Title: Typo fixes
Typo fixes that enyst submitted once upon a time on gitorious that bkuhn readded as a pull request.
git pull https://k.copyleft.org/guide-enyst typo-fixes
2015-04-02 23:09:00
engel nyst (enyst)
engel.nyst@gmail.com
Git pull requests don't support updates yet.
Pull Request Reviewers
3 comments (1 inline, 2 general)
Showing 6 commits
 6 2015-04-03 01:42:45 enyst 7ecf910fa1ba typo-fixes Tweak text. Signed-off-by: enyst 5 2015-04-03 01:42:45 enyst 002a6b9ded48 Missing word. Signed-off-by: enyst 4 2015-04-03 01:42:44 enyst c820a8dfe47d Missing word. Signed-off-by: enyst 3 2015-04-03 01:42:44 enyst 331e820bce99 Fix reference to section 7 Signed-off-by: enyst 2 2015-04-03 01:42:44 enyst 50ea59ecfbfc Probably meant as the rest or the others, otherwise the phrase is contradictory Signed-off-by: enyst 1 2015-04-03 01:42:44 enyst 4c7439497cea Typos. Signed-off-by: enyst
Common ancestor: 26def8538a10
1 file changed with 8 insertions and 8 deletions:
gpl-lgpl.tex | master typo-fixes
 ... @@ -549,13 +549,13 @@ available to subjugate users. For example:  549 549  by forcing them to agree to a contractual, prohibitive software license  550 550  before ever even using the software.  551 551 552 552 \end{itemize}  553 553 554 554 Thus, most proprietary software restricts users via multiple interlocking  555 legal and technological means. Any license that truly respect the software  555 legal and technological means. Any license that seeks to maximize the software  556 556 freedom of all users must not only grant appropriate copyright permissions,  557 557 but also \textit{prevent} restrictions from other legal and technological  558 558 means like those listed above.  559 559 560 560 \subsection{Non-USA Copyright Regimes}  561 561 \label{non-usa-copyright}  ... @@ -1146,24 +1146,24 @@ on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)  1146 1146 1147 1147 As described in the \hyperref[copyleft-definition]{earlier general discussion  1148 1148  of copyleft}, strong copyleft licenses such as the GPL seek to uphold  1149 1149 software freedom via the copyright system. This principle often causes  1150 1150 theoretical or speculative dispute among lawyers, because the work'' ---  1151 1151 the primary unit of consideration under most copyright rules -- is not a unit  1152 of computer programming. In order to determine whether a routine'' an  1152 of computer programming. In order to determine whether a routine'', an  1153 1153 object'', a function'', a library'' or any other unit of software is  1154 1154 part of one work'' when combined with other GPL'd code, we must ask a  1155 1155 question that copyright law will not directly answer in the same technical  1156 1156 terms.  1157 1157 1158 1158 Therefore, this chapter digresses from discussion of GPL's exact text to  1159 1159 consider the matter of combined and/or derivative works --- a concept that we must  1160 1160 understand fully before considering GPLv2~\S\S2--3\@. At least under USA  1161 copyright law, The GPL, and Free  1161 copyright law, the GPL, and Free  1162 1162 Software licensing in general, relies critically on the concept of  1163 derivative work'' since software that is independent,'' (i.e., not  1163 derivative work'' since software that is independent'', (i.e., not  1164 1164 derivative'') of Free Software need not abide by the terms of the  1165 1165 applicable Free Software license. As much is required by \S~106 of the  1166 1166 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. \S~106 (2002), and admitted by Free Software  1167 1167 licenses, such as the GPL, which (as we have seen) states in GPLv2~\S0 that a  1168 1168 work based on the Program' means either the Program or any derivative  1169 1169 work under copyright law.'' It is being a derivative work of Free Software  ... @@ -1455,13 +1455,13 @@ plaintiff alleged that even the second version of Oscar, despite having no  1455 1455 literally copied code, also infringed its copyrights. In addressing that  1456 1456 question, the Second Circuit promulgated the AFC test.  1457 1457 1458 1458 In abstracting the various levels of the program, the court noted a  1459 1459 similarity between the two programs' parameter lists and macros. However,  1460 1460 following the filtration step of the AFC test, only a handful of the lists  1461 and macros were protectable under copyright law because they were either  1461 and macros were protectable under copyright law because the rest were either  1462 1462 in the public domain or required by functional demands on the  1463 1463 program. With respect to the handful of parameter lists and macros that  1464 1464 did qualify for copyright protection, after performing the comparison step  1465 1465 of the AFC test, it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that  1466 1466 they did not warrant a finding of infringement given their relatively minor  1467 1467 contribution to the program as a whole. Likewise, the similarity between  ... @@ -1501,13 +1501,13 @@ In fact, while derivative work preparation is perhaps the most exciting area  1501 1501 of legal issues to consider, the more mundane ways to create a new work  1502 1502 covered by GPL are much more common. For example, copyright statutes  1503 1503 generally require permission from the copyright holder to grant explicit  1504 1504 permission to modify a work in any manner. As discussed in the next chapter,  1505 1505 the GPL {\em does} grant such permission, but requires the modified work must  1506 1506 also be licensed under the terms of the GPL (and only GPL:  1507 see\S~\label{GPLv2s6} in this tutorial). Determining whether software was  1507 see \S~\ref{GPLv2s6} in this tutorial). Determining whether software was  1508 1508 modified is a substantially easier analysis than the derivative work  1509 1509 discussions and considerations in this chapter.  1510 1510 1511 1511 The question of derivative works, when and how they are made, is undoubtedly  1512 1512 an essential discussion in the interpretation and consideration of copyleft.  1513 1513 That is why this chapter was included in this tutorial. However, as we  ... @@ -2186,13 +2186,13 @@ redistribution. By default, all other types of copying, modification, and  2186 2186 redistribution are prohibited. GPLv2~\S4 says that if you undertake any of  2187 2187 those other types (e.g., redistributing binary-only in violation of GPLv2~\S3),  2188 2188 then all rights under the license --- even those otherwise permitted for  2189 2189 those who have not violated --- terminate automatically.  2190 2190 2191 2191 GPLv2~\S4 makes GPLv2 enforceable. If licensees fail to adhere to the  2192 license, then they are stuck without any permission under to engage in  2192 license, then they are stuck without any permission under which to engage in  2193 2193 activities covered by copyright law. They must completely cease and desist  2194 2194 from all copying, modification and distribution of the GPL'd software.  2195 2195 2196 2196 At that point, violating licensees must gain the forgiveness of the copyright  2197 2197 holders to have their rights restored. Alternatively, the violators could  2198 2198 negotiate another agreement, separate from GPL, with the copyright  ... @@ -2279,13 +2279,13 @@ software.  2279 2279 2280 2280 GPLv2~\S6 is GPLv2's automatic downstream licensing''  2281 2281 provision\footnote{This section was substantially expanded for clarity and  2282 2282  detail in \hyperref[GPLv3s10]{GPLv3~\S10}.}. Each time you  2283 2283 redistribute a GPL'd program, the recipient automatically receives a license  2284 2284 from each original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the program subject  2285 to the conditions of the license. The redistributor need not take any  2285 to the conditions of the license. The redistributor need not take any steps  2286 2286 to ensure the downstream recipient's acceptance of the license terms.  2287 2287 This places every copyright holder in the chain of descent of the code  2288 2288 in legal privity, or direct relationship, with every downstream  2289 2289 redistributor. Two legal effects follow. First, downstream parties  2290 2290 who remain in compliance have valid permissions for all actions  2291 2291 (including modification and redistribution) even if their immediate upstream 
Stephen Compall (S11001001)
2 years and 4 months ago on pull request "Typo fixes"
This is a cultural change rather than a correction, but sure.
engel nyst (enyst)
2 years and 7 months ago on pull request "Typo fixes"

Status change: Under review

Auto status change to Under Review
Stephen Compall (S11001001)
2 years and 4 months ago on pull request "Typo fixes"
Else, looks good to me.`
3 comments (1 inline, 2 general)