Copyright \= \copyright{} 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 \= \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc. \kill 

% Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

% Copyright (C) 2014                   Bradley M. Kuhn

Copyright \= \copyright{} 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 \= \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\

Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\

% FIXME: integrate this into this section.

To our knowledge, no one has invoked this section to add an explicit

geographical distribution limitation since GPLv2 was released in 1991. We

have concluded that this provision is not needed and is not expected to be

needed in the future, and that it therefore should be removed.

We recognize that, overall, the changes made in GPLv3 have increased the

complexity of the license. We would have liked to oblige those who have asked

us for a simpler and shorter GPL, but we had to give priority to making GPLv3

do the job that needs to be done.

% FIXME: intro defined terms

% FIXME: rewrite to FOUR new terms

Section 0 includes definitions of two new terms: ``covered work'' and

``propagate.''  The use of the term ``covered work'' enables some of the

wording in the revised GPL to be simpler and clearer.

% FIXME: rewrite propagate 

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 the GPL imposes conditions on and the kinds of

uses that the GPL does not (for the most part) impose conditions

on.

Second, ``propagate'' furthers our goal of making the license as

global as possible in its wording and effect. When a work is licensed

under the GPL, the copyright law of some particular country will

govern certain legal issues arising under the license. A term like

``distribute,'' or its equivalent in languages other than English, is

used in several national copyright statutes.  The scope of

``distribution'' in the copyright context can differ from country to

country. We do not wish to force on the GPL the specific meaning of

``distribution'' that exists under United States copyright law or any

other country's copyright law.

We therefore define the term ``propagate'' by reference to activities

that require permission under ``applicable copyright law,'' but we

exclude execution and private modification from the definition. Our

definition 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.

% FIXME: paragraph number change , and more on Convey once definition comes.

The third paragraph of section 2 represents another effort to compensate for

variation in national copyright law.  We distinguish between propagation that

enables parties other than the licensee to make or receive copies, and other

forms of propagation.  As noted above, the meaning of ``distribution'' under

copyright law varies from country to country, including with respect to

whether making copies available to other parties (such as related public or

corporate entities) is ``distribution.'' ``Propagation,'' however, is a term

not tied to any statutory language.  Propagation that does not enable other

parties to make or receive copies --- for example, making private copies or

privately viewing the program --- is permitted unconditionally.  Propagation

that does enable other parties to make or receive copies is permitted as

``distribution,'' subject to the conditions set forth in sections 4--6.

% FIXME: Appropriate Legal Notices

% FIXME: Talk briefly about importance of CCS and reference compliance guide

% FIXME: reword source code a bit

Section 1 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 to be understood broadly as including 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.  The definition of object code also ensures that licensees

cannot escape their obligations under the GPL by resorting to shrouded

source or obfuscated programming.

% FIXME: More about CCS here.

% FIXME: CCS Coresponding Source updated to newer definition in later drafts

The definition of ``Complete Corresponding Source Code'' given in the

second paragraph of section 1 is as broad as necessary to protect users'

exercise of their rights under the GPL. We follow the definition with

particular examples to remove any doubt that they are to be considered

Complete Corresponding Source Code. We wish to make completely clear

that a licensee cannot avoid complying with the requirements of the GPL

by dynamically linking an add-on component to the original version of a

program.

Though the definition of Complete Corresponding Source Code in the

second paragraph of section 1 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 need to be

signed with a key or authorized with a code in order for it to run on

a particular machine and function properly. Similarly, a program that

produces digitally-restricted files might require a decryption code in

order to read the output.  

% FIXME: Standard Interface

% FIXME: System Libraries: it's in a different place and changed in later drafts

The final paragraph of section 1 revises the exception to the source code

distribution requirement in GPLv2 that we have sometimes called the system

library exception. This exception has been read to prohibit certain

distribution arrangements that we consider reasonable and have not sought to

prevent, such as distribution of gcc linked with a non-free C library that is

included as part of a larger non-free system. This is not to say that such

non-free libraries are legitimate; rather, preventing free software from

linking with these libraries would hurt free software more than it would hurt

proprietary software.

As revised, the exception has two parts. Part (a) rewords the GPLv2

exception for clarity but also removes the words ``unless that

component itself accompanies the executable.''  By itself, (a) would

be too permissive, allowing distributors to evade their

responsibilities under the GPL.  We have therefore added part (b) to

specify when a system library that is an adjunct of a major essential

operating system component, compiler, or interpreter does not trigger

the requirement to distribute source code.  The more low-level the

functionality provided by the library, the more likely it is to be

qualified for this exception.

% FIXME: phrase ``unmodified Program'' appears due to User Products exception

We have included the first sentence of section 2 to further internationalize

the GPL. 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

United States, such a provision is unnecessary but permissible.

The first paragraph of section 2 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.

% FIXME: propagate and convey

Section 2 distinguishes between activities of a licensee that are permitted

without limitation and activities that trigger additional requirements. The

second paragraph of section 2 guarantees the basic freedoms of privately

modifying and running the program. However, the right to privately modify and

run the program is terminated if the licensee brings a patent infringement

lawsuit against anyone for activities relating to a work based on the

program.

% FIXME: reference the section in DMCA about this, maybe already there in

%        GPLv2 section?

% FIXME: Wrong paragraph now.

The second paragraph of section 3 declares that no GPL'd program is part of

an effective technological protection measure, regardless of what the program

does. Ill-advised legislation in the United States and other countries has

prohibited circumvention of such technological measures. If a covered work is

distributed as part of a system for generating or accessing certain data, the

effect of this paragraph is to prevent someone from claiming that some other

GPL'd program that accesses the same data is an illegal circumvention.

% FIXME: there appear to be minor changes here in later drafts, fix that.

Section 4 has been revised from its corresponding section in GPLv2 in light

of the new section 7 on license compatibility. A distributor of verbatim

copies of the program's source code must obey any existing additional terms

that apply to parts of the program. In addition, the distributor is required

to keep intact all license notices, including notices of such additional

terms.

% FIXME: 5(a) is slightly different in final version

Section 5 contains a number of changes relative to the corresponding section

in GPLv2. Subsection 5a 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.

Under subsection 5a, as in the corresponding provision of GPLv2, the notices

must state ``the date of any change,'' which we interpret to mean the date of

one or more of the licensee's changes.  The best practice would be to include

the date of the latest change.  However, in order to avoid requiring revision

of programs distributed under ``GPL version 2 or later,'' we have retained

the existing wording.

% FIXME:  It's now (b) and (c).  Also, ``validity'' of proprietary

%         relicensing?  Give me a break.  I'll fix that.

Subsection 5b is the central copyleft provision of the license.  It now

states that the GPL applies to the whole of the work.  The license must be

unmodified, except as permitted by section 7, which allows GPL'd code to be

combined with parts covered by certain other kinds of free software licensing

terms. Another change in subsection 5b is the removal of the words ``at no

charge,'' which was often misinterpreted by commentators.  The last sentence

of subsection 5b explicitly recognizes the validity of disjunctive

dual-licensing.

%  FIXME: 5d.  Related to Appropriatey Legal notices

% follows 5d now, call it the ``final paragraph''

The paragraph following subsection 5c has been revised for clarity, but the

underlying meaning is unchanged. When independent non-derivative sections are

distributed for use in a combination that is a covered work, the whole of the

combination must be licensed under the GPL, regardless of the form in which

such combination occurs, including combination by dynamic linking. The final

sentence of the paragraph adapts this requirement to the new compatibility

provisions of section 7.

Section 6 of GPLv3, which clarifies and revises GPLv2 section 3, requires

distributors of GPL'd object code to provide access to the corresponding

source code, in one of four specified ways. As noted above, ``object code''

in GPLv3 is defined broadly to mean any non-source version of a work.

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

Subsections 6a and 6b 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, the

distribution of object code may either be accompanied by the machine-readable

source code, or it may be accompanied by a written offer to provide the

machine-readable source code to any third party. GPLv3 clarifies that the

medium for software interchange on which the machine-readable source code is

provided must be a durable physical medium. Subsection 6b does not prevent a

distributor from offering to provide source code to a third party by some

other means, such as transmission over a network, so long as the option of

obtaining source code on a physical medium is presented.

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

Subsection 6b 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. We believe that 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.

% FIXME: 10x language is gone.

Subsection 6b also increases the maximum permitted price for providing a copy

of the source code. GPLv2 stated that the price could be no more than the

cost of physically performing source distribution; GPLv3 allows the price to

be up to ten times the distributor's cost. It may not be practical to expect

some organizations to provide such copies at cost. Moreover, permitting such

organizations to charge ten times the cost is not particularly harmful, since

some recipient of the code can be expected to make the code freely available

on a public network server. We also recognize that there is nothing wrong

with profiting from providing copies of source code, provided that the price

of a copy is not so unreasonably high as to make it effectively unavailable.

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

Subsection 6c gives narrower permission than the corresponding subsection in

GPLv2.  The option of including a copy of an offer received in accordance

with subsection 6b is available only for private distribution of object code;

moreover, such private distribution is restricted to ``occasional

non-commercial distribution.''  This subsection makes clear that 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:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

New subsection 6d, which revises the final paragraph of GPLv2 section 3,

addresses distribution of object code by offering access to copy the code

from a designated place, such as by enabling electronic access to a network

server.  Subsection 6d clarifies that the distributor must offer equivalent

access to copy the source code ``in the same way through the same place.''

This wording 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.  This codifies what has been our

interpretation of GPLv2.

%FIXME: 6e, peer-to-peer

%  FIXME: Not final paragraph anymore. 

The final paragraph of section 6 takes account of the fact that the Complete

Corresponding Source Code may include added parts that carry non-GPL terms,

as permitted by section 7.

% FIXME: update lock-down section to work with more recent drafts

Though the definition of Complete Corresponding Source Code in the second

paragraph of section 1 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 need to be signed with a key or authorized

with a code in order for it to run on a particular machine and function

properly. Similarly, a program that produces digitally-restricted files might

require a decryption code in order to read the output.

The third paragraph of section 1 addresses this problem by making clear that

Complete Corresponding Source Code includes any such encryption,

authorization, and decryption codes. By requiring the inclusion of this

information whenever the GPL requires distribution of Complete Corresponding

Source Code, we thwart efforts to obstruct the goals of the GPL, and we

ensure that users will remain in control over their own machines. We

recognize an exception where use of the program normally implies that the

user already has the codes. For example, in secure systems a computer owner

might possess any keys needed to run a program, while the distributor of the

program might not have the keys.

% FIXME: installation information

%FIXME: publicly documented format

% FIXME: reword intro to license compatibility

Another challenge facing the free software community is the proliferation of

incompatible free software licenses. Of course, we cannot make the GPL

compatible with all such licenses. 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.

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

In GPLv3 we take a new approach to the issue of combining GPL'd code with

code governed by the terms of other free software licenses. Our view, though

it was not explicitly stated in GPLv2 itself, was 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, we supplemented this policy with a structure of

exceptions for certain kinds of combinations.

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

Section 7 of GPLv3 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. We

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.

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

Section 7 first explicitly allows added parts covered by terms with

additional permissions to be combined with GPL'd code. This codifies our

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.

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

In its treatment of terms that impose additional requirements, section 7

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 an set enumerated in section 7. We

must, of course, place some limit on the kinds of additional requirements

that we will accept, to ensure that enhanced license compatibility does not

defeat the broader freedoms advanced by 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 no such user

would have the right to do so.

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

Under subsections 7a and 7b, the requirements may include preservation of

copyright notices, information about the origins of the code or alterations

of the code, and different warranty disclaimers. Under subsection 7c, the

requirements may include limitations on the use of names of contributors and

on the use of trademarks for publicity purposes. In general, we permit these

requirements in added terms because many free software licenses include them

and we consider them to be unobjectionable. Because we support trademark fair

use, the limitations on the use of trademarks may seek to enforce only what

is required by trademark law, and may not prohibit what would constitute fair

use.

% FIXME: 7d-f

% FIXME:  removing additional restrictions

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

Section 7 requires a downstream user of a covered work to preserve the

non-GPL terms covering the added parts just as they must preserve the GPL, as

long as any substantial portion of those parts is present in the user's

version.

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

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 would need to obtain forgiveness from all

copyright holders, but even to contact them all might be impossible.

% FIXME: needs to be updated to describe more complex termination

Section 8 of GPLv3 replaces automatic termination with a non-automatic

termination process.  Any copyright holder for the licensed work may opt to

terminate the rights of a violator of the license, provided that the

copyright holder has first given notice of the violation within 60 days of

its most recent occurrence. A violator who has been given notice may make

efforts to enter into compliance and may request that the copyright holder

agree not exercise the right of termination; the copyright holder may choose

to grant or refuse this request.

% FIXME: needs to be updated to describe more complex termination

If a licensee who is in violation of GPLv3 acts to correct the violation and

enter into compliance, and the licensee receives no notice of the past

violation within 60 days, then the licensee need not worry about termination

of rights under the license.

% FIXME

% FIXME

% FIXME:  probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time.

GPLv3 adds a new section on licensing of patents. GPLv2 relies on an implied

patent license. The doctrine of implied license is one that is recognized

under United States patent law but may not be recognized in other

jurisdictions. We have therefore decided to make the patent license grant

explicit in GPLv3. Under section 11, a redistributor of a GPL'd work

automatically grants a nonexclusive, royalty-free and worldwide license for

any patent claims held by the redistributor, if those claims would be

infringed by the work or a reasonably contemplated use of the work.

% FIXME:  probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time.

The patent license is granted both to recipients of the redistributed work

and to any other users who have received any version of the work. Section 11

therefore ensures that downstream users of GPL'd code and works derived from

GPL'd code are protected from the threat of patent infringement allegations

made by upstream distributors, regardless of which country's laws are held to

apply to any particular aspect of the distribution or licensing of the GPL'd

code.

% FIXME:  probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time.

A redistributor of GPL'd code may benefit from a patent license that has been

granted by a third party, where the third party otherwise could bring a

patent infringement lawsuit against the redistributor based on the

distribution or other use of the code. In such a case, downstream users of

the redistributed code generally remain vulnerable to the applicable patent

claims of the third party. This threatens to defeat the purposes of the GPL,

for the third party could prevent any downstream users from exercising the

freedoms that the license seeks to guarantee.

% FIXME:  probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time.

The second paragraph of section 11 addresses this problem by requiring the

redistributor to act to shield downstream users from these patent claims. The

requirement applies only to those redistributors who distribute knowingly

relying on a patent license. Many companies enter into blanket patent

cross-licensing agreements. With respect to some such agreements, it would

not be reasonable to expect a company to know that a particular patent

license covered by the agreement, but not specifically mentioned in it,

protects the company's distribution of GPL'd code.

% FIXME: does this still fit with the final retaliation provision?

This narrowly-targeted patent retaliation provision is the only form of

patent retaliation that GPLv3 imposes by its own force. We believe that it

strikes a proper balance between preserving the freedom of a user to run and

modify a program, and protecting the rights of other users to run, modify,

copy, and distribute code free from threats by patent holders. It is

particularly intended to discourage a GPL licensee from securing a patent

directed to unreleased modifications of GPL'd code and then suing the

original developers or others for making their own equivalent modifications.

Several other free software licenses include significantly broader patent

retaliation provisions. In our view, too little is known about the

consequences of these forms of patent retaliation. As we explain below,

section 7 permits distribution of a GPL'd work that includes added parts

covered by terms other than those of the GPL. Such terms may include certain

kinds of patent retaliation provisions that are broader than those of section

2.

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

The wording in the first sentence of section 12 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 what has been

our interpretation of GPLv2.  

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

We have removed the limited severability clause of GPLv2 section 7 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. We have also removed

the final sentence of GPLv2 section 7, which we consider to be unnecessary.

% FIXME

% FIXME Say more

No substantive change has been made in section 14. The wording of the section

has been revised slightly to make it clearer.

% FIXME; proxy

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

% FIXME: more, plus 17