Copyleft/guide Changeset - 80295e9c558b

% gpl-lgplg.tex                                                  -*- LaTeX -*-

% gpl-lgpl.tex                                                  -*- LaTeX -*-

%      Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL course

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

...

@@ -6,12 +6,13 @@

% Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in

% any medium, provided this notice is preserved.

\documentclass[12pt]{report}

\documentclass[11pt]{book}

% FILTER_PS:  \input{generate-ps-file}

% FILTER_PDF: \input{generate-pdf-file}

% FILTER_HTML: \input{generate-html-file}

\input{one-inch-margins}

% NOT FOUND \input{one-inch-margins}

\usepackage{enumerate}

\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

%\setlength\parskip{0.7em}

%\setlength\parindent{0pt}

...

@@ -22,29 +23,37 @@

\begin{document}

\begin{titlepage}

\frontmatter

\begin{titlepage}

\begin{center}

\vspace{.5in}

%\vspace{.5in}

\vfill

\includegraphics{fsf-logo.eps}

\vfill

{\Large

{\sc Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL  } \\

{\sc Detailed Study and Analysis of the GPL and LGPL  } \\

\vspace{.7in}

\vfill

Sponsored by the Free Software Foundation \\

%\vspace{.7in}

\vspace{.3in}

Columbia Law School, New York, NY, USA \\

% \vspace{.3in}

Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA \\

\vspace{.1in}

Tuesday 20 January 2004

Tuesday, 24 August 2004

\vspace{.7in}

%\vspace{.7in}

\vfill

{\large

Bradley M. Kuhn

...

@@ -63,6 +72,11 @@ Daniel Ravicher

Senior Counsel

Free Software Foundation

President and Executive Director

Public Patent Foundation

\end{center}

...

@@ -81,10 +95,77 @@ any medium, provided this notice is preserved.

\end{titlepage}

\pagestyle{plain}

\pagenumbering{roman}

\begin{abstract}

\pagenumbering{roman}

\chapter*{Detailed Study and Analysis of the GPL and LGPL}

\textit{Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 24 August 2004}

\begin{tabular}[t]{ll}

09:00 - 09:25 & Registration / Check-in / Continental Breakfast\\

&\\

09:25 - 09:30 & Welcome\\

&\\

09:30 - 10:00 & Free Software Principles and the Free Software Definition\\

& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

10:00 - 10:10 & Preamble of the GNU General Public License (GPL)\\

& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

10:10 - 10:35 & GPL, \S 0: Definitions, etc.\\

& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

10:35 - 10:50 & GPL, \S 1: Grant for Verbatim Source Copying\\

& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

10:50 - 11:00 & Q \& A\\

&\\

11:00 - 11:10 & Break\\

&\\

11:10 - 11:55 & Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law\\

& \textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\

&\\

\end{tabular}

\begin{tabular}[t]{ll}

11:55 - 12:20 & GPL, \S 2: Grants for Source Derivative Works\\

& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

12:20 - 12:30 & Q \& A\\

&\\

12:30 - 14:00 & Lunch with Lecture "Patents and Free Software"\\

& \textit{Prof. Eben Moglen}\\

&\\

14:00 - 14:20 & GPL, \S 3 Grants for Creating Binary Derivative Works\\

& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

14:20 - 14:40 & The Implied Patent Grant in the GPL\\

& \textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\

&\\

14:40 - 15:25 & GPL, \S 4: Termination of License\\

& GPL, \S 5: Acceptance of License\\

& GPL, \S 6: Prohibition on Further Restrictions\\

& GPL, \S 7: Conflicts with other Agreements or Orders\\

& GPL, \S 8: International Licensing Issues\\

& GPL, \S 10: Copyright Holder's Exceptions to the GPL\\

& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

15:25 - 15:35 & GPL, \S 11: Disclaimer of Warranties\\

& GPL, \S 12: Limitation of Liability\\

& \textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\

&\\

15:35 - 15:45 & Q \& A\\

&\\

15:45 - 16:00 & Break\\

&\\

16:00 - 17:30 & GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)\\

& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

17:30 - 18:00 & Q \& A\\

\end{tabular}

\chapter*{Preface}

This one-day course gives a section-by-section explanation of the most

popular Free Software copyright license, the GNU General Public License

...

@@ -93,8 +174,8 @@ people how to use the GPL (and GPL'd software) successfully in a new Free

Software business and in existing, successful enterprises.

Attendees should have a general familiarity with software development

processes.  A vague understanding of how copyright law applies to software

is also helpful.  The tutorial is of most interest to lawyers, software

processes. A vague 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 software businesses that modify and/or

redistribute software under 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

...

@@ -105,53 +186,55 @@ learned the following:

\begin{itemize}

  \item the freedom-defending purpose of each term of the GNU GPL.

  \item The freedom-defending purpose of each term of the GNU GPL

  \item the redistribution options under the GPL.

  \item The redistribution options under the GPL

  \item the obligations when modifying GPL'd software.

  \item The obligations when modifying GPL'd software

  \item how to build a plan for proper and successful compliance with the GPL.

  \item How to build a plan for proper and successful compliance with the GPL

  \item the business advantages that the GPL provides.

  \item The business advantages that the GPL provides

  \item the most common business models used in conjunction with the GPL.

  \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 How existing GPL'd software can be used in existing enterprises

  \item the basics of the LGPL and how it differs from GPL.

  \item The basics of the LGPL and how it differs from the GPL

  \item how best to understand the complexities regarding derivative

        works of software.

  \item How best to understand the complexities regarding derivative

        works of software

\end{itemize}

\bigskip

These course materials are merely a summary of the highlights of the

course presented.  Readers of this material should assume that they have

missed the bulk of the material, as the detailed discussion of about these

issues is the true education about GPL and LPGL\@.  Merely reading this

material is akin to matriculating into a college course and read only the

textbook instead of going to class.

\end{abstract}

course presented. Please be aware that during the actual GPL course, class

discussion supplements this printed curriculum. Simply reading it is

not equivalent to attending the course.

\tableofcontents

\pagebreak

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

% END OF ABSTRACTS SECTION

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

% START OF DAY ONE COURSE

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

\mainmatter

\pagenumbering{arabic}

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

\chapter{What Is Free Software?}

Consideration 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 Free Software.  The GPL was not created from a void, rather,

world of Free Software. The GPL was not created from a void, 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 organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy

of software freedom.  A prerequisite for understanding the GPL and its

of software freedom. A prerequisite for understanding the GPL and its

terms and conditions is a basic understanding of the principles behind it.

The GPL is unlike almost all other software licenses in that it is

designed to defend and uphold these principles.

...

@@ -159,8 +242,8 @@ 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://www.fsf.org/0 \verb0philosophy/free-sw.html0.  This section

The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's Web site at

\verb0http://www.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 terms of the GPL\@.

...

@@ -169,48 +252,49 @@ that program, the following freedoms:

\begin{itemize}

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

\item The freedom to run the program for any purpose

\item the freedom to change and modify the program.

\item The freedom to change and modify the program

\item the freedom to copy and share the program.

\item The freedom to copy and share the program

\item the freedom to share improved versions of the program.

\item The freedom to share improved versions of the program

\end{itemize}

The focus on ``a particular user'' is very pertinent here.  It is not

The focus on ``a particular user'' is very pertinent here. It is not

uncommon for the same version of a specific program to grant these

freedoms to some subset of its user base, while others have none or only

some of these freedoms.  Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in

some of these freedoms. Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in

detail about how this can happen even if a program is released under the

GPL\@.

Some people refer to software that gives these freedoms as ``Open

Source''.  Besides having a different political focus than those who call

it Free Software\footnote{The political differences between the Free

Software Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's

website at

{\tt http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}},

those who call the software ``Open Source'' are focused on a side issue.

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 of that source code.  Microsoft's ``Shared

Source'' program, for example, gives various types of access to source

code, but almost none of the freedoms described in this section.

One key issue that is central to these freedoms is that there are no

restrictions on how these freedoms can be exercised.  Specifically, users

and programmers can exercise these freedoms non-commercially or

commercially.  Licenses that grant these freedoms for non-commercial

Source.''  Besides having a different political focus than those who

call it Free Software,\footnote{The political differences between the

  Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented

  on FSF's Web site at {\tt

    http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}.}

those who call the software ``Open Source'' are focused on a side

issue.  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 of that source code.

Microsoft's ``Shared Source'' program, for example, gives various

types of access to source code, but almost none of the freedoms

described in this section.

One key issue central to these freedoms is that there are no

restrictions on how these freedoms can be 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.

In general, software for which most or all of these freedoms are

restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software''.  Typically, the

restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software.''  Typically, the

term ``proprietary software'' is used more or less interchangeably with

``non-Free Software''.  Personally, I tend to use the term ``non-Free

Software'' to refer to non-commercial software that restricts freedom

``non-Free Software.''  Personally, I tend to use the term ``non-Free

Software'' to refer to noncommercial software that restricts freedom

(such as ``shareware'') and ``proprietary software'' to refer to

commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of

Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).

...

@@ -220,69 +304,70 @@ detail.

\subsection{The Freedom to Run}

For a program to be Free Software, the freedom to run the program must be

completely unrestricted.  This means that any use for that software that

the user can come up with must be permitted.  Perhaps, for example, the

user has discovered an innovative new use for a particular program, one

that the programmer never could have predicted.  Such a use must not be

restricted.

For a program to be Free Software, the freedom to run the program must

be completely unrestricted. This means any use for software the user

can come up with must be permitted. 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; today it is not so rare.  Most End User Licensing Agreements

(EULAs) that cover most proprietary software restrict some types of use.

For example, some versions of Microsoft's FrontPage software prohibit use

of the software to create websites that generate negative publicity for

Microsoft.  Free Software has no such restrictions; everyone is free to

use Free Software for any purpose whatsoever.

software; today it is not so rare. Most End User Licensing Agreements

(EULAs) that cover most proprietary software restrict some types of

use.  For example, some versions of Microsoft's FrontPage software

prohibit use of the software to create Web sites that generate

negative publicity for Microsoft. Free Software has no such

restrictions; everyone is free to use Free Software for any purpose

whatsoever.

\subsection{The Freedom to Change and Modify}

Free Software programs allow users to change, modify and adapt the

software to suit their needs.  Access to the source code and related build

scripts are an essential part of this freedom.  Without the source code

software to suit their needs. Access to the source code and related build

scripts are an essential part of this freedom. Without the source code

and the ability to build the binary applications from that source, the

freedom cannot be properly exercised.

Programmers can take direct benefit from this freedom, and often do.

However, this freedom is also important to users who are not programmers.

Users must have the right to exercise this freedom indirectly in both

commercial and non-commercial settings.  For example, users often seek

non-commercial help with the software on email lists and in users groups.

commercial and noncommercial settings. For example, users often seek

noncommercial help with the software on email lists and in users groups.

When they find such help, they must have the freedom to recruit

programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their software.

The commercial exercise of this freedom is also essential for users.  Each

The commercial exercise of this freedom is also essential for users. Each

user, or group of users, must have the right to hire anyone they wish in a

competitive free market to modify and change the software.  This means

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

Software. Additionally, such companies may contract with other companies

to commission software modification.

\subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}

Users may share Free Software in a variety of ways.  Free Software

Users may share Free Software in a variety of ways. Free Software

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 your friend who likes the software you are

using).  Free Software licenses, therefore, must permit this sort of

giving away a copy of a program to your friend who likes the software you are

using). Free Software licenses, therefore, must permit this sort of

altruistic sharing of software among friends.

The commercial environment must also have the benefits of this freedom.

Commercial sharing typically takes the form of selling copies of Free

Software.  Free Software can be sold at any price to anyone.  Those who

Software. Free Software can be sold at any price to anyone. Those who

redistribute Free Software commercially have the freedom to selectively

distribute (you can pick your customers) and to set prices at any level

the redistributor sees fit.

It is true that many 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

tends to keep prices low and reasonable. However, if someone is willing

to pay a billion 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, a distribution vendor may provide immediate

security and upgrade distribution via a special network service.  Such

distribution. For example, a distribution vendor may provide immediate

security and upgrade distribution via a special network service. Such

distribution is completely permitted for Free Software.

(Section~\ref{Business Models} of this tutorial talks in detail about

...

@@ -292,114 +377,116 @@ 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 Free Software community is built on the

pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software.  Inevitably, a

share those improvements. The Free Software community is built on the

pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Inevitably, a

Free Software project sprouts a mailing list where improvements are shared

freely among members of the development community.  Such non-commercial

freely among members of the development community. Such noncommercial

sharing must be permitted for Free Software to thrive.

Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.  For a

competitive free market for support to exist, all developers --- from

single-person contractors to large software companies --- must have the

freedom to market their services as improvers of Free Software.  All forms

of such service marketing must be equally available to all.

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

improvers 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

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 must have the

right to modify and improve the software for the customer to correct any

problems that are beyond mere user error.

Entities must also be permitted to make available modified versions of

Free Software.  Most Free Software programs have a ``standard version''

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 non-trivial modified versions of the software on a

permanent or semi-permanent basis.  Such freedom is central to vibrant

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

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

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 long- or short-lived fork

that serves that sub-community.

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 last section set forth the freedoms and rights are respected by Free

Software.  It presupposed, however, that such software exists.  This

section discusses how Free Software comes into existence.  But first, it

addresses how software can be non-free in the first place.

The last section set forth the freedoms and rights respected by Free

Software. It presupposed, however, that such software exists. This

section discusses how Free Software comes into existence. But first, it

addresses how software can be non-Free in the first place.

Software can be made proprietary only because it is governed by copyright

law\footnote{This statement is a bit of an oversimplification.  Patents

  and trade secrets can cover software and make it effectively non-free,

law.\footnote{This statement is a bit of an oversimplification. Patents

  and trade secrets can cover software and make it effectively non-Free,

  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.}.  Copyright law, with respect to

  without reliance on any legal system. However, the primary control

  mechanism for software is copyright.} Copyright law, with respect to

software, governs copying, modifying, and redistributing that

software\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs ``public

  performance'' of copyrighted works.  There is no generally agreed

software.\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs ``public

  performance'' of copyrighted works. There is no generally agreed

  definition for public performance of software and version 2 of the GPL

  does not govern public performance.}.  By law, the copyright holder (aka

  does not govern public performance.} By law, the copyright holder (a.k.a.

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

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 law is a construction.  In the USA, the Constitution permits,

Copyright law is a construction. In the USA, the Constitution permits,

but does not require, the creation of copyright law as federal

legislation.  Software, since it is an idea fixed in a tangible medium, is

legislation. Software, since it is an idea fixed in a tangible medium, is

thus covered by the statues, and is copyrighted by default.

However, this legal construction is not necessarily natural.  Software, in

its natural state without copyright, is Free Software.  In an imaginary

world, which has no copyright, the rules would be different.  In this

However, this legal construction is not necessarily natural. 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{There could still exist legal systems, like our modern

  patent system, which could restrict the software in other ways.}.

versions.\footnote{There could still exist legal systems, like our modern

  patent system, which could restrict the software in other ways.}

Software in the real world is copyrighted by default, and that default

legal system does exist.  However, it is possible to move software out of

the domain of the copyright system.  A copyright holder is always

permitted to \defn{disclaim} their copyright.  If copyright is disclaimed,

the software is not governed by copyright law.  Software not governed by

copyright is in the ``public domain''.

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 is always permitted to \defn{disclaim} their

copyright. If copyright is disclaimed, the software is not governed

by copyright law. Software not governed by copyright is in the

``public domain.''

\subsection{Public Domain Software}

An author can create public domain software by disclaiming all copyright

interest on the work.  In the USA and other countries that have signed the

interest on the work. In the USA and other countries that have signed the

Berne convention on copyright, software is copyrighted automatically by

the author when she ``fixes the software into a tangible medium''.  In

the author when she ``fixes the software into a tangible medium.''  In

the software world, this usually means typing the source code of the

software into a file.

However, an author can disclaim that default control given to her by the

copyright laws.  Once this is done, the software is in the public domain

--- it is no longer covered by copyright.  Since it is copyright law that

copyright laws. Once this is done, the software is in the public domain

--- it is no longer covered by copyright. Since it is copyright law that

allows for various controls on software (i.e., prohibition of copying,

modification, and redistribution), removing the software from the

copyright system and placing it into the public domain does yield Free

Software.

Carefully note that software in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed

in any way.  It is nonsensical to say software is ``licensed for the

public domain'', or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave

in any way. It is nonsensical to say software is ``licensed for the

public domain,'' or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave

expressed permission to take actions governed by copyright law.

By contrast, what the copyright holder has done is renounce her copyright

controls on the work.  The law gave her controls over the work, and she

has chosen to waive those controls.  Software in the public domain is

absent copyright and absent a license.  The software freedoms discussed in

controls on the work. The law gave her controls over the work, and she

has chosen to waive those controls. Software in the public domain is

absent copyright and absent a 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.

...

@@ -407,70 +494,70 @@ legal system in play to take them away.

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,

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 that of FSF and the GNU

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 non-trivial

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

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

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

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 of defending software freedom is a substantial part of

its work today.  Specifically because of this ``embrace, proprietarize and

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, and many, including the

and then license it under ``copyleft'' terms. Many, including the

developers of the kernel named Linux, have chosen to follow this paradigm.

Copyleft is a legal strategy to defend, uphold and propagate software

freedom.  The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the

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 from anyone else along

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 is a general concept.  Much like ideas for what a computer might

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 often enough to explain the

``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.  The GPL is the primary

true implementation in legal text must exist. The GPL is the primary

implementation of copyleft in copyright licensing language.

\section{An Ecosystem of Equality}

The GPL uses copyright law to defend freedom and equally ensure users'

rights.  This ultimately creates an ecosystem of equality for both

business and non-commercial users.

rights. This ultimately creates an ecosystem of equality for both

business and noncommercial users.

\subsection{The Non-Commercial Ecosystem}

\subsection{The Noncommercial Ecosystem}

A GPL'd code base becomes a center of a vibrant development and user

community.  Traditionally, volunteers, operating non-commercially out of

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 non-commercial

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 non-commercial community.  Users and developers

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

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

...

@@ -478,58 +565,59 @@ passing along the rights granted by 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 non-commercial user

nearly every GPL'd package in existence has a vibrant noncommercial user

and developer base.

\subsection{The Commercial Ecosystem}

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 non-commercial users and developers eventually begins

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 non-commercially in academic environments.  However, very

it was deployed noncommercially in academic environments. 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

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 non-commercial users, however, were not concerned when these two

fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'd work.  They knew

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 non-commercial users, and even other commercial users are

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 GPL will remain

protected.

Commercial developers also work in concert with non-commercial developers.

Those two now-long-since graduated students continue to contribute to

Samba altruistically, but also get 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

non-commercially 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.

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 non-commercial contributors and users equally.  The GPL creates trust,

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

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}

...

@@ -538,190 +626,192 @@ 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

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

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.

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

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''

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.}

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

\texttt{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

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 that is ripe for experts.  It

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 non-commercial Free Software

law. The GPL, in turn, serves as the legal scaffolding that permits the

creation of this vibrant commercial and noncommercial Free Software

economy.

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

\chapter{Running Software And Verbatim Copying}

\chapter{Running Software and Verbatim Copying}

\label{run-and-verbatim}

This chapter begins the deep discussion of the details of the terms of

GPL\@.  In this chapter, we consider the first two sections: GPL \S\S

0--2.  These are the straightforward sections of the GPL that define the

GPL\@. In this chapter, we consider the first two sections: GPL \S\S

0--2. These are the straightforward sections of the GPL that define the

simplest rights that the user receives.

\section{GPL \S 0: Freedom to Run}

\label{GPLs0}

\S 0, the opening section of GPL, sets forth that the work is governed by

copyright law.  It specifically points out that it is the ``copyright

holder'' who decides if a work is licensed under its terms, and explains

copyright law. 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, \S 0 makes an inference that copyright law is the only

system under which it is governed.  Specifically, it states:

system under which it is governed. 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

In essence, the license governs \emph{only} those activities, and all other

activities are unrestricted, provided that no other agreements trump GPL

(which they cannot; see Sections~\ref{GPLs6} and~\ref{GPLs7}).  This is

(which they cannot; see Sections~\ref{GPLs6} and~\ref{GPLs7}). This is

very important, because the Free Software community heavily supports

users' rights to ``fair use'' and ``unregulated use'' of copyrighted

material.  GPL asserts through this clause that it supports users' rights

material. GPL asserts through this clause that it supports users' rights

to fair and unregulated uses.

Fair use of copyrighted material is an established legal doctrine that

permits certain 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 a very few lines (less than

seven or so), and reuse them as you with without licensing restrictions.

permits certain 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 a very few lines

(less than seven or so) and reuse them as you would with or without

licensing restrictions.

Fair use is a doctrine established by the courts or by statute.  By

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

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.

\medskip

Thus, the GPL protects users fair and unregulated use rights precisely by

not attempting to cover them.  Furthermore, the GPL ensures the freedom

not attempting to cover them. Furthermore, the GPL ensures the freedom

to run specifically by stating the following:

\begin{quote}

The act of running the Program is not restricted

''The act of running the Program is not restricted.''

\end{quote}

Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by \S 0.

\medskip

The bulk of \S 0 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 the

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''.  In fact, it would be incorrect and

problematic if the GPL attempted to define this.  A copyright license, in

fact, has no control over what may or may not be a derivative work.  This

definition of ``derivative work.''  In fact, it would be incorrect and

problematic if the GPL attempted to define this. A copyright license, in

fact, has no control over what may or may not be a derivative work. This

matter is left up to copyright law, not the licenses that utilize it.

It is certainly true that copyright law as a whole does not propose clear

and straightforward guidelines for what is and is not a derivative

software work under copyright law.  However, no copyright license --- not

even the GNU GPL --- can be blamed for this.  Legislators and court

software work under copyright law. However, no copyright license --- not

even the GNU GPL --- can be blamed for this. Legislators and court

opinions must give us guidance to decide the border cases.

\section{GPL \S 1: Verbatim Copying}

\label{GPLs1}

GPL \S 1 covers the matter of redistributing the source code of a program

exactly as it was received.  This section is quite straightforward.

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

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

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

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 \S 1.  These are in some ways the most important part of

the redistribution, which is why they are mentioned by name.  The GPL

specifically in \S 1. These are in some ways the most important part of

the redistribution, which is why they are mentioned by name. The 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 someone would be

surprised that the software she got was licensed under GPL\@.  Thus

throughout the GPL, there are specific reference to the importance of

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 someone would be

surprised the software she got was licensed under GPL\@. Thus

throughout the GPL, there are specific references to the importance of

notifying others down the distribution chain that they have rights under

GPL.

Also mentioned by name is the warranty disclaimer.  Most people today do

not believe that software comes with any warranty.  Notwithstanding the

Also mentioned by name is the warranty disclaimer. Most people today do

not believe that software comes with any warranty. Notwithstanding the

proposed state-level UCITA bills (which have never obtained widespread

adoption), there are little or no implied warranties with software.

adoption), there are few or no implied warranties with software.

However, just to be on the safe side, GPL clearly disclaims them, and the

GPL requires redistributors to keep the disclaimer very visible.  (See

GPL requires redistributors to keep the disclaimer very visible. (See

Sections~\ref{GPLs11} and~\ref{GPLs12} of this tutorial for more on GPL's

warranty disclaimers.)

Note finally that \S 1 begins to set forth the important defense of

commercial freedom.  \S 1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim

copies, one may make money.  Redistributors are fully permitted to charge

for the redistribution of copies of Free Software.  In addition, they may

commercial freedom. \S 1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim

copies, one may make money. Redistributors are fully permitted to charge

for the redistribution 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

service for a fee. (See Section~\ref{Business Models} for more discussion

on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)

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

...

@@ -730,29 +820,29 @@ on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)

We digress for this chapter from our discussion of GPL's exact text to

consider the matter of derivative works --- a concept that we must

understand fully before considering \SS 2--3 of GPL\@.  GPL, and Free

understand fully before considering \S\S 2--3 of GPL\@. 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

``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 \S 0 that ``a

'work based on the Program' means either the Program or any derivative

`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

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 Circuit. 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.

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

...

@@ -760,7 +850,7 @@ 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,

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.

...

@@ -783,7 +873,7 @@ 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''.

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

...

@@ -817,7 +907,7 @@ 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); 5 Bateman

v. Mnemonics,Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996); and, Mitek Holdings,

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

...

@@ -832,7 +922,7 @@ 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 an

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,

...

@@ -844,12 +934,12 @@ 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

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

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.

...

@@ -862,10 +952,10 @@ 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 length factual inquiry by the court, the owner of the copyright in

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 second step of

will forgo performing its own abstraction, and proceed to the second step of

the AFC test.

\subsection{Filtration}

...

@@ -878,7 +968,7 @@ 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 program are to be denied copyright protection. However,

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,

...

@@ -904,25 +994,23 @@ 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{enumerate}

 \renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alph{enumi}}

 \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\textup{(\theenumi)}}

\begin{itemize}

\item the mechanical

  \item The mechanical

specifications of the computer on which a particular program is intended

to operate;

to operate

\item compatibility requirements of other programs with which a

program is designed to operate in conjunction;

  \item Compatibility requirements of other programs with which a

program is designed to operate in conjunction

\item computer manufacturers'

design standards;

  \item Computer manufacturers'

design standards

\item demands of the industry being serviced; and

  \item Demands of the industry being serviced, and

widely accepted programming practices within the computer industry.

widely accepted programming practices within the computer industry

\end{enumerate}

\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

...

@@ -987,13 +1075,13 @@ The First Circuit expressly rejected the AFC test and, instead, takes a

much narrower view of the meaning of derivative work for software. 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

computers. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Intl., Inc., 49 F.3d 807

(1st Cir. 1995). More specifically, 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

merely explain and present the programs 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,'' can not

controlled. As a result, under the First Circuits 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. It is also reasonable to expect that the First Circuit will read

the unprotectable elements set forth in \S 102(b) broadly, and, as such,

...

@@ -1002,53 +1090,54 @@ which exists under the AFC test.

\section{No Test Yet Adopted}

Several circuits, including 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 amongst those circuits

that have a standard for defining a software derivative work.

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 amongst 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 the its

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 percent of Oscar was literally the same code as

that in Adapter.  After the suit began, the defendant rewrote those

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

have any literal copies of its code.  Feeling slighted still, the

have 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

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,

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 relative minor

contribution to the program as a whole.  Likewise, the similarity between

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.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few cases involving a highly

detailed software derivative work analysis.  Most often, cases involve

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.

However, no cases involving free software licensing have ever gone to

court.  As free software becomes an ever increasingly important part of

the economy, it remains to be seen whether or not battle lines will be

drawn over whether particular programs infringe the rights of free

software developers or whether the entire community, including industry,

the defendant or overaggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.

However, no cases involving Free Software licensing have ever gone to

court. As Free Software becomes an ever-increasingly important part of

the economy, it remains to be seen if battle lines will be

drawn over whether particular programs infringe the rights of Free

Software developers or whether the entire community, including industry,

adopts norms avoiding such risk.

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

...

@@ -1058,68 +1147,67 @@ adopts norms avoiding such risk.

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, \SS 2--3, define the central core rights and

software. These sections, \S\S 2--3, define the central core rights and

requirements of GPL\@.

\section{GPL \S 2: Share and Share Alike}

For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software

freedom along the distribution chain.  \S 2 is the only place in the GPL

that governs the modification controls of copyright law.  If someone

freedom along the distribution chain. \S 2 is the only place in the GPL

that governs the modification controls of copyright law. If someone

modifies a GPL'd program, she is bound in the making those changes by \S

2.  The goal here is to ensure that the body of GPL'd software, as it

2. The goal here is to ensure that the body of GPL'd software, as it

continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.

To achieve that goal, \S 2 first sets forth that the rights of

redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim

copying, as presented in \S 1.  Therefore, the details of charging,

copying, as presented in \S 1. Therefore, the details of charging,

keeping copyright notices intact, and other \S 1 provisions are in tact

here as well.  However, there are three additional requirements.

here as well. However, there are three additional requirements.

The first (\S 2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent

notices'' explaining what changes were made and the date of such changes.

The goal here is not to put forward some specific way of marking changes,

or controlling the process of how changes get made.  Primarily, \S 2(a)

seeks to ensure that those receiving modified versions know what path it

took to them.  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, \S 2(a) serves an academic

purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic approach

to understand the software.

notices'' explaining what changes were made and the date of such

changes. The goal here is not to put forward some specific way of

marking changes nor controlling the process of how changes get made.

Primarily, \S 2(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, \S 2(a) serves an academic

purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic

approach to understand the software.

\medskip

The second requirement (\S 2(b)) contains the four short lines that embody

the legal details of ``share and share alike''.  These 46 words are

considered by some to be the most worthy of careful scrutiny.  It is worth

the effort to carefully understand what each clause is saying, because \S

the legal details of ``share and share alike.''  These 46 words are

considered by some to be the most worthy of careful scrutiny because \S

2(b) can be a source of great confusion when not properly understood.

In considering \S 2(b), first note the qualifier: it only applies to

derivative works that ``you distribute or publish''.  Despite years of

derivative works that ``you distribute or publish.''  Despite years of

education efforts by FSF on this matter, many still believe that modifiers

of GPL'd software are required by the license to publish or otherwise

share their changes.  On the contrary, \S 2(b) {\bf does not apply if} the

changes are never distributed.  Indeed, the freedom to make private,

share their changes. On the contrary, \S 2(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{FSF does maintain that there is an {\bf

protected and defended.\footnote{FSF does maintain that there is an {\bf

    ethical} obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful,

  and often encourages companies and individuals to do so.  However, there

  and often encourages 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.}.

  {\bf must} do.}

Next, we again encounter the same matter that appears in \S 0, in the

following text:

\begin{quote}

... that in whole or part contains or is derived from the Program or any

  part thereof,

``...that in whole or part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof.''

\end{quote}

Again, the GPL relies here on what the copyright law says is a derivative

work.  If, under copyright law, the modified version ``contains or is

work. If, under copyright law, the modified version ``contains or is

derived from'' the GPL'd software, then the requirements of \S 2(b)

apply.  The GPL invokes its control as a copyright license over the

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.

...

@@ -1133,14 +1221,14 @@ under the terms of this License.

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

The work ``as a whole'' is what is to be licensed. This is an important

point that \S 2 spends an entire paragraph explaining; thus this phrase is

worthy of a lengthy discussion here.  As a programmer modifies a software

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 worked distributed to

the programmer under GPL\@.  Thus, the license of the original work

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 derivative work.

% {\cal I}

...

@@ -1151,77 +1239,78 @@ affects the license of the new whole derivative work.

\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

\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 derivative work, \gplusi{}, is jointly held by the original copyright

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, \S 2 lays out the terms by which \gplusi{} may be

distributed and copied.  By default, under copyright law, the copyright

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 Microsoft

holder of \workg{}. (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a Microsoft

product --- would they give you permission to create and distribute

\gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?)  The license of \workg{}, the

GPL, sets forth ahead of time options for the copyright holder of \worki{}

who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}.  This pre-granted

who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}. This pregranted

permission to create and distribute derivative works, provided the terms

of 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

would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license. Thus, to

say that this restriction is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.

\medskip

The next phrase of note in \S 2(b) is ``licensed ... at no charge''.  This

is a source of great confusion to many.  Not a month goes by that FSF does

not receive an email that claims to point out ``a contradiction in GPL''

because \S 2 says that redistributors cannot charge for modified versions

of GPL'd software, but \S 1 says that they can.  The ``at no charge''

means not that redistributors cannot charge for 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.

\S 2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed ... to all

third parties''.  This too has led to some confusions, and feeds the

The next phrase of note in \S 2(b) is ``licensed...at no charge.''

This is a source of great confusion to many. Not a month goes by that

FSF does not receive an email that claims to point out ``a

contradiction in GPL'' because \S 2 says that redistributors cannot

charge for modified versions of GPL'd software, but \S 1 says that

they can. The ``at no charge'' does not prohibit redistributors 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.

\S 2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed...to all

third parties.''  This too has led to some confusions, and feeds the

misconception mentioned earlier --- that all modified versions must 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

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,

of the software. Distribution to all third parties is not mandated here,

but \S 2(b) does require redistributors to license the derivative works in

a way that is extends to all third parties who may ultimately receive a

a way that extends to all third parties who may ultimately receive a

copy of the software.

In summary, \S 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 GPL.  When an entity \emph{chooses} to redistribute

receive this no-charge license. Namely, they receive it ``under the terms

of this License,'' the GPL. When an entity \emph{chooses} to redistribute

a derivative work of GPL'd software, the license of that whole derivative

work must be GPL and only GPL\@.  In this manner, \S 2(b) dovetails nicely

work must be GPL and only GPL\@. In this manner, \S 2(b) dovetails nicely

with \S 6 (as discussed in Section~\ref{GPLs6} of this tutorial).

\medskip

The final paragraph of \S 2 is worth special mention.  It is possible and

The final paragraph of \S 2 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

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

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.  Actual effort

code-base does not impact the license of other programs. Actual effort

must be expended by a programmer to cause a work to fall under the terms

of the GPL.  Redistributors are always welcome to simply ship GPL'd

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.

...

@@ -1232,115 +1321,116 @@ truly GPL'd.

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

obscured. Ultimately, the full text of a novel, even one written by

William Faulkner, must presented to the reader as words in some

human-readable language so that they can enjoy the work.  A film, even one

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

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

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

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

derivative works of the source code.  Applying a systematic process (i.e.,

``compilation'') to a work of source code yields binary code.  The binary

derivative works of the source code. Applying a systematic process (i.e.,

``compilation'') 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 derivative works, must grant permission for the

generation of binaries.  Furthermore, notwithstanding the relative

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

it extremely convenient to receive distribution of binary software. Such

distribution is the redistribution of derivative works of the software's

source code.  \S 3 addresses the matter of creation and distribution of

source code. \S 3 addresses the matter of creation and distribution of

binary versions.

Under \S 3, binary versions may be created and distributed under the terms

of \S\S 1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies here.

However, \S 3 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.  \S 3 must ensure that the binaries are never distributed

without the source code, so that these freedoms are ensured to be passed

along the distribution chain.

Under \S 3, binary versions may be created and distributed under the

terms of \S\S 1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies

here. However, \S 3 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. \S 3 must ensure that the binaries are never

distributed without the source code, so that these freedoms are passed

through the distribution chain.

\S 3 permits distribution of binaries, and then offers three options for

distribution of source code along with binaries.  The most common and the

distribution of source code along with binaries. The most common and the

least complicated is the option given under \S 3(a).

\S 3(a) offers the option to directly accompany the source code alongside

the distribution of the binaries.  This is by far the most convenient

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).

Under \S 3(a), the source code provided must be the ``corresponding source

code''.  Here ``corresponding'' primarily means that the source code

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''.  A later paragraph of \S 3

explains in detail what is meant by ``complete''.  In essence, it is all

That source code must also be ``complete.''  A later paragraph of \S 3

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

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

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.

Furthermore, \S 3 is defending against a tactic that has in fact been seen

in FSF's GPL enforcement.  Under GPL, if you pay a high price for a copy

of GPL'd binaries (which comes with corresponding source, 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), and then giving source code that does correspond, but not

giving the ``incantations'' and build plans they used to make that source

compile into the specialized binaries.  Therefore, \S 3 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

derivative works from the sources provided.

Furthermore, \S 3 is defending against a tactic that has in fact been

seen in FSF's GPL enforcement. Under GPL, if you pay a high price for

a copy of GPL'd binaries (which comes with corresponding source, 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.

Therefore, \S 3 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 derivative works

from the sources provided.

FSF (as authors of GPL) realizes that software distribution comes in many

forms.  Embedded manufacturers, for example, have the freedom to put

forms. Embedded manufacturers, for example, have the freedom to put

GPL'd software into their PDAs 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

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 infeasible.

\S 3, therefore, allows source code to be provided on any physical

``medium customarily used for software interchange''.  By design, this

phrase covers a broad spectrum.  At best, FSF can viably release a new GPL

every ten years or so.  Thus, phrases like this must be adaptive to

changes in the technology.  When GPL version 2 was first published in June

``medium customarily used for software interchange.''  By design, this

phrase covers a broad spectrum. At best, FSF can viably release a new GPL

every ten years or so. Thus, phrases like this must be adaptive to

changes in the technology. When GPL version 2 was first published in June

1991, distribution on magnetic tape was still common, and CD was

relatively new.  Today, CD is the default, and for larger systems DVD-R is

gaining adoption.  This language must adapt with changing technology.

relatively new. Today, CD is the default, and for larger systems DVD-R is

gaining adoption. This language must adapt with changing technology.

Meanwhile, the binding created by the word ``customarily'' is key.  Many

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, it is indeed customary to

Internet is acceptable. In the corporate world, it is indeed customary to

simply download CDs worth of data over a T1 or email large file

attachments.  However, even today in the USA, many computer users with

attachments. However, even today in the USA, many computer users with

CD-ROM drives are not connected to the Internet, and most people connected

to the Internet are connected via a 56K dial-up connection.  Downloading

CDs full of data is not customary for them in the least.  In some cities

to the Internet are connected via a 56K dial-up connection. 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 have must have a worldwide scope in context, and simply

is still available only at a few centralized locations. Thus, the

``customs'' here must be 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 \S 3.  \emph{If} distribution of the binary files is made only on the

of \S 3. \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 \S 3.

...

@@ -1348,77 +1438,77 @@ sufficient to comply with \S 3.

\medskip

As is shown above, Under \S 3(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

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, \S

prohibit using GPL'd software. For this situation and others like it, \S

3(b) is available.

\S 3(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

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 \S 3(b) compliant

and environmental windfall. In addition, along with a \S 3(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

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, that \S 3(b) does place lasting long-term obligations on the

binary distributor.  The binary distributor must be prepared for three

years to honor that offer for source, and ship it out (just as they would

have had to do under \S 3(a)) at a moment's notice when they receive such

a request.  There is real organizational cost here: support engineers for

three years 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''.

However, note that regardless of how many users prefer to get the

source online, \S 3(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 \S 3(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

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 \S\S 1--2.  A company may ship a binary image

and an offer for source to only one customer.  However, under GPL, that

redistribution granted by \S\S 1--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

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.

\S 3(c) is created to save her some trouble, because by itself \S 3(b)

would unfairly favor large companies.  compromise.  \S 3(b) allows the

would unfairly favor large companies. \S 3(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

to exercise their freedom. The GPL permits this separation because it is

good for redistributors, and those users who turn out not to need the

source.  However, to ensure equal rights for all software users, anyone

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, \S 3(b)'s compromise primarily benefits companies who

distribute binary software commercially.  Without \S 3(c), that benefit

distribute binary software commercially. Without \S 3(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 \S 3(b)-compliant

customers. A customer, who had received binaries with a \S 3(b)-compliant

offer, would be required under GPL (sans \S 3(c)) to acquire the source,

merely to give a copy of the software to a friend who needed it.  \S 3(c)

merely to give a copy of the software to a friend who needed it. \S 3(c)

reshifts this burden to entity who benefits from \S 3(b).

\S 3(c) allows those who undertake \emph{non-commercial} distribution to

simply pass along a \S 3(b)-compliant source code offer.  The customer who

wished 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

\S 3(c) allows those who undertake \emph{noncommercial} distribution to

simply pass along a \S 3(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 \S 3(a), or

write her own \S 3(b)-compliant source offer.

This process is precisely the reason why a \S 3(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 non-commercially receiving a copy of the

software.  Companies who choose to comply via \S 3(b) must thus be

prepared to honor all incoming source code requests.  For this and the

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 \S 3(b) must thus be

prepared to honor all incoming source code requests. For this and the

many other additional necessary complications under \S\S 3(b--c), it is

only rarely a better option than complying via \S 3(a).

...

@@ -1426,16 +1516,16 @@ only rarely a better option than complying via \S 3(a).

\chapter{The Implied Patent Grant in GPL}

We digress again briefly from our section-by-section consideration of GPL

to consider the interaction between the terms of GPL and patent law.  The

to consider the interaction between the terms of GPL and patent law. The

GPL, 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 distribute of a patented

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

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

article. To quote the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the highest court

for patent cases other than the Supreme Court:

\begin{quotation}

...

@@ -1449,12 +1539,12 @@ parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg. Corp., Inc., 123 F.3d

1445 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Of course, free software is licensed, not sold, and there are indeed

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

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 GPL does not expressly

rights of a patent holder. Therefore, although the GPL 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 GPL, the distributor impliedly

...

@@ -1462,13 +1552,13 @@ licenses those patents to the GPL licensee with respect to the GPL

licensed software.

An interesting issue regarding this implied patent license of GPL'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 GPL 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

licenses are specifically limited to the patent claims covered by the code

as licensed by the patentee.

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 GPL 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 licenses are specifically limited to the

patent claims covered by the code as licensed by the patentee.

To the contrary, GPL's implied patent license grants the GPL licensee a

patent license to do much more than just that because the GPL licensee,

...

@@ -1481,19 +1571,19 @@ 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

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

This theory comports well with the idea of Free Software, whereby software

is distributed amongst many entities within the community for the purpose

of constant evolution and improvement.  In this way, the law of implied

of constant evolution and improvement. In this way, the law of implied

patent license used by the GPL ensures that the community mutually

benefits from the licensing of patents to any single community member.

Note that simply because GPL'd software has an implied patent license does

not mean that any patents held by a distributor of GPL'd code become

worthless.  To the contrary, the patents are still valid and enforceable

worthless. To the contrary, the patents are still valid and enforceable

against either:

\begin{enumerate}

...

@@ -1510,47 +1600,47 @@ with respect to the licensed software.

\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 software program under the GPL, then it

For example, if Company \compA{} has a patent on advanced Web browsing, but

also licenses a Web browsing software program under the GPL, then it

cannot assert the patent against any party that takes a license to its

program under the GPL.  However, if a party uses that program without

program under the GPL. However, if a party uses that program without

complying with the GPL, then Company \compA{} can assert, not just copyright

infringement claims against the non-GPL-compliant party, but also

infringement of the patent, because the implied patent license only

extends to use of the software in accordance with the GPL.  Further, if

Company \compB{} distributes a competitive advanced web browsing program,

extends to use of the software in accordance with the GPL. Further, if

Company \compB{} distributes a competitive advanced Web browsing program,

Company \compA{} is free to assert its patent against any user or

distributor of that product.  It is irrelevant whether Company \compB's

distributor of that product. It is irrelevant whether Company \compB's

program is distributed under the GPL, as Company \compB{} can not grant

implied licenses to Company \compA's patent.

This result also reassures companies that they need not fear loosing their

This result also reassures companies that they need not fear losing their

proprietary value in patents to competitors through the GPL implied patent

license, as only those competitors who adopt and comply with the GPL's

terms can benefit from the implied patent license.  To continue the

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 GPL.  If Company

redistributed Company A's advanced Web browser under the GPL. 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{}

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 GPL, meaning that any patents it holds that cover the improved version

are impliedly licensed to any licensee.  As such, the only way Company

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}

\chapter{Defending Freedom on Many Fronts}

Chapters~\ref{run-and-verbatim} and ~\ref{source-and-binary} presented the

core freedom-defending provisions of GPL\@, which are in \S\S 0--3.  \S\S

core freedom-defending provisions of GPL\@, which are in \S\S 0--3. \S\S

4--7 of the GPL are designed to ensure that \S\S 0--3 are not infringed,

are enforceable, are kept to the confines of copyright law and are not

are enforceable, are kept to the confines of copyright law, and are not

trumped by other copyright agreements or components of other entirely

separate legal systems.  In short, while \S\S 0--3 are the parts of the

separate legal systems. In short, while \S\S 0--3 are the parts of the

license that defend the freedoms of users and programmers, \S\S 4--7 are

the parts of the license that keep the playing field clear so that \S\S

0--3 can do their jobs.

...

@@ -1558,48 +1648,48 @@ the parts of the license that keep the playing field clear so that \S\S

\section{GPL \S 4: Termination on Violation}

\label{GPLs4}

\S 4 is GPL's termination clause.  Upon first examination, it seems

strange for a license that has the goal of defending users and programmers

\S 4 is GPL'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

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

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 holder has the right to relicense the same

  copyright.} The copyright holder has the right to relicense the same

work under different licenses (see Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing}

of this tutorial), or to stop distributing the GPL'd version (assuming \S

3(b) was never used), but the she may not revoke the rights under GPL

3(b) was never used), but she may not revoke the rights under GPL

already granted.

In fact, when an entity looses 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 decided when \S 4

the copyright holder. The copyright holder does not decided when \S 4

termination occurs (if ever), the actions of the licensee does.

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.  \S 4 says that if you undertake any of

redistribution. By default, all other types of copying, modification, and

redistribution are prohibited. \S 4 says that if you undertake any of

those other types (e.g., redistributing binary-only in violation of \S 3),

then all rights under the license --- even those otherwise permitted for

those who have not violated --- terminate automatically.

\S 4 gives GPL teeth.  If licensees fail to adhere to the license, then

they are stuck.  They must to completely cease and desist from all

\S 4 gives GPL teeth. If licensees fail to adhere to the license, then

they are stuck. They must completely cease and desist from all

copying, modification and distribution of that GPL'd software.

At that point, violating licensees must gain the forgiveness of the

copyright holder to have their rights restored.  Alternatively, they could

copyright holder to have their rights restored. Alternatively, they could

negotiate another agreement, separate from GPL, with the copyright

holder.  Both are common practice.

holder. Both are common practice.

At FSF, it is part of the mission to spread software freedom.  When FSF

At FSF, it is part of the mission to spread software freedom. When FSF

enforces GPL, the goal is to bring the violator back into compliance as

quickly as possible, and redress the damage caused by the violation.

That is FSF's steadfast position in a violation negotiation --- comply

...

@@ -1609,7 +1699,7 @@ However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software

freedom as institutionalized by FSF pursue GPL violations differently.

MySQL AB, a company that produces the GPL'd MySQL database, upon

discovering GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software

license separately for a fee.  While this practice is not one that FSF

license separately for a fee. While this practice is not one that FSF

would ever consider undertaking or even endorsing, it is a legal way for

copyright holders to proceed.

...

@@ -1617,33 +1707,33 @@ copyright holders to proceed.

\label{GPLs5}

\S 5 brings us to perhaps the most fundamental misconception and common

confusion about GPL\@.  Because of the prevalence of proprietary software,

confusion about GPL\@. 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

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''

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''.  No rights are

transfered between parties.  By contrast, the GPL is permission slip to

undertake activities that would otherwise been prohibited by copyright law.

As such, it needs no acceptance ceremony; the licensee is not even

required to accept the license.

The GPL does not need contract law to ``transfer rights.''  No rights

are transfered between parties. By contrast, the GPL is a permission

slip to undertake activities that would otherwise have been prohibited

by copyright law. As such, it 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

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 \S 5 is that the bulk of users of Free

Software are not required to accept the license.  Undertaking fair and

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

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.

...

@@ -1651,26 +1741,25 @@ freedom.

\label{GPLs6}

A point that was glossed over in Section~\ref{GPLs4}'s discussion of \S 4

was the irrevocable nature of the GPL\@.  The GPL is indeed irrevocable,

and it is made so formally \S 6.

was the irrevocable nature of the GPL\@. The GPL is indeed irrevocable,

and it is made so formally by \S 6.

The first sentence in \S 6 ensures that as software propagates down the

distribution chain, that each licensor can pass along the license to each

new licensee.  Under \S 6, the act of distributing automatically grants a

license from the original licensor to the next recipient.  This creates a

new licensee. Under \S 6, 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 GPL\@.  In a mathematical sense, this bounds the bottom ---

making sure that future licensees get no fewer rights than than the

licensee before.

under the GPL\@. 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 \S 6 does the opposite; it bounds from the top.  It

The second sentence of \S 6 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

additional restrictions on the user. In other words, no additional

requirements may trump the rights and freedoms given by GPL\@.

The final sentence of \S 6 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 non-commercial users who have

other. This is particularly important for noncommercial users who have

passed along a source offer under \S 3(c), as they cannot be assured that

the issuer of the offer will honor their \S 3 obligations.

...

@@ -1678,74 +1767,74 @@ In short, \S 6 says that your license for the software is your one and

only copyright license allowing you to copy, modify and distribute the

software.

\section{GPL \S 7: ``Give Software Liberty of Give It Death!''}

\section{GPL \S 7: ``Give Software Liberty or Give It Death!''}

\label{GPLs7}

In essence, \S 7 is a verbosely worded way of saying for non-copyright

systems what \S 6 says for copyright.  If there exists any reason that a

systems what \S 6 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

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

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, including IBM, the largest patent holder

those patents. Many companies, including IBM, the largest patent holder

in the world, have chosen the latter.

Thus, \S 7 is rarely gives software death by stopping its distribution.

Thus, \S 7 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{GPL \S 8: Excluding Unfreedonia}

\label{GPLs8}

\S 8 is rarely used by copyright holders.  Its intention is that, if

particular country, say Unfreedonia, grant particular patents or allow

\S 8 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 GPL'd software can continue in free and unabated

distribution in the countries where such controls do not exist.

It is a partial ``out'' from \S 7.  Without \S 8, if a copyright holder

It is a partial ``out'' from \S 7. Without \S 8, if a copyright holder

knew of a patent in a particular country licensed in a GPL-incompatible

way, then she could not distribute under GPL, because the work would

way, then she could not distribute under GPL, because the work could

legitimately end up in the hands of citizens of Unfreedonia.

It is an inevitable but sad reality that some countries are freer than

others.  \S 8 exists to permit distribution on those countries that are

others. \S 8 exists to permit distribution in those countries that are

free without otherwise negating parts of the license.

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

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

\S 0--7 constitute the freedom-defending terms of the GPL.  The balance

\S 0--7 constitute the freedom-defending terms of the GPL. The remainder

of the GPL handles administrivia and issues concerning warranties and

liability.

\section{GPL \S 9: FSF as stewards of GPL}

\section{GPL \S 9: FSF as Stewards of GPL}

\label{GPLs9}

FSF reserves the exclusive right to publish future versions of the GPL\@;

\S 9 expresses this.  While the stewardship of the copyrights on the body

\S 9 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

Forking of the code is often regrettable but basically innocuous. Forking

of licensing is disastrous.

FSF has only released two versions of GPL --- in 1989 and 1991.  GPL,

version 3, is under current internal drafting.  FSF's plan is to have a

long and engaging comment period.  The goal of GPL is defend freedom, and

a gigantic community depends on that freedom now.  FSF hopes to take all

FSF has only released two versions of GPL --- in 1989 and 1991. GPL

version 3 is under current internal drafting. FSF's plan is to have a

long and engaging comment period. The goal of GPL is to defend freedom, and

a gigantic community depends on that freedom now. FSF hopes to take all

stakeholders' opinions under advisement.

\section{GPL \S 10: Relicensing Permitted}

\label{GPLs10}

\S 10 reminds the licensee of what is already implied by the nature of

copyright law.  Namely, the copyright holder of a particular software

copyright law. Namely, the copyright holder of a particular software

program has the prerogative to grant alternative agreements under separate

copyright licenses.

...

@@ -1755,14 +1844,14 @@ copyright licenses.

All warranty disclaimer language tends to be shouted in all capital

letters. Apparently, there was once a case where the disclaimer language

of an agreement was negated because it was not ``conspicuous'' to one of

the parties. Therefore, to make such language ``conspicuous'', people

the parties. Therefore, to make such language ``conspicuous,'' people

started placing it in bold or capitalizing the entire text. It now seems

to be voodoo tradition of warranty disclaimer writing.

Some have argued the GPL is unenforceable in some jurisdictions because

its disclaimer of warranties is impermissibly broad.  However, \S 11

its disclaimer of warranties is impermissibly broad. However, \S 11

contains a jurisdictional savings provision, which states that it is to be

interpreted only as broadly as allowed by applicable law.  Such a

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.

...

@@ -1781,67 +1870,68 @@ disavowed. \S 12, 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

because its limitation of liability is impermissibly broad. However, \S

12, just like its sister, \S 11, 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

allowed by applicable law. As stated above, such a provision ensures that

both \S 12, and the entire GPL, is enforceable in any jurisdiction,

regardless of any particular law regarding the permissibility of limiting

liability.

So ends the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License.

So end the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License.

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

\chapter{The Lesser GPL}

As we have seen in our consideration of the GPL, its text is specifically

designed to cover all possible derivative works under copyright law.  Our

designed to cover all possible derivative works under copyright law. Our

goal in designing GPL was to make sure that any derivative work of GPL'd

software was itself released under GPL when distributed.  Reaching as far

software was itself released under GPL when distributed. Reaching as far

as copyright law will allow is the most direct way to reach that goal.

However, while the strategic goal is to bring as much Free Software into

the world as possible, particular tactical situations of 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.

However, while the strategic goal 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.

\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.

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

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

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.

make use of the C library.

By the time work began on the GNU implementation of the C Library, there

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

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 GPL were

somewhat different.  Applications released under GPL would never

themselves become part of proprietary software.  However, if glibc were

somewhat different. Applications released under GPL would never

themselves become part of proprietary software. However, if glibc were

released under GPL, it would require that any application distributed for

the GNU/Linux platform be released under 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

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 derivative work that is

composed of the original application and the C library.  Thus, if glibc

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 derivative works by linking with

...

@@ -1849,38 +1939,38 @@ 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

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 C libraries on GNU/Linux would likely be not

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 GPL --- to ensure no

proprietary applications on GNU/Linux --- would be unattainable in this

scenario.  Furthermore, users of those proprietary applications would also

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

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 GPL would not stop that tide.  However, if the new C library

were released under a license that (a) permitted proprietary applications

to link with it, but (b) made sure that the library itself remained Free,

an ancillary goal could be met.  Users of proprietary applications, while

inevitable. Since there were so many C libraries already in existence, a

new one under 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

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

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.

...

@@ -1888,40 +1978,40 @@ 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

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 modifications of changing the word

``Program'' to ``Library''.

identical, or that have the minor modification changing the word

``Program'' to ``Library.''

First, \S 1 of LGPL, the rules for verbatim copying of source, are

equivalent to those in GPL's \S 1.

Second, \S 8 of LGPL is equivalent \S 4 of GPL\@.  In both licenses, this

Second, \S 8 of LGPL is equivalent \S 4 of GPL\@. In both licenses, this

section handles termination in precisely the same manner.

\S 9 in LGPL is equivalent to \S 5 in GPL\@.  Both sections assert that

\S 9 in LGPL is equivalent to \S 5 in GPL\@. Both sections assert that

the license is a copyright license, and handle the acceptance of those

copyright terms.

LGPL's \S 10 is equivalent to GPL's \S 6.  They both protect the

LGPL's \S 10 is equivalent to GPL's \S 6. 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.

LGPL's \S 11 is GPL's \S 7.  As discussed, it is used to ensure that

LGPL's \S 11 is GPL's \S 7. 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.

LGPL's \S 12 adds the same features as GPL's \S 8.  These sections are

LGPL's \S 12 adds the same features as GPL's \S 8. These sections are

used to allow original copyright holders to forbid distribution in

countries with draconian laws that would otherwise contradict these

licenses.

LGPL's \S 13 sets up FSF as the steward of the LGPL, just as GPL's \S 9

does so for GPL.  Meanwhile, LGPL's \S 14 reminds licensees that copyright

does for GPL. Meanwhile, LGPL's \S 14 reminds licensees that copyright

holders can grant exceptions to the terms of LGPL, just as GPL's \S 10

reminds licensees of the same thing.

...

@@ -1929,20 +2019,21 @@ Finally, the assertions of no warranty and limitations of liability are

identical; thus LGPL's \S 15 and \S 16 are the same as GPL's \S 11 and \S

12.

Thus, as we see, the entire latter half of the license is identical.

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

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, we go into deeper detail of granting various permissions to

create derivative works, so the redistributors can make some proprietary

derivatives.  Since we simply do not allow the license to stretch as far

as copyright law does regarding what derivative works must be relicensed

under the same terms, we must go further to explain which derivative works

we will allow to 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.

Namely, in the LGPL we go into deeper detail of granting various permissions to

create derivative works, so the redistributors can make

some proprietary derivatives. Since we simply do not allow the

license to stretch as far as copyright law does regarding what

derivative works must be relicensed under the same terms, we must go

further to explain which derivative works we will allow to 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}

...

@@ -1952,40 +2043,40 @@ presenting a more generalized and briefer version of the story with which

we began our consideration of LGPL\@.

In short, FSF designed LGPL for those edge cases where the freedom of the

public can better be served by a more lax licensing system.  FSF doesn't

public can better be served by a more lax licensing system. FSF doesn't

encourage use of 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

\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.

  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 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.

\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}

LGPL's preamble sets forth the limits to which the license seeks to go in

chasing these goals.  LGPL is designed to ensure that users who happen to

acquire software linked against such libraries have full freedoms with

respect to that library.  They should have the ability to upgrade to newer

or modified free version or to make their own modifications, even if they

chasing these goals. 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 derivative works: ``works that uses

the library'' and ``works based on the library''.  Unlike GPL, LGPL must

draw some lines regarding derivative works.  We do this here in this

clarify between the different types of derivative works: ``works that use

the library,'' and ``works based on the library.''  Unlike GPL, LGPL must

draw some lines regarding derivative works. We do this here in this

license because we specifically seek to liberalize the rights afforded to

those who make derivative works.  In GPL, we reach as far as copyright law

allows.  In LGPL, we want to draw a line that allows some derivative works

those who make derivative works. In GPL, we reach as far as copyright law

allows. In 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.

...

@@ -1993,24 +2084,24 @@ his full permitted controls over the work.

In the effort to allow certain proprietary derivative works and prohibit

others, LGPL distinguishes between two classes of derivative works:

``works based on the library'' and ``works that uses the library''.  The

``works based on the library,'' and ``works that use the library.''  The

distinction is drawn on the bright line of binary (or runtime) derivative

works and source code derivatives.  We will first consider the definition

of a ``work that uses the library'', which is set forth in LGPL \S 5.

works and source code derivatives. We will first consider the definition

of a ``work that uses the library,'' which is set forth in LGPL \S 5.

We noted in our discussion of GPL \S 3 (discussed in

Section~\ref{GPL-Section-3} of this document) that binary programs when

compiled and linked with GPL'd software are derivative works of that GPL'd

software.  This includes both linking that happens at compile-time (when

software. 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,

and main program both -- is loaded into memory by the user). In GPL,

binary derivative works are controlled by the terms of the license (in GPL

\S 3), and distributors of such binary derivatives must release full

corresponding source under terms of GPL\@.

corresponding source\@.

In the case of LGPL, these are precisely the types of derivative works

we wish to permit.  This scenario, defined in LGPL as ``a work that uses

the library'', works as follows:

we wish to permit. This scenario, defined in LGPL as ``a work that uses

the library,'' works as follows:

\newcommand{\workl}{$\mathcal{L}$}

\newcommand{\lplusi}{$\mathcal{L\!\!+\!\!I}$}

...

@@ -2020,7 +2111,7 @@ the library'', works as follows:

\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

  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.

...

@@ -2033,23 +2124,24 @@ the library'', works as follows:

\item Since \lplusi{} is a derivative work of both \worki{} and \workl{},

  the license of \workl{} (the LGPL) can put restrictions on the license

  of \lplusi{}.  In fact, this is what LGPL does.

  of \lplusi{}. In fact, this is what LGPL does.

\end{itemize}

We will talk about the specific restrictions LGPL 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 LGPL 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 LGPL is doing is saying 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''.

We will talk about the specific restrictions LGPL 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 LGPL 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 LGPL 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 LGPL 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

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 derivative work of

the LGPL'd software (\workl{}).

...

@@ -2068,12 +2160,12 @@ a ``work that uses the library'' under LGPL is as follows:

  (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

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

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.

...

@@ -2081,13 +2173,13 @@ warranted.

In short, a ``work based on the library'' could be defined as any

derivative work of LGPL'd software that cannot otherwise fit the

definition of a ``work that uses the library''.  A ``work based on the

definition of a ``work that uses the library.''  A ``work based on the

library'' extends the full width and depth of copyright derivative works,

in the same sense that 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

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 derivative works of a software program.

...

@@ -2105,45 +2197,46 @@ based on the library'' is as follows:

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

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''.

In our years of work with the LGPL, 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 it almost appeared as such ---

that a derivative work appeared in some ways to be a work that used the

library and in other ways 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

based on the library'' and a ``work that uses the library.''

In our years of work with the LGPL, 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 derivative work

appeared in some ways to be a work that used the library and in other

ways 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 LGPL applied to each work as prescribed.

considered independently and the LGPL applied to each work as

prescribed.

\section{Subtleties in Works that Use the Library}

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 forth paragraph of LGPL's \S 5 covers these complexities,

and it has been a source of great confusion.  Part of the confusion comes

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 LGPL's \S 5 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 understand the subtle nature of what \S 5, \P 4 seeks to

cover.  It helps some to note that this is a border case that we cover in

mandatory to grasp the subtle nature of what \S 5, \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 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 a full program

when those modules are {\em assembled\/} into a full binary executable.

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

or at runtime. Legally, there is no distinction between the two --- both

create a derivative work by copying and combining portions of one work and

mixing them with another.  However, under LGPL, there is a case in the

mixing them with another. However, under LGPL, there is a case in the

compilation process where the legal implications are different.

Specifically, while we know that a ``work that uses the library'' is one

whose final binary is a derivative work, but whose source is not, there

...

@@ -2153,29 +2246,29 @@ 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

object code for an otherwise separate independent work. In the normal

scenario, the derivative would not be created until final assembly and

linking of the executable occurred.  However, when the compiler does this

linking of the executable occurred. However, when the compiler does this

efficiency optimization, at the intermediate object code step, a

derivative work is created.

LGPL's \S 5, \P 4 is designed to handle this specific case.  The intent of

LGPL's \S 5, \P 4 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,

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 a

``work based on the library''.  It is not FSF's intent that a mere

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

LGPL'd software.  This paragraph removes that restriction, allowing the

LGPL'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''.

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 were worried about

this edge condition.  The intent of clarifying this edge condition is

(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 LGPL are the same regardless

...

@@ -2183,58 +2276,58 @@ of the details of the compilation progress.

\section{LGPL \S 6: Distributing Works that Use the Library}

\label{lgpl-section-6}

Now that we have a established a good working definition of works that

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

\S 6 of LGPL\@.  \S 6 is much like GPL's \S 3, as it requires the release

of source when a binary version of the LGPL'd software is released.  Of

\S 6 of LGPL\@. \S 6 is much like GPL's \S 3, 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 LGPL \S 6 to make sure

available. The work that ``uses'' the library need not be provided in

source form. However, there are also conditions in LGPL \S 6 to make sure

that a user who wishes to modify or update the library can do so.

LGPL \S 6 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 that is currently used for LGPL compliance on a ``work that

uses the library''.

LGPL \S 6 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 LGPL compliance on a ``work that

uses the library.''

\S 6(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. 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 use the library''.  However, all modern shared

to use the ``work that uses the library.''  However, all modern shared

library mechanisms function as such, and thus \S 6(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.

\S 6(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

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

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 ``worked

based on the library'', so that the user can relink the application and

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.

The remaining options in \S 6 are very similar to the other choices

provided by GPL \S 3.  There are some additional options, and time does

not permit us in this course to go into those additional options.  In

provided by GPL \S 3. There are some additional options, but time does

not permit us in this course to go into those additional options. In

almost all cases of distribution under LGPL, either \S 6(a) or \S 6(b) are

exercised.

\section{Distribution of 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 LGPL's

same conditions as works under full GPL\@. In fact, we note that LGPL's

\S 2 is nearly identical in its terms and requirements to GPL's \S 2.

There are again subtle differences and additions, which time does not

permit us to cover in this course.

...

@@ -2246,20 +2339,21 @@ conditions:

\begin{itemize}

\item allowing a licensing ``upgrade'' from LGPL to GPL\@ (in LGPL \S 3),

\item Allowing a licensing ``upgrade'' from LGPL to GPL\@ (in LGPL \S 3)

\item binary distribution of the library only, covered in LGPL \S 4,

  which is effectively equivalent to LGPL \S 3, and

\item Binary distribution of the library only, covered in LGPL \S 4,

  which is effectively equivalent to LGPL \S 3

\item Creating aggregates of libraries that are not derivative works of

  each other, and distributing them as a unit (in LGPL \S 7)

\item creating aggregates of libraries that are not derivative works of

  each other, and distributing them as a unit (in LGPL \S 7).

\end{itemize}

Due to time constraints, we cannot cover these additional terms in detail,

but they are mostly straightforward.  The key to understanding LGPL is

but they are mostly straightforward. The key to understanding LGPL is

understanding the difference between a ``work based on the library'' and a

``work that uses the library''.  Once that distinction is clear, the

``work that uses the library.''  Once that distinction is clear, the

remainder of LGPL is close enough to GPL that the concepts discussed in

our more extensive GPL unit can be directly applied.

...

@@ -2267,24 +2361,24 @@ our more extensive GPL unit can be directly applied.

\chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}

Since GPL'd software is now extremely prevalent through the industry, it

is useful to has some basic knowledge about using GPL'd software in

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}

A discussed in Sections~\ref{GPLs0} and~\ref{GPLs5} of this tutorial, the

GPL only governs the activities of copying, modifying and distributing the

software 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 GPL\@.  Using Free Software in general requires

substantially fewer agreements and less license compliance activity than

any known proprietary software.

As discussed in Sections~\ref{GPLs0} and~\ref{GPLs5} 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 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 \S\S 1 and 3, but it is

encouraged!  If the company simply deploy unmodified (or even modified)

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

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.

...

@@ -2292,46 +2386,46 @@ equivalents.

\section{Business Models}

\label{Business Models}

Using Free Software in house is certainly helpful, but there is also a

thriving market for Free Software-oriented business models.  There is the

traditional model of selling copies of Free Software distributions.  Many

companies, including IBM and Red Hat, make substantial revenue from this

model.  IBM primarily chooses this model because they have found that for

higher-end hardware, the cost of 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 (because IBM can be assured that proprietary

versions of the same software will not exists to compete on their

hardware) is the right choice.

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, including IBM and Red Hat, make substantial revenue

from this model. IBM primarily chooses this model because they have

found that for higher-end hardware, the cost of 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 (because IBM can

be assured that proprietary versions of the same software will not

exists to compete on their hardware) is the right choice.

Red Hat has actually found that 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

website, people still go to local computer stores and buy copies of their

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.

a Free license as well) and the Free Software system it documents.

\medskip

However, 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 ensure 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

porting GCC to new embedded chipset target platforms.  Eventually, Cygnus

was so successful that it was purchased by Red Hat where it remains a

profitable division.

However, 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 like CodeSourcery, as well as

other medium sized companies like MontaVista and OpenTV that compete in

this space.  Because the code-base is protect by GPL, it creates and

demands industry trust.  Companies can cooperate on the software and

improve it for everyone.  Meanwhile, companies who rely on GCC for their

other medium-sized companies like MontaVista and OpenTV that compete in

this space. Because the code-base is protect by GPL, it creates and

demands industry trust. 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, and nearly all the changes fold back into the standard

platforms. Nearly all the changes fold back into the standard

versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.

\medskip

...

@@ -2339,14 +2433,14 @@ versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.

\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 is the sole copyright holder.  As

proprietary relicensing of a GPL'd code base. This is only an option for

software in which a particular entity is the sole copyright holder. 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, such as MySQL AB and TrollTech, use this to their

financial advantage with regard to a GPL'd code base.  The standard

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.

...

@@ -2355,33 +2449,33 @@ This business model is problematic 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

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

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

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 or distributing

modified versions of GPL'd software, the burden is a bit higher, but not

by much.  The glib answer that is that it is always easy to comply with

the GPL by releasing the whole product as Free Software.  However,

admittedly to the dismay of FSF, many modern and complex software systems

are built using both proprietary and GPL'd components that are not

legally derivative works of each other.  Usually, in product development

with Free Software tools, sometimes it is easier simply to improve

existing GPL'd application than to start from scratch.  In exchange for

that benefit, the license requires that the modifier give back to the

commons that made the work easier.  It is a reasonable trade-off, and it

is a way to help build a better world while also making a profit.

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

not legally derivative works of each other. Sometimes, it is easier simply to

improve existing GPL'd application than to start from scratch. In

exchange for that benefit, the license requires that the modifier give

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

assistance in complying with the GPL. You can contact FSF's GPL

Compliance Labs at $<$compliance@fsf.org$>$.

If you are particularly interested in matters of GPL compliance, we

...

@@ -2391,6 +2485,8 @@ discuss some real GPL violation cases that FSF has worked to resolve.

Consideration of such cases can help give insight on how to handle GPL

compliance in new situations.

\backmatter

\appendix

\chapter{The GNU General Public License}

...

@@ -2418,30 +2514,31 @@ of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

\end{center}

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to

share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public License is

intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software---to

make sure the software is free for all its users.  This General Public

License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to

any other program whose authors commit to using it.  (Some other Free

Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public

License instead.)  You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom

to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is

intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change Free

Software---to make sure the software is free for all its users. This

General Public License applies to most of the Free Software

Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to

using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by

the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to

your programs, too.

When we speak of Free Software, we are referring to freedom, not price.

Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the

freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service

freedom to distribute copies of Free Software (and charge for this service

if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it,

that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs;

that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new Free programs;

and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to

deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.  These

deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These

restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you

distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or

for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have.  You

must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.  And

for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You

must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And

you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2)

...

@@ -2449,16 +2546,16 @@ offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,

distribute and/or modify the software.

Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that

everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software.  If

everyone understands that there is no warranty for this Free Software. If

the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its

recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any

problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors'

reputations.

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents.

We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will

Finally, any Free program is threatened constantly by software patents.

We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a Free program will

individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program

proprietary.  To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must

proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must

be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and

...

@@ -2477,16 +2574,16 @@ modification follow.

This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice

placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the

terms of this General Public License.  The ``Program'', below, refers to

terms of this General Public License. The ``Program,'' below, refers to

any such program or work, and a ``work based on the Program'' means either

the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a

work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with

modifications and/or translated into another language.  (Hereinafter,

translation is included without limitation in the term ``modification''.)

Each licensee is addressed as ``you''.

modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter,

translation is included without limitation in the term ``modification.'')

Each licensee is addressed as ``you.''

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not

covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of

covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of

running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program

is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the

Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).

...

@@ -2531,18 +2628,18 @@ announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a

notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide

a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under

these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this

License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but

License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but

does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on

the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

\end{enumerate}

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If

identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,

and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in

themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those

sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you

sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you

distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based

on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of

this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the

...

@@ -2583,7 +2680,7 @@ customarily used for software interchange; or,

\item

Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer

to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is

to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is

allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you

received the program in object code or executable form with such

an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

...

@@ -2592,10 +2689,10 @@ an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for

making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source

making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source

code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any

associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to

control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a

control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a

special exception, the source code distributed need not include

anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary

form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the

...

@@ -2610,7 +2707,7 @@ compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

\item

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program

except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt

except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt

otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is

void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under

...

@@ -2619,9 +2716,9 @@ parties remain in full compliance.

\item

You are not required to accept this License, since you have not

signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or

distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are

prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by

signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or

distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are

prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by

modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the

Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and

all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying

...

@@ -2631,7 +2728,7 @@ the Program or works based on it.

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the

Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the

original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to

these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further

these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further

restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to

this License.

...

@@ -2641,10 +2738,10 @@ If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent

infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),

conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or

otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not

excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot

excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot

distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this

License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you

may not distribute the Program at all.  For example, if a patent

may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent

license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by

all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then

the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to

...

@@ -2658,8 +2755,8 @@ circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any

patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any

such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the

integrity of the free software distribution system, which is

implemented by public license practices.  Many people have made

integrity of the Free Software distribution system, which is

implemented by public license practices. Many people have made

generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed

through that system in reliance on consistent application of that

system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing

...

@@ -2675,30 +2772,30 @@ certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the

original copyright holder who places the Program under this License

may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding

those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among

countries not thus excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates

countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates

the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

\item

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions

of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will

of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will

be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to

address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program

specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and ``any

later version'', you have the option of following the terms and conditions

later version,'' you have the option of following the terms and conditions

either of that version or of any later version published by the Free

Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of

Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of

this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software

Foundation.

\item

If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free

programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author

to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free

to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free

Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes

make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals

of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and

make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals

of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our Free Software and

of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

\begin{center}

...

@@ -2709,25 +2806,25 @@ No Warranty

\item

{\sc Because the program is licensed free of charge, there is no warranty

for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law.  Except when

for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Except when

otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties

provide the program ``as is'' without warranty of any kind, either expressed

or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of

merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.  The entire risk as

to the quality and performance of the program is with you.  Should the

merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as

to the quality and performance of the program is with you. Should the

program prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing,

repair or correction.}

\item

{\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing

will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or

redistribute the program as permitted above, be liable to you for damages,

including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising

out of the use or inability to use the program (including but not limited

to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by

you or third parties or a failure of the program to operate with any other

programs), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the

possibility of such damages.}

\item {\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to

    in writing will any copyright holder, or any other party who may

    modify and/or redistribute the program as permitted above, be

    liable to you for damages, including any general, special,

    incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use or

    inability to use the program (including but not limited to loss of

    data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by you

    or third parties or a failure of the program to operate with any

    other programs), even if such holder or other party has been

    advised of the possibility of such damages.}

\end{enumerate}

...

@@ -2735,18 +2832,18 @@ possibility of such damages.}

\begin{center}

{\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}

\end{center}

\vfill

\pagebreak[2]

\pagebreak[4]

\section*{Appendix: How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs}

If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest

possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it

free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these

Free Software which everyone can redistribute and change under these

terms.

  To do so, attach the following notices to the program.  It is safest to

  To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to

  attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey

  the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the

  ``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

...

@@ -2755,14 +2852,14 @@ terms.

one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does. \\

Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify

This program is Free Software; you can redistribute it and/or modify

it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by

the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or

(at your option) any later version.

This program 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.  See the

MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the

GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License

...

@@ -2778,20 +2875,20 @@ when it starts in an interactive mode:

\begin{quote}

Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\

Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. \\

This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it

This is Free Software, and you are welcome to redistribute it

under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

\end{quote}

The hypothetical commands {\tt show w} and {\tt show c} should show the

appropriate parts of the General Public License.  Of course, the commands

appropriate parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands

you use may be called something other than {\tt show w} and {\tt show c};

they could even be mouse-clicks or menu items---whatever suits your

program.

You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your

school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the program, if

necessary.  Here is a sample; alter the names:

necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:

\begin{quote}

Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program \\

...

@@ -2803,9 +2900,9 @@ Ty Coon, President of Vice

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program

into proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you

into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you

may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications

with the library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library

with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library

General Public License instead of this License.

...

@@ -2829,8 +2926,8 @@ of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

\bigskip

[This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL.  It also counts

 as the successor of the GNU Library Public License, version 2, hence

[This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL. It also counts

 as the successor of the GNU Library Public License version 2, hence

 the version number 2.1.]

...

@@ -2841,35 +2938,35 @@ of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

\end{center}

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to

share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public Licenses are

intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software---to

share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public Licenses are

intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change Free Software---to

make sure the software is free for all its users.

This license, the Lesser General Public License, applies to some specially

designated software packages---typically libraries---of the Free Software

Foundation and other authors who decide to use it.  You can use it too,

Foundation and other authors who decide to use it. You can use it too,

but we suggest you first think carefully about whether this license or the

ordinary General Public License is the better strategy to use in any

particular case, based on the explanations below.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom of use, not

price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you

have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for

When we speak of Free Software, we are referring to freedom of use, not

price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you

have the freedom to distribute copies of Free Software (and charge for

this service if you wish); that you receive source code or can get it if

you want it; that you can change the software and use pieces of it in new

free programs; and that you are informed that you can do these things.

Free programs; and that you are informed that you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid

distributors to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender these

rights.  These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you

rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you

if you distribute copies of the library or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or

for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you.

You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.  If

You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. If

you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object

files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the library

after making changes to the library and recompiling it.  And you must show

after making changes to the library and recompiling it. And you must show

them these terms so they know their rights.

We protect your rights with a two-step method: (1) we copyright the

...

@@ -2877,62 +2974,62 @@ library, and (2) we offer you this license, which gives you legal

permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the library.

To protect each distributor, we want to make it very clear that there is

no warranty for the free library.  Also, if the library is modified by

no warranty for the Free library. Also, if the library is modified by

someone else and passed on, the recipients should know that what they have

is not the original version, so that the original author's reputation will

not be affected by problems that might be introduced by others.

Finally, software patents pose a constant threat to the existence of any

free program.  We wish to make sure that a company cannot effectively

restrict the users of a free program by obtaining a restrictive license

from a patent holder.  Therefore, we insist that any patent license

Free program. We wish to make sure that a company cannot effectively

restrict the users of a Free program by obtaining a restrictive license

from a patent holder. Therefore, we insist that any patent license

obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full

freedom of use specified in this license.

Most GNU software, including some libraries, is covered by the ordinary

GNU General Public License.  This license, the GNU Lesser General Public

GNU General Public License. This license, the GNU Lesser General Public

License, applies to certain designated libraries, and is quite different

from the ordinary General Public License.  We use this license for certain

libraries in order to permit linking those libraries into non-free

from the ordinary General Public License. We use this license for certain

libraries in order to permit linking those libraries into non-Free

programs.

When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a

shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined

work, a derivative of the original library.  The ordinary General Public

work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public

License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits

its criteria of freedom.  The Lesser General Public License permits more

its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more

lax criteria for linking other code with the library.

We call this license the ``Lesser'' General Public License because it does

Less to protect the user's freedom than the ordinary General Public

License.  It also provides other free software developers Less of an

advantage over competing non-free programs.  These disadvantages are the

License. It also provides other Free Software developers Less of an

advantage over competing non-Free programs. These disadvantages are the

reason we use the ordinary General Public License for many libraries.

However, the Lesser license provides advantages in certain special

circumstances.

For example, on rare occasions, there may be a special need to encourage

the widest possible use of a certain library, so that it becomes a

de-facto standard.  To achieve this, non-free programs must be allowed to

use the library.  A more frequent case is that a free library does the

same job as widely used non-free libraries.  In this case, there is little

to gain by limiting the free library to free software only, so we use the

de-facto standard. To achieve this, non-Free programs must be allowed to

use the library. A more frequent case is that a Free library does the

same job as widely used non-Free libraries. In this case, there is little

to gain by limiting the Free library to Free Software only, so we use the

Lesser General Public License.

In other cases, permission to use a particular library in non-free

programs enables a greater number of people to use a large body of free

software.  For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-free

In other cases, permission to use a particular library in non-Free

programs enables a greater number of people to use a large body of Free

software. For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-Free

programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating system,

as well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating system.

Although the Lesser General Public License is Less protective of the

users' freedom, it does ensure that the user of a program that is linked

with the Library has the freedom and the wherewithal to run that program

using a modified version of the Library.

with the library has the freedom and the wherewithal to run that program

using a modified version of the library.

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and

modification follow.  Pay close attention to the difference between a

``work based on the library'' and a ``work that uses the library''.  The

modification follow. Pay close attention to the difference between a

``work based on the library'' and a ``work that uses the library.''  The

former contains code derived from the library, whereas the latter must be

combined with the library in order to run.

...

@@ -2951,43 +3048,43 @@ combined with the library in order to run.

This License Agreement applies to any software library or other program

which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder or other authorized

party saying it may be distributed under the terms of this Lesser General

Public License (also called ``this License'').  Each licensee is addressed

as ``you''.

Public License (also called ``this License''). Each licensee is addressed

as ``you.''

A ``library'' means 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.

The ``Library'', below, refers to any such software library or work which

has been distributed under these terms.  A ``work based on the Library''

means either the Library or any derivative work under copyright law: that

is to say, a work containing the Library or a portion of it, either

The ``library,'' below, refers to any such software library or work which

has been distributed under these terms. A ``work based on the library''

means either the library or any derivative work under copyright law: that

is to say, a work containing the library or a portion of it, either

verbatim or with modifications and/or translated straightforwardly into

another language.  (Hereinafter, translation is included without

limitation in the term ``modification''.)

another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without

limitation in the term ``modification.'')

``Source code'' for a work means the preferred form of the work for making

modifications to it.  For a library, complete source code means all the

modifications to it. For a library, complete source code means all the

source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface

definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and

installation of the library.

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not

covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of running a

program using the Library is not restricted, and output from such a

covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running a

program using the library is not restricted, and output from such a

program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the

Library (independent of the use of the Library in a tool for writing it).

Whether that is true depends on what the Library does and what the program

that uses the Library does.

library (independent of the use of the library in a tool for writing it).

Whether that is true depends on what the library does and what the program

that uses the library does.

\item

You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Library's complete

You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the library's complete

source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you

conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate

copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices

that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and

distribute a copy of this License along with the Library.

distribute a copy of this License along with the library.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,

and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a

...

@@ -2995,8 +3092,8 @@ fee.

\item

You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it,

thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such

You may modify your copy or copies of the library or any portion of it,

thus forming a work based on the library, and copy and distribute such

modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that

you also meet all of these conditions:

...

@@ -3017,7 +3114,7 @@ you also meet all of these conditions:

    all third parties under the terms of this License.

  \item

    If a facility in the modified Library refers to a function or a table

    If a facility in the modified library refers to a function or a table

    of data to be supplied by an application program that uses the

    facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility is

    invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the

...

@@ -3032,12 +3129,12 @@ or table used by this function must be optional: if the application does

not supply it, the square root function must still compute square roots.)

\end{enumerate}

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If identifiable

sections of that work are not derived from the Library, and can be

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable

sections of that work are not derived from the library, and can be

reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then

this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you

distribute them as separate works.  But when you distribute the same

sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Library, the

distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same

sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the library, the

distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose

permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to

each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

...

@@ -3045,20 +3142,20 @@ each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your

rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise

the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works

based on the Library.

based on the library.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Library

with the Library (or with a work based on the Library) on a volume of a

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the library

with the library (or with a work based on the library) on a volume of a

storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the

scope of this License.

\item

You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License

instead of this License to a given copy of the Library.  To do this, you

instead of this License to a given copy of the library. To do this, you

must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer

to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this

License.  (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General

to the ordinary GNU General Public License version 2, instead of to this

License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General

Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if

you wish.)  Do not make any other change in these notices.

...

@@ -3067,11 +3164,11 @@ copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent

copies and derivative works made from that copy.

This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the

Library into a program that is not a library.

library into a program that is not a library.

\item

You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or derivative of it,

You may copy and distribute the library (or a portion or derivative of it,

under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of

Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete

corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed

...

@@ -3086,71 +3183,71 @@ with the object code.

\item

A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but

is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it,

is called a ``work that uses the Library''.  Such a work, in isolation, is

not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the

A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the library, but

is designed to work with the library by being compiled or linked with it,

is called a ``work that uses the library.''  Such a work, in isolation, is

not a derivative work of the library, and therefore falls outside the

scope of this License.

However, linking a ``work that uses the Library'' with the Library creates

an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains

portions of the Library), rather than a ``work that uses the library''.

The executable is therefore covered by this License.  Section 6 states

However, linking a ``work that uses the library'' with the library creates

an executable that is a derivative of the library (because it contains

portions of the library), rather than a ``work that uses the library.''

The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states

terms for distribution of such executables.

When a ``work that uses the Library'' uses material from a header file

that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a

derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not.

When a ``work that uses the library'' uses material from a header file

that is part of the library, the object code for the work may be a

derivative work of the library even though the source code is not.

Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be linked

without the Library, or if the work is itself a library.  The threshold

without the library, or if the work is itself a library. The threshold

for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.

If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure

layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions (ten

lines or less in length), then the use of the object file is unrestricted,

regardless of whether it is legally a derivative work.  (Executables

containing this object code plus portions of the Library will still fall

regardless of whether it is legally a derivative work. (Executables

containing this object code plus portions of the library will still fall

under Section 6.)

Otherwise, if the work is a derivative of the Library, you may distribute

the object code for the work under the terms of Section 6.  Any

Otherwise, if the work is a derivative of the library, you may distribute

the object code for the work under the terms of Section 6. Any

executables containing that work also fall under Section 6, whether or not

they are linked directly with the Library itself.

they are linked directly with the library itself.

\item

As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a

``work that uses the Library'' with the Library to produce a work

containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms

``work that uses the library'' with the library to produce a work

containing portions of the library, and distribute that work under terms

of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work

for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such

modifications.

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

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.  Also, you must do one of these things:

notice for the library among them, as well as a reference directing the

user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:

\begin{enumerate}

  \item

    Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable

    source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in

    source code for the library including whatever changes were used in

    the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above);

    and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the

    complete machine-readable ``work that uses the Library'', as object

    code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and

    and, if the work is an executable linked with the library, with the

    complete machine-readable ``work that uses the library,'' as object

    code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the library and

    then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified

    Library.  (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of

    definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to

    library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of

    definitions files in the library will not necessarily be able to

    recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)

  \item

    Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library.

    Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the library.

    A suitable mechanism is one that (1) 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 (2) will operate

...

@@ -3177,9 +3274,9 @@ user to the copy of this License.  Also, you must do one of these things:

    that you have already sent this user a copy.

\end{enumerate}

For an executable, the required form of the ``work that uses the Library''

For an executable, the required form of the ``work that uses the library''

must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the

executable from it.  However, as a special exception, the materials to be

executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be

distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in

either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,

and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless

...

@@ -3187,15 +3284,15 @@ that component itself accompanies the executable.

It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions

of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the

operating system.  Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and

the Library together in an executable that you distribute.

operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and

the library together in an executable that you distribute.

\item

You may place library facilities that are a work based on the Library

You may place library facilities that are a work based on the library

side-by-side in a single library together with other library facilities

not covered by this License, and distribute such a combined library,

provided that the separate distribution of the work based on the Library

provided that the separate distribution of the work based on the library

and of the other library facilities is otherwise permitted, and provided

that you do these two things:

...

@@ -3204,43 +3301,43 @@ that you do these two things:

   \item

     Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work based on

     the Library, uncombined with any other library facilities.  This must

     the library, uncombined with any other library facilities. This must

     be distributed under the terms of the Sections above.

   \item

     Give prominent notice with the combined library of the fact that part

     of it is a work based on the Library, and explaining where to find

     of it is a work based on the library, and explaining where to find

     the accompanying uncombined form of the same work.

\end{enumerate}

\item

  You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the

  Library except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt

  library except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt

  otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the

  Library is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this

  License.  However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you

  library is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this

  License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you

  under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as

  such parties remain in full compliance.

\item

  You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed

  it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute

  the Library or its derivative works.  These actions are prohibited by

  law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by modifying or

  distributing the Library (or any work based on the Library), you

  it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute

  the library or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by

  law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or

  distributing the library (or any work based on the library), you

  indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and

  conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Library or works

  conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the library or works

  based on it.

\item

  Each time you redistribute the Library (or any work based on the

  Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the

  original licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the Library

  subject to these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further

  Each time you redistribute the library (or any work based on the

  library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the

  original licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the library

  subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further

  restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

  You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with

  this License.

...

@@ -3251,14 +3348,14 @@ that you do these two things:

  infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),

  conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or

  otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not

  excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot

  excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot

  distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this

  License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you

  may not distribute the Library at all.  For example, if a patent license

  would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library by all those

  may not distribute the library at all. For example, if a patent license

  would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the library by all those

  who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way

  you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely

  from distribution of the Library.

  from distribution of the library.

  If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under

  any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to

...

@@ -3268,8 +3365,8 @@ that you do these two things:

  It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any

  patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any

  such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the

  integrity of the free software distribution system which is implemented

  by public license practices.  Many people have made generous

  integrity of the Free Software distribution system which is implemented

  by public license practices. Many people have made generous

  contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that

  system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to

  the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute

...

@@ -3279,31 +3376,32 @@ that you do these two things:

  This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be

  a consequence of the rest of this License.

\pagebreak[4]

% \pagebreak[4]

\item

  If the distribution and/or use of the Library is restricted in certain

  If the distribution and/or use of the library is restricted in certain

  countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original

  copyright holder who places the Library under this License may add an

  copyright holder who places the library under this License may add an

  explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries,

  so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus

  excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if

  excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if

  written in the body of this License.

\item

  The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of

  the Lesser General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions

  the Lesser General Public License from time to time. Such new versions

  will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in

  detail to address new problems or concerns.

  Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Library

  Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the library

  specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and ``any

  later version'', you have the option of following the terms and

  later version,'' you have the option of following the terms and

  conditions either of that version or of any later version published by

  the Free Software Foundation.  If the Library does not specify a license

  the Free Software Foundation. If the library does not specify a license

  version number, you may choose any version ever published by the Free

  Software Foundation.

...

@@ -3311,12 +3409,12 @@ that you do these two things:

\item

  If you wish to incorporate parts of the Library into other free programs

  If you wish to incorporate parts of the library into other Free programs

  whose distribution conditions are incompatible with these, write to the

  author to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the

  author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the

  Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we

  sometimes make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the

  two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free

  sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the

  two goals of preserving the Free status of all derivatives of our Free

  software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

...

@@ -3328,17 +3426,17 @@ No Warranty

\item

{\sc Because the Library is licensed free of charge, there is no

{\sc Because the library is licensed free of charge, there is no

warranty for the library, to the extent permitted by applicable law.

Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or

other parties provide the library ``as is'' without warranty of any

kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the

implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular

purpose.  The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the

Library is with you.  should the Library prove defective, you assume

purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the

library is with you. should the library prove defective, you assume

the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.}

\pagebreak[4]

% \pagebreak[4]

\item

...

@@ -3357,18 +3455,19 @@ the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.}

\begin{center}

{\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}

\end{center}

\vfill

\pagebreak[4]

\section*{How to Apply These Terms to Your New Libraries}

If you develop a new library, and you want it to be of the greatest

possible use to the public, we recommend making it free software that

everyone can redistribute and change.  You can do so by permitting

possible use to the public, we recommend making it Free Software that

everyone can redistribute and change. You can do so by permitting

redistribution under these terms (or, alternatively, under the terms of

the ordinary General Public License).

To apply these terms, attach the following notices to the library.  It is

To apply these terms, attach the following notices to the library. It is

safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively

convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the

``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

...

@@ -3377,14 +3476,14 @@ convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the

one line to give the library's name and a brief idea of what it does. \\

Copyright (C) year  name of author \\

This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it

This library is Free Software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it

under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by

the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at

your option) any later version.

This library 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.  See the GNU Lesser General Public

or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public

License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License

...

@@ -3396,7 +3495,7 @@ Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your

school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the library, if

necessary.  Here is a sample; alter the names:

necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:

\begin{quote}

Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program \\

...

@@ -3408,12 +3507,8 @@ Ty Coon, President of Vice

That's all there is to it!

\end{document}

% =====================================================================

% END OF FIRST DAY SEMINAR SECTION

% =====================================================================

% LocalWords:  proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision EULAs

% LocalWords:  Yoyodyne FrontPage improvers Berne copyrightable Stallman's GPLs

% LocalWords:  Lessig Lessig's UCITA pre PDAs CDs reshifts GPL's Gentoo glibc

% LocalWords:  TrollTech administrivia LGPL's MontaVista OpenTV Mitek Arce DVD

% LocalWords:  unprotectable protectable Unfreedonia chipset CodeSourcery Iqtel

% LocalWords:  impermissibly Bateman faire minimis Borland uncopyrightable Mgmt

% LocalWords:  franca downloadable

\end{document}