Copyleft/guide Changeset - f8562aaf5502

...

@@ -219,14 +219,15 @@ 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 essential to users who are not programmers.

Users must have the right to engage in a non-commercial environment of

finding help with the software (as often happens on email lists and in

users groups).  This means they must have the freedom to recruit

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.

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.  Each user, or

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

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

that companies have a right to hire anyone they wish to modify their Free

Software.  Additionally, such companies may contract with other companies

...

@@ -259,6 +260,10 @@ 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

various Free Software business models that take advantage of the freedom

to share commercially.)

\subsection{The Freedom to Share Improvements}

The freedom to modify and improve is somewhat empty without the freedom to

...

@@ -282,19 +287,19 @@ 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 so-called ``canonical

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 developer and user interaction.

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

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

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

canonical version refuse to serve the needs of some of the software's

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.

...

@@ -308,32 +313,34 @@ 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,

  and one can contract away their rights and freedoms regarding software.

  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 definition for public performance of software and

  version 2 of the GPL does not govern public performance.}.  By law, the

copyright holder (aka 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 further impede modification in a practical sense by

distributing only binary code and keeping the source code of the software

secret.

  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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

legislation.  Software, since it is tangible expression of an idea, 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, 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 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.}.

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

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.}.

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

...

@@ -347,7 +354,7 @@ copyright is in the ``public domain''.

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

Berne convention on copyright, software is copyrighted automatically by

the author when (s)he ``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.

...

@@ -366,7 +373,6 @@ 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

%should the ``she'' be a ``(s)he'' ?

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

...

@@ -383,7 +389,7 @@ copyrighted.  In most cases (particularly in that 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 canonical versions on which the original author disclaimed

who receive the standard versions on which the original author disclaimed

copyright.  However, since the work is not copyrighted, any non-trivial

modification made to the work is fully copyrightable.

...

@@ -393,9 +399,9 @@ 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, since 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.

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

originally created primarily as a legal entity to defend software freedom,

...

@@ -473,7 +479,7 @@ The non-commercial users, however, were not concerned when these two

fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'ed 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 canonical version.  Companies are not permitted to proprietarize

the standard version.  Companies are not permitted to proprietarize

Samba, so the non-commercial users, and even other commercial users are

safe in the knowledge that the software freedom ensured by GPL will remain

protected.

...

@@ -482,7 +488,7 @@ 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

canonical version.  Meanwhile, many other individuals have gotten involved

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

...

@@ -566,9 +572,9 @@ remain free in just this sense.\footnote{This quotation is Copyright

\end{quotation}

In essence, lawyers are paid to service the shared commons of legal

infrastructure.  Few 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.

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

functions similarly to other well established professional fields like the

...

@@ -663,9 +669,10 @@ 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

always strives to make it abundantly clear to anyone who receives the

software what its license is.  The goal is 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 that the software she got was licensed under GPL\@.  Thus

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

notifying others down the distribution chain that they have rights under

GPL.

...

@@ -688,36 +695,30 @@ on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)

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

Many consider \S 2 the heart and soul of the GPL\@.  For many, this is

where the ``magic'' happens that defends software freedom along the

distribution chain.  I certainly agree that if the GPL has a soul, this is

where it is.  However, I argue that the heart is in fact contained in \SS

4--5 (see Section~\ref{GPLs4} and~\ref{GPLs5} of this tutorial).  But, for

the moment, let us consider the soul.

\S 2 gives the only permission in the GPL that governs the modification

controls of copyright law.  If someone modifies a GPL'ed program, she is

bound in the making those changes by \S 2.  The goal here is to ensure

that the body of GPL'ed software, as it continues and develops, remains

Free as in freedom.

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

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

2.  The goal here is to ensure that the body of GPL'ed 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 modified versions are the same as those for verbatim

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

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

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

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 what path it took

to them.  For some users, it is important to know that they are using the

canonical version of program, because while there are many advantages to

using a fork, there are a few disadvantages.  Users should be informed 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

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

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

...

@@ -734,12 +735,12 @@ education efforts by FSF on this matter, many still believe that modifiers

of GPL'ed 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,

personal changes to software that are not shared should be 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 is a

  clear distinction between what one {\bf ought} to do and what one {\bf

    must} do.}.

personal, unshared changes to software for personal use only should be

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

  is a clear distinction between what one {\bf ought} to do and what one

  {\bf must} do.}.

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

following text:

...

@@ -767,12 +768,12 @@ Consider each subpart carefully.

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

program, she generates new copyrighted material --- fixing ideas in 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 affects the license of the

new whole derivative work.

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

affects the license of the new whole derivative work.

% {\cal I}

\newcommand{\gplusi}{$\mathcal{G\!\!+\!\!I}$}

...

@@ -782,10 +783,10 @@ new whole derivative work.

It is certainly possible to take an existing independent work (called

\worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'ed 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 .  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

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

holder of each of the two works.

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

...

@@ -798,7 +799,7 @@ product --- would they give you permission to create and distribute

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

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

permission to create and distribute derivative works, provided the terms

of GPL are uphold, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one

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

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

...

@@ -824,11 +825,11 @@ 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

extend to anyone who might, through the typical distribution chain,

receive a copy 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 FIXME to all third parties who may

ultimately receive a copy of the software.

extend to anyone who might, through the distribution chain, receive a copy

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

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

...

@@ -1211,9 +1212,23 @@ Thus, \S 7 is 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: Finding Freedonia}

\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

copyrighted interfaces (no country to our knowledge even permits those

yet), that the GPL'ed 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

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

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

free without otherwise negating parts of the license.

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

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