% FIXME: Connect up with: Indeed or something like that.

The

copyright laws of many countries other than the United States, 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.

%FIXME: Merge this in with previous paragarph

The definition of Corresponding Source (``Complete Corresponding Source

Code'' in Draft1) is the most complex definition in the license.

% FIXME: This needs work

% FIXME: FSF third person, and verify it still matches GPLv3 text.

We 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, making it clearer that they do not

include libraries invoked by the work that can be readily substituted by

other existing implementations.

%  FIXME: merge in with a forward-reference to Installation Information.

s long as users are truly in a position to install and run

their modified versions of the program

% FIXME:  transition, and some word smith

The explicit prohibition of sublicensing ensures that enforcement of the GPL

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.

% FIXME: needs context, needs match up to current text, and removal of stuff

%        that's no longer there

The original wording of this clause was meant to

make clear that the GPL permits one to charge for the distribution of

software.  Despite our efforts to explain this in the license and in

other documents, there are evidently some who believe that the GPL

allows charging for services but not for selling software, or that the

GPL requires downloads to be gratis.  We referred to charging a ``fee'';

the term ``fee'' is generally used in connection with services.  Our

original 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.''  In

our revised wording we use ``price'' in place of ``fee,'' and we remove

the term ``physical.''

% FIXME: say more and tie it to the text

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.

% FIXME: This needs merged in somewhere in here

The mere fact that use of the work implies that the user \textit{has} the key

may not be enough to ensure the user's freedom in using it.  The user must

also be able to read and copy the key; thus, its presence in a special

register inside the computer does not satisfy the requirement. In an

application in which the user's personal key is used to protect privacy or

limit distribution of personal data, the user clearly has the ability to read

and copy the key, which therefore is not included in the Corresponding

Source. On the other hand, if a key is generated based on the object code, or

is present in hardware, but the user cannot manipulate that key, then the key

must be provided as part of the Corresponding Source.

%FIXME: publicly documented format.  This might work as a start on that:

Our primary objective here was to ensure that the

distributor use a generally-recognized mechanism for packaging source

code.

% FIXME: needs some work here

Section 9 means what it says: mere receipt or execution of code neither

requires nor signifies contractual acceptance under the GPL.  Speaking more

broadly, we have intentionally structured our license 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.

% FIXME: needs filled out and more here.

Draft1 removed the words ``at no charge'' from what is now subsection 5b, the

core copyleft provision, for reasons related to our current changes to the

second paragraph of section 4: it had 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.

We therefore have added a new explicit prohibition on imposition of licensing

fees or royalties in section 10.  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.

The patent licensing practices that section 7 of GPLv2 (corresponding to

section 12 of GPLv3) was designed to prevent are 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 combatting the danger of patents.

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

% then out then in? :)

We have removed from this draft the appended section on ``How to Apply These

Terms to Your New Programs.'' For brevity, the license document can instead

refer to a web page containing these instructions as a separate document.