Title: Various contributions
Contributions enyst made that bkuhn recovered during gitorious switch.
Under review
There are no reviewers
git pull https://k.copyleft.org/guide-enyst various-contributions
2015-04-02 23:09:55
engel nyst (enyst)
engel.nyst@gmail.com
Git pull requests don't support updates yet.
Pull Request Reviewers
Potential Reviewers
Click to add the repository owner as reviewer:
1 comment (0 inline, 1 general)
Showing 7 commits
7 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
93e6e62e6a5a various-contributions
The fragment is indeed large enough to be fair to state its license. I'd suggest however to not say that quotations are licensable. Not every quotation is 'licensed' or needs to be. In theory, anyway. While in this case it's okay, I'd suggest to call it, for example, 'fragment'. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
6 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
224e1913909c
From public domain to copyleft, insert a couple phrases about permissive licensing, as alternative for public domain and as intention to enforce certain conditions. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
5 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
c4f446cc833b
Removed extra word. Fully copyrightable = copyrightable, right? Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
4 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
5b18f9e927e3
Nitpicking, there aren't only two types, those by the license and those breaking the license, but also those covered by limitations/exemptions in copyright law. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
3 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
dde19a6fb5ff
'Licensed not sold' is a disputable and disputed fallacy, cf. for example B. Carver, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1586580 and many others. I'd suggest to avoid it. There is no need for it: Free Software offers all rights to enjoy the software in the privacy of one's home without doing anything special (arguably even when enjoying rights under copyright, but privately), it's distribution that triggers obligations. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
2 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
bdddb68089ed
Add footnote on automatic licensing provision. There is a widespread assumption in free licensing work that permissions come from the copyright holders -always-. This assumption is not unwarranted; among other reasons, because there is a 'fundamental distinction in copyright law' (Nimmer) between material object and intellectual content. Even if the distribution chain would give rights (which is not the perception in free licensing), and even if someone on this chain would lose their rights (terminated), downstream (also) has the license from the (c) holder to get their rights from as long as they fulfill the conditions themselves. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
1 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
dfb563868de6
Modified works are derivative works, they are under the scope of 106 (2) (while they are under 106 (1) as well). I assume the intention here was to clarify they're the easy case of derivative works? That seems important and correct. Proposed a few tweaks to express this idea without implying that modified works are not derivative works. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
Common ancestor: 26def8538a10
1 file changed with 69 insertions and 33 deletions:
↑ Collapse Diff ↑
gpl-lgpl.tex | master various-contributions
...
 
@@ -408,19 +408,42 @@ works published by the USA Government are not copyrightable in the USA.
408 408
 

	
409 409
 
If simply disclaiming copyright on software yields Free Software, then it
410 410
 
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
424 447
 
public domain as well. However, over time, some entities will choose to
425 448
 
proprietarize their modified versions. The public domain body of software
426 449
 
feeds the proprietary software. The public commons disappears, because
...
 
@@ -729,13 +752,13 @@ Code writing is not litigation.  It is better, richer, more
729 752
 
productive.  But the law is an obvious instance of how creativity and
730 753
 
incentives do not depend upon perfect control over the products
731 754
 
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
739 762
 
Commons.}
740 763
 
\end{quotation}
741 764
 

	
...
 
@@ -1491,27 +1514,27 @@ the defendant or over-aggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.
1491 1514
 
\section{How Much Do Derivative Works Matter?}
1492 1515
 

	
1493 1516
 
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
1515 1538
 
GPLv2, we must gain a sense of perspective: most GPL questions center around
1516 1539
 
questions of modification and distribution, not preparation of derivative
1517 1540
 
works.  Derivative work preparation is ultimately a small subset of the types
...
 
@@ -2042,23 +2065,23 @@ purchased. The buyer has an implied license under any patents of the
2042 2065
 
seller that dominate the product or any uses of the product to which the
2043 2066
 
parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.
2044 2067
 
\end{quotation}
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
2062 2085
 
the parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.'' A
2063 2086
 
clever advocate may argue that the implied license granted by GPLv2 is
2064 2087
 
larger in scope than the express license in other Free Software
...
 
@@ -2180,16 +2203,17 @@ copyright holder.  The copyright holder does not decide when GPLv2~\S4
2180 2203
 
termination occurs (if ever); rather, the actions of the licensee determine
2181 2204
 
that.
2182 2205
 

	
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
2193 2217
 
activities covered by copyright law.  They must completely cease and desist
2194 2218
 
from all copying, modification and distribution of the GPL'd software.
2195 2219
 

	
...
 
@@ -2292,13 +2316,25 @@ who remain in compliance have valid permissions for all actions
2292 2316
 
supplier of the software has been terminated for license
2293 2317
 
violation\footnote{\label{German-reinstatement-footnote} While this is legally true, as a practical matter, a
2294 2318
 
  failure of ``complete, corresponding source'' (CCS) provisioning by an
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
2302 2338
 
termination cannot be cured by obtaining additional copies from an alternate
2303 2339
 
supplier: the license permissions emanate only from the original licensors,
2304 2340
 
and if they have automatically terminated permission, no act by any
engel nyst (enyst)
2 years and 7 months ago on pull request "Various contributions"

Status change: Under review

Auto status change to Under Review
1 comment (0 inline, 1 general)