\documentstyle[twocolumn]{article}

\pagestyle{empty}

\begin{document}

%don't want date printed

\date{}

%make title bold and 14 pt font (Latex default is non-bold, 16 pt)

\title{\Large\bf A Comprehensive Consideration of Installation Requirements of the GPL}

%for two authors (this is what is printed)

\author{\begin{tabular}[t]{c@{\extracolsep{8em}}c@{\extracolsep{8em}}c}

    Bradley M. Kuhn & Behan Webster \\

    Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. & Converse In Code

\end{tabular}

}

\thispagestyle{empty}

\maketitle

\subsection*{\centering Abstract}

The GNU General License (``GPL'') is the most widely used \textit{copyleft}

license for software.  Copyleft licenses function as copyright license in

atypical manner: rather than restricting permission to copy, modify and

redistribute the software, copyleft licenses encourage and enable such

activities.  However, these license have strict requirements that mandate

further software sharing by enabling downstream users to easily improve,

modify, and upgrade the copylefted software on their own.

GPL has two versions in common use: version 2 (``GPLv2'') and version 3

(``GPLv3'').  Both versions require those who redistribute the software to

provide information related to the installation of software modified by

downstream.  These installation requirements, however, differ somewhat in

their details.  While some business practices around license compliance

efforts have reached adequate sophistication to address simpler compliance

problems, firms have generally given inadequate attention to the installation

requirements of both common versions of GPL\@.  Misunderstanding of these

clauses is often common, and violations related to installation instructions

remain prevalent.

Furthermore, perceived differences in the requirements, and lack of rigorous

study of the Installation Information requirements of GPLv3\S6 has allowed

rumor and impression, rather than a textually grounded adherence to the

written rules, to govern industry response in adoption of software licensed

under GPLv3.  The resulting scenario often causes redistributors to assume

the GPLv2 has \textbf{no} requirements regarding installation information,

and that GPLv3's requirements in this regard are impossible to meet,

particularly in security-conscious embedded products.

This paper explores the installation provisions of both common versions of

GPL, discusses historical motivations and context for each, and suggests best

practices regarding installation information for firms that redistribute

software under both licenses.

\end{document}