Title: Typo fixes
Typo fixes that enyst submitted once upon a time on gitorious that bkuhn readded as a pull request.
Under review
1 reviewer
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
  • Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn)
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 <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
5 2015-04-03 01:42:45
enyst
002a6b9ded48
Missing word. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
4 2015-04-03 01:42:44
enyst
c820a8dfe47d
Missing word. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
3 2015-04-03 01:42:44
enyst
331e820bce99
Fix reference to section 7 Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
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 <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
1 2015-04-03 01:42:44
enyst
4c7439497cea
Typos. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
Common ancestor: 26def8538a10
1 file changed with 8 insertions and 8 deletions:
↑ Collapse Diff ↑
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)