(chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}): Flushed

	out outline some.

	(section{GPL \S 4: Termination on Violation}): Wrote section.

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\@.

\medskip

The last chapter presented the 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 enforcable, are kept to the confines of

copyright law and are not trumped by other copyright agreements or

components of other entirely seperate 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.

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

\S 4--5 are, in my opinion, the heart of the GPL\@. \S\S 0--3 are

important in their efforts to set forth in clear legal langauge the

doctrine of copyleft.  However, \S 4--5 are the glue that holds \S\S 0--3

together.

\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

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

no provision allowing the copyright holder to take such a pregoative, the

license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect\footnote{In

  the USA< due to unfortunate legislation, this is nearly perpetual, even

  though the Constitution forbids it.}.  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'ed version (assuming \S 3(b) was never used), but the

she may not revoke the rights under GPL already granted.

In fact, when an entity looses their right to copy, modify and distribute

GPL'ed software, it is because of their \emph{own actions}, not that of

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

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

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

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

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

negotiate another agreement, seperate from GPL, with the copyright

holder.  Both are common practice.

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 negotation --- comply

with the license and respect freedom.

However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software

freedom as institiualized by FSF persue GPL violations differently.  MySQL

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

GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software license

sepearately 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.

\section{GPL \S 5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}

Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to

the licensee to perform acts of copying, modification, and redistribution

that would otherwise have been prohibited by default.  Since, barring

special permission from the copyright holder, the GPL is a licensee's one

and only license to the software (thanks to \S 6),

\section{GPL \S 6: GPL, My One and Only}

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

\subsection{Redistribution Sales}

\subsection{Custom Modification on Contract}

\subsection{Proprietary Relicensing}

\label{Proprietary Relicensing}