
ace387b09824
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
02819d4d979c
5682a42c827d
9641db188d0e
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
090b05660863
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
9641e72df0b0
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
9641e72df0b0
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
54d57e9281d9
7a755cf4cbab
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
ace387b09824
f167d0387a6d
ace387b09824
16f6215850ff
16f6215850ff
1e14536092de
ace387b09824
d638f60cd9fe
1e14536092de
ace387b09824
c40b88ad403f
ace387b09824
c40b88ad403f
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
2f2e5f9e4c32
47e37c955c57
47e37c955c57
47e37c955c57
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
d5864804ba05
16f6215850ff
d5864804ba05
2f2e5f9e4c32
d5864804ba05
16f6215850ff
1e14536092de
54d57e9281d9
54d57e9281d9
d5864804ba05
80295e9c558b
d5864804ba05
80295e9c558b
d5864804ba05
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
1e14536092de
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
54d57e9281d9
1e14536092de
183784995275
54d57e9281d9
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
16f6215850ff
d5864804ba05
d5864804ba05
16f6215850ff
d5864804ba05
16f6215850ff
d5864804ba05
16f6215850ff
16f6215850ff
1e14536092de
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
0a37731b72f5
0a37731b72f5
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
ec2abce02114
1e14536092de
d5864804ba05
d5864804ba05
d5864804ba05
d5864804ba05
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
16917f85a2ae
1e14536092de
9bd27fcffefc
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
d5864804ba05
58beece8fd55
1e14536092de
58beece8fd55
58beece8fd55
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
d5864804ba05
d5864804ba05
d5864804ba05
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
d5864804ba05
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
54d57e9281d9
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
54d57e9281d9
1e14536092de
fd9a2353f4c9
1e14536092de
05d02bfff430
d5864804ba05
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
7a755cf4cbab
1e14536092de
895d387cc7c7
54d57e9281d9
d5864804ba05
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
80295e9c558b
54d57e9281d9
d5864804ba05
80295e9c558b
54d57e9281d9
d5864804ba05
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
d5864804ba05
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
54d57e9281d9
d5864804ba05
16f6215850ff
80295e9c558b
58beece8fd55
d5864804ba05
16f6215850ff
16f6215850ff
1e14536092de
85577d597ac5
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
1e14536092de
d5864804ba05
54d57e9281d9
d5864804ba05
54d57e9281d9
1e14536092de
54d57e9281d9
d5864804ba05
80295e9c558b
d5864804ba05
1e14536092de
54d57e9281d9
54d57e9281d9
1e14536092de
54d57e9281d9
d5864804ba05
80295e9c558b
d5864804ba05
d5864804ba05
54d57e9281d9
54d57e9281d9
1e14536092de
817aa177f129
f6ce16a32196
b15c4c2a2419
817aa177f129
337f2e9044cb
80295e9c558b
337f2e9044cb
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
6d6d18f1e6b1
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
337f2e9044cb
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
337f2e9044cb
337f2e9044cb
337f2e9044cb
817aa177f129
337f2e9044cb
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
337f2e9044cb
80295e9c558b
6d6d18f1e6b1
6d6d18f1e6b1
6d6d18f1e6b1
6d6d18f1e6b1
6d6d18f1e6b1
6d6d18f1e6b1
6d6d18f1e6b1
2f2e5f9e4c32
6d6d18f1e6b1
6d6d18f1e6b1
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
16917f85a2ae
80295e9c558b
337f2e9044cb
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
337f2e9044cb
337f2e9044cb
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
337f2e9044cb
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
337f2e9044cb
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
20fba8b65462
57b7cc24030d
d2e67f88c3e3
d2e67f88c3e3
57b7cc24030d
57b7cc24030d
57b7cc24030d
817aa177f129
337f2e9044cb
57b7cc24030d
2f2e5f9e4c32
57b7cc24030d
80295e9c558b
57b7cc24030d
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
337f2e9044cb
337f2e9044cb
80295e9c558b
d1de64cafda9
d1de64cafda9
337f2e9044cb
d1de64cafda9
d1de64cafda9
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
817aa177f129
337f2e9044cb
80295e9c558b
d1de64cafda9
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
5682a42c827d
b1a86ee9cd0d
80295e9c558b
b1a86ee9cd0d
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
37bdf9caddc1
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
e8a8778ae5ec
fd9a2353f4c9
54d57e9281d9
5d93036c5347
5682a42c827d
6d116fa1f310
80295e9c558b
fd9a2353f4c9
fd9a2353f4c9
fd9a2353f4c9
fd9a2353f4c9
fd9a2353f4c9
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
80295e9c558b
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
fd9a2353f4c9
85577d597ac5
6d116fa1f310
e1f07949fe7b
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
fd9a2353f4c9
fd9a2353f4c9
fd9a2353f4c9
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
54d57e9281d9
fd9a2353f4c9
fd9a2353f4c9
fd9a2353f4c9
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
fd9a2353f4c9
6d116fa1f310
6d116fa1f310
5a4c6c22a9e8
2bafeda59ed3
2bafeda59ed3
2bafeda59ed3
85577d597ac5
fd9a2353f4c9
54d57e9281d9
5d93036c5347
5682a42c827d
54d57e9281d9
337f2e9044cb
5a4c6c22a9e8
80295e9c558b
5a4c6c22a9e8
80295e9c558b
5a4c6c22a9e8
5a4c6c22a9e8
e893d9d78296
16917f85a2ae
80295e9c558b
e893d9d78296
80295e9c558b
5a4c6c22a9e8
5a4c6c22a9e8
e893d9d78296
5a4c6c22a9e8
5a4c6c22a9e8
5a4c6c22a9e8
5a4c6c22a9e8
5a4c6c22a9e8
54d57e9281d9
e893d9d78296
5a4c6c22a9e8
5a4c6c22a9e8
e893d9d78296
80295e9c558b
e893d9d78296
5a4c6c22a9e8
5a4c6c22a9e8
5a4c6c22a9e8
eeee6e0df959
eeee6e0df959
e1f07949fe7b
e1f07949fe7b
eeee6e0df959
eeee6e0df959
eeee6e0df959
eeee6e0df959
05d02bfff430
05d02bfff430
05d02bfff430
337f2e9044cb
54d57e9281d9
5d93036c5347
5a4c6c22a9e8
54d57e9281d9
337f2e9044cb
54d57e9281d9
34ae4308af18
54d57e9281d9
34ae4308af18
80447ede077e
80447ede077e
34ae4308af18
80447ede077e
80295e9c558b
34ae4308af18
80447ede077e
34ae4308af18
80447ede077e
337f2e9044cb
34ae4308af18
54d57e9281d9
34ae4308af18
80447ede077e
54d57e9281d9
54d57e9281d9
34ae4308af18
54d57e9281d9
34ae4308af18
34ae4308af18
34ae4308af18
954f35615d49
d6bf6f07b192
fd69b39c389a
954f35615d49
a1b059184c96
d6bf6f07b192
954f35615d49
d6bf6f07b192
a1b059184c96
d6bf6f07b192
d6bf6f07b192
d6bf6f07b192
d6bf6f07b192
1e0d39fe72b2
d6bf6f07b192
d6bf6f07b192
d6bf6f07b192
d6bf6f07b192
d6bf6f07b192
d6bf6f07b192
a1b059184c96
d6bf6f07b192
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
d6bf6f07b192
8a3a8434ddc4
8a3a8434ddc4
8a3a8434ddc4
8a3a8434ddc4
8a3a8434ddc4
8a3a8434ddc4
8a3a8434ddc4
8a3a8434ddc4
8a3a8434ddc4
8a3a8434ddc4
8a3a8434ddc4
8a3a8434ddc4
8a3a8434ddc4
8a3a8434ddc4
14d8ee9b160f
14d8ee9b160f
a1b059184c96
54d57e9281d9
5d93036c5347
5682a42c827d
54d57e9281d9
80447ede077e
c40b88ad403f
c40b88ad403f
c40b88ad403f
c40b88ad403f
80447ede077e
80447ede077e
c40b88ad403f
80447ede077e
02819d4d979c
c40b88ad403f
80447ede077e
c40b88ad403f
54d57e9281d9
c40b88ad403f
c40b88ad403f
b1a86ee9cd0d
54d57e9281d9
5d93036c5347
163097cd2b29
80447ede077e
80295e9c558b
f8562aaf5502
337f2e9044cb
f8562aaf5502
f8562aaf5502
c7a3684824b1
c7a3684824b1
c7a3684824b1
c7a3684824b1
c7a3684824b1
c7a3684824b1
c7a3684824b1
c7a3684824b1
c7a3684824b1
c7a3684824b1
c7a3684824b1
c7a3684824b1
c7a3684824b1
4cea1c46451f
34ae4308af18
34ae4308af18
34ae4308af18
0ebf2969f46b
764802727541
39390252fc92
39390252fc92
54d57e9281d9
5d93036c5347
163097cd2b29
39390252fc92
0ebf2969f46b
02819d4d979c
39390252fc92
0ebf2969f46b
39390252fc92
39390252fc92
618ddec73058
618ddec73058
39390252fc92
54d57e9281d9
5d93036c5347
163097cd2b29
54d57e9281d9
b66035e69e58
39390252fc92
39390252fc92
39390252fc92
54d57e9281d9
5d93036c5347
163097cd2b29
37bdf9caddc1
2e8178b28d2e
e62b08eb9cb5
4067c5f9915f
2e8178b28d2e
2e8178b28d2e
2e8178b28d2e
39390252fc92
77579a83f43d
37bdf9caddc1
77579a83f43d
77579a83f43d
77579a83f43d
77579a83f43d
77579a83f43d
9641e72df0b0
0efbc4029fa8
0efbc4029fa8
0efbc4029fa8
0efbc4029fa8
0efbc4029fa8
0efbc4029fa8
9641e72df0b0
f4b4b9f85eba
26def8538a10
26def8538a10
26def8538a10
26def8538a10
26def8538a10
26def8538a10
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
d3ce0a8a2fff
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
4067c5f9915f
817aa177f129
54d57e9281d9
54d57e9281d9
5682a42c827d
54d57e9281d9
5d93036c5347
163097cd2b29
39390252fc92
b66035e69e58
b66035e69e58
b66035e69e58
54d57e9281d9
39390252fc92
39390252fc92
817aa177f129
80295e9c558b
54d57e9281d9
817aa177f129
b66035e69e58
54d57e9281d9
817aa177f129
817aa177f129
39390252fc92
80295e9c558b
39390252fc92
3cdd6624043d
360d6057f11c
79941dd33445
3cdd6624043d
85577d597ac5
5ef15e08a026
5ef15e08a026
5ef15e08a026
5ef15e08a026
5ef15e08a026
5ef15e08a026
5ef15e08a026
5ef15e08a026
5ef15e08a026
5ef15e08a026
5ef15e08a026
8ce1870cef45
8ce1870cef45
8ce1870cef45
b776c58280a9
8ce1870cef45
8ce1870cef45
5ef15e08a026
3cdd6624043d
3cdd6624043d
5ef15e08a026
0c48d8fdd3f2
8ce1870cef45
5ef15e08a026
8ce1870cef45
8ce1870cef45
8ce1870cef45
8ce1870cef45
8ce1870cef45
8ce1870cef45
8ce1870cef45
8ce1870cef45
1070277ed6e3
dca1aa011573
8ce1870cef45
8ce1870cef45
5ef15e08a026
3694e446db65
3694e446db65
3694e446db65
8ce1870cef45
85577d597ac5
85577d597ac5
4cea1c46451f
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
d638f60cd9fe
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
54d57e9281d9
9dc94d5869af
3cdd6624043d
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
1070277ed6e3
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
728c800bf3cc
4cea1c46451f
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
be62a9b7654f
be62a9b7654f
be62a9b7654f
be62a9b7654f
be62a9b7654f
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
a43a205f9b45
a8d58d6b65d3
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
c83c789fd06e
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
9641e72df0b0
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
15ae6f3a175c
15ae6f3a175c
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
07a02b0b1c6d
85577d597ac5
1857efb0fb39
e2e1335aea9e
1eef642effa9
1eef642effa9
1eef642effa9
1eef642effa9
1eef642effa9
1eef642effa9
1eef642effa9
1eef642effa9
290774c3e820
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a1b059184c96
e2e1335aea9e
85989f711ba0
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a1b059184c96
85989f711ba0
85989f711ba0
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
520451439f85
4a22feba0699
85989f711ba0
85989f711ba0
85989f711ba0
85989f711ba0
85989f711ba0
4cea1c46451f
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
88388e6d24e6
30efea65795f
290774c3e820
a1b059184c96
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a1b059184c96
e2e1335aea9e
4cea1c46451f
a43a205f9b45
ae87bcb2817f
ae87bcb2817f
ae87bcb2817f
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
a43a205f9b45
4cea1c46451f
e2e1335aea9e
262ba65e3f7d
262ba65e3f7d
95ff20c42029
262ba65e3f7d
262ba65e3f7d
262ba65e3f7d
262ba65e3f7d
262ba65e3f7d
262ba65e3f7d
e2e1335aea9e
4cea1c46451f
769edf2a7b15
769edf2a7b15
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
d587d3556c84
d587d3556c84
54d57e9281d9
8c5f9f38d1bb
3cdd6624043d
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
4cea1c46451f
428a539c1684
4cea1c46451f
d0821c856b5d
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
52695626f092
5e6a129b4cd6
5e6a129b4cd6
5e6a129b4cd6
5e6a129b4cd6
4cea1c46451f
428a539c1684
851be52e624c
428a539c1684
9641e72df0b0
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
9641e72df0b0
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
5bc731e260c9
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
706e29388f10
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
c6183da7fd5e
428a539c1684
a4feaf97bf92
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
428a539c1684
f65ecb47a6d9
f65ecb47a6d9
f65ecb47a6d9
f65ecb47a6d9
f65ecb47a6d9
f65ecb47a6d9
f65ecb47a6d9
f65ecb47a6d9
f65ecb47a6d9
f65ecb47a6d9
f65ecb47a6d9
5f356c351ad2
f65ecb47a6d9
f65ecb47a6d9
f65ecb47a6d9
f4b4b9f85eba
9f6175cf736f
e36a9a4f4cb2
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
26c0a26169b4
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
b5b0e2403efe
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
a4feaf97bf92
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
057263d799bb
85577d597ac5
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
0f3bc95c5160
4cea1c46451f
54d57e9281d9
3847ee1c1b59
3cdd6624043d
e0a91a924c92
7a755cf4cbab
e0a91a924c92
e0a91a924c92
e0a91a924c92
e0a91a924c92
e0a91a924c92
e0a91a924c92
e0a91a924c92
e0a91a924c92
e0a91a924c92
e0a91a924c92
e0a91a924c92
4cea1c46451f
eeaf85134557
eeaf85134557
eeaf85134557
eeaf85134557
85577d597ac5
d0821c856b5d
eeaf85134557
4cea1c46451f
97deccc4d155
97deccc4d155
97deccc4d155
e5ee0fd0a138
e5ee0fd0a138
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
b7bb47188fd9
4cea1c46451f
647d2e27a4c4
647d2e27a4c4
647d2e27a4c4
fa892fe5b61b
647d2e27a4c4
647d2e27a4c4
647d2e27a4c4
647d2e27a4c4
647d2e27a4c4
486aa88f1abd
647d2e27a4c4
647d2e27a4c4
647d2e27a4c4
647d2e27a4c4
647d2e27a4c4
33e47ace6032
647d2e27a4c4
7b2a12482732
4623ebe2ec1c
4623ebe2ec1c
4623ebe2ec1c
4623ebe2ec1c
4623ebe2ec1c
4623ebe2ec1c
4623ebe2ec1c
4623ebe2ec1c
8ca2d666852b
dccc2155aeeb
dccc2155aeeb
dccc2155aeeb
dccc2155aeeb
dccc2155aeeb
f7211a9f8a7f
0c48d8fdd3f2
520451439f85
d2c59d90e9d6
0be18ce1927f
d2c59d90e9d6
d2c59d90e9d6
d2c59d90e9d6
d2c59d90e9d6
d2c59d90e9d6
d2c59d90e9d6
d2c59d90e9d6
d2c59d90e9d6
d2c59d90e9d6
d2c59d90e9d6
d2c59d90e9d6
d2c59d90e9d6
d2c59d90e9d6
d2c59d90e9d6
f4b4b9f85eba
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
6c97541824e7
da7e0da12860
da7e0da12860
da7e0da12860
da7e0da12860
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
5084f8b60f33
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
ed8fb5a938fa
4cea1c46451f
54d57e9281d9
c6521ae3031a
4cea1c46451f
8ca0ae7ccd9e
8ca0ae7ccd9e
e52a3d32dc52
8ca0ae7ccd9e
8ca0ae7ccd9e
8ca0ae7ccd9e
8ca0ae7ccd9e
8ca0ae7ccd9e
33e47ace6032
ed2f3b21d02b
ed2f3b21d02b
ed2f3b21d02b
8ca0ae7ccd9e
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
4b25ade52060
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
08c38c104d31
f4b4b9f85eba
ed2f3b21d02b
ed2f3b21d02b
ed2f3b21d02b
da7e0da12860
da7e0da12860
da7e0da12860
54d57e9281d9
2cfbed706cef
3cdd6624043d
f7211a9f8a7f
82f2c66198c3
f7211a9f8a7f
2cfbed706cef
5f18dfd82f24
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
2cfbed706cef
3465a2dd60f7
3465a2dd60f7
3465a2dd60f7
3465a2dd60f7
3465a2dd60f7
3465a2dd60f7
4cea1c46451f
df7c046d04b4
df7c046d04b4
df7c046d04b4
520451439f85
54d57e9281d9
7a755cf4cbab
3cdd6624043d
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
4cea1c46451f
8f33303a9f8e
8f33303a9f8e
8f33303a9f8e
8f33303a9f8e
8f33303a9f8e
8f33303a9f8e
4cea1c46451f
2b98827e568e
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
d638f60cd9fe
10b0ade5d5a0
8f33303a9f8e
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
10b0ade5d5a0
4cea1c46451f
9bd27fcffefc
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
4cea1c46451f
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
221481f33b6d
54d57e9281d9
7a755cf4cbab
3cdd6624043d
387f2c4ace6e
387f2c4ace6e
387f2c4ace6e
652c24089610
387f2c4ace6e
387f2c4ace6e
387f2c4ace6e
a1b059184c96
387f2c4ace6e
387f2c4ace6e
387f2c4ace6e
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
d638f60cd9fe
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
9bd27fcffefc
b7dfcb237240
4cea1c46451f
a5079818d487
a5079818d487
a5079818d487
a5079818d487
a5079818d487
a5079818d487
a5079818d487
a5079818d487
a5079818d487
a5079818d487
11fd5c29ca16
11fd5c29ca16
11fd5c29ca16
11fd5c29ca16
11fd5c29ca16
11fd5c29ca16
a1b059184c96
a5079818d487
a5079818d487
4cea1c46451f
9de90679bbc5
9de90679bbc5
9de90679bbc5
9de90679bbc5
9de90679bbc5
9de90679bbc5
9de90679bbc5
9de90679bbc5
9de90679bbc5
9de90679bbc5
f4b4b9f85eba
dac68d141052
dac68d141052
f03369c7eda1
f03369c7eda1
f03369c7eda1
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
f03369c7eda1
f03369c7eda1
f03369c7eda1
dac68d141052
f03369c7eda1
8faf96d5e5d2
f03369c7eda1
8faf96d5e5d2
8faf96d5e5d2
8faf96d5e5d2
8faf96d5e5d2
dac68d141052
511117826093
511117826093
511117826093
511117826093
511117826093
d638f60cd9fe
511117826093
511117826093
511117826093
511117826093
511117826093
511117826093
511117826093
511117826093
511117826093
511117826093
dac68d141052
d638f60cd9fe
6d5ca098a11e
6d5ca098a11e
6d5ca098a11e
6d5ca098a11e
6d5ca098a11e
6d5ca098a11e
6d5ca098a11e
6d5ca098a11e
6d5ca098a11e
6d5ca098a11e
6d5ca098a11e
4cea1c46451f
9de90679bbc5
9de90679bbc5
9de90679bbc5
f53db9025a0d
ebe7610b2b3e
85577d597ac5
a83760dcc73c
16917f85a2ae
a83760dcc73c
a83760dcc73c
a83760dcc73c
a83760dcc73c
a83760dcc73c
a83760dcc73c
a83760dcc73c
a83760dcc73c
a83760dcc73c
a83760dcc73c
ebe7610b2b3e
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
cb18441ebafd
dd9e08222238
d638f60cd9fe
dd9e08222238
dd9e08222238
dd9e08222238
ebe7610b2b3e
579704541d47
f31235afbc80
f31235afbc80
579704541d47
579704541d47
579704541d47
579704541d47
579704541d47
579704541d47
579704541d47
f58920bbe53c
579704541d47
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
cee78c87ef8a
cee78c87ef8a
aa15f936ce89
aa15f936ce89
aa15f936ce89
aa15f936ce89
f4b4b9f85eba
b17d0710acbe
b17d0710acbe
f4b4b9f85eba
b3e528a31cf1
b17d0710acbe
b17d0710acbe
b3e528a31cf1
b17d0710acbe
b17d0710acbe
b17d0710acbe
b17d0710acbe
b17d0710acbe
b17d0710acbe
d638f60cd9fe
b17d0710acbe
b17d0710acbe
b17d0710acbe
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
10244bee1439
10244bee1439
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
10244bee1439
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
9641e72df0b0
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
9641e72df0b0
f4b4b9f85eba
b3e528a31cf1
d638f60cd9fe
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b8ec5dbbe92b
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
b3e528a31cf1
1e928fdbb897
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
0a37731b72f5
0a37731b72f5
126d4fc04131
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
678c1d80991b
678c1d80991b
678c1d80991b
678c1d80991b
678c1d80991b
678c1d80991b
678c1d80991b
678c1d80991b
678c1d80991b
678c1d80991b
b00ddaa6987a
b00ddaa6987a
b3e528a31cf1
263dd1e086a4
9dc94d5869af
362292c69239
362292c69239
2aa26136116d
2aa26136116d
2aa26136116d
2aa26136116d
362292c69239
2aa26136116d
362292c69239
2aa26136116d
362292c69239
2aa26136116d
2aa26136116d
ea8cab561d1d
ea8cab561d1d
ea8cab561d1d
d2e67f88c3e3
ea8cab561d1d
a1b059184c96
2aa26136116d
2aa26136116d
2aa26136116d
85577d597ac5
2aa26136116d
2aa26136116d
2aa26136116d
2aa26136116d
2aa26136116d
2aa26136116d
2aa26136116d
362292c69239
263dd1e086a4
1aa98048c19c
263dd1e086a4
263dd1e086a4
263dd1e086a4
263dd1e086a4
263dd1e086a4
263dd1e086a4
263dd1e086a4
362292c69239
362292c69239
362292c69239
362292c69239
362292c69239
362292c69239
362292c69239
362292c69239
362292c69239
263dd1e086a4
362292c69239
362292c69239
263dd1e086a4
362292c69239
263dd1e086a4
263dd1e086a4
362292c69239
263dd1e086a4
362292c69239
263dd1e086a4
263dd1e086a4
362292c69239
751992a9324b
98ae3aaac23c
98ae3aaac23c
98ae3aaac23c
98ae3aaac23c
c4ced9c93f75
c4ced9c93f75
98ae3aaac23c
98ae3aaac23c
98ae3aaac23c
98ae3aaac23c
017c6ae1b510
362292c69239
017c6ae1b510
362292c69239
017c6ae1b510
017c6ae1b510
362292c69239
362292c69239
362292c69239
362292c69239
362292c69239
362292c69239
362292c69239
a03479ec1b00
a03479ec1b00
a03479ec1b00
a03479ec1b00
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
a03479ec1b00
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
a03479ec1b00
a03479ec1b00
a03479ec1b00
a03479ec1b00
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
a03479ec1b00
a03479ec1b00
4cea1c46451f
a03479ec1b00
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
a03479ec1b00
a03479ec1b00
4cea1c46451f
38329c1b5a4e
38329c1b5a4e
a03479ec1b00
a03479ec1b00
4cea1c46451f
a03479ec1b00
a03479ec1b00
a03479ec1b00
a03479ec1b00
4cea1c46451f
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
954f35615d49
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
a1b059184c96
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
a1b059184c96
345da0fc2e6a
a1b059184c96
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
345da0fc2e6a
a1b059184c96
54d57e9281d9
3cdd6624043d
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
c6a0465a6515
c6a0465a6515
c6a0465a6515
484ca88b811b
c6a0465a6515
c6a0465a6515
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
c6a0465a6515
c6a0465a6515
c6a0465a6515
c6a0465a6515
c6a0465a6515
c6a0465a6515
c6a0465a6515
c6a0465a6515
c6a0465a6515
54d57e9281d9
3cdd6624043d
c6a0465a6515
520451439f85
c2415647a5ec
520451439f85
520451439f85
520451439f85
520451439f85
4cea1c46451f
54d57e9281d9
6ba2ff285f10
3cdd6624043d
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
1e0d39fe72b2
79405042169b
79405042169b
79405042169b
79405042169b
79405042169b
79405042169b
79405042169b
79405042169b
4cea1c46451f
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
54d57e9281d9
b15c4c2a2419
4cea1c46451f
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
784976f1e3f1
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
16917f85a2ae
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
e5669e4779e7
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
954f35615d49
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
e5669e4779e7
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
a1b059184c96
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
c2415647a5ec
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
9641e72df0b0
5c1a943df91c
9641e72df0b0
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
85577d597ac5
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
c3815b0689dd
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
c2415647a5ec
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
764802727541
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
c2415647a5ec
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
c2415647a5ec
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
65179995e9c7
65179995e9c7
65179995e9c7
954f35615d49
954f35615d49
65179995e9c7
65179995e9c7
65179995e9c7
65179995e9c7
65179995e9c7
65179995e9c7
a1b059184c96
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
9641e72df0b0
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
9641e72df0b0
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
16917f85a2ae
5c1a943df91c
ebe7610b2b3e
ebe7610b2b3e
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
a867743eb394
a867743eb394
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
1e928fdbb897
1e928fdbb897
1e928fdbb897
1e928fdbb897
1e928fdbb897
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
5c1a943df91c
1e928fdbb897
5c1a943df91c
f4b4b9f85eba
3878521bbfae
851be52e624c
3cdd6624043d
85577d597ac5
3878521bbfae
3878521bbfae
3878521bbfae
4cea1c46451f
3878521bbfae
3878521bbfae
3878521bbfae
3878521bbfae
3878521bbfae
3878521bbfae
4cea1c46451f
3878521bbfae
4cea1c46451f
3878521bbfae
3878521bbfae
4cea1c46451f
54d57e9281d9
3cdd6624043d
f8a919928413
f4b4b9f85eba
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
b35e89a8d85d
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
85577d597ac5
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f8a919928413
f4b4b9f85eba
065a88d180c5
065a88d180c5
065a88d180c5
065a88d180c5
065a88d180c5
065a88d180c5
065a88d180c5
065a88d180c5
065a88d180c5
a1b059184c96
54d57e9281d9
7a755cf4cbab
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
596878284d12
596878284d12
596878284d12
596878284d12
596878284d12
596878284d12
596878284d12
596878284d12
596878284d12
596878284d12
596878284d12
4cea1c46451f
54d57e9281d9
3cdd6624043d
4cea1c46451f
4cea1c46451f
b494e0cc661c
3cdd6624043d
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
ceccb45e2567
520451439f85
520451439f85
b494e0cc661c
b494e0cc661c
520451439f85
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
746eff5786b2
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
a1b059184c96
954f35615d49
a1b059184c96
d8d666d5dac0
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
d1de64cafda9
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
d1de64cafda9
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
ce82a1d11635
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
d1de64cafda9
d1de64cafda9
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
554510108853
c6063eca3c00
80295e9c558b
c6063eca3c00
c6063eca3c00
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
d1de64cafda9
d1de64cafda9
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
c6063eca3c00
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
d1de64cafda9
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
d1de64cafda9
80295e9c558b
c6063eca3c00
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
d1de64cafda9
d1de64cafda9
d1de64cafda9
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
d1de64cafda9
d1de64cafda9
d1de64cafda9
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
ce82a1d11635
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
ce82a1d11635
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
c6063eca3c00
54d57e9281d9
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
ce82a1d11635
80295e9c558b
ce82a1d11635
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
43cc44ae2945
02819d4d979c
ce82a1d11635
43cc44ae2945
02819d4d979c
43cc44ae2945
80295e9c558b
43cc44ae2945
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
43cc44ae2945
43cc44ae2945
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
43cc44ae2945
2f2e5f9e4c32
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
9ab67f312539
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
faf09497055c
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
80295e9c558b
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
7a755cf4cbab
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
ce82a1d11635
ce82a1d11635
ce82a1d11635
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
ce82a1d11635
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
02819d4d979c
9ab67f312539
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
ce82a1d11635
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
ce82a1d11635
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
02819d4d979c
ce82a1d11635
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
faf09497055c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
80295e9c558b
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
954f35615d49
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
e24942c98b4a
02819d4d979c
faf09497055c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
a577a77eb405
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
2f2e5f9e4c32
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
ce82a1d11635
2f2e5f9e4c32
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
ce82a1d11635
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
2f2e5f9e4c32
80295e9c558b
ce82a1d11635
2f2e5f9e4c32
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
d1de64cafda9
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
d1de64cafda9
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
54d57e9281d9
ce82a1d11635
ce82a1d11635
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
e8a8778ae5ec
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
ce82a1d11635
54d57e9281d9
ce82a1d11635
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
ce82a1d11635
ce82a1d11635
ce82a1d11635
ce82a1d11635
ce82a1d11635
80295e9c558b
54d57e9281d9
a577a77eb405
a577a77eb405
ce82a1d11635
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
ce82a1d11635
80295e9c558b
ce82a1d11635
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
ce82a1d11635
ce82a1d11635
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
ce82a1d11635
d1de64cafda9
54d57e9281d9
54d57e9281d9
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
ce82a1d11635
ce82a1d11635
a577a77eb405
ce82a1d11635
ce82a1d11635
ce82a1d11635
02819d4d979c
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
54d57e9281d9
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
2f2e5f9e4c32
54d57e9281d9
ce82a1d11635
ce82a1d11635
02819d4d979c
02819d4d979c
ce82a1d11635
54d57e9281d9
ce82a1d11635
80295e9c558b
54d57e9281d9
ce82a1d11635
02819d4d979c
a1b059184c96
746eff5786b2
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
954f35615d49
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
9f34658440b5
a1b059184c96
b1a86ee9cd0d
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
a1b059184c96
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
02819d4d979c
80295e9c558b
02819d4d979c
9a799821ef3a
02819d4d979c
9a799821ef3a
5d93036c5347
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
a577a77eb405
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
54d57e9281d9
80295e9c558b
9a799821ef3a
80295e9c558b
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
163097cd2b29
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
a7ffbb9ee575
a7ffbb9ee575
f31235afbc80
f31235afbc80
f31235afbc80
f31235afbc80
daced4361072
daced4361072
daced4361072
daced4361072
9a799821ef3a
a7ffbb9ee575
9a799821ef3a
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
9a799821ef3a
80295e9c558b
fd9a2353f4c9
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
a5fa6ca556b5
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
9a799821ef3a
a7ffbb9ee575
5879dd334413
5879dd334413
80295e9c558b
9a799821ef3a
80295e9c558b
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
fd9a2353f4c9
fd9a2353f4c9
fd9a2353f4c9
9a799821ef3a
80295e9c558b
012aebd493c9
9641e72df0b0
012aebd493c9
012aebd493c9
012aebd493c9
9641e72df0b0
012aebd493c9
012aebd493c9
012aebd493c9
9a799821ef3a
a7ffbb9ee575
80295e9c558b
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
0117799b6983
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
80295e9c558b
9a799821ef3a
fd9a2353f4c9
163097cd2b29
5d8bdec51c27
8e5a38102856
80295e9c558b
9a799821ef3a
80295e9c558b
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
85577d597ac5
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
2f2e5f9e4c32
312718cda029
312718cda029
2f2e5f9e4c32
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
9a799821ef3a
9a799821ef3a
80295e9c558b
a577a77eb405
9a799821ef3a
3b878270e482
02819d4d979c
3b878270e482
3b878270e482
3b878270e482
6c9b78d9d570
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
80295e9c558b
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
16917f85a2ae
d2e67f88c3e3
d2e67f88c3e3
d2e67f88c3e3
d3ce0a8a2fff
73a7028469b8
% gpl-lgpl.tex                                                  -*- LaTeX -*-
%      Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL course
%

% License: CC-By-SA-4.0

% The copyright holders hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify, convey,
% Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative
% Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License.

% This text is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
% WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
% MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

% You should have received a copy of the license with this document in
% a file called 'CC-By-SA-4.0.txt'.  If not, please visit
% https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode to receive
% the license text.

% FIXME-LATER: I should make a macro like the Texinfo @xref stuff for places
%      where I'm saying ``see section X in this tutorial'', so that the extra
%      verbiage isn't there in the HTML versions that I'll eventually do.
%      Maybe something like that already exists?  In the worst case, I could
%      adapt @xref from texinfo.texi for it.

\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\emph{#1}}

\part{Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related Licenses}
\label{gpl-lgpl-part}

\tutorialpartsplit{This tutorial}{This part of the tutorial} gives a
comprehensive explanation of the most popular Free Software copyright
license, the GNU General Public License (``GNU GPL'', or sometimes just
``GPL'') -- both version 2 (``GPLv2'') and version 3 (``GPLv3'') -- and
teaches lawyers, software developers, managers and businesspeople how to use
the GPL (and GPL'd software) successfully both as a community-building
``Constitution'' for a software project, and to incorporate copylefted
software into a new Free Software business and in existing, successful
enterprises.

To benefit from this part of the tutorial, readers should
have a general familiarity with software development processes.  A basic
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 or advise software businesses that modify and/or redistribute software
under the 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 this part of the tutorial, readers can expect
to have learned the following:

\begin{itemize}

  \item The freedom-defending purpose of various terms in the GNU GPLv2 and GPLv3.

  \item The differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3.

  \item The redistribution options under the GPLv2 and GPLv3.

  \item The obligations when modifying GPLv2'd or GPLv3'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 LGPLv2.1 and LGPLv3, and how they
    differ from the GPLv2 and GPLv3, respectively.

  \item The basics to begin understanding the complexities regarding
    derivative and combined works of software.
\end{itemize}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% END OF ABSTRACTS SECTION
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% START OF DAY ONE COURSE
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\chapter{What Is Software Freedom?}

Study 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 software freedom. The GPL was not created in a vacuum. 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
preeminent organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy of software
freedom. A prerequisite for understanding both of the popular versions
of the GPL
(GPLv2 and GPLv3) and their terms and conditions is a basic understanding of
the principles behind them.  The GPL family of licenses are unlike nearly all
other software licenses in that they are designed to defend and uphold these
principles.

\section{The Free Software Definition}
\label{Free Software Definition}

The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's website at
\verb0http://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 GPL\@.

A particular user has software freedom with respect to a particular program if that
user has the following freedoms:

\begin{itemize}


\item The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

\item The freedom to study how the program works, and modify it

\item The freedom to redistribute copies.

\item The freedom to distribute copies of  modified versions to others.

\end{itemize}

The focus on ``a particular user'' is particularly pertinent here.  It is not
uncommon for a subset of a specific program's user base to have these freedoms, while other
users of the same version the program have none or only some of these freedoms.
Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in detail about how
this can unfortunately happen even if a program is released under the GPL\@.

Many people refer to software with these freedoms as ``Open Source.''
Besides having a different political focus from those who call such software
by the name ``Free
Software'',\footnote{The political differences between the Free Software
  Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's Web site at
  \url{http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html}.},
 those who call the software ``Open Source'' are often focused on a side
issue.  Specifically, 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 that applies to that source code.

Software freedom is only complete when no restrictions are imposed on how
these freedoms are 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.  The Open Source Initiative
(\defn{OSI}) (the arbiter of what is considered ``Open Source'') also regards
such licenses as inconsistent with its ``Open Source Definition''.

In general, software for which any of these freedoms are restricted in any
way is called ``nonfree'' software.  Some use the term ``proprietary
software'' more or less interchangeably with ``nonfree software''.  The FSF
published a useful
\href{http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html}{explanation of various
  types of software and how they relate to one another}.

Keep in mind that none of the terms ``software freedom'', ``open source''
and ``free software'' are known to be trademarked or otherwise legally
restricted by any organization in
any jurisdiction.  As such, it's quite common that these terms are abused and
misused by parties who wish to bank on the popularity of software freedom.
When one considers using, modifying or redistributing a software package that
purports to be Open Source or Free Software, one \textbf{must} verify that
the license grants software freedom.

Furthermore, throughout this text, we generally prefer the term ``software
freedom'', as this is the least ambiguous term available to describe software
that meets the Free Software Definition.  For example, it is well known and
often discussed that the adjective ``free'' has two unrelated meanings in
English: ``free as in freedom'' and ``free as in price''.  Meanwhile, the
term ``open source'' is even more confusing, because it appears to refer only to the
``freedom to study'', which is merely a subset of one of the four freedoms.

The remainder of this section considers each of each component of software
freedom in detail.

\subsection{The Freedom to Run}
\label{freedom-to-run}

The first tenet of software freedom is the user's fully unfettered right to
run the program.  The software's license must permit any conceivable use of
the software.  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; but such is quite common today. Most End User License Agreements
(EULAs) that cover most proprietary software typically restrict some types of
uses.  Such restrictions of any kind are an unacceptable restriction on
software freedom.

\subsection{The Freedom to Change and Modify}

Perhaps the most useful right of software freedom is the users' right to
change, modify and adapt the software to suit their needs.  Access to the
source code and related build and installation scripts are an essential part
of this freedom.  Without the source code, and the ability to build and
install the binary applications from that source, users cannot effectively
exercise this freedom.

Programmers directly benefit from this freedom.  However, this freedom
remains important to users who are not programmers.  While it may seem
counterintuitive at first, non-programmer users often 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 user
groups.  To make use of such help they must either have the freedom to
recruit programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their
software, or to at least follow rote instructions to make basic modifications
themselves.

More commonly, users also exercise this freedom commercially.  Each user, or
group of users, may 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
modifications.

\subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}

Users share Free Software in a variety of ways. Software freedom 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). Licenses that
respect software freedom, therefore, permit altruistic sharing of software
among friends.

The commercial environment also benefits from this freedom.  Commercial sharing
includes selling copies of Free Software: that is, Free Software can
be distributed for any monetary
price to anyone.  Those who redistribute Free Software commercially also have
the freedom to selectively distribute (i.e., you can pick your customers) and
to set prices at any level that redistributor sees fit.

Of course, most 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 billions of 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, some distribution vendors provide immediate
security and upgrade distribution via a special network service.  Such
distribution is not necessarily contradictory with software freedom.

(Section~\ref{Business Models} of this tutorial talks in detail about some
common 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 software freedom community is built on the
pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Historically
it was typical for a
Free Software project to sprout a mailing list where improvements
would be shared
freely among members of the development community.\footnote{This is still
commonly the case, though today there are additional ways of
sharing Free Software.}  Such noncommercial
sharing is the primary reason that Free Software thrives.

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
augmenters 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 needs the
right to modify and improve the software for the customer to correct any
problems that are beyond mere user error.

Software freedom licenses also permit any entity to distribute 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 previous section set forth key freedoms and rights that are referred to
as ``software freedom''.  This section discusses the licensing mechanisms
used to enable software freedom.  These licensing mechanisms were ultimately
created as a community-oriented ``answer'' to the existing proprietary
software licensing mechanisms.  Thus, first, consider carefully why
proprietary software exists in the first place.

\label{explaining-copyright}

The primary legal regime that applies to software is copyright law.
Proprietary software exists at all only because copyright law governs
software.\footnote{This statement is admittedly an oversimplification. Patents and
  trade secrets can cover software and make it effectively non-Free, and 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, and therefore this section focuses on how copyright
  restrictions make software proprietary.} Copyright law, with respect to
software, typically governs copying, modifying, and redistributing that
software (For details of this in the USA, see
\href{http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106}{\S~106} and
\href{http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117}{\S~117} of
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17}{Title 17} of the
\textit{United States Code}).\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs
  ``public performance'' of copyrighted works. There is no generally agreed
  definition for public performance of software and both GPLv2 and GPLv3 do
  not restrict public performance.} By law (in the USA and in most other
jurisdictions), the copyright holder (most typically, 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 is not a natural state, it is a legal construction. In the USA, the
Constitution permits, but does not require, the creation of copyright law as
federal legislation.  Software, since it is an ``original work of authorship
fixed in any tangible medium of expression ...  from which they can be
perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the
aid of a machine or device'' (as stated in
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102}{17 USC \S~102}), is thus
covered by the statute, and is copyrighted by default.

However, 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{Note that this is again an oversimplification; the
  complexities with this argument are discussed in
  Section~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.}

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 can often
\defn{disclaim} their copyright. (For example, under USA copyright law
it is possible for a copyright holder to engage in conduct resulting
in abandonment of copyright.)  If copyright is disclaimed, the software is
effectively no longer restricted by copyright law.   Software not restricted by copyright is in the
``public domain.''

\subsection{Public Domain Software}

In the USA and other countries that
are parties to the Berne Convention on Copyright, software is copyrighted
automatically by the author when she fixes the software in a tangible
medium.  In the software world, this usually means typing the source code
of the software into a file.

Imagine if authors could truly disclaim those default controls of copyright
law.  If so, the software is in the public domain --- no longer covered by
copyright.  Since copyright law is the construction allowing for most
restrictions on software (i.e., prohibition of copying, modification, and
redistribution), removing the software from the copyright system usually
yields software freedom for its users.

Carefully note that software truly in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
in any way.  It is confusing to say software is ``licensed for the
public domain,'' or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave
express permission to take actions governed by copyright law.

Copyright holders who state that they are releasing their code into
the public domain are effectively renouncing copyright controls on
the work.  The law gave the copyright holders exclusive controls over the
work, and they chose to waive those controls.  Software that is, in
this sense, in the public domain
is conceptualized by the developer as having no copyright and thus no 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.

Admittedly, a discussion of public domain software is an oversimplified
example.  
Because copyright controls are usually automatically granted and because, in
some jurisdictions, some copyright controls cannot be waived (see
Section~\ref{non-usa-copyright} for further discussion), many copyright
holders sometimes incorrectly believe a work has been placed in the public
domain.  Second, due to aggressive lobbying by the entertainment industry,
the ``exclusive Right'' of copyright, that was supposed to only exist for
``Limited Times'' according to the USA Constitution, appears to be infinite:
simply purchased on the installment plan rather than in whole.  Thus, we must
assume no works of software will fall into the public domain merely due to
the passage of time.

Nevertheless, under USA law it is likely that the typical
disclaimers of copyright or public domain dedications we see in the
Free Software world would be interpreted by courts as copyright
abandonment, leading to a situation in which the user effectively receives a
maximum grant of copyright freedoms, similar to a maximally-permissive
Free Software license.

The best example of software known to truly be in the public domain is software
that is published by the USA government.  Under
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/105}{17 USC 101 \S~105}, all
works published by the USA Government are not copyrightable in the USA.

\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.

\label{copyleft-definition}

Copyleft is a strategy of utilizing copyright law to pursue the policy goal
of fostering and encouraging the equal and inalienable right to copy, share,
modify and improve creative works of authorship.  Copyleft (as a general
term) describes any method that utilizes the copyright system to achieve the
aforementioned goal.  Copyleft as a concept is usually implemented in the
details of a specific copyright license, such as the
\hyperref[GPLv3-full-text]{GNU General Public License (GPL)} and the Creative
Commons Attribution Share Alike License (the latter of which is the license
of this work itself).  Copyright holders of creative work can unilaterally
implement these licenses for their own works to build communities that
collaboratively share and improve those copylefted creative works.

Copyleft uses functional parts of the copyright system to achieve an unusual
result (legal protection for free sharing). Copyleft modifies, or ``hacks''
copyright law, which is usually employed to strengthen the rights of authors
or publishers, to strengthen instead the rights of users.  Thus, Copyleft is
a legal strategy and mechanism 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's ``reciprocity'' or ``share and share alike'' rule protects both
developers, who avoid facing a ``prioritized'' competitor of their project,
and users, who can be sure that they will have all four software freedoms ---
not only in the present version of the program they use, but in all its
future improved versions.

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, written as a ``copyright
license''.  The GPL implements the concept of copyleft for software-oriented
and other functional works of a technical nature.  The ``CC BY SA'' license
implements copyleft for works of textual, musical and visual authorship, such
as this tutorial.

Copyleft advocates often distinguish between the concept of a ``strong
copyleft'' or a ``weak copyleft''.  However, ``strong vs. weak'' copyleft is
not a dichotomy, it's a spectrum.  The strongest copylefts strive to the
exclusive rights that copyright  grants to authors as extensively as possible
to maximize software freedom.  As a copyleft gets ``weaker'', the copyleft
license typically makes ``trade offs'' that might impede software freedom,
but reach other tactic goals for the community of users and developers of the
work.

In other words, strong copyleft licenses place the more requirements on how
``the work'' is licensed.  The unit of copyright law is ``the work''.  In
that sense, the ``work'' referenced by the licenses is anything that can be
copyrighted or will be subject to the terms of copyright law.  Strong
copyleft licenses exercise their scope fully.  Anything which is ``a work''
or a ``work based on a work'' licensed under a strong copyleft is subject to
its requirements, including the requirement of complete, corresponding source
code\footnote{Copyleft communities' use of the term ``strong copyleft'' is
  undoubtedly imprecise.  For example, most will call the GNU GPL a ``strong
  copyleft'' license, even though the GPL itself has various exceptions, such
  as the \hyperref[GPLv3-system-library-exception]{GPLv3's system library
    exception} written into the text of the license itself.  Furthermore, the
  copyleft community continues to debate where the a license cross the line
  from ``strong copyleft'' to ``license that fails to respect software
  freedom'', although ultimately these debates are actually regarding whether
  the license fits \hyperref[Free Software Definition]{Free Software
    definition} at all.}.  Thus, copyleft licenses, particularly strong ones,
seek to ensure the same license covers every version of ``work based on the
work'', as recognized by local copyright law, and thereby achieve the
specific strategic policy aim of ensuring software freedom for all users,
developers, authors, and readers who encounter the copylefted work.

\subsection{Software and Non-Copyright Legal Regimes}
\label{software-and-non-copyright}

The use, modification and distribution of software, like many endeavors,
simultaneously interacts with multiple different legal regimes.  As was noted
early via footnotes, copyright is merely the \textit{most common way} to
restrict users' rights to copy, share, modify and/or redistribute software.
However, proprietary software licenses typically use every mechanism
available to subjugate users.  For example:

\begin{itemize}

\item Unfortunately, despite much effort by many in the software freedom
  community to end patents that read on software (i.e., patents on
  computational ideas), they still exist.  As such, a software
  program might otherwise seem to be unrestricted, but a patent might read on
  the software and ruin everything for its users.\footnote{See
  \S\S~\ref{gpl-implied-patent-grant},~\ref{GPLv2s7},~\ref{GPLv3s11} for more
  discussion on how the patent system interacts with copyleft, and read
  Richard M.~Stallman's essay,
  \href{http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/richard-stallman-software-patents/}{\textit{Let's
      Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can't Eliminate Them}}
  for more information on the problems these patents present to society.}

\item Digital Restrictions Management (usually called \defn{DRM}) is often
  used to impose technological restrictions on users' ability to exercise
  software freedom that they might otherwise be granted.\footnote{See
    \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} for more information on how GPL deals with this issue.}
  The simplest (and perhaps oldest) form of DRM, of course, is separating
  software source code (read by humans), from their compiled binaries (read
  only by computers).  Furthermore,
  \href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201}{17 USC~\S1201} often
  prohibits users legally from circumventing some of these DRM systems.

\item Most EULAs also include a contractual agreement that bind users further
  by forcing them to agree to a contractual, prohibitive software license
  before ever even using the software.

\end{itemize}

Thus, most proprietary software restricts users via multiple interlocking
legal and technological means.  Any license that truly respect the software
freedom of all users must not only grant appropriate copyright permissions,
but also \textit{prevent} restrictions from other legal and technological
means like those listed above.

\subsection{Non-USA Copyright Regimes}
\label{non-usa-copyright}

Generally speaking, copyright law operates similarly enough in countries that
have signed the Berne Convention on Copyright, and software freedom licenses
have generally taken advantage of this international standardization of
copyright law.  However, copyright law does differ from country to country,
and commonly, software freedom licenses like the GPL must be considered under the
copyright law in the jurisdiction where any licensing dispute occurs.

Those who are most familiar with the USA's system of copyright often are
surprised to learn that there are certain copyright controls that cannot be
waived nor disclaimed.  Specifically, many copyright regimes outside the USA
recognize a concept of moral rights of authors.  Typically, moral rights are
fully compatible with respecting software freedom, as they are usually
centered around controls that software freedom licenses generally respect,
such as the right of an authors to require proper attribution for their work.

\section{A Community of Equality}

The previous section described the principles of software freedom, a brief
introduction to mechanisms that typically block these freedoms, and the
simplest ways that copyright holders might grant those freedoms to their
users for their copyrighted works of software.  The previous section also
introduced the idea of \textit{copyleft}: a licensing mechanism to use
copyright to not only grant software freedom to users, but also to uphold
those rights against those who might seek to curtail them.

Copyleft, as defined in \S~\ref{copyleft-definition}, is a general term for this
mechanism.  The remainder of this text will discuss details of various
real-world implementations of copyleft -- most notably, the GPL\@.

This discussion begins first with some general explanation of what the GPL is
able to do in software development communities.  After that brief discussion
in this section, deeper discussion of how GPL accomplishes this in practice
follows in the next chapter.

Simply put, though, the GPL ultimately creates a community of equality for
both business and noncommercial users.

\subsection{The Noncommercial Community}

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 the 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 Community}

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.\footnote{See
  \href{http://turtle.ee.ncku.edu.tw/docs/samba/history}{Andrew Tridgell's
    ``A bit of history and a bit of fun''}}  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 the 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
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/}{the ``Attribution
License'' version 1.0} or any later version as published by Creative
Commons.}
\end{quotation}

In essence, lawyers are paid to service the shared commons of legal
infrastructure.  Few citizens defend themselves in court or write their
own briefs (even though they are legally permitted to do so) because
everyone would prefer to have an expert do that job.

The Free Software economy is a market 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{A Tale of Two Copyleft Licenses}
\label{tale-of-two-copylefts}

While determining the proper methodology and criteria to yield an accurate
count remains difficult, the GPL is generally considered one of the most
widely used Free Software licenses.  For most of its history --- for 16 years
from June 1991 to June 2007 --- there was really only one version of the GPL,
version 2.

However, the GPL had both earlier versions before version 2, and, more well
known, a revision to version 3. 

\section{Historical Motivations for the General Public License}

The earliest license to grant software freedom was likely the Berkeley
Software Distribution (``BSD'') license.  This license is typical of what are
often called lax, highly permissive licenses.  Not unlike software in the
public domain, these non-copyleft licenses (usually) grant software freedom
to users, but they do not go to any effort to uphold that software freedom
for users.  The so-called ``downstream'' (those who receive the software and
then build new things based on that software) can restrict the software and
distribute further.

The GNU's Not Unix (``GNU'') project, which Richard M.~Stallman (``RMS'')
founded in 1984 to make a complete Unix-compatible operating system
implementation that assured software freedom for all.  However, RMS saw that
using a license that gave but did not assure software freedom would be
counter to the goals of the GNU Project.  RMS invented ``copyleft'' as an
answer to that problem, and began using various copyleft licenses for the
early GNU Project programs.\footnote{RMS writes more fully about this topic in
  his essay entitled simply
  \href{http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html}{\textit{The GNU Project}}.
    For those who want to hear the story in his own voice,
    \href{http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/}{speech recordings} of his talk,
    \textit{The Free Software Movement and the GNU/Linux Operating System}
    are also widely available}

\section{Proto-GPLs And Their Impact}

%FIXME-LATER: bad line break:
%\href{http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/emacs_gpl.html}{The Emacs
%  General Public License}
The earliest copyleft licenses were specific to various GNU programs.  For
example,  The Emacs
General Public License was likely the first copyleft license ever
published.  Interesting to note that even this earliest copyleft license
contains a version of the well-known GPL copyleft clause:

\begin{quotation}
You may modify your copy or copies of GNU Emacs \ldots provided that you also
\ldots cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU Emacs or any part
thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third parties on terms identical
to those contained in this License Agreement.
\end{quotation}

This simply stated clause is the fundamental innovation of copyleft.
Specifically, copyleft \textit{uses} the copyright holders' controls on
permission to modify the work to add a conditional requirement.  Namely,
downstream users may only have permission to modify  the work if they pass
along the same permissions on the modified version that came originally to
them.

These original program-specific proto-GPLs give an interesting window into
the central ideas and development of copyleft.  In particular, reviewing them
shows how the text of the GPL we know has evolved to address more of the
issues discussed earlier in \S~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.

\section{The GNU General Public License, Version 1}
\label{GPLv1}

In January 1989, the FSF announced that the GPL had been converted into a
``subroutine'' that could be reused not just for all FSF-copyrighted
programs, but also by anyone else.  As the FSF claimed in its announcement of
the GPLv1:\footnote{The announcement of GPLv1 was published in the
  \href{http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull6.html\#SEC8}{GNU's Bulletin, vol 1,
    number 6 dated January 1989}.  (Thanks very much to Andy Tai for his
  \href{http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/}{consolidation of research on
    the history of the pre-v1 GPL's}.)}
\begin{quotation}
To make it easier to copyleft programs, we have been improving on the
legalbol architecture of the General Public License to produce a new version
that serves as a general-purpose subroutine: it can apply to any program
without modification, no matter who is publishing it.
\end{quotation}

This, like many inventive ideas, seems somewhat obvious in retrospect.  But,
the FSF had some bright people and access to good lawyers when it started.
It took almost five years from the first copyleft licenses to get to a
generalized, reusable GPLv1.  In the context and mindset of the 1980s, this
is not surprising.  The idea of reusable licensing infrastructure was not
only uncommon, it was virtually nonexistent!  Even the early BSD licenses
were simply copied and rewritten slightly for each new use.\footnote{It
  remains an interesting accident of history that the early BSD problematic
  ``advertising clause'' (discussion of which is somewhat beyond the scope of
  this tutorial) lives on into current day, simply because while the
  University of California at Berkeley gave unilateral permission to remove
  the clause from \textit{its} copyrighted works, others who adapted the BSD
  license with their own names in place of UC-Berkeley's never have.}  The
GPLv1's innovation of reusable licensing infrastructure, an obvious fact
today, was indeed a novel invention for its day.\footnote{We're all just
  grateful that the FSF also opposes business method patents, since the FSF's
  patent on a ``method for reusable licensing infrastructure'' would have
  not expired until 2006!}

\section{The GNU General Public License, Version 2}

The GPLv2 was released two and a half years after GPLv1, and over the
following sixteen years, it became the standard for copyleft licensing until
the release of GPLv3 in 2007 (discussed in more detail in the next section).

While this tutorial does not discuss the terms of GPLv1 in detail, it is
worth noting below the three key changes that GPLv2 brought:

\begin{itemize}

\item Software patents and their danger are explicitly mentioned, inspiring
  (in part) the addition of GPLv2~\S\S5--7.  (These sections are discussed in
  detail in \S~\ref{GPLv2s5}, \S~\ref{GPLv2s6} and \S~\ref{GPLv2s7} of this
  tutorial.)

\item GPLv2~\S2's copyleft terms are expanded to more explicitly discuss the
  issue of combined works.  (GPLv2~\S2 is discussed in detail in
  \S~\ref{GPLv2s2} in this tutorial).

\item GPLv2~\S3 includes more detailed requirements, including the phrase
 ``the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the
  executable'', which is a central component of current GPLv2 enforcement.
  (GPLv2~\S3 is discussed in detail in
  \S~\ref{GPLv2s3} in this tutorial).
\end{itemize}

The next chapter discusses GPLv2 in full detail, and readers who wish to dive
into the section-by-section discussion of the GPL should jump ahead now to
that chapter.  However, the most interesting fact to note here is how GPLv2
was published with little fanfare and limited commentary.  This contrasts
greatly with the creation of GPLv3.

\section{The GNU General Public License, Version 3}

RMS began drafting GPLv2.2 in mid-2002, and FSF ran a few discussion groups
during that era about new text of that license.  However, rampant violations
of the GPL required more immediate attention of FSF's licensing staff, and as
such, much of the early 2000's was spent doing GPL enforcement
work.\footnote{More on GPL enforcement is discussed in \tutorialpartsplit{a
    companion tutorial, \textit{A Practical Guide to GPL
      Compliance}}{Part~\ref{gpl-compliance-guide} of this tutorial}.}  In
2006, FSF began in earnest drafting work for GPLv3.

The GPLv3 process began in earnest in January 2006.  It became clear that
many provisions of the GPL could benefit from modification to fit new
circumstances and to reflect what the entire community learned from
experience with version 2.  Given the scale of revision it seems proper to
approach the work through public discussion in a transparent and accessible
manner.

The GPLv3 process continued through June 2007, culminating in publication of
GPLv3 and LGPLv3 on 29 June 2007, AGPLv3 on 19 November 2007, and the GCC
Runtime Library Exception on 27 January 2009.

All told, four discussion drafts of GPLv3, two discussion drafts of LGPLv3
and two discussion drafts of AGPLv3 were published and discussed.
Ultimately, FSF remained the final arbiter and publisher of the licenses, and
RMS himself their primary author, but input was sought from many parties, and
these licenses do admittedly look and read more like legislation as a result.
Nevertheless, all of the ``v3'' group are substantially better and improved
licenses.

GPLv3 and its terms are discussed in detail in Chapter~\ref{GPLv3}.

\section{The Innovation of Optional ``Or Any Later'' Version}

An interesting fact of all GPL licenses is that there are ultimately multiple
choices for use of the license.  The FSF is the primary steward of GPL (as
discussed later in \S~\ref{GPLv2s9} and \S~\ref{GPLv3s14}).  However, those
who wish to license works under GPL are not required to automatically accept
changes made by the FSF for their own copyrighted works.

Each licensor may chose three different methods of licensing, as follows:

\begin{itemize}

\item explicitly name a single version of GPL for their work (usually
  indicated in shorthand by saying the license is ``GPLv$X$-only''), or

\item name no version of the GPL, thus they allow their downstream recipients
  to select any version of the GPL they choose (usually indicated in shorthand
  by saying the license is simply ``GPL''), or

\item name a specific version of GPL and give downstream recipients the
  option to choose that version ``or any later version as published by the
  FSF'' (usually indicated by saying the license is
  ``GPLv$X$-or-later'')\footnote{The shorthand of ``GPL$X+$'' is also popular
    for this situation.  The authors of this tutorial prefer ``-or-later''
    syntax, because it (a) mirrors the words ``or'' and ``later from the
    licensing statement, (b) the $X+$ doesn't make it abundantly clear that
    $X$ is clearly included as a license option and (c) the $+$ symbol has
    other uses in computing (such as with regular expressions) that mean
    something different.}
\end{itemize}

\label{license-compatibility-first-mentioned}

Oddly, this flexibility has received (in the opinion of the authors, undue)
criticism, primarily because of the complex and oft-debated notion of
``license compatibility'' (which is explained in detail in
\S~\ref{license-compatibility}).  Copyleft licenses are generally
incompatible with each other, because the details of how they implement
copyleft differs.  Specifically, copyleft works only because of its
requirement that downstream licensors use the \textit{same} license for
combined and modified works.  As such, software licensed under the terms of
``GPLv2-only'' cannot be combined with works licensed ``GPLv3-or-later''.
This is admittedly a frustrating outcome.

Other copyleft licenses that appeared after GPL, such as the Creative Commons
``Attribution-Share Alike'' licenses, the Eclipse Public License and the
Mozilla Public License \textbf{require} all copyright holders choosing
to use any version of those licenses to automatically allow use of their
copyrighted works under new versions.\footnote{CC-BY-SA-2.0 and greater only
permit licensing of adaptations under future versions; 1.0 did not have
any accomodation for future version compatibility.}  Of course, Creative
Commons, the Eclipse Foundation, and the Mozilla Foundation (like the FSF)
have generally served as excellent stewards of their licenses.  Copyright
holders using those licenses seems to find it acceptable to fully delegate
all future licensing decisions for their copyrights to these organizations
without a second thought.

However, note that FSF gives herein the control of copyright holders to
decide whether or not to implicitly trust the FSF in its work of drafting
future GPL versions.  The FSF, for its part, does encourage copyright holders
to chose by default ``GPLv$X$-or-later'' (where $X$ is the most recent
version of the GPL published by the FSF).  However, the FSF \textbf{does not
  mandate} that a choice to use any GPL requires a copyright holder ceding
its authority for future licensing decisions to the FSF.  In fact, the FSF
considered this possibility for GPLv3 and chose not to do so, instead opting
for the third-party steward designation clause discussed in
Section~\ref{GPLv3s14}.

\section{Complexities of Two Simultaneously Popular Copylefts}

Obviously most GPL advocates would prefer widespread migration to GPLv3, and
many newly formed projects who seek a copyleft license tend to choose a
GPLv3-based license.  However, many existing copylefted projects continue
with GPLv2-only or GPLv2-or-later as their default license.

While GPLv3 introduces many improvements --- many of which were designed to
increase adoption by for-profit companies --- GPLv2 remains a widely used and
extremely popular license.  The GPLv2 is, no doubt, a good and useful
license.

However, unlike GPLv1 before it,
GPLv2 remains an integral part of the copyleft licensing infrastructure.  As such, those who seek to have expertise in current
topics of copyleft licensing need to study both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 family of
licenses.

Furthermore, GPLv3 is more easily understood by first studying GPLv2.
This is not only because of their chronological order, but also because much
of the discussion material available for GPLv3 tends to talk about GPLv3 in
contrast to GPLv2.  As such, a strong understanding of GPLv2 helps in
understanding most of the third-party material found regarding GPLv3.  Thus,
the following chapter begins a deep discussion of GPLv2.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Running Software and Verbatim Copying}
\label{run-and-verbatim}


This chapter begins the deep discussion of the details of the terms of
GPLv2\@. In this chapter, we consider the first two sections: GPLv2 \S\S
0--2. These are the straightforward sections of the GPL that define the
simplest rights that the user receives.

\section{GPLv2~\S0: Freedom to Run}
\label{GPLv2s0}

GPLv2~\S0, the opening section of GPLv2, sets forth that copyright law governs
the work.  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, GPLv2~\S0 makes an inference that copyright law is the only
system that can restrict the software.  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 GPLv2
(which they cannot; see Sections~\ref{GPLv2s6} and~\ref{GPLv2s7}).  This is
very important, because the Free Software community heavily supports
users' rights to ``fair use'' and ``unregulated use'' of copyrighted
material.  GPLv2 asserts through this clause that it supports users' rights
to fair and unregulated uses.

Fair use (called ``fair dealing'' in some jurisdictions) of copyrighted
material is an established legal doctrine that permits certain activities
regardless of whether copyright law would otherwise restrict those 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 portions of the text in a larger work so as to criticize or suggest
changes.  This fair use right is commonly used on mailing lists when
discussing potential improvements or changes to Free Software.

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.  The right to read something that you have
access to is and should remain unregulated and unrestricted.

\medskip

Thus, the GPLv2 protects users' fair and unregulated use rights precisely by
not attempting to cover them.  Furthermore, the GPLv2 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 GPLv2~\S0.

\medskip

The bulk of GPLv2~\S0 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'' or ``combined work''.  In fact, it would be incorrect and
problematic if the GPL attempted to define these terms.  A copyright license, in
fact, has no control over the rules of copyright themselves.  Such rules are
the domain of copyright law and the courts --- not the licenses that utilize
those systems.

Copyright law as a whole does not propose clear and straightforward guidelines
for identifying the derivative and/or combined works of software.  However,
no copyright license --- not even the GNU GPL --- can be blamed for this.
Legislators and court opinions must give us guidance in borderline cases.
Meanwhile, lawyers will likely based their conclusions on the application of rules
made in the context of literary or artistic copyright to the different
context of computer programming and by analyzing the (somewhat limited) case
law and guidance available from various sources.
(Chapter~\ref{derivative-works} discusses this issue in depth.)


\section{GPLv2~\S1: Verbatim Copying}
\label{GPLv2s1}

GPLv2~\S1 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 GPLv2~\S1.  These are in some ways the most important part of
the redistribution, which is why they are mentioned by name.  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 users might be
surprised the software is GPL'd. Thus
throughout the GPL, there are specific references to the importance of
notifying others down the distribution chain that they have rights under
GPL.

GPL disclaims all warranties that legally can be disclaimed (which is
discussed later in sections~\ref{GPLv2s11} and~\ref{GPLv2s12}).  Users
generally rarely expect their software comes with any warranties, since
typically all EULAs and other Free Software licenses disclaim warranties too.
However, since many local laws require ``consipicous'' warranty disclaimers,
GPLv2~\S1 explicitly mentions the importance of keeping warranty disclaimers
in tact upon redistribution.

Note finally that GPLv2~\S1 creates groundwork for the important defense of
commercial freedom.  GPLv2~\S1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim
copies, one may make money.  Re-distributors are fully permitted to charge
for the re-distribution 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}
\label{derivative-works}

As described in the \hyperref[copyleft-definition]{earlier general discussion
  of copyleft}, strong copyleft licenses such as the GPL seek to uphold
software freedom via the copyright system.  This principle often causes
theoretical or speculative dispute among lawyers, because ``the work'' ---
the primary unit of consideration under most copyright rules -- is not a unit
of computer programming. In order to determine whether a ``routine'' an
``object'', a ``function'', a ``library'' or any other unit of software is
part of one ``work'' when combined with other GPL'd code, we must ask a
question that copyright law will not directly answer in the same technical
terms.

Therefore, this chapter digresses from  discussion of GPL's exact text to
consider the matter of combined and/or derivative works --- a concept that we must
understand fully before considering GPLv2~\S\S2--3\@.  At least under USA
copyright law, The 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 GPLv2~\S0 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); 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,
constants, 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 has taken the position that the AFC test is inapplicable 
when the works in question relate to unprotectable elements set forth in 
\S~102(b).  Their approach results in a much narrower definition
of derivative work for software in comparison to other circuits. Specifically, 
the
First Circuit holds that ``method of operation,'' as used in \S~102(b) of
the Copyright Act, refers to the means by which users operate
computers. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int'l., Inc., 49 F.3d 807
(1st Cir. 1995).  In Lotus, the court held that a menu command
hierarchy for a computer program was uncopyrightable because it did not
merely explain and present the program's functional capabilities to the
user, but also served as a method by which the program was operated and
controlled. As a result, under the First Circuit's test, literal copying
of a menu command hierarchy, or any other ``method of operation,'' cannot
form the basis for a determination that one work is a derivative of
another.  As a result, courts in the First Circuit that apply the AFC test
do so only after applying a broad interpretation of \S~102(b) to filter out
unprotected elements. E.g., Real View, LLC v. 20-20 Technologies, Inc., 
683 F. Supp.2d 147, 154 (D. Mass. 2010).


\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 among 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
having 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.

In the case of Oracle America v. Google, 872 F. Supp.2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2012),
the Northern District of California District Court examined the question of 
whether the application program interfaces (APIs) associated with the Java
programming language are entitled to copyright protection.  While the 
court expressly declined to rule whether all APIs are free to use without 
license (872 F. Supp.2d 974 at 1002), the court held that the command 
structure and taxonomy of the APIs were not protectable under copyright law.
Specifically, the court characterized the command structure and taxonomy as
both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the 
First Circuit's analysis in Lotus) and a ``functional requirement for 
compatibility'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and
Sony Computer Ent. v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) as analogies),
and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S~102(b). 

Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few other cases involving a highly
detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve
clearer basis for decision, including frequent bad faith on the part of
the defendant or over-aggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.  

\section{How Much Do Derivative Works Matter?}

It is certainly true that GPL intends for any work that is determined a
``derivative work'' under copyright law must be licensed as a whole under
GPL\@, as will be discussed in the following chapter.  However, as we finish
up our discussion derivative works, we must note that preparation of a
derivative work is by far not the only way to create a new work covered by
GPL\@.

In fact, while derivative work preparation is perhaps the most exciting area
of legal issues to consider, the more mundane ways to create a new work
covered by GPL are much more common.  For example, copyright statutes
generally require permission from the copyright holder to grant explicit
permission to modify a work in any manner.  As discussed in the next chapter,
the GPL {\em does} grant such permission, but requires the modified work must
also be licensed under the terms of the GPL (and only GPL:
see\S~\ref{GPLv2s6} in this tutorial).  Determining whether software was
modified is a substantially easier analysis than the derivative work
discussions and considerations in this chapter.

The question of derivative works, when and how they are made, is undoubtedly
an essential discussion in the interpretation and consideration of copyleft.
That is why this chapter was included in this tutorial.  However, as we
return from this digression and resume discussion of the detailed text of the
GPLv2, we must gain a sense of perspective: most GPL questions center around
questions of modification and distribution, not preparation of derivative
works.  Derivative work preparation is ultimately a small subset of the types
of modified versions of the software a developer might create, thus, while an
excessive focus on derivative works indulges us in the more exciting areas of
copyleft, we must keep a sense of perspective regarding their relative
importance.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\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, GPLv2~\S\S2--3, define the central core rights and
requirements of GPLv2\@.

\section{GPLv2~\S2: Share and Share Alike}
\label{GPLv2s2}

For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software
freedom upon redistribution.  GPLv2~\S2 is the only place in GPLv2
that governs the modification controls of copyright law.  If users
distribute modified versions a GPLv2'd program, they must follow the terms of GPLv2~\S2 in making
those changes.  Thus, this sections ensures that the body of GPL'd software, as it
continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.

To achieve that goal, GPLv2~\S2 first sets forth that the rights of
redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim
copying, as presented in GPLv2~\S1.  Therefore, the details of charging money,
keeping copyright notices intact, and other GPLv2~\S1 provisions are intact
here as well.  However, there are three additional requirements.

\subsection{The Simpler Parts of GPLv2~\S2}

% FIXME: GPLv2~\S2(a) isn't discussed heavily here and more should be
% discussed about it.  There have been developer questions.  One idea I had
% was to write up:
%        http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/03/11/linux-red-hat-gpl.html
% as a compliance case study specific to GPLv2 Section 2(a)
%
% Another point to discuss here -- or maybe it goes better in the compliance
% case study ? -- is to explain that git logs ARE adequate but possibly
% overkill.

The first (GPLv2~\S2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent
notices'' explaining what changes were made and the date of such
changes. This section does not prescribe some specific way of
marking changes nor does it control the process of how changes are made.
Primarily, GPLv2~\S2(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, GPLv2~\S2(a) serves an academic
purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic
approach to understand the software.

GPLv2~\S2(c), a relatively simple section, requires that any program which
(before modification) ``normally reads commands interactively when run'' and
displays or prints legal information also display all copyright notices,
warranty disclaimer, modification indications and a pointer to the license,
even in modified versions.  The requirement is relatively simple, and relates
to an important policy goal of copyleft: downstream users should be informed
of their rights.  Its implications and details are straightforward and
simple.

\subsection{GPLv2~\S2(b)}

Meanwhile, GPLv2~\S2(b) requires careful and extensive study.  Its four short lines embody
the some of the essential legal details of ``share and share alike''.  These 46 words are
considered by some to be the most worthy of careful scrutiny because they
can be a source of great confusion when not properly understood.

In considering GPLv2~\S2(b), first note the qualifier: it \textit{only} applies to
derivative, combined and/or modified works that ``you distribute or publish''.  Despite years of
education efforts on this matter, many still believe that modifiers
of GPL'd software \textit{must} publish or otherwise
share their changes.  On the contrary, GPLv2~\S2(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{Most Free Software enthusiasts believe there is a {\bf
    moral} obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful,
  and they often encourage 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 GPLv2~\S0, 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 copyright law.
If, under copyright law, the modified version ``contains or is
derived from'' the GPL'd software, then the requirements of GPLv2~\S2(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 GPLv2~\S2(b) describes what the licensee must do if she
distributes or publishes a modified version of the work --- 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 GPLv2~\S2 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 combined and/or 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, GPLv2~\S2 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 proprietary
product --- would its copyright holders  give you permission to create and distribute
\gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?)  The license of \workg{}, the
GPL, states the  options for the copyright holder of \worki{}
who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}. The  GPL's pre-granted
permission to create and distribute combined and/or derivative works, provided the terms
of the 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 condition is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.

The GPL  recognizes what is outside its scope.  When a programmer's work is
``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could be
combined, then the obligations of copyleft do not extend to the work
separately distributed.  Thus, Far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond the
scope of copyright, the licenses explicitly recognize.

Thus, GPL recognizes what is outside its scope.  When a programmer's work is
``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could
be combined, then copyleft obligations do not extend to the independent work
separately distributed.  Thus, far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond
the scope of copyright, GPL explicitly limits the scope of copyleft to the
scope of copyright.

GPL does not, however (as is sometimes suggested) distinguish ``dynamic''
from ``static'' linking of program code.  It is occasionally suggested that a
subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL'd code is, by virtue of the linking
alone, inherently outside the scope of copyleft on the main work.  This is a
misunderstanding.  When two software components are joined together to make
one work (whether a main and some library subroutines, two objects with their
respective methods, or a program and a ``plugin'') the combination infringes
the copyright on the components if the combination required copyright
permission from the component copyright holders, as such permission was
either not available or was available on terms that were not observed.

In other words, when combining other software with GPL'd components, the only
available permission is GPL\@.  The combiner must observe and respect the GPL
observed on the combination as a whole.  It matters not if that combination
is made with a linker before distribution of the executable, is made by the
operating system in order to share libraries for execution efficiency at
runtime, or results from runtime references in the language at runtime (as in
Java programs).

% FIXME-SOON:

%   A commonly asked question is whether or not separated distribution (i.e.,
%   dynamic loading of a module that is expected to be present on the
%   downstream sytem) triggers the copyleft requirement.  The text above
%   hints at that issue, with reference to Java runtime.  However, here would
%   likely be the natural place to discuss that issue in more depth.  I have
%   never actually studied this specific question in a GPLv2 vs. GPLv3
%   analysis, and as such I'd want to do that first.  Furthermore, the FSF
%   has not publicly opined on this question to my knowledge, so I'd want to
%   see possible update to
%   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic to mention
%   this issue before opining about it in the Guide.

%   I'm not aware, BTW, of any dissenting opinions or disagreements among
%   copyleft advocates on this point.  I think it's just a question that is
%   rarely opined on but often asked, so it's fitting for this Guide to cover
%   it, and for addition on this point in the FAQ.

\medskip

\label{GPLv2s2-at-no-charge}
The next phrase of note in GPLv2~\S2(b) is ``licensed \ldots at no charge.''
This phrase  confuses many.  The sloppy reader points out this as ``a
contradiction in GPL'' because (in their confused view) that clause of GPLv2~\S2 says that re-distributors cannot
charge for modified versions of GPL'd software, but GPLv2~\S1 says that
they can.  Avoid this confusion: the ``at no charge'' \textbf{does not} prohibit re-distributors 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.

GPLv2~\S2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed \ldots to all
third parties.''  This too yields some confusion, and feeds the
misconception mentioned earlier --- that all modified versions must be 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 GPLv2~\S2(b) does require re-distributors to license the whole work in
a way that extends to all third parties who may ultimately receive a
copy of the software.

In summary, GPLv2\ 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 GPLv2.  When an entity \emph{chooses} to redistribute
a work based on GPL'd software, the license of that whole 
work must be GPL and only GPL\@.  In this manner, GPLv2~\S2(b) dovetails nicely
with GPLv2~\S6 (as discussed in Section~\ref{GPLv2s6} of this tutorial).

\medskip

The final paragraph of GPLv2~\S2 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.  A programmer must
expend actual effort  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.

%FIXME: need discussion of GPLv2's system library exception somewhere in here.
\subsection{Right to Private Modification} 
\label{gplv2-private-modification}

The issue of private modifications of GPLv2'd works deserves special
attention.  While these rights are clearly explicit in GPLv3~\S2\P2 (see
\S~\ref{GPLv3S2} of this tutorial for details), the permission to create
private modifications is mostly implicit in GPLv2.  Most notably, the
requirements of GPLv2~\S2 (and GPLv2~\S3, which will be discussed next) are
centered around two different copyright controls: both modification
\emph{and} distribution.  As such, GPLv2~\S2's requirements need only be met
when a modified version is distributed; one need not follow them for modified
versions that are not distributed.\footnote{As a matter of best practice, it's
  useful to assume that all software may eventually be distributed later,
  even if there no plans for distribution at this time.  Too often, GPL
  violations occur because of a late distribution decision of software that
  was otherwise never intended for distribution.}

However, the careful reader of GPLv2 will notice that, unlike GPLv3, no other
clauses of the license actually give explicit permission to make private
modifications.  Since modification of software is a control governed by
copyright, a modifier needs permission from the copyright holder to engage in
that activity.

In practice, however, traditional GPLv2 interpretation has always assumed
that blanket permission to create non-distributed modified versions was
available, and the
\href{http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic}{FSF
  has long opined that distribution of modified versions is never mandatory}.
This issue is one of many where GPLv3 clarifies in explicit text the implicit
policy and intent that was solidified via long-standing interpretation of
GPLv2.

\section{GPLv2~\S3: Producing Binaries}
\label{GPLv2s3}

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 be 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
modified versions (and/or derivative works) of the source code.  Applying a systematic process (i.e.,
``compilation''\footnote{``Compilation'' in this context refers to the
  automated computing process of converting source code into binaries.  It
  has absolutely nothing to do with the term ``compilation'' in copyright statues.}) 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 modified 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 modified works of the software's
source code.  GPLv2~\S3 addresses the matter of creation and distribution of
binary versions.

Under GPLv2~\S3, binary versions may be created and distributed under the
terms of GPLv2~\S1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies
here.  However, GPLv2~\S3 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.  GPLv2~\S3 must ensure that the binaries are never
distributed without the source code, so that these freedoms are passed
through the distribution chain.

GPLv2~\S3 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 GPLv2~\S3(a).

\label{GPLv2s3a}
GPLv2~\S3(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).

\subsection{Complete, Corresponding Source (CCS)}

Under GPLv2~\S3(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''.   GPLv2~\S3's penultimate paragraph
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.

Based on the appearance of those two words, GPL theorists will often refer to
the source code required under the previsions of this section as ``Complete,
Corresponding Source'', sometimes abbreviated as CCS\@.  CCS is not a formal,
defined term in GPLv2, but rather, GPL theorists coined the acronym CCS to
embody not just the concepts of ``complete'' and ``corresponding'' as found
in GPLv2, but the entirety of GPLv2's requirements for source code
provisioning.  In other words, GPL theorists might say: ``the company
provided some source, but it wasn't CCS'', which would mean the source code
failed in some ways to meet some term of GPLv2.

\label{GPLv2s3-build-scripts}

Indeed, CCS needs completely include not just that source which is directly
translated by the compiler into object code, but other materials necessary to
convert the source into equivalent binaries.  Specifically, GPLv2~\S3
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 modified works from the sources provided.

This requirement is not merely of theoretical value.  If you pay a high price
for a copy of GPL'd binaries (which comes with CCS, 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.  Such distributions violate GPL, since the downstream users cannot
effectively ``control compilation and installation'' of the binaries.

\subsection{Additional Source Provision Options}

Software distribution comes in many
forms.  Embedded manufacturers, for example, have the freedom to put
GPL'd software into mobile devices 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 unfeasible.

\label{GPLv2s3-medium-customarily}
GPLv2~\S3, therefore, allows source code to be provided on any physical
``medium customarily used for software interchange.''  By design, this
phrase covers a broad spectrum --- the phrase seeks to pre-adapt to
changes in  technology.  When GPLv2 was first published in June
1991, distribution on magnetic tape was still common, and CD was
relatively new.  By 2002, CD was the default.  By 2007, DVD's were the
default.  Now, it's common to give software on USB drives and SD cards.  This
language in the license 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 in industrialized countries, it is indeed customary to
simply download a CDs' worth of data quickly.  However, even today in the USA, many computer users are not connected to the Internet, and most people connected
to the Internet still have limited download speeds.  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 are 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 GPLv2~\S3. \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 GPLv2~\S3.

\medskip

As is shown above, under GPLv2~\S3(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, GPLv2\S~3(b) is available.

\label{GPLv2s3b}
GPLv2~\S3(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 GPLv2~\S3(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, GPLv2~\S3(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 GPLv2~\S3(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 GPLv2~\S\S1--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.

GPLv2~\S3(c) is created to save her some trouble, because by itself GPLv2~\S3(b)
would unfairly favor large companies.  GPLv2~\S3(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 re-distributors, 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, GPLv2~\S3(b)'s compromise primarily benefits companies that
distribute binary software commercially.  Without GPLv2~\S3(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 GPLv2~\S3(b)-compliant
offer, would be required under GPLv2 (sans GPLv2~\S3(c)) to acquire the source,
merely to give a copy of the software to a friend who needed it.  GPLv2~\S3(c)
reshifts this burden to entity who benefits from GPLv2~\S3(b).

GPLv2~\S3(c) allows those who undertake \emph{noncommercial} distribution to
simply pass along a GPLv2~\S3(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 GPLv2~\S3(a), or
write her own GPLv2~\S3(b)-compliant source offer.

This process is precisely the reason why a GPLv2~\S3(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 GPLv2~\S3(b) must thus be
prepared to honor all incoming source code requests.  For this and the
many other additional necessary complications under GPLv2~\S\S3(b--c), it is
only rarely a better option than complying via GPLv2~\S3(a).

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{GPL's Implied Patent Grant}
\label{gpl-implied-patent-grant}

We digress again briefly from our section-by-section consideration of GPLv2
to consider the interaction between the terms of GPL and patent law. The
GPLv2, 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, 1451 (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 GPLv2 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 GPLv2, the distributor impliedly
licenses those patents to the GPLv2 licensee with respect to the GPLv2'd
software.

An interesting issue regarding this implied patent license of GPLv2'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 GPLv2 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 other Free  Software licenses are specifically 
limited to the patent claims covered by the code as licensed by the patentee.

In contrast, a GPLv2 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 modified 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 among 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 GPLv2 ensures that the community mutually
benefits from the licensing of patents to any single community member.

Note that simply because GPLv2'd software has an implied patent license does
not mean that any patents held by a distributor of GPLv2'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 GPLv2 by the patent
  holder, and

\item any party that does not comply with the GPLv2
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 program under the GPLv2, then it
cannot assert the patent against any party based on that party's use of 
Company \compA{}'s GPL'd Web browsing software program, or on that party's
creation and use of modified versions of that GPL'd program.  However, if a
party uses that program without
complying with the GPLv2, then Company \compA{} can assert both copyright
infringement claims against the non-GPLv2-compliant party and
infringement of the patent, because the implied patent license only
extends to use of the software in accordance with the GPLv2. Further, if
Company \compB{} distributes a competitive advanced Web browsing program 
that is not a modified version of Company \compA{}'s GPL'd Web browsing software
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 also distributed under the GPLv2, 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 GPLv2 implied patent
license, as only those competitors who adopt and comply with the GPLv2'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 GPLv2. 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 GPLv2, 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 GPLv2\@, which are in GPLv2~\S\S0--3.
GPLv2\S\S~4--7 of the GPLv2 are designed to ensure that GPLv2~\S\S0--3 are
not infringed, are enforceable, are kept to the confines of copyright law but
also not trumped by other copyright agreements or components of other
entirely separate legal systems.  In short, while GPLv2~\S\S0--3 are the parts
of the license that defend the freedoms of users and programmers,
GPLv2~\S\S4--7 are the parts of the license that keep the playing field clear
so that \S\S~0--3 can do their jobs.

\section{GPLv2~\S4: Termination on Violation}
\label{GPLv2s4}

GPLv2~\S4 is GPLv2'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 holders have the right to relicense the same work under different
licenses (see Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} of this tutorial), or to
stop distributing the GPLv2'd version (assuming GPLv2~\S3(b) was never used),
but they may not revoke the rights under GPLv2 already granted.

In fact, when an entity loses 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 decide when GPLv2~\S4
termination occurs (if ever); rather, the actions of the licensee determine
that.

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.  GPLv2~\S4 says that if you undertake any of
those other types (e.g., redistributing binary-only in violation of GPLv2~\S3),
then all rights under the license --- even those otherwise permitted for
those who have not violated --- terminate automatically.

GPLv2~\S4 makes GPLv2 enforceable.  If licensees fail to adhere to the
license, then they are stuck without any permission under to engage in
activities covered by copyright law.  They must completely cease and desist
from all copying, modification and distribution of the GPL'd software.

At that point, violating licensees must gain the forgiveness of the copyright
holders to have their rights restored.  Alternatively, the violators could
negotiate another agreement, separate from GPL, with the copyright
holder.  Both are common practice, although
\tutorialpartsplit{as discussed in \textit{A Practical Guide to GPL
    Compliance}, there are }{Chapter~\ref{compliance-understanding-whos-enforcing}
  explains further} key differences between these two very different uses of GPL.

\section{GPLv2~\S5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}
\label{GPLv2s5}

GPLv2~\S5 brings us to perhaps the most fundamental misconception and common
confusion about GPLv2\@. 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.''  Usually, no rights
are transferred between parties.  By contrast, the GPL is primarily a permission
slip to undertake activities that would otherwise have been prohibited
by copyright law.  As such, GPL 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 GPLv2~\S5 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.

While GPL is by default a copyright license, it is certainly still possible
to consider GPL as a contract as well.  For example, some distributors chose
to ``wrap'' their software in an acceptance ceremony to the GPL, and nothing in
the GPL prohibits that use.  Furthermore, the ruling in \textit{Jacobsen
  v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2008)} indicates that \textbf{both}
copyright and contractual remedies may be sought by a copyright holder
seeking to enforce a license designed to uphold software freedom.

% FIXME-LATER: Write this

%\section{Using GPL Both as a Contract and Copyright License}

\section{GPLv2~\S6: GPL, My One and Only}
\label{GPLv2s6}

A point that was glossed over in Section~\ref{GPLv2s4}'s discussion of GPLv2~\S4
was the irrevocable nature of the GPL\@. The GPLv2 is indeed irrevocable,
and it is made so formally by GPLv2~\S6.

The first sentence in GPLv2~\S6 ensures that as software propagates down the
distribution chain, that each licensor can pass along the license to each
new licensee.  Under GPLv2~\S6, 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 GPLv2\@.  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 GPLv2~\S6 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 GPLv2\@.

The final sentence of GPLv2~\S6 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 GPLv2~\S3(c), as they cannot be assured that
the issuer of the offer will honor their GPLv2~\S3 obligations.

In short, GPLv2~\S6 says that your license for the software is your one and
only copyright license allowing you to copy, modify and distribute the
software.

GPLv2~\S6 is GPLv2's ``automatic downstream licensing''
provision\footnote{This section was substantially expanded for clarity and
  detail in \hyperref[GPLv3s10]{GPLv3~\S10}.}.  Each time you
redistribute a GPL'd program, the recipient automatically receives a license
from each original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the program subject
to the conditions of the license.  The redistributor need not take any
to ensure the downstream recipient's acceptance of the license terms.
This places every copyright holder in the chain of descent of the code
in legal privity, or direct relationship, with every downstream
redistributor.  Two legal effects follow.  First, downstream parties
who remain in compliance have valid permissions for all actions
(including modification and redistribution) even if their immediate upstream
supplier of the software has been terminated for license
violation\footnote{\label{German-reinstatement-footnote} While this is legally true, as a practical matter, a
  failure of ``complete, corresponding source'' (CCS) provisioning by an
  upstream could make it effectively impossible for a downstream party to
  engage in a commercial redistribution pursuant to
  \hyperref[GPLv2s3]{GPLv2~\S3(a--b)}.  (\S~\ref{upstream} in the Compliance
  Guide portion of this tutorial discussed related details.)}.
Downstream's
licensed rights are not dependent on compliance of their upstream, because
their licenses issue directly from the copyright holder.  Second, automatic
termination cannot be cured by obtaining additional copies from an alternate
supplier: the license permissions emanate only from the original licensors,
and if they have automatically terminated permission, no act by any
intermediate license holder can restore those terminated
rights\footnote{While nearly all attorneys and copyleft theorists are in
  agreement on this point, German copyleft legal expert
  \href{http://www.jbb.de/en/attorneys/till-jaeger/}{Till Jaeger}
  vehemently disagrees.  Jaeger's position is as follows: under German
  copyright law, a new copy of GPL'd software is a ``fresh'' license under
  GPL, and if compliance continues from that point further, the violator's
  permissions under copyright law are automatically restored, notwithstanding
  the strict termination provision in \hyperref[GPLv2s4]{GPLv2~\S4}.
  However, in
  practice, this issue is only salient with regard to \hyperref[Proprietary
    Relicensing]{proprietary relicensing} business models, since other copyright
  holders typically formally restore distributions rights once the only
  remaining compliance issue is ``you lost copyright permission due to
  GPLv2~\S4''.  Therefore, the heated debates, which have raged between
  Jaeger and almost everyone else in the copyleft community for nearly a
  decade, regard an almost moot and wholly esoteric legal detail.}.

\section{GPLv2~\S7: ``Give Software Liberty or Give It Death!''}
\label{GPLv2s7}

In essence, GPLv2~\S7 is a verbosely worded way of saying for non-copyright
systems what GPLv2~\S6 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 have chosen the latter.

Thus, GPLv2~\S7 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{GPLv2~\S8: Excluding Problematic Jurisdictions}
\label{GPLv2s8}

GPLv2~\S8 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 GPLv2'd software can continue in free and unabated
distribution in the countries where such controls do not exist.

As far as is currently known, GPLv2~\S8 has very rarely been formally used by
copyright holders.  Admittedly, some have used GPLv2~\S8 to explain various
odd special topics of distribution (usually related in some way to
GPLv2~\S7).  However, generally speaking, this section is not proven
particularly useful in the more than two decades of GPLv2 history.

Meanwhile, despite many calls by the FSF (and others) for those licensors who
explicitly use this section to come forward and explain their reasoning, no
one ever did.  Furthermore, research conducted during the GPLv3 drafting
process found exactly one licensor who had invoked this section to add an
explicit geographical distribution limitation, and the reasoning for that one
invocation was not fitting with FSF's intended spirit of GPLv2~\S8.  As such,
GPLv2~\S8 was not included at all in GPLv3.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}

GPLv2~\S\S0--7 constitute the freedom-defending terms of the GPLv2.  The remainder
of the GPLv2 handles administrivia and issues concerning warranties and
liability.

\section{GPLv2~\S9: FSF as Stewards of GPL}
\label{GPLv2s9}

FSF reserves the exclusive right to publish future versions of the GPL\@;
GPLv2~\S9 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.

(Chapter~\ref{tale-of-two-copylefts} discusses more about the various
versions of GPL.)

\section{GPLv2~\S10: Relicensing Permitted}
\label{GPLv2s10}

GPLv2~\S10 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{GPLv2~\S11: No Warranty}
\label{GPLv2s11}

Most warranty disclaimer language shouts at you.  The
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-316}{Uniform Commercial
  Code~\S2-316}, which most of the USA's states and commonwealths have adopted as their local
law, allows disclaimers of warranty, provided that the disclaimer is ``conspicuous''.
There is apparently general acceptance that \textsc{all caps} is the
preferred way to make something conspicuous, and that has over decades worked
its way into the voodoo tradition of warranty disclaimer writing.

That said, there is admittedly some authority under USA law suggesting that
conspicuousness can be established by
capitalization and is absent when a disclaimer has the same typeface as the
terms surrounding it (see \textit{Stevenson v.~TRW, Inc.}, 987 F.2d 288, 296
(5th Cir.~1993)).  While GPLv3's drafters doubted that such authority would
apply to copyright licenses like the GPL, the FSF has nevertheless left
warranty and related disclaimers in \textsc{all caps} throughout all versions
of GPL\@.\footnote{One of the authors of this tutorial, Bradley M.~Kuhn, has
  often suggested the aesthetically preferable compromise of a
  \textsc{specifically designed ``small caps'' font, such as this one, as an
    alternative to} WRITING IN ALL CAPS IN THE DEFAULT FONT (LIKE THIS),
  since the latter adds more ugliness than conspicuousness.  Kuhn once
  engaged in reversion war with a lawyer who disagreed, but that lawyer never
  answered Kuhn's requests for case law that argues THIS IS INHERENTLY MORE
  CONSPICUOUS \textsc{Than this is}.}

% FIXME: Should UCITA be mentioned anywhere in here?  It was previously
% mentioned elsewhere in the tutorial but it was out of context and not
% useful.  If it should be mentioned anywhere, here is probably the spot, but
% it's not clear we should mention it at all, since it's specific just to two
% state/commonwealths in the USA: MD and VA.

Critics have occasionally questioned GPL's enforceability in some jurisdictions because its
disclaimer of warranties is impermissibly broad.  However,
critics
have generally failed to articulate specific precedents in their
jurisdictions that would directly indicate a problem with GPL's warranty
disclaimer.  Meanwhile,
\href{http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/treaty.html#35}{Article 35 of
  the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of
  Goods} (often abbreviated ``CISG'', which
\href{https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&id=228&chapter=10&lang=en}{many
  countries have adopted}) permits the disclaimer of warranties, so
jurisdictions adopting this treaty allow some form of warranty
disclaimer\footnote{Scholars continue to debate to what extent CISG applies to software
  licenses.  For example, Diedrich concluded that ``CISG is prima facie
  applicable to international transactions involving the transfer of computer
  software for a price'', but Sono disagrees with this ``prevailing view'',
  presenting an ``analysis [that] restricts the applicability of the CISG to
  software transactions by excluding `license contracts'''.  (See
  \href{http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/diedrich1.html}{Frank
    Diedrich, \textit{The CISG and Computer Software Revisited}}, 6 Vindobona
  Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration, Supplement 55--75
  (2002), and
\href{http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/sono6.html}{Hiroo Sono,
  \textit{The Applicability and Non-Applicability of the CISG to Software
    Transactions}}, Camilla B. Andersen \& Ulrich G. Schroeter eds., Sharing
International Commercial Law across National Boundaries: Festschrift for
Albert H. Kritzer on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, Wildy, Simmonds
\& Hill Publishing (2008) 512--526.)}.
Nevertheless, to account for possible jurisdictional variances regarding this
or any other issue, GPLv2~\S11 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 GPLv2~\S11 is that GPLv2~\S1
permits the sale of warranty as an additional service, which GPLv2~\S11 affirms.

\section{GPLv2~\S12: Limitation of Liability}
\label{GPLv2s12}

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 GPLv2~\S12.
GPLv2~\S11 thus gets rid of all implied warranties that can legally be
disavowed. GPLv2~\S12, 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, GPLv2~\S11, 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 GPLv2~\S12, 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{GPL Version 3}
\label{GPLv3}

This chapter discusses the text of GPLv3.  Much of this material herein
includes text that was adapted (with permission) from text that FSF
originally published as part of the so-called ``rationale documents'' for the
various discussion drafts of GPLv3.

The FSF ran a somewhat public process to develop GPLv3, and it was the first
attempt of its kind to develop a Free Software license this way.  Ultimately,
RMS was the primary author of GPLv3, but he listened to feedback from all
sorts of individuals and even for-profit companies.  Nevertheless, in
attempting to understand GPLv3 after the fact, the materials available from
the GPLv3 process have a somewhat ``drinking from the firehose'' effect.
This chapter seeks to explain GPLv3 to newcomers, who perhaps are familiar
with GPLv2 and who did not participate in the GPLv3 process.

Those who wish to drink from the firehose and take a diachronic approach to
GPLv3 study by reading the step-by-step public drafting process of the GPLv3 (which
occurred from Monday 16 January 2006 through Monday 19 November 2007) should
visit \url{http://gplv3.fsf.org/}.

\section{Understanding GPLv3 As An Upgraded GPLv2}

Ultimately, GPLv2 and GPLv3 co-exist as active licenses in regular use.  As
discussed in Chapter~\ref{tale-of-two-copylefts}, GPLv1 was never regularly
used alongside GPLv2.  However, given GPLv2's widespread popularity and
existing longevity by the time GPLv3 was published, it is not surprising that
some licensors still prefer GPLv2-only or GPLv2-or-later.  GPLv3 gained major
adoption by many projects, old and new, but many projects have not upgraded
due to (in some cases) mere laziness and (in other cases) policy preference
for some of GPLv2's terms and/or policy opposition to GPLv3's terms.

Given this ``two GPLs world'' is reality, it makes sense to consider GPLv3 in
terms of how it differs from GPLv2.  Also, most of the best GPL experts in
the world must deal regularly with both licenses, and admittedly have decades
of experience with GPLv2 while the most experience with GPLv3 that's possible
is by definition less than a decade.  These two factors usually cause even new
students of GPL to start with GPLv2 and move on to GPLv3, and this tutorial
follows that pattern.

Overall, the changes made in GPLv3 admittedly \textit{increased} the
complexity of the license.  The FSF stated at the start of the GPLv3 process
that they would have liked to oblige those who have asked for a simpler and
shorter GPL\@.  Ultimately, the FSF gave priority to making GPLv3 a better
copyleft license 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 statute.  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''}
\label{GPLv3s0}

One of lawyers' most common complaints about GPLv2 is that defined terms in
the document appear throughout.  Most licenses define terms up-front.
However, the GPL was always designed both as a document that should be easily
understood both by lawyers and by software developers: it is a document
designed to give freedom to software developers and users, and therefore it
should be comprehensible to that constituency.

Interestingly enough, one coauthor of this tutorial who is both a lawyer and
a developer pointed out that in law school, she understood defined terms more
quickly than other law students precisely because of her programming
background.  For developers, having \verb0#define0 (in the C programming
language) or other types of constants and/or macros that automatically expand
in the place where they are used is second nature.  As such, adding a defined
terms section was not terribly problematic for developers, and thus GPLv3
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.

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}

%  FIXME: I think we actually need to research the claim below that
%  ``derivative work'' as a term is unique to USA copyright law.  I have
%  heard German lawyers, for example, use the term extensively.  Is it also a
%  term perhaps under German law?  -- bkuhn

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.\footnote{Ironically, 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.  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.}  GPLv2
always sought to cover all rights governed by relevant copyright law, in the
USA and elsewhere.
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.  GPLv3 therefore internationalizes
on this issue by removing GPLv2's references to derivative
works and by providing a more globally useful definition.
GPLv3 drops all reference to USA ``derivative works'' and returns
to the base concept only: GPL covers the licensed work and all works where
copyright permission from the licensed work's copyright holder.

The new definitions 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.

\subsection{The Covered Work}

GPLv3 uses a common license drafting technique of building upon simpler
definitions to make complex ones.  The Program is a defined term found
throughout GPLv2, and the word ``covered'' and the phrase ``covered by this
license'' are used in tandem with the Program in GPLv2, but not as part of a
definition.  GPLv3 offers a single term ``covered work'', which enables some
of the wording in GPLv3 to be simpler and clearer than its GPLv2
counterparts.

Next, to avoid locking GPLv3 into specific copyright statues, the GPLv3
defines two terms that are otherwise exotic to the language of international
copyright.

\subsection{Propagate}

To ``propagate'' a work covered by the license means any activity in a locale
that requires permission of copyright holders in that locale's legal system.
However, personal use or modification for personal use are activities explicitly
excluded from ``propagation'' \textit{regardless} of domestic copyright law.

The term ``propagate'' serves two purposes.  First, ``propagate'' provides a
simple and convenient means for distinguishing between the kinds of uses of a
work that GPL imposes conditions on and the kinds of uses that GPL does not
(for the most part) impose conditions on.

Second, ``propagate'' helps globalize GPL in its wording and effect:
``derivative work'' was in fact not the only term commonly used by local
copyright statutes.  A term like ``distribute'' (or its equivalent in
languages other than English) is also used in several national copyright
statutes.  Practical experience with GPLv2 revealed the awkwardness of using
the term ``distribution'' in a license intended for global use: the scope of
``distribution'' in the copyright context can differ from country to country.
The GPL never necessarily intended the specific meaning of ``distribution''
that exists under USA (or any other country's) copyright law.

Indeed, even within a single country and language, the term distribution may
be ambiguous; as a legal term of art, distribution varies significantly in
meaning among those countries that recognize it.  For example, comments
during GPLv3's drafting process indicated that in at least one country,
distribution may not include network transfers of software but may include
interdepartmental transfers of physical copies within an organization.
Meanwhile, the copyright laws of many countries, as well as certain
international copyright treaties, recognize ``making available to the
public'' or ``communication to the public'' as one of the exclusive rights of
copyright holders.

Therefore, the GPLv3 defines the term ``propagate'' by reference to activities
that require permission under ``applicable copyright law'', but excludes
execution and private modification from the definition.  GPLv3's definition
also gives examples of activities that may be included within ``propagation''
but it also makes clear that, under the copyright laws of a given country,
``propagation'' may include other activities as well.

Thus, propagation is defined by behavior, and not by categories drawn from
some particular national copyright statute.  This helps not only with
internationalization, but also factually-based terminology aids in
developers' and users' understanding of the GPL\@.

As a further benefit, because ``propagation'' includes all
exclusive rights granted under any particular copyright regime, the term
automatically  accounts for all exclusive rights under that regime.

\subsection{Convey}

Next, GPLv3 defines a subset of propagate --- ``convey''.
Conveying includes activities that constitute propagation of copies to
others.  As with the definition of propagate, GPLv3 thus addresses transfers
of copies of software in behavioral rather than statutory terms.  
Any propagation that enables other parties to receive or make copies of the
work, is called ``conveying''.  Usually, conveying is the activity that
triggers most of the other obligations of GPLv3.

\subsection{Appropriate Legal Notices}

GPLv2 used the term ``appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of
warranty'' in two places, which is a rather bulky term.  Also, experience with
GPLv2 and other licenses that grant software freedom showed throughout the
1990s that the scope of types of notices that need preservation upon
conveyance were more broad that merely the copyright notices.  The
Appropriate Legal Notice definition consolidates the material that GPLv2
traditionally required preserved into one definition.

\subsection{Other Defined Terms}

Note finally that not all defined terms in GPLv3 appear in GPLv3~\S0.
Specifically, those defined terms that are confined in use to a single
section are defined in the section in which they are used, and GPLv3~\S1
contains those definitions focused on source code.  In this tutorial, those
defined terms are discussed in the section where they are defined and/or
used.

\section{GPLv3~\S1: Understanding CCS}
\label{GPLv3s1}

Ensuring that users have the source code to the software they receive and the
freedom to modify remains the paramount right embodied in the Free Software
Definition (found in \S~\ref{Free Software Definition} of this tutorial).  As
such, GPLv3~\S1 is likely one of the most important sections of GPLv3, as it
contains all the defined terms related to this important software freedom.

\subsection{Source Code Definition}

First, GPLv3~\S1 retains GPLv2's definition of ``source code'' and adds an
explicit definition of ``object code'' as ``any non-source version of a
work''.  Object code is not restricted to a narrow technical meaning and is
understood broadly to include any form of the work other than the preferred
form for making modifications to it.  Object code therefore includes any kind
of transformed version of source code, such as bytecode or minified
Javascript.  The definition of object code also ensures that licensees cannot
escape their obligations under the GPL by resorting to shrouded source or
obfuscated programming.

\subsection{CCS Definition}
\label{CCS Definition}

The definition of CCS,\footnote{Note that the preferred term for those who
  work regularly with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 is ``Complete Corresponding
  Source'', abbreviated to ``CCS''.  Admittedly, the word ``complete'' no
  longer appears in GPLv3 (which uses the word ``all'' instead).  However,
  both GPLv2 and the early drafts of GPLv3 itself used the word ``complete'',
  and early GPLv3 drafts even called this defined term ``Complete
  Corresponding Source''.  Meanwhile, use of the acronym ``CCS'' (sometimes,
  ``C\&CS'') was so widespread among GPL enforcers that its use continues
  even though GPLv3-focused experts tend to say just the defined term of
  ``Corresponding Source''.} or, as GPLv3 officially calls it,
``Corresponding Source'' in GPLv3~\S1\P4 is possibly the most complex
definition in the license.

The CCS definition is broad so as to protect users' exercise of their rights
under the GPL\@.  The definition includes particular examples to remove
any doubt that they are to be considered CCS\@.  GPLv3 seeks to make it
completely clear that a licensee cannot avoid complying with the requirements
of the GPL by dynamically linking a subprogram component to the original
version of a program.  The examples also clarify that the shared libraries
and dynamically linked subprograms that are included in Corresponding Source
are those that the work is ``specifically'' designed to require, which
clarifies that they do not include libraries invoked by the work that can be
readily substituted by other existing implementations.  While copyleft
advocates never doubted this was required under GPLv2's definition of CCS,
GPLv3 makes it abundantly clear with an extra example.

The GPL, as always, seeks to ensure users are truly in a position to install and
run their modified versions of the program; the CCS definition is designed to
be expansive to ensure this software freedom.  However, although the
definition of CCS is expansive, it is not sufficient to protect users'
freedoms in many circumstances.  For example, a GPL'd program, or a modified
version of such a program, might be locked-down and restricted.  The
requirements in GPLv3~\S6 (discussed in Section~\ref{GPLv3s6} of this
tutorial) handle that issue.  (Early drafts of GPLv3 included those
requirements in the definition of CCS; however, given that the lock-down
issue only comes up in distribution of object code, it is more logical to
place those requirements with the parts of GPLv3 dealing directly with object
code distribution).

The penultimate paragraph in GPLv3\S2 notes that GPLv3's CCS definition does
not require source that can be automatically generated.  Many code
generators, preprocessors and take source code as input and sometimes even
have output that is still source code.  Source code should always be whatever
the original programmer preferred to modify.

GPLv3\S1's final paragraph removes any ambiguity about what should be done on
source-only distributions.  Specifically, the right to convey source code
that does not compile, does not work, or otherwise is experimental
in-progress work is fully permitted, \textit{provided that} no object code
form is conveyed as well.  Indeed, when combined with the permissions in
GPLv3\S~5, it is clear that if one conveys \textit{only} source code, one can
never be required to provide more than that.  One always has the right to
modify a source code work by deleting any part of it, and there can be no
requirement that free software source code be a whole functioning program.

\subsection{The System Library Exception}
\label{GPLv3-system-library-exception}

The previous section skipped over one part of the CCS definition, the
so-called system library exception.  The ``System Libraries'' definition (and
the ``Standard Interface'' and ``Major Component'' definitions, which it
includes) are designed
to permit certain distribution arrangements that are considered reasonable by
copyleft advocates.  The system library exception is designed to allow
copylefted software to link with these libraries when prohibition of that linking would hurt
software freedom more than it would hurt proprietary software.

The system library exception has two parts.  Part (a) rewords the GPLv2
exception for clarity replacing GPLv2's words ``unless that component itself
accompanies the executable'' with ``which is not part of the Major
Component''.  The goal here is to not require disclosure of source code of
certain libraries, such as necessary Microsoft Windows DLLs (which aren't
part of Windows' kernel but accompany it) that are required for functioning
of copylefted programs compiled for Windows.

However, in isolation, (a) would be too permissive, as it would sometimes
allow distributors to evade important GPL requirements.  Part (b) reigns
in (a).  Specifically, (b) specifies only a few functionalities that a
system library may provide and still qualify for the exception.  The goal is
to ensure system libraries are truly adjunct to a major essential operating
system component, compiler, or interpreter.  The more low-level the
functionality provided by the library, the more likely it is to be qualified
for this exception.

Admittedly, the system library exception is a frequently discussed topic of
obsessed GPL theorists.  The amount that has been written on the system
library exception (both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 versions of it), if included
herein,  could easily increase this section of the tutorial to a length
greater than all the others.

Like any exception to the copyleft requirements of GPL, would-be GPL
violators frequently look to the system library exception as a potential
software freedom circumvention technique.  When considering whether or not a
library qualifies for the system library exception, here is a pragmatic
thesis to consider, based on the combined decades of experience in GPL
interpretation of this tutorial's authors: the harder and more strained the
reader must study and read the system library exception, the more likely it
is that the library in question does not qualify for it.

\section{GPLv3~\S2: Basic Permissions}
\label{GPLv3S2}

GPLv3~\S2 can roughly be considered as an equivalent to GPLv2~\S0 (discussed
in \S~\ref{GPLv2s0} of this tutorial).  However, the usual style of
improvements found in GPLv3 are found here as well.  For example, the first
sentence of GPLv3~\S2 furthers the goal internationalization.  Under the
copyright laws of some countries, it may be necessary for a copyright license
to include an explicit provision setting forth the duration of the rights
being granted. In other countries, including the USA, such a provision is
unnecessary but permissible.

GPLv3~\S2\P1 also acknowledges that licensees under the GPL enjoy rights of
copyright fair use, or the equivalent under applicable law.  These rights are
compatible with, and not in conflict with, the freedoms that the GPL seeks to
protect, and the GPL cannot and should not restrict them.

However, note that (sadly to some copyleft advocates) the unlimited freedom
to run is confined to the \textit{unmodified} Program.  This confinement is
unfortunately necessary since Programs that do not qualify as a User Product
in GPLv3~\S6 (see \S~\ref{user-product} in this tutorial) might have certain
unfortunate restrictions on the freedom to run.\footnote{See
  \S~\ref{freedom-to-run} of this tutorial for the details on ``the freedom to
  run''.}

GPLv3~\S2\P2 distinguishes between activities of a licensee that are
permitted without limitation and activities that trigger additional
requirements.  Specifically, GPLv3~\S2\P2 guarantees the basic freedoms of
privately modifying and running the program.  While these basic freedoms were
generally considered a standard part of users' rights under GPLv2 as well,
the GPLv3 states them herein more explicitly.  In other words, there is no
direct analog to the first sentence of GPLv3~\S2\P2 in GPLv2
(See \S~\ref{gplv2-private-modification} of this tutorial for more on this issue.)

Also, GPLv3~\S2\P2 gives an explicit permission for a client to provide a
copy of its modified software to a contractor exclusively for that contractor
to modify it further, or run it, on behalf of the client.  However, the
client can \textit{only} exercise this control over its own copyrighted
changes to the GPL-covered program.  The parts of the program it obtained
from other contributors must be provided to the contractor with the usual GPL
freedoms.  Thus, GPLv3 permits users to convey covered works to contractors
operating exclusively on the users' behalf, under the users' direction and
control, and to require the contractors to keep the users' copyrighted
changes confidential, but \textit{only if} the contractor is limited to acting
on the users' behalf (just as the users' employees would have to act).

The strict conditions in this ``contractors provision'' are needed so that it
cannot be twisted to fit other activities, such as making a program available
to downstream users or customers.  By making the limits on this provision
very narrow, GPLv3 ensures that, in all other cases, contractor gets the
full freedoms of the GPL that they deserve.

The FSF was specifically asked to add this ``contractors provisions'' by
large enterprise users of Free Software, who often contract with non-employee
developers, working offsite, to make modifications intended for the user's
private or internal use, and often arrange with other companies to operate
their data centers.  Whether GPLv2 permits these activities is not clear and
may depend on variations in copyright law in different jurisdictions.  The
practices seem basically harmless, so FSF decided to make it clear they are
permitted.

GPLv3~\S2's final paragraph includes an explicit prohibition of sublicensing.
This provision ensures that GPL enforcement is always by the copyright
holder.  Usually, sublicensing is regarded as a practical convenience or
necessity for the licensee, to avoid having to negotiate a license with each
licensor in a chain of distribution.  The GPL solves this problem in another
way --- through its automatic licensing provision found in GPLv3~\S10 (which
is discussed in more detail in \S~\ref{GPLv3s10} of this tutorial).

\section{GPLv3's views on DRM and Device Lock-Down}
\label{GPLv3-drm}

The issues of DRM, device lock-down and encryption key disclosure were the
most hotly debated during the GPLv3 process.  FSF's views on this were sadly
frequently misunderstood and, comparing the provisions related to these
issues in the earliest drafts of GPLv3 to  the final version of GPLv3 shows
the FSF's willingness to compromise on tactical issues to reach the larger
goal of software freedom.

Specifically, GPLv3 introduced provisions that respond to the growing
practice of distributing GPL-covered programs in devices that employ
technical means to restrict users from installing and running modified
versions.  This practice thwarts the expectations of developers and users
alike, because the right to modify is one of the core freedoms the GPL is
designed to secure.

Technological measures to defeat users' rights.  These measures are often
described by such Orwellian phrases, such as ``digital rights management,''
which actually means limitation or outright destruction of users' legal
rights, or ``trusted computing,'' which actually means selling people
computers they cannot trust.  However, these measures are alike in one basic
respect.  They all employ technical means to turn the system of copyright law
(where the powers of the copyright holder are limited exceptions to general
freedom) into a virtual prison, where everything not specifically permitted
is utterly forbidden.  This system of ``para-copyright'' was created well
after GPLv2 was written --- initially through legislation in the USA and the
EU, and later in other jurisdictions as well.  This legislation creates
serious civil or even criminal penalties to escape from these restrictions
(commonly and aptly called ``jail-breaking a device''), even where the
purpose in doing so is to restore the users' legal rights that the technology
wrongfully prevents them from exercising.

GPLv2 did not address the use of technical measures to take back the rights
that the GPL granted, because such measures did not exist in 1991, and would
have been irrelevant to the forms in which software was then delivered to
users.  GPLv3 addresses these issues, particularly because copylefted
software is ever more widely embedded in devices that impose technical
limitations on the user's freedom to change it.

However, FSF always made a clear distinction to avoid conflating these
``lock-down'' measures with legitimate applications that give users control,
as by enabling them to choose higher levels of system or data security within
their networks, or by allowing them to protect the security of their
communications using keys they can generate or copy to other devices for
sending or receiving messages.  Such technologies present no obstacles to
software freedom and the goals of copyleft.

The public GPLv3 drafting process sought to balance these positions of
copyleft advocates with various disparate views of the larger
Free-Software-using community.  Ultimately, FSF compromised to the GPLv3\S3
and GPLv3\S6 provisions that, taken together, are a minimalist set of terms
sufficient to protect the software freedom against the threat of invasive
para-copyright.

The compromises made were ultimately quite reasonable.  The primary one is
embodied in GPLv3\S6's ``User Product'' definition (see \S~\ref{user-product}
in this tutorial for details).  Additionally, some readers of early GPLv3
drafts seem to have assumed GPLv3 contained a blanket prohibition on DRM; but
it does not.  In fact, no part of GPLv3 forbids DRM regarding non-GPL'd
works; rather, GPLv3 forbids the use of DRM specifically to lock-down
restrictions on users' ability to install modified versions of the GPL'd
software itself, but again, \textit{only} with regard to User Products.

\section{GPLv3~\S3: What Hath DMCA Wrought}
\label{GPLv3s3}

As discussed in \S~\ref{software-and-non-copyright} of this tutorial,
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201}{17 USC~\S1201} and
related sections\footnote{These sections of the USC are often referred to as
  the ``Digital Millennium Copyright Act'', or ``DMCA'', as that was the name
  of the bill that so-modified these sections of the USC\@.} prohibits users
from circumventing technological measures that implement DRM\@.  Since this
is part of copyright law and the GPL is primarily a copyright license, and
since what the DMCA calls ``circumvention'' is simply ``modifying the
software'' under the GPL, GPLv3 must disclaim that such anti-circumvention
provisions are not applicable to the GPLv3'd software.  GPLv3\S3 shields
users from being subjected to liability under anti-circumvention law for
exercising their rights under the GPL, so far as the GPL can do so.

First, GPLv3\S3\P1 declares that no GPL'd program is part of an effective
technological protection measure, regardless of what the program does.  Early
drafts of GPLv3\S3\P1 referred directly to the DMCA, but the final version
instead includes instead an international legal reference to
anticircumvention laws enacted pursuant to the 1996 WIPO treaty and any
similar laws.  Lawyers outside the USA worried that a USA statutory reference
could be read as indicating a choice for application of USA law to the
license as a whole.  While the FSF did not necessarily agree with that view,
the FSF decided anyway to refer to the WIPO treaty rather than DMCA, since
several national anticircumvention laws were (or will likely be) structured
more similarly to the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA in their
implementation of WIPO\@.  Furthermore, the addition of ``or similar laws''
provides an appropriate catch-all.

GPLv3\S3\P2 states precisely that a conveying party waives the
power to forbid circumvention of technological measures only to the extent
that such circumvention is accomplished through the exercise of GPL rights in
the conveyed work.  GPLv3\S3\P2 makes clear that the referenced ``legal
rights'' are specifically rights arising under anticircumvention law.  and
refers to both the conveying party's rights and to third party rights, as in
some cases the conveying party will also be the party legally empowered to
enforce or invoke rights arising under anticircumvention law.

These disclaimers by each licensor of any intention to use GPL'd software to
stringently control access to other copyrighted works should effectively
prevent any private or public parties from invoking DMCA-like laws against
users who escape technical restriction measures implemented by GPL'd
software.

\section{GPLv3~\S4: Verbatim Copying}
\label{GPLv3s4}

GPLv3~\S4 is a revision of GPLv2~\S1 (as discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv2s1} of
this tutorial).   There are almost no changes to this section from the
GPLv2~\S1, other than to use the new defined terms.

The only notable change, of ``a fee'' to ``any price or no price'', is in the
first sentence of GPLv3\S4\P2.  The GPLv2\S1\P1 means that the GPL permits
one to charge money for the distribution of software.  Despite efforts by
copyleft advocates to explain this in GPLv2 itself and in other documents,
there are evidently some people who still believe that GPLv2 allows charging
for services but not for selling copies of software and/or that the GPL
requires downloads to be gratis.  Perhaps this is because GPLv2 referred to
charging a ``fee''; the term ``fee'' is generally used in connection with
services.

GPLv2's wording also referred to ``the physical act of transferring.''  The
intention was to distinguish charging for transfers from attempts to impose
licensing fees on all third parties.  ``Physical'' might be read, however, as
suggesting ``distribution in a physical medium only''.

To address these two issues, GPLv3 says ``price'' in place of ``fee,'' and
removes the term ``physical.''

GPLv3~\S4 has also been revised from its corresponding section in GPLv2 in
light of the GPLv3~\S7 (see \S~\ref{GPLv3s7} in this tutorial for more).
Specifically, a distributor of verbatim copies of the program's source code
must obey any existing additional terms that apply to parts of the program
pursuant to GPLv3~\S7.  In addition, the distributor is required to keep
intact all license notices, including notices of such additional terms.

Finally, there is no harm in explicitly pointing out what ought to be
obvious: that those who convey GPL-covered software may offer commercial
services for the support of that software.

\section{GPLv3~\S5: Modified Source}
\label{GPLv3s5}

GPLv3\S5 is the rewrite of GPLv2\S2, which was discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv2s2}
of this tutorial.  This section discusses the changes found in GPLv3\S5
compared to GPLv2\S2.

GPLv3\S5(a) still requires modified versions be marked with ``relevant
date'', but no longer says ``the date of any change''.  The best practice is
to include the date of the latest and/or most significant changes and who
made those.  Of course, compared to its GPLv2\S2(a), GPLv3\S5(a) slightly
relaxes the requirements regarding notice of changes to the program.  In
particular, the modified files themselves need no longer be marked.  This
reduces administrative burdens for developers of modified versions of GPL'd
software.

GPLv3\S5(b) is a new but simple provision. GPLv3\S5(b)  requires that the
license text itself must be unmodified (except as permitted by GPLv3\S7; see
\S~\ref{GPLv3s7} in this tutorial).  Furthermore, it  removes any perceived
conflict between the words ``keep intact all notices'' in GPLv3\S4, since
operating under GPLv3\S5 still includes all the requirements of GPLv3\S4 by
reference.

GPLv3\S5(c) is the primary source-code-related copyleft provision of GPL. (The
object-code-related copyleft provisions are in GPLv3\S6, discussed in
\S~\ref{GPLv3s6} of this tutorial).  Compared to GPLv2\S2(b), GPLv3\S5(c)
states that the GPL applies to the whole of the work.  Such was stated
already in GPLv2\S2(b), in ``in whole or in part'', but this simplified
wording makes it clear it applies to the entire covered work.

Another change in GPLv3\S5(c) is the removal of the
words ``at no charge,'' which was often is misunderstood upon na\"{i}ve
reading of in GPLv2\S(b) (as discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv2s2-at-no-charge} of this
tutorial).

%  FIXME-LATER: Write up something on 5d, and related it to Appropriate Legal Notices.


Note that of GPLv2~\S2's penultimate and ante-penultimate paragraphs are now
handled adequately by the definitions in GPLv3\S0 and as such, have no direct
analogs in GPLv3.

GPLv2~\S2's final paragraph, however, is reworded and expanded into the final
paragraph of GPLv3\S5, which now also covers issues related to copyright
compilations (but not compilations into object code --- that's in the next
section!).  The intent and scope is the same as was intended in GPLv2.

\section{GPLv3~\S6: Non-Source and Corresponding Source}
\label{GPLv3s6}

GPLv3~\S6 states the compliance obligations for distributing ``non-source
forms'' of a program (which means any form other than CCS).  As noted in \S~\ref{GPLv3s0}, ``object code'' in GPLv3
is defined broadly to mean any non-source version of a work, and thus
includes not only binaries or executables, but also obfuscated, minimized, compressed or otherwise
non-preferred forms for modification.  Thus, GPLv3~\S6 clarifies and revises GPLv2~\S3.
Indeed, GPLv3~\S6's CCS requirement under
closely parallels the provisions of \hyperref[GPLv2s3]{GPLv2~\S3}, with changes
designed to make compliant provisioning easier under contemporary
technological conditions.  Distributors of GPLv3'd
object code must provide access to the corresponding source code, in one of
four specified ways.

% FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

GPLv3~\S6(a--b) now apply specifically to distribution of object code in a
physical product.  Physical products include embedded systems, as well as
physical software distribution media such as CDs.  As in GPLv2~\S3 (discussed
in \S~\ref{GPLv2s3} of this tutorial), the distribution of object code may
either be accompanied by the machine-readable source code, or it may be
accompanied by a valid written offer to provide the machine-readable source
code.  However, unlike in GPLv2, that offer cannot be exercised by any third
party; rather, only those ``who possess the object code'' can exercise
the offer.  (Note that this is a substantial narrowing of requirements of
offer fulfillment, and is a wonderful counterexample to dispute claims that
the GPLv3 has more requirements than GPLv2.)

% FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

GPLv3~\S6(b) further revises the requirements for the written offer to
provide source code. As before, the offer must remain valid for at least
three years. In addition, even after three years, a distributor of a product
containing GPL'd object code must offer to provide source code for as long as
the distributor also continues to offer spare parts or customer support for
the product model.  This is a reasonable and appropriate requirement; a
distributor should be prepared to provide source code if he or she is
prepared to provide support for other aspects of a physical product.

GPLv3~\S6(a--b) clarifies that the medium for software interchange on which
the machine-readable source code is provided must be a durable physical
medium.  GPLv3~\S6(b)(2), however, permits a distributor to instead offer to
provide source code from a network server instead, which is yet another
example GPLv3 looser in its requirements than GPLv2 (see
\S~\ref{GPLv2s3-medium-customarily} for details).

% FIXME-LATER: more information about source provision, cost of physically
% performing, reasonable fees, medium customary clearly being said durable
% connecting back to previous text

GPLv3\S6(c) gives narrower permission than GPLv2\S3(c).  The ``pass along''
option for GPLv3\S6(c)(1) offers is now available only for individual
distribution of object code; moreover, such individual distribution can occur
only ``occasionally and noncommercially.''  A distributor cannot comply with
the GPL merely by making object code available on a publicly-accessible
network server accompanied by a copy of the written offer to provide source
code received from an upstream distributor.

%FIXME-LATER: tie back to the discussion of the occasional offer pass along
%             stuff in GPLv2 this tutorial.

GPLv3~\S6(d) revises and improves GPLv2~\S3's final paragraph.  When object
code is provided by offering access to copy the code from a designated place
(such as by enabling electronic access to a network server), the distributor
must merely offer equivalent access to copy the source code ``in the same way
through the same place''.  This wording also permits a distributor to offer a
third party access to both object code and source code on a single network
portal or web page, even though the access may include links to different
physical servers.  For example, a downstream distributor may provide a link
to an upstream distributor's server and arrange with the operator of that
server to keep the source code available for copying for as long as the
downstream distributor enables access to the object code.  Thus,
the obligation remains on the party distributing object code to point
prominently (``next to'' the object code download) to the third-party source
code provisioning server, and to ensure that this third-party server remains
in operation for required period.  This codifies formally the typical
historical interpretation of GPLv2.

% FIXME-LATER: perhaps in enforcement section, but maybe here, note about
% ``slow down'' on source downloads being a compliance problem. 

Furthermore, under GPLv3~\S6(d), distributors may charge for the conveyed
object code; however, those who pay to obtain the object code must be given
equivalent and gratis access to obtain the CCS.  (If distributors convey the
object code gratis, distributors must likewise make CCS available without
charge.)  Those who do not obtain the object code from that distributors
(perhaps because they choose not to pay the fee for object code) are outside
the scope of the provision; distributors are under no specific obligation to
give CCS to someone who has not purchased an object code download under
GPLv3~\S6(d).  (Note: this does not change nor impact any obligations under
GPLv3~\S6(b)(2); GPLv3~\S6(d) is a wholly different provision.)

\subsection{GPLv3~\S6(e): Peer-to-Peer Sharing Networks}

GPLv3~\S6(e) allows provision of CCS via another server when the binary or
other non-source form is distributed by peer-to-peer protocols such as
BitTorrent.  Here the requirement is only that each peer be effectively
informed of the location of the source code on a server as above.

GPLv3 really did require this addition, even though it adds  complexity to
a key section of GPL\@.  In particular,
Decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing present a challenge
to the unidirectional view of distribution that is implicit in GPLv2 and
initial drafts of GPLv3.  Identification of an upstream/downstream link in
BitTorrent distribution is neither straightforward nor reasonable; such
distribution is multidirectional, cooperative and (somewhat) anonymous.  In peer-to-peer
distribution systems, participants act both as transmitters and recipients of
blocks of a particular file, but they perceive the experience merely as users
and receivers, and not as distributors in any conventional sense.  At any
given moment of time, most peers will not have the complete file.

Meanwhile, GPLv3~\S6(d) permits distribution of a work in object code form
over a network, provided that the distributor offers equivalent access to
copy the Corresponding Source Code ``in the same way through the same
place''.  This wording might be interpreted to permit peer-to-peer
distribution of binaries \textit{if} they are packaged together with the CCS,
but such packaging is impractical, for at least three reasons.  First, even if
the CCS is packaged with the object code, it will only be available to a
non-seeding peer at the end of the distribution process, but the peer will
already have been providing parts of the binary to others in the network.
Second, in practice, peer-to-peer forms of transmission are poorly suited
means for distributing CCS.  In large distributions, packaging CCS with the
object code may result in a substantial increase in file size and
transmission time.  Third, in current practice, CCS packages themselves tend
\textit{not} to be transmitted through BitTorrent --- owing to reduced demand
-- thus, there generally will be too few participants downloading the same
source package at the same time to enable effective seeding and distribution.

GPLv3~\S6(e) addresses these issues.  If a licensee conveys such a work of
object code using peer-to-peer transmission, that licensee is in compliance
with GPLv3~\S6 if the licensee informs other peers where the object code and
its CCS are publicly available at no charge under subsection GPLv3~\S6(d).
The CCS therefore need not be provided through the peer-to-peer system that
was used for providing the binary.

Second, GPLv3\S9 also clarifies that ancillary propagation of a covered work
that occurs as part of the process of peer-to-peer file transmission does not
require acceptance, just as mere receipt and execution of the Program does
not require acceptance.  Such ancillary propagation is permitted without
limitation or further obligation.

% FIXME-LATER: Would be nice to explain much more about interactions between
% the various options of GPLv3~\S6(a-e), which might all be in play at once!

\subsection{User Products, Installation Information and Device Lock-Down}

As discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} of this tutorial, GPLv3 seeks to thwart
technical measures such as signature checks in hardware to prevent
modification of GPL'd software on a device.

To address this issue, GPLv3~\S6 requires that parties distributing object
code provide recipients with the source code through certain means.  When
those distributors pass on the CCS, they are also required to pass on any
information or data necessary to install modified software on the particular
device that included it.  (This strategy is not unlike that used in LGPLv2.1
to enable users to link proprietary programs to modified libraries.)

% FIXME-LATER: LGPLv2.1 section should talk about this explicitly and this
%              should be a forward reference here

\subsubsection{User Products}

\label{user-product}

The scope of these requirements is narrow.  GPLv3~\S6 introduces the concept
of a ``User Product'', which includes devices that are sold for personal,
family, or household use.  Distributors are only required to provide
Installation Information when they convey object code in a User Product.

In brief, the right to convey object code in a defined class of ``User
Products,'' under certain circumstances, depends on providing whatever information
is required to enable a recipient to replace the object code with a functioning
modified version.

This was a compromise that was difficult for the FSF to agree to during the
GPLv3 drafting process.  However, companies and governments that use
specialized or enterprise-level computer facilities reported that they
actually \textit{want} their systems not to be under their own control.
Rather than agreeing to this as a concession, or bowing to pressure, they ask
for this as a \textit{preference}.  It is not clear that the GPL should interfere
here, since the main problem lies elsewhere.

While imposing technical barriers to modification is wrong regardless of
circumstances, the areas where restricted devices are of the greatest
practical concern today fall within the User Product definition.  Most, if
not all, technically-restricted devices running GPL-covered programs are
consumer electronics devices.  Moreover, the disparity in clout between the
manufacturers and these users makes it difficult for the users to reject
technical restrictions through their weak and unorganized market power.  Even
limited to User Products, this provision addresses the fundamental problem.

% FIXME-LATER: link \href to USC 2301

The core of the User Product definition is a subdefinition of ``consumer
product'' adapted from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal
consumer protection law in the USA found in 15~USC~\S2301: ``any tangible
personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household
purposes.''  The USA has had three decades of experience of liberal
judicial and administrative interpretation of this definition in a manner
favorable to consumer rights.\footnote{The Magnuson-Moss consumer product
  definition itself has been influential in the USA and Canada, having been
  adopted in several state and provincial consumer protection laws.}
Ideally, this body of interpretation\footnote{The FSF, however, was very
  clear that incorporation of such legal interpretation was in no way
  intended to work as a general choice of USA law for GPLv3.} will guide
interpretation of the consumer product subdefinition in GPLv3~\S6, and this
will hopefully provide a degree of legal certainty advantageous to device
manufacturers and downstream licensees alike.

One well-established interpretive principle under Magnuson-Moss is that
ambiguities are resolved in favor of coverage.  That is, in cases where
it is not clear whether a product falls under the definition of consumer
product, the product will be treated as a consumer product.\footnote{16
CFR~\S\ 700.1(a); \textit{McFadden v.~Dryvit Systems, Inc.}, 54
UCC~Rep.~Serv.2d 934 (D.~Ore.~2004).}  Moreover, for a given product,
``normally used'' is understood to refer to the typical use of that type
of product, rather than a particular use by a particular buyer.
Products that are commonly used for personal as well as commercial
purposes are consumer products, even if the person invoking rights is a
commercial entity intending to use the product for commercial
purposes.\footnote{16 CFR \S \ 700.1(a).  Numerous court decisions
interpreting Magnuson-Moss are in accord; see, e.g., \textit{Stroebner
Motors, Inc.~v.~Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.}, 459 F.~Supp.2d 1028,
1033 (D.~Hawaii 2006).}  Even a small amount of ``normal'' personal use
is enough to cause an entire product line to be treated as a consumer
product under Magnuson-Moss.\footnote{\textit{Tandy Corp.~v.~Marymac
Industries, Inc.}, 213 U.S.P.Q.~702 (S.D.~Tex.~1981). In this case, the
court concluded that TRS-80 microcomputers were consumer products, where
such computers were designed and advertised for a variety of users,
including small businesses and schools, and had only recently been
promoted for use in the home.}

However, Magnuson-Moss is not a perfect fit because in the area of components
of dwellings, the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss is under-inclusive.
Depending on how such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may
not be considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products.\footnote{Building
  materials that are purchased directly by a consumer from a retailer, for
  improving or modifying an existing dwelling, are consumer products under
  Magnuson-Moss, but building materials that are integral component parts of
  the structure of a dwelling at the time that the consumer buys the dwelling
  are not consumer products. 16 C.F.R.~\S\S~700.1(c)--(f); Federal Trade
  Commission, Final Action Concerning Review of Interpretations of
  Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 64 Fed.~Reg.~19,700 (April 22, 1999); see also,
  e.g., \textit{McFadden}, 54 U.C.C.~Rep.~Serv.2d at 934.}  Therefore, GPLv3
defines User Products as a superset of consumer products that also includes
``anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.''

Thus, the three sentences in the center of GPLv3's User Product definition
encapsulate the judicial and administrative principles established over the
past three decades in the USA concerning the Magnuson-Moss consumer product
definition.  First, it states that doubtful cases are resolved in favor of
coverage under the definition.  Second, it indicates that the words ``normally
used'' in the consumer product definition refer to a typical or common use of
a class of product, and not the status of a particular user or expected or
actual uses by a particular user.  Third, it clearly states that the
existence of substantial non-consumer uses of a product does not negate a
determination that it is a consumer product, unless such non-consumer uses
represent the only significant mode of use of that product.

It should be clear from these added sentences that it is the general mode of
use of a product that determines objectively whether or not it is a consumer
product.  One could not escape the effects of the User Products provisions by
labeling what is demonstrably a consumer product in ways that suggest it is
``for professionals'', for example.


\subsubsection{Installation Information}

\label{GPLv3-installation-information}

With the User Products definition complete, the ``Installation Information''
definition uses that to define what those receiving object code inside a User
Product must receive.

Installation Information is information that is ``required to install and
execute modified versions of a covered work \dots from a modified version of
its'' CCS, in the same User Product for which the covered work is conveyed.
GPLv3 provides guidance concerning how much information must be provided: it
``must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified
object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
modification has been made.''  For example, the information provided would be
insufficient if it enabled a modified version to run only in a disabled
fashion, solely because of the fact of modification (regardless of the actual
nature of the modification).  The information need not consist of
cryptographic keys; Installation Information may be ``any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information''.

Note that GPLv3 does not define ``continued functioning'' further.  However,
GPLv3 does provide some additional guidance concerning the scope of
GPLv3-compliant action or inaction that distributors of
technically-restricted User Products can take with respect to a downstream
recipient who replaces the conveyed object code with a modified version.
First of all, GPLv3 makes clear that GPLv3 implies no obligation ``to
continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates'' for such a work.

Second, most technically-restricted User Products are designed to communicate
across networks.  It is important for both users and network providers to
know when denial of network access to devices running modified versions
becomes a GPL violation.  GPLv3 permits denial of access in two cases: ``when
the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the
network,'' and when the modification itself ``violates the rules and
protocols for communication across the network''.  The second case is
deliberately drawn in general terms, and it serves as a foundation for
reasonable enforcement policies that respect recipients' right to modify
while recognizing the legitimate interests of network providers.

Note that GPLv3 permits the practice of conveying object code in a mode not
practically susceptible to modification by any party, such as code burned in
ROM or embedded in silicon.  The goal of the Installation Information
requirement is to ensure the downstream licensee receives the real right to
modify when the device manufacturer or some other party retains that right.
Accordingly, GPLv3\S6's ante-penultimate paragraph states that the
requirement to provide Installation Information ``does not apply if neither
you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code
on the User Product''.

Finally, GPLv3\S6 makes it clear that there is also no requirement to
provide warranty or support for the User Product itself.

\subsection{GPLv3~\S7: Additional Permissions}
\label{GPLv3s7}

The GPL is a statement of permissions, some of which have conditions.
Additional terms --- terms that supplement those of the GPL --- may come to be
placed on, or removed from, GPL-covered code in certain common ways.
Copyleft licensing theorists have generally called
 those added terms ``additional permissions'' if they grant
exceptions from the conditions of the GPL, and ``additional requirements'' if
they add conditions to the basic permissions of the GPL\@. The treatment of
additional permissions and additional requirements under GPLv3 is necessarily
asymmetrical, because they do not raise the same interpretive
issues; in particular, additional requirements, if allowed without careful
limitation, could transform a GPL'd program into a non-free one.

Due to the latter fear, historically,  GPLv2 did not permit any additional
requirements.  However, over time,
many copyright holders generally tolerated certain types of benign additional requirements
merely through a ``failure to enforce'' estoppel-esque scenario.  Therefore, GPLv3 allows
for some specific limited requirement variations that GPLv2 technically prohibits.

With these principles in the background, GPLv3~\S7  answers the following
questions: 
\begin{enumerate}
\item How does the presence of additional terms on all or part of a GPL'd program
affect users' rights?

\item When and how may a licensee add terms to code being
distributed under the GPL? 

\item When may a licensee remove additional terms?
\end{enumerate}

Additional permissions present the easier case.  Since the mid-1990s,
permissive exceptions often appeared alongside GPLv2 to allow combination
with certain non-free code.  Typically, downstream
stream recipients could remove those exceptions and operate under pure GPLv2.
Similarly, LGPLv2.1 is in essence a permissive variant of GPLv2,
and it permits relicensing under the GPL\@.  

These practices are now generalized via GPLv3~\S7.
A licensee may remove any additional permission from
a covered work, whether it was placed by the original author or by an
upstream distributor.  A licensee may also add any kind of additional
permission to any part of a work for which the licensee has, or can give,
appropriate copyright permission. For example, if the licensee has written
that part, the licensee is the copyright holder for that part and can
therefore give additional permissions that are applicable to it.
Alternatively, the part may have been written by someone else and licensed,
with the additional permissions, to that licensee.  Any additional
permissions on that part are, in turn, removable by downstream recipients.
As GPLv3~\S7\P1 explains, the effect of an additional permission depends on
whether the permission applies to the whole work or a part.

% FIXME-LATER: LGPLv3 will have its own section

Indeed, LGPLv3 is itself simply  a list of additional permissions supplementing the
terms of GPLv3.  GPLv3\S7 has thus provided the basis for recasting a
formally complex license as an elegant set of added terms, without changing
any of the fundamental features of the existing LGPL\@.  LGPLv3 is thus  a model for developers wishing to license their works under the
GPL with permissive exceptions.  The removability of additional permissions
under GPLv3\S7 does not alter any existing behavior of the LGPL since the LGPL
has always allowed relicensing under the ordinary GPL\@.

\section{GPLv3~\S7: Understanding License Compatibility}
\label{license-compatibility}

A challenge that faced the Free Software community heavily through out the
early 2000s was the proliferation of incompatible Free Software licenses.  Of
course, the GPL cannot possibly be compatible with all such licenses.
However, GPLv3
contains provisions that are designed to reduce license incompatibility by
making it easier for developers to combine code carrying non-GPL terms with
GPL'd code.

This license compatibility issue arises for
three reasons.  First, the GPL is a strong copyleft license, requiring
modified versions to be distributed under the GPL\@.  Second, the GPL states
that no further restrictions may be placed on the rights of recipients.
Third, all other software freedom respecting licenses in common use contain certain
requirements, many of which are not conditions made by the GPL\@.  Thus, when
GPL'd code is modified by combination with code covered by another formal
license that specifies other requirements, and that modified code is then
distributed to others, the freedom of recipients may be burdened by
additional requirements in violation of the GPL.  It can be seen that
additional permissions in other licenses do not raise any problems of license
compatibility.

GPLv3  took a new approach to the issue of combining GPL'd code with
code governed by the terms of other software freedom licenses.  Traditional
GPLv2 license compatibility theory (which was not explicitly stated in GPLv2
itself, but treated as a license interpretation matter by the FSF) held that GPLv2 allowed such
combinations only if the non-GPL licensing terms permitted distribution under
the GPL and imposed no restrictions on the code that were not also imposed by
the GPL\@.  In practice, the FSF historically supplemented that policy with a structure of
exceptions for certain kinds of combinations.

GPLv3~\S7  implements a more explicit policy on license
compatibility.  It formalizes the circumstances under which a licensee may
release a covered work that includes an added part carrying non-GPL terms. 
GPLv3~\S7 distinguish between terms that provide additional permissions, and terms that
place additional requirements on the code, relative to the permissions and
requirements established by applying the GPL to the code.

As discussed in the previous section of this tutorial, GPLv3~\S7 first and foremost explicitly allows added parts covered by terms with
additional permissions to be combined with GPL'd code. This codifies the
existing practice of regarding such licensing terms as compatible with the
GPL\@. A downstream user of a combined GPL'd work who modifies such an added
part may remove the additional permissions, in which case the broader
permissions no longer apply to the modified version, and only the terms of
the GPL apply to it.

In its treatment of terms that impose additional requirements, GPLv3\S7
extends the range of licensing terms with which the GPL is compatible.  An
added part carrying additional requirements may be combined with GPL'd code,
but only if those requirements belong to a set enumerated in GPLv3\S7. There
are, of course, limits on the acceptable additional requirements, which 
ensures that enhanced license compatibility does not
defeat the broader software-freedom-defending terms of the GPL\@. Unlike terms that grant
additional permissions, terms that impose additional requirements cannot be
removed by a downstream user of the combined GPL'd work, because only in the
pathological case\footnote{Theoretically, a user could collect copyright
  assignment from all known contributors and then do this, but this would
  indeed be the pathological case.}  would a user have the right to do so.

In general, the types of additional requirements were those terms in regular
use by other non-copyleft Free Software licenses that the FSF found
unobjectionable.  The specific details GPLv3's permitted additional
requirements hat GPLv3 are as follows:

\begin{enumerate}[label=7(\alph*):,ref=GPLv3s7\alph*]

\item This provision allows alternative ``disclaimer of warranty''
  forms. Copyright holders can disclaim warranty or limit liability
  differently from the terms as provided under GPLv3\S~\S15--16.  Drafters
  included this permission to advance the internationalization goals of
  GPLv3; international treaties lack adequate harmonization for laws
  regarding warranty and disclaimer.

\item This provision allows alternative requirements for preservation of
  appropriate legal notices.  GPLv3 permits additional requirements regarding
  preservation of legal notices, including on output from execution of
  covered works.  Preserved information can include information about the
  origins of the code or alterations of the code.

\item This provision allows prohibition of misrepresentation of original
  material.  The provision yields compatibility with non-copyleft Free
  Software licenses that require marking of modified versions in
  ``reasonable''ways which differ from GPL's own precise marking
  requirements.

\item This provision allows limitations on the use of names of licensor for
  publicity purposes.  This provision also yields additional compatibility
  with non-copyleft Free Software licenses that prohibit the use of the
  licensor's name on unmodified versions (or other prohibitions on
  advertising rights).  The third clause of the
  \href{http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause}{3-Clause BSD
  License}, for example, long considered de-facto compatible with GPLv2
    anyway, is via this clause unequivocally compatible with GPLv3.  However,
    \href{https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD}{this
      clause \textit{does not} make GPL compatible with the old BSD
      advertising clause} that the FSF
    \href{https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html}{long ago identified as
      problematic}.
 
\item This provision clarifies that refusal to grant trademark rights for a
  GPLv3'd covered work remains compatible with GPLv3.  Again, some
  non-copyleft permissive licenses include such clauses.

\item This provision allows indemnification requirements of authors and
  licensors.  The FSF specifically designed this clause to achieve GPLv3
  compatibility for the
  \href{http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html}{Apache Software
    License, Version 2.0}.

\end{enumerate}

During the GPLv3 drafting process, some questioned the necessity of GPLv3~\S7;
those critics suggested that it creates complexity that did not previously
exist.  However, by the time of GPLv3's drafting, many existing GPLv2'd
software packages already combined with various non-copylefted Free Software
licensed code that carried such additional terms.  Therefore, GPLv3~\S7 is
rationalized existing practices of those package authors and modifiers, since
it sets clear guidelines regarding the removal and addition of these
additional terms.  With its carefully limited list of allowed additional
requirements, GPLv3\S7 accomplishes additional objectives as well, since it
permits the expansion of the base of code available for GPL developers, while
also encouraging useful experimentation with requirements the GPLv3 does not
include by default.

However, any other non-permissive additional terms apart from those stated
above are considered ``further'' restrictions which
\hyperref[GPLv3s10]{GPLv3~\S10} prohibits.  Furthermore, as a compliance
matter, if you add additional terms in accordance with GPLv3~\S7, you must
ensure that the terms are placed in the relevant source files or provide a
conspicuous notice about where to find the additional terms.

\section{GPLv3~\S8: A Lighter Termination}

GPLv2 provided for automatic termination of the rights of a person who
copied, modified, sublicensed, or distributed a work in violation of the
license.  Automatic termination can be too harsh for those who have committed
an inadvertent violation, particularly in cases involving distribution of
large collections of software having numerous copyright holders.  A violator
who resumes compliance with GPLv2 technically needs to obtain forgiveness
from all copyright holders, and even contacting them all might be impossible.

GPLv3~\S8 now grants opportunities for provisional and permanent
reinstatement of rights. The termination procedure provides a limited
opportunity to cure license violations.  If a licensee has committed a
first-time violation of the GPL with respect to a given copyright holder, but
the licensee cures the violation within 30 days following receipt of notice
of the violation, then any of the licensee's GPL rights that have been
terminated by the copyright holder are ``automatically reinstated''.


Finally, if a licensee violates the GPL, a contributor may terminate any
patent licenses that it granted under GPLv3~\S11, in addition to any
copyright permissions the contributor granted to the licensee.

% FIXME-LATER: write more here, perhaps linking up to enforcement

\section{GPLv3~\S9: Acceptance}

GPLv3~\S9 means what it says: mere receipt or execution of code neither
requires nor signifies contractual acceptance under the GPL.  Speaking more
broadly, GPLv3 is intentionally structured as a unilateral grant
of copyright permissions, the basic operation of which exists outside of any
law of contract.  Whether and when a contractual relationship is formed
between licensor and licensee under local law do not necessarily matter to
the working of the license.

\section{GPLv3~\S10: Explicit Downstream License}
\label{GPLv3s10}

GPLv3~\S10 is a generally straightforward section that ensures that everyone
downstream receives licenses from all copyright holders.  Each time you
redistribute a GPL'd program, the recipient automatically receives a license,
under the terms of GPL, from every upstream licensor whose copyrighted
material is present in the work you redistribute.  You could think of this as
creating a three-dimensional rather than linear flow of license rights.
Every recipient of the work is ``in privity,'' or is directly receiving a
license from every licensor.

This mechanism of automatic downstream licensing is central to copyleft's
function.  Every licensor independently grants licenses, and every licensor
independently terminates the license on violation.  Parties further
downstream from the infringing party remain licensed, so long as they don't
themselves commit infringing actions.  Their licenses come directly from all
the upstream copyright holders, and are not dependent on the license of the breaching
party who distributed to them.  For the same reason, an infringer who acquires
another copy of the program has not thereby acquired any new license rights:
once any upstream licensor of that program has terminated the license for
breach of its terms, no new automatic license will issue to the recipient
just by acquiring another
copy\footnote{Footnote~\ref{German-reinstatement-footnote} also applies here
  in discussion of GPLv3 just as it did in discussion of GPLv2.}

Meanwhile, one specific addition in GPLv3 here in GPLv3~\S10 deserves special
mention.  Specifically, GPLv3 removed the words ``at no charge'' from
GPLv2~\S2(b) (which, BTW, became GPLv3~\S5(b)) because it contributed to a misconception that the GPL did not
permit charging for distribution of copies.  The purpose of the ``at no
charge'' wording was to prevent attempts to collect royalties from third
parties.  The removal of these words created the danger that the imposition
of licensing fees would no longer be seen as a license violation.  Therefore,
GPLv3~\S10 adds a new explicit prohibition on imposition of licensing fees or
royalties.  This section is an appropriate place for such a clause, since it
is a specific consequence of the general requirement that no further
restrictions be imposed on downstream recipients of GPL-covered code.

% FIXME-LATER: This text needs further study before I can conclude it belongs
% in this tutorial:

%% Careful readers of the GPL have suggested that its explicit prohibition
%% against imposition of further restrictions\footnote{GPLv2, section 6; Draft
%%   3, section 10, third paragraph.} has, or ought to have, implications for
%% those who assert patents against other licensees.  Draft 2 took some steps to
%% clarify this point in a manner not specific to patents, by describing the
%% imposition of ``a license fee, royalty, or other charge'' for exercising GPL
%% rights as one example of an impermissible further restriction.  In Draft 3 we
%% have clarified further that the requirement of non-imposition of further
%% restrictions has specific consequences for litigation accusing GPL-covered
%% programs of infringement.  Section 10 now states that ``you may not initiate
%% litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging
%% that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for
%% sale, or importing the Program (or the contribution of any contributor).''
%% That is to say, a patent holder's licensed permissions to use a work under
%% GPLv3 may be terminated under section 8 if the patent holder files a lawsuit
%% alleging that use of the work, or of any upstream GPLv3-licensed work on
%% which the work is based, infringes a patent.

\section{GPLv3~\S11: Explicit Patent Licensing}
\label{GPLv3s11}

Software patenting is a harmful and unjust policy, and should be abolished;
recent experience makes this all the more evident. Since many countries grant
patents that can apply to and prohibit software packages, in various guises
and to varying degrees, GPLv3 seeks to protect the users of GPL-covered programs
from those patents, while at the same time making it feasible for patent
holders to contribute to and distribute GPL-covered programs as long as they
do not attack the users of those programs.

It is generally understood that GPLv2 implies some limits on a licensee's
power to assert patent claims against the use of GPL-covered works.
However, the patent licensing practice that GPLv2~\S7 (corresponding to
GPLv3~\S12) is designed to prevent is only one of several ways in which
software patents threaten to make free programs non-free and to prevent users
from exercising their rights under the GPL. GPLv3 takes a more comprehensive
approach to combating the danger of patents.

GPLv2~\S7 has seen some success in deterring conduct that would otherwise
result in denial of full downstream enjoyment of GPL rights, and thus it is
preserved in GPLv3~\S12.  Experience has shown that more is necessary,
however, to ensure adequate community safety where companies act in concert
to heighten the anticompetitive use of patents that they hold or license.

Therefore,  GPLv3 is designed to reduce the patent risks that distort and
threaten the activities of users who make, run, modify and share Free
Software.  At the same time, GPLv3 gives favorable consideration to practical
goals such as certainty and administrability for patent holders that
participate in distribution and development of GPL-covered software.  GPLv3's
policy requires each such patent holder to provide appropriate levels of
patent assurance to users, according to the nature of the patent holder's
relationship to the program.

In general, GPLv3 provides for two classes of patent commitments:

\begin{itemize}
\item Grant of license to claims in contributor versions: GPLv3~\S11
  introduces an affirmative grant of rights to patent claims by those who
  contribute code to GPL'd programs. The intent is to prevent parties from
  aggressively asserting patents against users of code those parties have
  themselves modified --- in theory preventing betrayal by ``insiders'' of
  the copyleft community.  A contributor's patent claims necessarily
  infringed by the version of the program created by the incorporation of its
  modifications are licensed to all subsequent users and modifiers of the
  program, or programs based on the program.  No patent claims only infringed
  by subsequent modifications by other parties are thus licensed.  Patent
  claims acquired after the making of the ``contributor version'' necessarily
  infringed by that version are also licensed by this provision at the time
  of their acquisition or perfection.

\item Prohibition of enforcement of patent claims against those to whom you
  distribute: GPLv3~\S10 makes explicit that licensees who directly
  distribute may not make demands for acceptance of patent licenses or
  payment of patent royalties from distribution recipients.  This provision
  establishes a uniform rule of patent exhaustion with respect to GPL'd
  programs regardless of the domestic patent law in any particular system or
  locale.
\end{itemize}

The following two subsections discuss in order each of the above mentioned
classes of patent commitments.

\subsection{The Contributor's Explicit Patent License}

Specifically, the ideal might have been for GPLv3 to feature a patent license
grant triggered by all acts of distribution of GPLv3-covered works.  The FSF
considered it during the GPLv3 drafting process, but many patent-holding
companies objected to this policy.  They have made two objections: (1) the
far-reaching impact of the patent license grant on the patent holder is
disproportionate to the act of merely distributing code without modification
or transformation, and (2) it is unreasonable to expect an owner of vast
patent assets to exercise requisite diligence in reviewing all the
GPL-covered software that it provides to others.  Some expressed particular
concern about the consequences of ``inadvertent'' distribution.

The argument that the impact of the patent license grant would be
``disproportionate'',  that is to say unfair, is not valid. Since
software patents are weapons that no one should have, and using them for
aggression against free software developers is an egregious act (thus
preventing that act cannot be unfair). 

However, the second argument seems valid in a practical sense.  A
typical GNU/Linux distribution includes thousands of programs.  It would
be quite difficult for a re-distributor with a large patent portfolio to
review all those programs against that portfolio every time it receives
and passes on a new version of the distribution.  Moreover, this question
raises a strategic issue. If the GPLv3 patent license requirements
convince patent-holding companies to remain outside the distribution
path of all GPL-covered software, then these requirements, no matter how
strong, will cover few patents. 

GPLv3 therefore makes a partial concession
which would lead these companies to feel secure in doing the
distribution themselves. GPLv3~\S11
applies only to those distributors that have
modified the program.  The other changes we have made in sections 10 and
11 provide strengthened defenses against patent assertion and compensate
partly for this concession. 

Therefore, GPLv3~\S11 introduces the terms ``contributor'', ``contributor version'', and
``essential patent claims'', which are
used in the GPLv3~\S11\P3.   Viewed from the perspective of a recipient of the
Program, contributors include all the copyright holders for the Program,
other than copyright holders of material originally licensed under non-GPL
terms and later incorporated into a GPL-covered work.  The contributors are
therefore the initial GPLv3 licensors of the Program and all subsequent
upstream licensors who convey, under the terms of GPLv3~\S5, modified covered
works.
Thus, the ``contributor version'' includes the material the contributor has copied from the
upstream version that the contributor has modified.  GPLv3~\S11\P3
 does not apply to those that redistribute the program
without change.\footnote{An implied patent license from the distributor,
however, often arises.  See \S~\ref{gpl-implied-patent-grant} in this tutorial}
In other words, the ``contributor version'' includes not just
the material added or altered by the contributor, but also the pre-existing
material the contributor copied from the upstream version and retained in the
modified version.  (GPLv3's usage of ``contributor'' and ``contribution'' should
not be confused with the various other ways in which those terms are used in
certain other free software licenses.\footnote{Cf., e.g., Apache License,
  version 2.0, section 1; Eclipse Public License, version 1.0, section 1;
  Mozilla Public License, version 1.1, section 1.1.})

Some details of the ``essential patent claims'' definition deserve special
mention.  ``Essential patent claims'', for a given party, are a subset of the
claims ``owned or controlled'' by the party.  They do include sublicensable
claims that have been licensed to the contributor by a third
party.\footnote{This issue is typically handled in other software freedom
  licenses having patent licensing provisions by use of the unhelpful term
  ``licensable,'' which is either left undefined or is given an ambiguous
  definition.}  Most commercial patent license agreements that permit
sublicensing do so under restrictive terms that are inconsistent with the
requirements of the GPL\@.  For example, some patent licenses allow the
patent licensee to sublicense but require collection of royalties from any
sublicensees.  The patent licensee could not distribute a GPL-covered program
and grant the recipient a patent sublicense for the program without violating
section 12 of GPLv3.\footnote{GPLv3 also provides an example in section 12
  that makes this point clear.}  In rare cases, however, a conveying party
can freely grant patent sublicenses to downstream recipients without
violating the GPL\@.

Additionally, ``essential patent claims'' are those patents ``that would be
infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or
selling the work''.  This intends to make clear that a patent claim is
``essential'' if some mode of usage would infringe that claim, even if there
are other modes of usage that would not infringe.

Finally, ``essential patent claims \ldots do not include
claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further
modification of the work.''  The set of essential patent
claims licensed  is fixed by the
particular version of the work that was contributed.  The claim set
cannot expand as a work is further modified downstream.  (If it could,
then any software patent claim would be included, since any software
patent claim can be infringed by some further modification of the
work.)\footnote{However, ``the work'' should not be understood to be
restricted to a particular mechanical affixation of, or medium for
distributing, a program, where the same program might be provided in
other forms or in other ways that may be captured by other patent claims
held by the contributor.}

\medskip

Ideally, this contributor patent policy will result in fairly frequent licensing of patent
claims by contributors.  A contributor is charged with awareness of the fact
that it has modified a work and provided it to others; no act of contribution
should be treated as inadvertent.  GPLv3's rule also requires no more work, for a
contributor, than the weaker rule proposed by the patent holders.  Under
their rule, the contributor must always compare the entire work against its
patent portfolio to determine whether the combination of the modifications
with the remainder of the work cause it to read on any of the contributor's
patent claims.

Finally, GPLv3's explicit patent license for contributors has an interesting
and useful side effect.  When a company with a large number of such claims
acquires the program's modifier, all claims held or thereafter acquired by
the purchaser are automatically licensed under this provision.  For example,
Microsoft's acquisition of Nokia resulted in the automatic licensing of all
Microsoft patent claims now or hereafter acquired which read on any
contributor version of any GPLv3 program ever modified by Nokia.

\subsection{Conveyors' Patent Licensing}

The remaining patent licensing in GPLv3 deals with patent licenses that are
granted by conveyance.  The licensing is not as complete or far reaching as
the contributor patent licenses discussed in the preceding section.

The term ``patent license,'' as used in GPLv3~\S11\P4--6, is not meant to be
confined to agreements formally identified or classified as patent licenses.
GPLv3~\S11\P3  makes this clear by defining ``patent
license,'' for purposes of the subsequent three paragraphs, as ``any express
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
sue for patent infringement)''

% FIXME-LATER: I want to ask Fontana about this before adding it.

% The definition does not include patent licenses that arise by
% implication or operation of law, because the third through fifth paragraphs
% of section 11 are specifically concerned with explicit promises that purport
% to be legally enforceable.

GPLv3~\S11\P5 is commonly called GPLv3's downstream shielding provision.  It
responds particularly to the problem of exclusive deals between patent
holders and distributors, which threaten to distort the free software
distribution system in a manner adverse to developers and users.  The
fundamental idea is to make a trade-off between assuring a patent license for
downstream and making  (possibly patent-encumbered) CCS publicly available.

Simply put, in nearly all cases in which the ``knowingly relying'' test is
met, the patent license will indeed not be sublicensable or generally
available to all on free terms.  If, on the other hand, the patent license is
generally available under terms consistent with the requirements of the GPL,
the distributor is automatically in compliance, because the patent license
has already been extended to all downstream recipients.  Finally, if the
patent license is sublicensable on GPL-consistent terms, the distributor may
choose to grant sublicenses to downstream recipients instead of causing the
CCS to be publicly available.  (In such a case, if the distributor is also a
contributor, it will already have granted a patent sublicense anyway, and so
it need not do anything further to comply with the third paragraph.)

Admittedly, public disclosure of CCS is not necessarily required by other
sections of the GPL, and the FSF in drafting GPLv3 did not necessarily wish
to impose a general requirement to make source code available to all, which
has never been a GPL condition.  However, many vendors who produce products
that include copylefted software, and who are most likely to be affected by the
downstream shielding provision, lobbied for the addition of the source code
availability option, so it remains.

% FIXME-LATER: This text is likely redundant and a bit confusing.  Needs work
% to use.

%% If A takes a patent license from B that benefits A only, rather than A's
%% customers or their distributees, A imposes risk from B's patents on others
%% that it does not suffer itself. Under many circumstances, this is an
%% acceptable outcome. If, however, A is the only possible source of the
%% program, by taking such a license and distributing in reliance on it, A is in
%% effect helping B to ``take the program private.''

% FIXME-LATER: end

Meanwhile, two specific alternatives to the source code availability option
are also available. The distributor may comply by disclaiming the patent
license it has been granted for the conveyed work, or by arranging to extend
the patent license to downstream recipients.\footnote{The latter option, if
  chosen, must be done ``in a manner consistent with the requirements of this
  License''; for example, it is unavailable if extension of the patent
  license would result in a violation of GPLv3~\S 12.}  The GPL is intended
to permit private distribution as well as public distribution, and the
addition of these options ensures that this remains the case, even though it
remains likely that distributors in this situation will usually choose the
source code availability option.

Note that GPLv3~\S11\P5 is activated only if the CCS is not already otherwise
publicly available.  (Most often it will, in fact, already be available on
some network server operated by a third party.)  Even if it is not already
available, the option to ``cause the Corresponding Source to be so
available'' can then be satisfied by verifying that a third party has acted
to make it available.  That is to say, the affected distributor need not
itself host the CCS to take advantage of the source code availability option.
This subtlety may help the distributor avoid certain peculiar assumptions of
liability.

Note that GPLv3~\S11\P6--7 are designed to stop distributors from colluding with
third parties to offer selective patent protection.  GPLv3 is designed to
ensure that all users receive the same rights; arrangements that circumvent
this make a mockery of free software, and we must do everything in our power
to stop them.

First, GPLv3~\S11\P6 states that any license that protects some recipients of
GPL'd software must be extended to all recipients of the software.  
If conveyors arrange to provide patent
protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that
protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software,
no matter how they get it. 

Second, GPLv3~\S11\P7
prohibits anyone who made such an agreement from distributing software
released under GPLv3.  Conveyors are prohibited from
distributing software under GPLv3 if the conveyor makes an agreement of that
nature in the future.

The date in GPLv3~\S11\P7 likely seems arbitrary to those who did not follow
the GPLv3 drafting process.  This issue was hotly debated during the drafting of
GPLv3, but ultimately one specific deal of this type --- a deal between Microsoft
and Novell for Microsoft to provide so-called ``coupons'' to Microsoft customers to redeem
for copies of Novell's GNU/Linux distribution with a Microsoft patent license -- was
designed to be excluded.

The main reason for this was a tactical decision by the FSF.  FSF believed they can do more to
protect the community by allowing Novell to use software under GPLv3
than by forbidding it to do so.  This is because of
paragraph 6 of section 11 (corresponding to paragraph 4 in Draft 3).
It will apply, under the Microsoft/Novell deal, because of the coupons
that Microsoft has acquired that essentially commit it to participate
in the distribution of the Novell SLES GNU/Linux system.

The FSF also gave a secondary reason:  to avoid affecting other kinds of agreements for
other kinds of activities.  While GPLv3 sought to 
distinguish pernicious deals of the Microsoft/Novell type from
business conduct that is not particularly harmful, the FSF also did not
assume success in that drafting, and thus there remained some risk that other
unchangeable past agreements could fall within the  scope of GPLv3~\S11\P7.
In future deals, distributors engaging in ordinary business practices
can structure the agreements so that they do not fall under GPLv3~\S11\P7.

\section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2~\S7}
\label{GPLv3s12}

GPLv2~\S12 remains almost completely unchanged from the text that appears in
GPLv2~\S7.  This is an important provision that ensures a catch-all to ensure
that nothing ``surprising'' interferes with the continued conveyance safely
under copyleft.

The wording in the first sentence of GPLv3~\S12 has been revised slightly to
clarify that an agreement -- such as a litigation settlement agreement or a
patent license agreement -- is one of the ways in which conditions may be
``imposed'' on a GPL licensee that may contradict the conditions of the GPL,
but which do not excuse the licensee from compliance with those conditions.
This change codifies the historical interpretation of GPLv2.

GPLv3 removed the limited severability clause of GPLv2~\S7 as a
matter of tactical judgment, believing that this is the best way to ensure
that all provisions of the GPL will be upheld in court. GPLv3 also removed
the final sentence of GPLv2 section 7, which the FSF consider to be unnecessary.

\section{GPLv3~\S13: The Great Affero Compromise}

The Affero GPL was written with the expectation that its
additional requirement would be incorporated into the terms of GPLv3
itself.  Many software freedom advocates, including some authors of this
tutorial, advocated heavily for that, and fully expected it to happen.

The FSF, however, chose not to include the Affero clause in GPLv3, due to
what it called  ``irreconcilable views from
different parts of the community''.  Many
commercial users of Free Software were opposed to the inclusion of a
mandatory Affero-like requirement in the body of GPLv3 itself.  In fact, some
wealthier companies even threatened to permanently fund forks of many FSF
copyrighted-programs under GPLv2 if the Affero clause appeared in GPLv3.

Meanwhile, there was disagreement even among copyleft enthusiasts about the
importance of the provision.  A coalition never formed, and ultimately the
more powerful interests implicitly allied with the companies who deeply opposed
the Affero clause such that the FSF felt the Affero clause would need its own
license, but one compatible with GPLv3. 

GPLv3~\S13 makes GPLv3 compatible with the AGPLv3, so that at least code can
be shared between AGPLv3'd and GPLv3'd projects, even if the Affero clause
does not automatically apply to all GPLv3'd works.

%FIXME-LATER:  no time to do this justice, will come back later, instead the
%above.

%% Some of this hostility seemed to be based on a misapprehension that
%% Affero-like terms placed on part of a covered work would somehow extend
%% to the whole of the work.\footnote{It is possible that the presence of
%% the GPLv2-derived copyleft clause in the existing Affero GPL contributed
%% to this misunderstanding.}  Our explanations to the contrary did little
%% to satisfy these critics; their objections to 7b4 instead evolved into a
%% broader indictment of the additional requirements scheme of section 7.
%% It was clear, however, that much of the concern about 7b4 stemmed from
%% its general formulation.  Many were alarmed at the prospect of GPLv3
%% compatibility for numerous Affero-like licensing conditions,
%% unpredictable in their details but potentially having significant
%% commercial consequences.

%% On the other hand, many developers, otherwise sympathetic to the policy
%% goals of the Affero GPL, have objected to the form of the additional
%% requirement in that license.  These developers were generally
%% disappointed with our decision to allow Affero-like terms through
%% section 7, rather than adopt a condition for GPLv3.  Echoing their
%% concerns about the Affero GPL itself, they found fault with the wording
%% of the section 7 clause in both of the earlier drafts.  We drafted 7b4
%% at a higher level than its Draft 1 counterpart based in part on comments
%% from these developers. They considered the Draft 1 clause too closely
%% tied to the Affero mechanism of preserving functioning facilities for
%% downloading source, which they found too restrictive of the right of
%% modification.  The 7b4 rewording did not satisfy them, however. They
%% objected to its limitation to terms requiring compliance by network
%% transmission of source, and to the technically imprecise or inaccurate
%% use of the phrase ``same network session.''

%% We have concluded that any redrafting of the 7b4 clause would fail to
%% satisfy the concerns of both sets of its critics.  The first group
%% maintains that GPLv3 should do nothing about the problem of public
%% use. The second group would prefer for GPLv3 itself to have an
%% Affero-like condition, but that seems to us too drastic. By permitting
%% GPLv3-covered code to be linked with code covered by version 2 of the
%% Affero GPL, the new section 13 honors our original commitment to
%% achieving GPL compatibility for the Affero license.

%% Version 2 of the Affero GPL is not yet published.  We will work with
%% Affero, Inc., and with all other interested members of our community, to
%% complete the drafting of this license following the release of Draft 3,
%% with a goal of having a final version available by the time of our
%% adoption of the final version of GPLv3.  We hope the new Affero license
%% will satisfy those developers who are concerned about the issue of
%% public use of unconveyed versions but who have concerns about the
%% narrowness of the condition in the existing Affero license.

%% As the second sentence in section 13 indicates, when a combined work is
%% made by linking GPLv3-covered code with Affero-covered code, the
%% copyleft on one part will not extend to the other part.\footnote{The
%% plan is that the additional requirement of the new Affero license will
%% state a reciprocal limitation.} That is to say, in such combinations,
%% the Affero requirement will apply only to the part that was brought into
%% the combination under the Affero license.  Those who receive such a
%% combination and do not wish to use code under the Affero requirement may
%% remove the Affero-covered portion of the combination.

Meanwhile, those who criticize the permission to link with code under the Affero
GPL should recognize that most other free software licenses also permit
such linking.  In particular, when a combined work is made by linking GPLv3-covered code
with AGPLv3-covered code, the copyleft on one part will not extend to the
other part. In such combinations, the Affero requirement will apply only to
the part originally brought into the combination under the Affero license.
In theory, those who receive such a combination and do not wish to use code
under the Affero requirement may remove the Affero-covered portion of the
combination.  (Admittedly, in practice, de-mingling of combined code can be
technically difficult.)


\section{GPLv3~\S14: So, When's GPLv4?}
\label{GPLv3s14}

No substantive change has been made in section 14. The wording of the section
has been revised slightly to make it clearer.

It's unclear when the FSF might consider publishing GPLv4.  However, this
section makes it clear that the FSF is the sole authority who can decide
such.

The main addition to this section allows a third-party proxy to be appointed
by contributors who wish someone else to make relicensing to new versions of
GPL when they are released.  This is a ``halfway'' point between using ``-only''
or ``-or-later'' by consolidating the decision-making on that issue to a
single authority.

% FIXME-LATER: better proxy description

\section{GPLv3~\S15--17: Warranty Disclaimers and Liability Limitation}

No substantive changes have been made in sections 15 and 16.

% FIXME-LATER: more, plus 17

% FIXME-LATER: Section header needed here about choice of law.

% FIXME-LATER: reword into tutorial

%% Some have asked us to address the difficulties of internationalization
%% by including, or permitting the inclusion of, a choice of law
%% provision.  We maintain that this is the wrong approach.  Free
%% software licenses should not contain choice of law clauses, for both
%% legal and pragmatic reasons.  Choice of law clauses are creatures of
%% contract, but the substantive rights granted by the GPL are defined
%% under applicable local copyright law. Contractual free software
%% licenses can operate only to diminish these rights.  Choice of law
%% clauses also raise complex questions of interpretation when works of
%% software are created by combination and extension.  There is also the
%% real danger that a choice of law clause will specify a jurisdiction
%% that is hostile to free software principles.

%% % FIXME-LATER: reword into tutorial, \ref to section 7.

%% Our revised version of section 7 makes explicit our view that the
%% inclusion of a choice of law clause by a licensee is the imposition of
%% an additional requirement in violation of the GPL.  Moreover, if a
%% program author or copyright holder purports to supplement the GPL with
%% a choice of law clause, section 7 now permits any licensee to remove
%% that clause.


% FIXME-LATER: does this need to be a section, describing how it was out then in
% then out then in? :)

Finally, the FSF shortened the section on ``How to Apply These
Terms to Your New Programs'' to just the bare essentials.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{The Lesser GPL}
\label{LGPLv2}

As we have seen in our consideration of the GPL, its text is specifically
designed to cover all possible derivative, modified and/or combined works under copyright law. Our
goal in designing the GPL was to maximize its use of the controls of
copyright law to maximize the number of works that were covered by GPL. 

However, while the strategic goal of software freedom 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.
The Lesser General Public License is sometimes described as a ``weak copyleft''
license, because code licensed under LGPL's terms can be combined with code
under non-free licenses, and is sometimes used in that fashion.

\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 the GPL were
somewhat different. Applications released under the GPL would never
themselves become part of proprietary software. However, if glibc were
released under the GPL, it would require that any application distributed for
the GNU/Linux platform be released under the 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 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 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 the 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 the 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, LGPLv2.1~\S1, the rules for verbatim copying of source, are
equivalent to those in GPLv2~\S1.

Second, LGPLv2.1~\S8 is equivalent GPLv2~\S4\@. In both licenses, this
section handles termination in precisely the same manner.

LGPLv2.1~\S9 is equivalent to GPLv2~\S5\@. Both sections assert that
the license is a copyright license, and handle the acceptance of those
copyright terms.

LGPLv2.1~\S10 is equivalent to GPLv2~\S6. 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.

LGPLv2.1~\S11 is GPLv2~\S7. 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.

LGPLv2.1~\S12 adds the same features as GPLv2~\S8. These sections are
used to allow original copyright holders to forbid distribution in
countries with draconian laws that would otherwise contradict these
licenses.

LGPLv2.1~\S13 sets up the FSF as the steward of the LGPL, just as GPLv2~\S9
does for GPL. Meanwhile, LGPLv2.1~\S14 reminds licensees that copyright
holders can grant exceptions to the terms of LGPL, just as GPLv2~\S10
reminds licensees of the same thing.

Finally, the assertions of no warranty and limitations of liability are
identical; thus LGPLv2.1~\S15 and LGPLv2.1~\S16 are the same as GPLv2~\S11 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 certain types of combinations, modifications and derivations.
The LGPL does not stretch the requirements as far as copyright law does regarding what
works must be relicensed under the same terms.  Therefore, LGPL must
in detail explain which works can 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 the 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 the LGPL\@.

In short, FSF designed the 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 the 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}

The LGPL's preamble sets forth the limits to which the license seeks to go in
chasing these goals. The 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 combined works: ``works that use
the library,'' and ``works based on the library.''  Unlike the GPL, the LGPL must
draw some lines regarding permissibly proprietary combined works.  We do this here in this
license because we specifically seek to liberalize the rights afforded to
those who make combined works. In the GPL, we reach as far as copyright law
allows. In the 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{An Application: A Work that Uses the Library}

In the effort to allow certain proprietary works and prohibit
others, the LGPL distinguishes between two classes of works:
``works based on the library,'' and ``works that use the library.''  The
distinction is drawn on the bright line of binary (or runtime) combined
works and modified versions of source code. We will first consider the definition
of a ``work that uses the library,'' which is set forth in LGPLv2.1~\S5.

We noted in our discussion of GPLv2~\S3 (discussed in
Section~\ref{GPLv2s3} of this document) that binary programs when
compiled and linked with GPL'd software are covered as a whole by GPL\@.
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 works are controlled by the terms of the license (in GPLv2~\S3),
and distributors of such binary works must release full
corresponding source\@.

The LGPL, by contrast, allows partial proprietarization of such binary works.
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 combined work, called \lplusi{}, that the user can
  run.

\item Since \lplusi{} is a based on both \worki{} and \workl{},
  the license of \workl{} (the LGPL) can put restrictions on the license
  of \lplusi{}. In fact, this is what the LGPL does.

\end{itemize}

We will talk about the specific restrictions LGPLv2.1 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 LGPLv2.1 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 LGPLv2.1 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 LGPLv2.1 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  work based on
the LGPLv2.1'd software (\workl{}).

Thus, a two-question test that will help indicate if a particular work is
a ``work that uses the library'' under LGPLv2.1 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 combine into a single work
  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{The Library, and Works Based On It}

In short, a ``work based on the library'' could be defined as any
work based on the 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 derivative, combined and/or
modified works under copyright law, in the same sense that the 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 determining if a given work is a derivative or otherwise a
modified version of another 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 and/or modified
  work of, and/or a combined work with the LGPL'd work under
  copyright law?

\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.''

You can also perform a similar same analysis through careful consideration of
the license text itself.  LGPLv2~\S2(a) states that if a licensed work is a
software library (defined in LGPLv2~\S0 as ``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''), you have permission to distribute modified versions only if
those versions are themselves libraries.  LGPLv2.1 code can therefore not be
compliantly taken from its context in a library and placed in a non-library
modified version or work based on the work.  For its part, LGPLv2~\S6 does
not provide an exception for this rule: a combination may be made of a
modified version of an LGPL'd library with other code, but the LGPL'd code
must continue to be structured as a library, and to that library the terms of
the license continue to apply.


Either way you view the rules, these issues are admittedly complicated.
Nevertheless, In our years of work with the LGPLv2.1, 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 particularly large
work in some ways seemed to be both to both a work that used the library and
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 LGPLv2.1 applied to each
work as prescribed.

Finally, note though that, since the LGPLv2.1 can be easily upgraded to
GPLv2-or-later, in the worst case you simply need to comply as if the
software was licensed under GPLv2.  The only reason you must consider the
question of whether you have a ``work that uses the library'' or a ``work
based on the library'' is when you wish to take advantage of the ``weak
copyleft'' effect of the Lesser GPL\@.  If GPLv2-or-later is an acceptable
license (i.e., if you plan to copyleft the entire work anyway), you may find
this an easier option.

\section{Subtleties in Defining the Application}

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 LGPLv2.1~\S5 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 LGPLv2.1~\S5, \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 the 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 modified version of the 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.
To understand this phenomenon, we consider that a ``work that uses the
library'' is typically one whose final binary is a work based on the Program,
but whose source is not.  However, sometimes, there
are cases where the object code --- that intermediate step between source
and final binary --- is a work created by copying and modifying 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 final combined work 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
combined work is created.

LGPLv2.1~\S5\P4 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
LGPLv2.1'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 LGPLv2.1 are the same regardless
of the details of the compilation progress.

\section{LGPLv2.1~\S6 \& LGPLv2.1~\S5: Combining the Works}
\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
LGPLv2.1~\S6\@. LGPLv2.1~\S6 is much like GPLv2~\S3, 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 LGPLv2.1~\S6 to make sure
that a user who wishes to modify or update the library can do so.

LGPLv2.1~\S6 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 LGPLv2.1 compliance on a ``work that
uses the library.''

LGPLv2.1~\S6(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 LGPLv2.1~\S6(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.

LGPLv2.1~\S6(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.

Almost all known LGPL'd distributions exercise either LGPLv2.1~\S6(a) or
LGPLv2.1~\S6(b).  However, LGPLv2.1~\S6 provides three other options.
LGPLv2.1~\S6(c) allows for a written offer for CCS (akin to
\hyperref[GPLv2s3b]{GPLv2~\S3(b)}).  CCS may also be distributed by network
under the terms of LGPLv2.1~\S6(c).  Furthermore, under LGPLv2.1~\S6(e) the
distributor may ``verify'' that the user has already received, or at least
that the distributor has already sent to this particular user, the relevant
source\footnote{Policy motivations for LGPLv2.1~\S6(d) are unclear, but it
  presumably intended to prevent requiring duplicate deliveries in ``whole
  distribution'' situations.}.

Finally, LGPLv3~\S6 also requires that:

\begin{quote}
    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.
\end{quote}

This is not identical to the roughly parallel requirements of GPLv2 and
GPLv3. Compliance requires slightly different measures with respect to the
``credits'' or ``licenses'' or ``about'' screens in interactive programs.

\section{Distributing 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 
LGPLv2.1~\S2 is nearly identical in its terms and requirements to GPLv2~\S2.

There are, however, subtle differences and additions.  For example not only
is CCS required (as would be with normal versions of GPL), but also the CCS
provided must enable a developer to regenerate the modified version of the
entire combined work, using with a modified version of the LGPL'd work (as a
replacement for the version a distributor provided).  For example, LGPL'd
code is statically linked to a non-copyleft executable, the required source
code must also include sufficient material to split the distributed
executable and relink with a modified version of the library.

\section{And the Rest}

The remaining variations between the LGPL and the GPL cover the following
conditions:

\begin{itemize}

\item Allowing a licensing ``upgrade'' from the LGPL to the GPL\@ (in LGPLv2.1~\S3).
  Note, however, LGPLv2.1~\S3 allows relicensing of works under its terms
  instead under the terms of GPLv2-or-later.  This provides, for example, a
  pathway for those who do not want to use code under the requirements of
  LGPLv2.1 to do so under GPLv2 or GPLv3 at their discretion.

\item Binary distribution of the library only, covered in LGPLv2.1~\S4,
  which is effectively equivalent to LGPLv2.1~\S3

\item Creating aggregates of libraries that are separate and independent works from
  each other, and distributing them as a unit (in LGPLv2.1~\S7)

\end{itemize}


Due to time constraints, we cannot cover these additional terms in detail,
but they are mostly straightforward. The key to understanding LGPLv2.1 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 LGPLv2.1 is close enough to GPL that the concepts discussed in
our more extensive GPL unit can be directly applied.

\chapter{LGPLv3}
\label{LGPLv3}

LGPLv3 was designed to rectify  architectural flaws in the GNU family of
licenses.  Historically , LGPLv2.1 was a textual modification of GPLv2.
Reconciliation of licensing terms upon combination of LGPLv2.1'd and GPLv2'd
works is cumbersome, from a licensing bookkeeping perspective.

LGPLv3 redresses this historical problem through extensive use of
\hyperref[GPLv3s7]{GPLv3~\S7}'s exception architecture.  LGPLv3 is therefore
a set of additional permission to GPLv3.

%FIXME: harken back to policy motivations of LGPL and how GPLv3 as a whole is
%always an option.

\section{Section 0: Additional Definitions}

LGPLv3~\S0 defines the ``Library'' -- a work that presents one or more
interfaces at which a ``use'' can be made by an ``Application.''  Class
inheritance is ``deemed'' a use of an interface.  An ``Application,'' which is
other program code using one or more ``Library'' interfaces can be combined
with the code on the other side of the interfaces it uses to form a
``Combined Work.''

\section{LGPLv3~\S1: Exception to GPLv3~\S3}

LGPLv3~\S1 excepts away the interference with use of LGPLv3 code as part of
``effective technological measures'' of access limitation for other copyrighted
works provided otherwise by GPLv3~\S3.

\section{LGPLv3~\S2: Conveying Modified Versions}

LGPLv3~\S2 continues to require, as LGPLv2.1~\S2(d) requires, that the Library
not be modified to require keys, tokens, tables, or other global non-argument
data unrelated to function. This is again stated as a ``good faith effort''
requirement, but failure to cure on notice is strong evidence of the absence
of good faith.  LGPLv3~\S2(b) permits removal of the permissions entirely (as
prescribed by GPLv3~\S7); however, such removal reduces the license of the
entire covered work back to pure GPLv3.   Thus, exercising LGPLv3~\S2(b) as a
compliance alternative to LGPLv3~\S2(a) likely creates more compliance
obligations than it removes.

\section{LGPLv3~\S3: Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files}

LGPLv3~\S3's front matter assures incorporation of smaller header files into
non-copylefted object code can proceed unimpeded.  More complex
header files (those that do not meet the limitations provided in the
section), can still be incorporated into object code, a copy of appropriate
licensing information must accompany distribution (per LGPLv3~\S3(a--b).

%FIXME: talk about copyrightabilty lines and the like and why the ten line rule.

\section{LGPLv3~\S4: Combined Works}

LGPLv3~\S4 is the combination permission at the heart of LGPLv3. It restates
the license limitation provision of LGPLv2.1~\S2 to clarify that the terms on
the Combined Work may not prohibit user modification of the Library code, or
the debugging of such modifications to the Library code by means of whatever
reverse engineering is necessary.

LGPLv3~\S4(d)(0) contains the source provision requirement, for the Minimal
Corresponding Source, which ``means the Corresponding Source for the Combined
Work, excluding any source code for portions of the Combined Work that,
considered in isolation, are based on the Application, and not on the Linked
Version [of the Library]''. The alternative to the provision of source code is
distribution by way of the ``shared library'' mechanism under LGPLv3~\S4(d)(1),
described with respect to LGPLv2.1~\S6.

In addition, LGPLv3~\S4(e) requires the delivery of ``installation information''
required to install the modified version of the Library in ``user products''
under GPLv3~\S6. Where Library Minimal Corresponding Source is not made
available under LGPLv3~\S4(d)(1), LGPLv3~\S4(e) reaffirms that ``installation information''
must still be compliantly delivered under the terms of GPLv3~\S6.

All other provisions of GPLv3 are in force as previously described, and are
not excepted by the additional permission granted in LGPLv3.

If the distributor of the combined work intends not to distribute or offer
the source code of the LGPL'd components, the LGPL'd work must be separately
distributed (subject to source code delivery requirements as part of that
separate distribution) and packaged in a ``shared library'' mechanism, which
means that it:
\begin{quote}
\begin{enumerate}[label=4(d)(\arabic*):,ref=LGPLv3s4d\arabic*]
  \item 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

  \item 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.
\end{enumerate}
\end{quote}

Taken all together, LGPLv3~\S4's primary implications for redistributors are
two-fold, as follows:
\begin{itemize}

\item  If you create a program that links through a shared library mechanism to
    a work that is separately distributed under LGPLv3, then you can
    distribute the resultant program under a license of your choice and you
    need not convey the LGPLv3'd work's source code. If you distribute the
    library along with your program, or are the separate distributor of the
    work in another context or as another product, you must distribute its
    corresponding source under the terms of LGPLv3 or GPLv3-or-later.

\item If you choose to statically link or otherwise combine your program with
    an LGPLv3'd work via mechanisms other than a shared library, you may choose your own license for the work provided the
    license terms limitations for user modification, reverse engineering and
    debugging are met, and given that the LGPL'd components are still
    governed by LGPL's terms. You must offer or provide CCS for the LGPL'd components. The source code
    material provided must be sufficient to regenerate the combined work with
    a user-modified version of the LGPL'd components.
\end{itemize}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% FIXME-LATER: There should be a chapter on GPL Exceptions generally.

% Here is some CC-By-SA text from another source that would make an
% acceptable introduction to a section on the GCC RTL Exception if such a
% chapter is written:

% This GCC Runtime Library Exception (``Exception'') is an additional
% permission as provided by Section 7 of GPLv3. The purpose of this Exception
% is to allow compilation of non-GPL (including proprietary) programs making
% use of the header files and runtime libraries covered by this Exception and
% containing code from the copyleft toolchain embedded by the compiler in the
% object code of the program as part of the compilation process. The GCC
% Runtime Library Exception covers any file that has a notice in its license
% headers stating that the exception applies.

% FIXME-LATER: end

\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{GPLv2s0} and~\ref{GPLv2s5} 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 the 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 GPLv2~\S\S1 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 make substantial revenue
from this model. Some choose this model because they have
found that for higher-end hardware, 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, is the right choice. For instance IBM can be
assured that proprietary versions of the their software will not exist to
compete on their hardware.


For example, charging 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

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 that compete in
this space. Modern industry demands the trust created by GPL protected
code-bases. 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 holds exclusive rights to
relicense.\footnote{Entities typically hold exclusive relicensing rights
  either by writing all the software under their own copyrights, collecting
  copyright assignments from all contributors, or by otherwise demanding
  unconditional relicensing permissions from all contributors via some legal
  agreement} 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 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 at best problematic and at worst predatory 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
clearly and legally separate and independent works, merely aggregated
together on the same device.

However, it sometimes is easier, quicker, and cheaper to simply
improve an existing GPL'd application than to start from scratch.  In
exchange for this amazing benefit, the license requires that the modifier gives
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 $<$licensing@fsf.org$>$.

%FIXME-LATER: should have \tutorialpart

If you are particularly interested in matters of GPL compliance, we
recommend the next two parts, which include both recommendations on good
compliance and compliance case studies.

% =====================================================================
% END OF FIRST DAY SEMINAR SECTION
% =====================================================================

%%  LocalWords:  Sebro Novalis Ravicher GPLv GPL'd copylefted LGPLv OSI USC
%%  LocalWords:  noncommercially counterintuitive Berne copyrightable DRM UC
%%  LocalWords:  proprietarize proprietarization Stallman's Tridgell's RMS
%%  LocalWords:  Lessig Lessig's Stallman Proto GPLs proto Tai pre GPL's ful
%%  LocalWords:  legalbol AGPLv Runtime licensor licensors relicense UCITA
%%  LocalWords:  unprotectable Intl nd th Kepner Tregoe Bando Indust Mitel
%%  LocalWords:  Iqtel Bateman Mitek Arce protectable hoc faire de minimis
%%  LocalWords:  Borland Int'l uncopyrightable LLC APIs Ent Connectix DVD's
%%  LocalWords:  redistributor diachronic unshared subpart redistributors
%%  LocalWords:  CDs userbase reshifts licensor's distributee impliedly Mgmt
%%  LocalWords:  patentee  relicenses irrevocability Jacobsen Katzer TRW CCS
%%  LocalWords:  Unfreedonia administrivia Relicensing impermissibly centric
%%  LocalWords:  permissibility firehose bytecode minified Javascript DLLs
%%  LocalWords:  preprocessors functionalities offsite sublicensing DMCA CFR
%%  LocalWords:  anticircumvention WIPO BitTorrent multidirectional Magnuson
%%  LocalWords:  subdefinition Dryvit Stroebner Tandy TRS superset LGPL SLES
%%  LocalWords:  cryptographic relicensing removability sublicensed Novell
%%  LocalWords:  anticompetitive administrability sublicensable licensable
%%  LocalWords:  sublicense sublicensees sublicenses affixation Novell's
%%  LocalWords:  severability Affero LGPL'd lingua franca glibc facto LGPL's
%%  LocalWords:  relicensed runtime subunits relink downloadable MontaVista
%%  LocalWords:  CodeSourcery OpenTV MySQL TrollTech Michlmayr Copyleft's
%%  LocalWords:  GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic privity Downstream's Jaeger
%%  LocalWords:  Jaeger's copyleft's executables estoppel infringer
%%  LocalWords:  unenforceability enforceability CISG