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)
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
7ecf910fa1ba typo-fixes
Tweak text. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
5 2015-04-03 01:42:45
Missing word. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
4 2015-04-03 01:42:44
Missing word. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
3 2015-04-03 01:42:44
Fix reference to section 7 Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
2 2015-04-03 01:42:44
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
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
553 553

554 554
Thus, most proprietary software restricts users via multiple interlocking
legal and technological means.  Any license that truly respect the software
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
@@ -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
of computer programming. In order to determine whether a ``routine'' an
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
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
copyright law, The GPL, and Free
copyright law, the GPL, and Free
1162 1162
Software licensing in general, relies critically on the concept of
``derivative work'' since software that is ``independent,'' (i.e., not
``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
and macros were protectable under copyright law because they were either
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:
see\S~\label{GPLv2s6} in this tutorial).  Determining whether software was
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
license, then they are stuck without any permission under to engage in
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
to the conditions of the license.  The redistributor need not take any
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)