Changeset - 07a02b0b1c6d
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-03-19 23:17:52
bkuhn@ebb.org
Merge various texts to a coherent section on "modify" & internationalization.

Ultimately, some of the text related to "modify" made good seed material to
explain the internationalization motivations of GPLv3. That text is moved
and expanded, and the various parts about the "modify" definition are merged
together into one subsection.
1 file changed with 51 insertions and 66 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -2241,6 +2241,18 @@ shorter GPL\@.  Ultimately, the FSF gave priority to making GPLv3 a better
 
copyleft in the spirit of past GPL's.  Obsession for concision should never
 
trump software freedom.
 

	
 
The FSF had many different, important goals in seeking to upgrade to GPLv3.
 
However, one important goal that is often lost in the discussion of policy
 
minutia is a rather simple but important issue.  Namely, FSF sought to assure
 
that GPLv3 was more easily internationalized than GPLv2.  In particular, the
 
FSF sought to ease interpretation of GPL in other countries by replacement of
 
USA-centric\footnote{See Section~\ref{non-usa-copyright} of this tutorial for
 
  a brief discussion about non-USA copyright systems.}  copyright phrases and
 
wording with neutral terminology rooted in description of behavior rather
 
than specific statue.  As can be seen in the section-by-section discussion of
 
GPLv3 that follows, nearly every section had changes related to issues of
 
internationalization.
 
 
 
\section{GPLv3~\S0: Giving In On ``Defined Terms''}
 

	
 
One of lawyers' most common complaints about GPLv2 is that defined terms in
...
 
@@ -2261,82 +2273,55 @@ adds one.  Most of these defined terms are somewhat straightforward and bring
 
forward better worded definitions from GPLv2.  Herein, this tutorial
 
discusses a few of the new ones.
 

	
 
% FIXME: it's now five, ``Modify''
 

	
 
GPLv3~\S0 includes definitions of four new terms not found in any form in
 
GPLv2: ``covered work'', ``propagate'', ``convey'', and ``Appropriate Legal
 
Notices''.
 
GPLv3~\S0 includes definitions of five new terms not found in any form in
 
GPLv2: ``modify'' ``covered work'', ``propagate'', ``convey'', and
 
``Appropriate Legal Notices''. 
 

	
 
\subsection{Modify and the Work Based on the Program}
 

	
 
GPLv2 included a defined term, ``work based on the Program'', but also used
 
the term ``modify'' and ``based on'' throughout the license.  GPLv2's ``work
 
based on the Program'' definition made use of a legal term of art,
 
``derivative work'', which is peculiar to USA copyright law.  However,
 
ironically, the most criticism of USA-specific legal terminology in GPLv2's
 
``work based on the Program'' definition historically came not primarily from
 
readers outside the USA, but from those within it\footnote{The FSF noted in
 
  that it did not generally agree with these views, and expressed puzzlement
 
  by the energy with which they were expressed, given the existence of many
 
  other, more difficult legal issues implicated by the GPL.  Nevertheless,
 
  the FSF argued that it made sense to eliminate usage of local copyright
 
  terminology to good effect.}.  Admittedly, even though differently-labeled
 
concepts corresponding to the derivative work are recognized in all copyright
 
law systems, these counterpart concepts might differ to some degree in scope
 
and breadth from the USA derivative work.
 

	
 
The goal and intention of GPLv2 was always to cover all rights governed by
 
relevant copyright law, in the USA and elsewhere.  GPLv3 therefore takes the
 
task of internationalizing the license further by removing references to
 
derivative works and by providing a more globally useful definition.  The new
 
definition returns to the common elements of copyright law.  Copyright
 
holders of works of software have the exclusive right to form new works by
 
modification of the original --- a right that may be expressed in various
 
ways in different legal systems.  GPLv3 operates to grant this right to
 
successive generations of users (particularly through the copyleft conditions
 
set forth in GPLv3~\S5, as described later in this tutorial in its
 
\S~\ref{GPLv3s5}).  Here in GPLv3~\S0, ``modify'' refers to basic copyright
 
rights, and then this definition of ``modify'' is used to define ``modified
 
version of'' and ``work based on,'' as synonyms.
 

	
 
% FIXME: modify needs more discussion 
 

	
 
We have made further improvements to the important definitions of ``modify''
 
and ``based on,'' providing a complete definition of ``modify'' that refers
 
to basic copyright rights, and using this definition of ``modify'' to define
 
``modified version of'' and ``work based on,'' now presented as synonyms.
 
%FIXME: transition
 

	
 
% FIXME: Transition, GPLv2 ref needed.
 
While ``covered by this license'' is a phrase found in GPLv2, defining it
 
more complete in a single as ``covered work'' enables some of the wording in
 
GPLv3 to be simpler and clearer than its GPLv2 counterparts.
 

	
 
Although the definition of ``work based on the Program'' made use of a legal
 
term of art, ``derivative work,'' peculiar to USA copyright law, we did not
 
believe that this presented difficulties as significant as those associated
 
with the use of the term ``distribution.''  After all, differently-labeled
 
concepts corresponding to the derivative work are recognized in all copyright
 
law systems.  That these counterpart concepts might differ to some degree in
 
scope and breadth from the USA derivative work was simply a consequence of
 
varying national treatment of the right of altering a copyrighted work.
 

	
 
%FIXME: should we keep this? maybe a footnote?
 

	
 
Ironically, the criticism we have received regarding the use of
 
USA-specific legal terminology in the ``work based on the Program''
 
definition has come not primarily from readers outside the USA, but
 
from those within it, and particularly from members of the technology
 
licensing bar.  They have argued that the definition of ``work based
 
on the Program'' effectively misstates what a derivative work is under
 
USA law, and they have contended that it attempts, by indirect means,
 
to extend the scope of copyleft in ways they consider undesirable.
 
They have also asserted that it confounds the concepts of derivative
 
and collective works, two terms of art that they assume, questionably,
 
to be neatly disjoint under USA law.
 

	
 
% FIXME: As above
 

	
 
We do not agree with these views, and we were long puzzled by the
 
energy with which they were expressed, given the existence of many
 
other, more difficult legal issues implicated by the GPL.
 
Nevertheless, we realized that here, too, we can eliminate usage of
 
local copyright terminology to good effect.  Discussion of GPLv3 will
 
be improved by the avoidance of parochial debates over the
 
construction of terms in one imperfectly-drafted copyright statute.
 
Interpretation of the license in all countries will be made easier by
 
replacement of those terms with neutral terminology rooted in
 
description of behavior.
 

	
 
%FIXME: GPLv3, reword a bit.
 

	
 
Draft 2 therefore takes the task of internationalizing the license
 
further by removing references to derivative works and by providing a
 
more globally useful definition of a work ``based on'' another work.
 
We return to the basic principles of users' freedom and the common
 
elements of copyright law.  Copyright holders of works of software
 
have the exclusive right to form new works by modification of the
 
original, a right that may be expressed in various ways in different
 
legal systems.  The GPL operates to grant this right to successive
 
generations of users, particularly through the copyleft conditions set
 
forth in section 5 of GPLv3, which applies to the conveying of works
 
based on the Program.  In section 0 we simply define a work based on
 
another work to mean ``any modified version for which permission is
 
necessary under applicable copyright law,'' without further qualifying
 
the nature of that permission, though we make clear that modification
 
includes the addition of material.\footnote{We have also removed the
 
paragraph in section 5 that makes reference to ``derivative or
 
collective works based on the Program.''}
 

	
 
%FIXME: transition
 

	
 
While ``covered by this license'' is a phrase found in GPLv2, defining it
 
more complete in a single as ``covered work'' enables some of the wording in
 
GPLv3 to be simpler and clearer than its GPLv2 counterparts.
 

	
 
% FIXME: does propagate  definition still work the same way in final draft?
 

	
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)