Showing 7 commits
Ancestor: 26def8538a10
1 file changed with 69 insertions and 33 deletions:
69
33
gpl-lgpl.tex | tip tip
 ... @@ -411,13 +411,36 @@ stands to reason that putting software into the public domain is the  411 411 easiest and most straightforward way to produce Free Software. Indeed,  412 412 some major Free Software projects have chosen this method for making their  413 413 software Free. However, most of the Free Software in existence \emph{is}  414 copyrighted. In most cases (particularly in those of FSF and the GNU  415 Project), this was done due to very careful planning.  414 copyrighted.  415 416 For some, this is because while it's reasonable to assume that US courts  417 will recognize abandonment of copyright given a clear enough notice from the  418 author, that's not necessarily true in all jurisdictions and even if it was,  419 we don't know what form exactly a dedication should take to convince courts  420 and prevent confusion or attempted revocations.  421 422 For others, it's because authors feel that enforcing through copyright one or  423 more license condtions, reasonably chosen to correspond to their wishes, is  424 another way to create Free Software that everyone benefits from.  425 426 In the case of FSF and the GNU Project, copyrighting and licensing software  427 was done due to very careful planning.  416 428 417 429 Software released into the public domain does grant freedom to those users  418 430 who receive the standard versions on which the original author disclaimed  419 431 copyright. However, since the work is not copyrighted, any nontrivial  420 modification made to the work is fully copyrightable.  432 modification made to the work is copyrightable.  433 434 % FIXME: can't this be written better?  435 % The core intention of copyleft is to keep software from being reused in  436 % proprietary software. [It's the last - not discussed in the guide? - paragraph  437 % in GPLv2 and v3; though not part of the legal text, I'd argue it pervades it.]  438 % This means a lot of things, but it doesn't automatically mean that the public  439 % domain would disappear otherwise, in the simple sense that what is in the public  440 % domain remains there. If the argument is that there aren't adequate incentives  441 % for enlarging it, that's different than saying someone can shrink it.  442 % If there are serious reasons for thinking one can shrink it, then those  443 % reasons seem worth discussing separately from the incentives issue.  421 444 422 445 Free Software released into the public domain initially is Free, and  423 446 perhaps some who modify the software choose to place their work into the  ... @@ -732,7 +755,7 @@ created. Like jazz, or novels, or architecture, the law gets built  732 755 upon the work that went before. This adding and changing is what  733 756 creativity always is. And a free society is one that assures that its  734 757 most important resources remain free in just this sense.\footnote{This  735 quotation is Copyright \copyright{} 2002, Lawrence Lessig. It is  758 fragment is Copyright \copyright{} 2002, Lawrence Lessig. It is  736 759 licensed under the terms of  737 760 \href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/}{the Attribution  738 761 License'' version 1.0} or any later version as published by Creative  ... @@ -1494,21 +1517,21 @@ It is certainly true that GPL intends for any work that is determined a  1494 1517 derivative work'' under copyright law must be licensed as a whole under  1495 1518 GPL\@, as will be discussed in the following chapter. However, as we finish  1496 1519 up our discussion derivative works, we must note that preparation of a  1497 derivative work is by far not the only way to create a new work covered by  1498 GPL\@.  1499 1500 In fact, while derivative work preparation is perhaps the most exciting area  1501 of legal issues to consider, the more mundane ways to create a new work  1502 covered by GPL are much more common. For example, copyright statutes  1503 generally require permission from the copyright holder to grant explicit  1504 permission to modify a work in any manner. As discussed in the next chapter,  1505 the GPL {\em does} grant such permission, but requires the modified work must  1506 also be licensed under the terms of the GPL (and only GPL:  1520 derivative work in edge cases like the above is by far not the only way to  1521 create a new work covered by GPL\@.  1522 1523 In fact, while questions on the limits of derivative work preparation are  1524 perhaps the most exciting area of legal issues to consider, the more mundane  1525 ways to create a new work covered by GPL are much more common. For example,  1526 copyright statutes generally require permission from the copyright holder to  1527 grant explicit permission to modify a work in any manner. As discussed in the  1528 next chapter, the GPL {\em does} grant such permission, but requires the modified  1529 work must also be licensed under the terms of the GPL (and only GPL:  1507 1530 see\S~\label{GPLv2s6} in this tutorial). Determining whether software was  1508 modified is a substantially easier analysis than the derivative work  1509 discussions and considerations in this chapter.  1531 modified is a substantially easier analysis than the discussions and considerations  1532 in this chapter on other derivative works.  1510 1533 1511 The question of derivative works, when and how they are made, is undoubtedly  1534 The question of any derivative works, when and how they are made, is undoubtedly  1512 1535 an essential discussion in the interpretation and consideration of copyleft.  1513 1536 That is why this chapter was included in this tutorial. However, as we  1514 1537 return from this digression and resume discussion of the detailed text of the  ... @@ -2045,17 +2068,17 @@ parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.  2045 2068 Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg. Corp., Inc., 123 F.3d  2046 2069 1445, 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  2047 2070 2048 Of course, Free Software is licensed, not sold, and there are indeed  2049 restrictions placed on the licensee, but those differences are not likely  2050 to prevent the application of the implied license doctrine to Free  2051 Software, because software licensed under the GPL grants the licensee the  2052 right to make, use, and sell the software, each of which are exclusive  2053 rights of a patent holder. Therefore, although the GPLv2 does not expressly  2054 grant the licensee the right to do those things under any patents the  2055 licensor may have that cover the software or its reasonably contemplated  2056 uses, by licensing the software under the GPLv2, the distributor impliedly  2057 licenses those patents to the GPLv2 licensee with respect to the GPLv2'd  2058 software.  2071 Free Software offers the user all rights to enjoy the software in the  2072 privacy of their home, and while it places conditions on acts covered by  2073 copyright, that is typically triggered by distributing and it's not  2074 likely to prevent the application of the implied license doctrine to Free  2075 Software. Software licensed under the GPL grants the licensee the right to  2076 make, use, and sell the software, each of which are exclusive rights of a  2077 patent holder. Therefore, although the GPLv2 does not expressly grant the  2078 licensee the right to do those things under any patents the licensor may  2079 have that cover the software or its reasonably contemplated uses, by  2080 licensing the software under the GPLv2, the distributor impliedly licenses  2081 those patents to the GPLv2 licensee with respect to the GPLv2'd software.  2059 2082 2060 2083 An interesting issue regarding this implied patent license of GPLv2'd  2061 2084 software is what would be considered uses of the [software] to which  ... @@ -2183,10 +2206,11 @@ that.  2183 2206 Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to  2184 2207 the licensee to perform specific types of copying, modification, and  2185 2208 redistribution. By default, all other types of copying, modification, and  2186 redistribution are prohibited. GPLv2~\S4 says that if you undertake any of  2187 those other types (e.g., redistributing binary-only in violation of GPLv2~\S3),  2188 then all rights under the license --- even those otherwise permitted for  2189 those who have not violated --- terminate automatically.  2209 redistribution are prohibited (if and because they're prohibited by copyright).  2210 GPLv2~\S4 says that if you undertake any of those other types (e.g.,  2211 redistributing binary-only in violation of GPLv2~\S3), then all rights under  2212 the license --- even those otherwise permitted for those who have not  2213 violated --- terminate automatically.  2190 2214 2191 2215 GPLv2~\S4 makes GPLv2 enforceable. If licensees fail to adhere to the  2192 2216 license, then they are stuck without any permission under to engage in  ... @@ -2295,7 +2319,19 @@ violation\footnote{\label{German-reinstatement-footnote} While this is legally t  2295 2319  upstream could make it effectively impossible for a downstream party to  2296 2320  engage in a commercial redistribution pursuant to  2297 2321  \hyperref[GPLv2s3]{GPLv2~\S3(a--b)}. (\S~\ref{upstream} in the Compliance  2298  Guide portion of this tutorial discussed related details.)}.  2322  Guide portion of this tutorial discussed related details.)}\footnote{In the larger  2323  Free Software community, it is generally understood that the copyright permissions  2324  of downstream parties are valid regardless whether someone on their distribution  2325  chain may have lost their license, because their permissions come from the copyright  2326  holder, and the license text grants those permissions (as long as one complies with  2327  its conditions). From this perspective, the GPL's automatic downstream licensing''  2328  provision is a restatement or reinforcement of that obvious rule, not a new or  2329  specific clause. This intuition is valuable and one can argue it is not unwarranted,  2330  because, among others, there is a fundamental distinction in US copyright law between  2331  material object (the copy) and the intellectual content (the work): the physical source''  2332  from where the downstream licensee got the copy doesn't preclude that they get a license  2333  to the content from the copyright holder(s), i.e. the permissions under certain conditions  2334  as spelled out in the text.}.  2299 2335 Downstream's  2300 2336 licensed rights are not dependent on compliance of their upstream, because  2301 2337 their licenses issue directly from the copyright holder. Second, automatic