diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_27.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_27.html | 422 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 422 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_27.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_27.html deleted file mode 100644 index c7dbacc..0000000 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_27.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,422 +0,0 @@ -<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. - -Free Software Foundation - -51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor - -Boston, MA 02110-1335 -Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. -Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted -worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is -preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations -of this book from the original English into another language provided -the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and -the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all -copies. - -ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9 -Cover design by Rob Myers. - -Cover photograph by Peter Hinely. - --> - - - <a name="Introduction-to-the-Licenses"> - </a> - <h1 class="chapter"> - 27. Introduction to the Licenses - </h1> - <a name="index-licenses-_0028see-also-Affero_002c-FDL_002c-GPL_002c-LGPL_002c-X11_002c-BSD_002c-XFree86_002c-and-lax-permissive-licenses_0029"> - </a> - <a name="index-GPL_002c-introduction-to-1"> - </a> - <a name="index-Smith_002c-Brett"> - </a> - <p> - Written by Brett Smith and Richard Stallman. - <br> - This part contains the text of the latest versions of the primary GNU -licenses: the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), the GNU Lesser -General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU Free Documentation License -(FDL). Though they are legal documents, they belong in this book of -essays because they are concrete expressions of the ideals of free -software. - </br> - </p> - <a name="index-Stallman_002c-Richard-4"> - </a> - <p> - Software development for the GNU operating system began in 1984. Once -Richard Stallman had parts of the - <a name="index-GNU-_0028see-also-both-software-and-GNU_0029-7"> - </a> - GNU system that were worth releasing, he -needed a license to release them under. Some free software licenses -already existed; these gave users permission to modify and -redistribute the software, but they also allowed using the code in -proprietary versions and proprietary programs. Using those licenses, -GNU would have failed to achieve its goal of delivering freedom to all -users, because middlemen would have converted the GNU code into -proprietary software. - </p> - <a name="index-copyleft-_0028see-also-copyright_0029-7"> - </a> - <p> - So Stallman devised a license to assure every user the freedom to -modify and redistribute the software. It granted these permissions -under one key condition: whoever distributed the software must pass -along the authorization to modify and redistribute that same software, -along with the source code making it practical to do so. Stallman -coined the term “copyleft” (see “What Is Copyleft?”) -to describe this key twist of using the legal -power of copyright to ensure freedom for all users. - </p> - <p> - GNU copyleft licenses were first developed for software, and later for -related areas such as software documentation. In them, the principles -of the free software movement, explained throughout the essays in this -book, take practical form. Each of their successive revisions has had -to wrestle with free software’s legal and practical obstacles and -offers numerous illustrations of how free software ideals are codified -into legal terms. - </p> - <a name="The-Origins-of-the-GPL"> - </a> - <h3 class="subheading"> - The Origins of the GPL - </h3> - <a name="index-GPL_002c-introduction-to-2"> - </a> - <p> - The first version of the GNU General Public License was published in -1989—but Stallman had been releasing software under -copyleft licenses as part of the GNU Project since as early as 1985. -Prior to 1989, each published GNU program had been covered by a -license specifically tailored for it. Instead of a single GNU General -Public License, there was a - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-CC-General-Public-License"> - </a> - <a name="index-GNU-CC-General-Public-License"> - </a> - GNU CC General Public License, a - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GDB-General-Public-License"> - </a> - <a name="index-GDB-General-Public-License"> - </a> - GDB -General Public License, and so on. These licenses were identical -except for minor differences: for instance, terms about displaying -license notices to users were different for different programs and, -unless it covered a program that was just one source file, each -license contained the name of the program it applied to. - </p> - <p> - By 1989, Stallman had had enough experience with different GNU -packages under slightly different licenses to conclude that it was -crucial to unify them into one license that would cover all these -packages. He worked with - <a name="index-Cohen_002c-Jerry"> - </a> - Jerry Cohen, an attorney at - <a name="index-Perkins-Smith-_0026-Cohen-LLP"> - </a> - Perkins Smith -& Cohen LLP, to collect concepts from all the different licenses -written up to that point, and bring them together into one license. -It was thus that on 1 February 1989 the GNU General Public License -was born. - </p> - <p> - The first version of the license sought to ensure two results: first, -that all derived works of the software would be released under the -same license and, second, that everyone who received the software -would have a chance to get the source code. These requirements -implement a strong copyleft by blocking the three main ways of making -programs proprietary: with copyright, with end user license -agreements, and by not distributing source code. - </p> - <p> - In comparison to the program-specific licenses that had preceded it, -GPL version 1 featured few substantial changes—the GPL was -evolutionary, not revolutionary—but it made a big practical -difference. Previously, developers who had wanted to copyleft a -program had needed to tailor one of the existing licenses to that -program. Many had not bothered. With the release of the GPL, those -developers had a license they could use out of the box to provide all -of their users with freedom to share and change the software. It was a -powerful tool. - </p> - <a name="Version-2"> - </a> - <h3 class="subheading"> - Version 2 - </h3> - <a name="index-patents_002c-GPL-version-2-and"> - </a> - <a name="index-GPL_002c-introduction-to-3"> - </a> - <p> - After the 1981 - <a name="index-Supreme-Court_002c-US-3"> - </a> - US Supreme Court decision in - <a name="index-patents_002c-Diamond-v_002e-Diehr"> - </a> - <cite> - Diamond v. Diehr, - </cite> - the - <a name="index-Patent-and-Trademark-Office_002c-US"> - </a> - <a name="index-patents_002c-US-Patent-and-Trademark-Office"> - </a> - <a name="index-trademarks_002c-US-Patent-and-Trademark-Office"> - </a> - US Patent and Trademark Office began issuing patents for software. -Software patents threaten free software and proprietary software alike -(see part IV in this book), and Stallman realized that they could -subvert the copyleft in the GNU GPL. - </p> - <p> - By selectively issuing patent licenses, patent holders can arbitrarily -control how the software under them is distributed or modified. A -patent holder can give one party permission to resell the program, -another permission to develop and use a modified version at her -company, and a third permission to do all the activities that the GPL -itself allows. They can demand whatever they wish in exchange for -these permissions. They have this power over any software that -implements the patented idea, whether or not they have modified or -distributed it themselves. This power threatens free software because -third parties with patents can impose restrictions on free software -users and developers. - </p> - <p> - If patent holders don’t distribute or modify software, then a software -license based on copyright like the GPL can’t control their -activities: they haven’t done anything that requires permission under -the license. But the software license can stop each of the program’s -distributors from entering limiting agreements with the patent holder. -Enter GPL version 2: a new section in the license (sec. 7) -explicitly says that if parties are subject to other legal -agreements—such as a patent license—that contradict the -GPL’s terms, then the licensee must refrain from distributing the -software at all. As a result, any party that wants to distribute or -modify the software, and also obtain a patent license, must ensure -that the terms of that license are consistent with all of the GPL’s -conditions: recipients of the software must receive it under the same -terms, with no additional restrictions, and have the means to get the -source code. - </p> - <a name="index-GPL_002dcovered-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-2"> - </a> - <a name="index-GPL_002c-GPL_002dcovered-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-2"> - </a> - <p> - This new section protected the integrity of the distribution system -for GPL-covered software. A fundamental principle of the license is -that every licensee, from the most humble individual to the largest -corporation, has the exact same rights to share and change the -software. Patent holders who do not distribute the software themselves -and selectively issues patent licenses could potentially interfere -with this goal, splitting licensees into different groups however they -see fit. Section 7 of GPL version 2 prevents this abuse. - <a name="index-GPL_002c-introduction-to-4"> - </a> - </p> - <a name="The-LGPL"> - </a> - <h3 class="subheading"> - The LGPL - </h3> - <a name="index-LGPL_002c-introduction-to"> - </a> - <a name="index-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-LGPL-and-1"> - </a> - <p> - The GPL worked well for the programming tools, utilities, and - <a name="index-games_002c-GPL-and"> - </a> - games -that were released by the GNU Project in the early years; however, -Stallman recognized that releasing the recently developed - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-C-Library-4"> - </a> - GNU C -Library the same way could backfire. Aside from some extensions, the -GNU C Library was to be a compatible replacement for the UNIX C -Library, so any - <a name="index-C-programs-1"> - </a> - C program would be able link with either one. If -proprietary C programs were not allowed to use the GNU C Library, they -would simply use the UNIX library. Being strict in this case would -gain nothing. - </p> - <p> - Stallman decided to compromise with a modified copyleft: one that -would protect the freedom of the library itself, but not that of the -programs that use it. This idea was implemented in a license -originally called the GNU Library General Public License, first -published as version 2.0, in June 1991. The original LGPL stated -Conditions like the GPL’s—with an important exception: if -someone else’s program used the library only by referring to it as a -library, that program’s source could be distributed under license -terms of the author’s choosing. However, the executable made by -combining the program and the library had to come with a copy of the -LGPL and source code for the library, and provide some mechanism for -users who have modified the library to update the executable to use -their modified library. - </p> - <p> - How does a developer use the work as a library in order to take -advantage of the special set of conditions provided by LGPLv2? Think -of a computer program as a series of instructions for doing a -particular job: compiling or linking the program with a library -provides the programmer with a means to say, “When the program gets to -this point, get further instructions from the library, and come back -here when those are done.” Libraries are commonly used in software -development because they make the effort less repetitive and less -error prone: programmers don’t have to reinvent the wheel—and -perhaps introduce bugs in the process—every time they want to -accomplish a particular task. Because libraries are so widely created -and used, developers have the means to readily take advantage of the -LGPL’s additional permissions. - </p> - <p> - Version 2.0 of the license worked as intended: in some situations, -proprietary software developers chose to use an LGPL-covered library -over a proprietary alternative, and users received the freedom to -share and change that library. This did not produce an “ideal” -outcome—where the user had complete control over the entire -program—but in these cases the GPL would not have achieved that -ideal outcome either. The LGPL assured the users some freedom where -they would have otherwise had none. - </p> - <p> - The name “Library GPL” led some free software developers to assume all -libraries ought on principle to be licensed this way, but that was not -the intent—when a free library has no proprietary competitor, -releasing it under the GNU GPL can benefit free software. To avoid -this unintended message, Stallman renamed this license to the Lesser -General Public License, and incremented the version number to 2.1 to -reflect the relatively minor changes in the text: the license sported -a new preamble, a few wording clarifications, and allowed programs to -make their calls to the library through special system facilities for -shared libraries where those are available. The Lesser General Public -License version 2.1 was released in February 1999. - <a name="index-LGPL_002c-introduction-to-1"> - </a> - <a name="index-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-LGPL-and-2"> - </a> - </p> - <a name="The-FDL"> - </a> - <h3 class="subheading"> - The FDL - </h3> - <a name="index-FDL_002c-introduction-to"> - </a> - <a name="index-manuals_002c-FDL-and-1"> - </a> - <p> - At the turn of the century, free software was growing much faster than -it had been previously; the documentation, however, was not keeping -pace. Stallman was concerned about this failure and wrote about it in -“Free Software Needs Free Documentation”. - </p> - <p> - While there are some similarities between software and -documentation—they are both works that are meant for practical -use—there are important differences in the ways they can be -used. The GPL and the LGPL were not suitable for manuals. - </p> - <p> - For some time, GNU packages had been using an untitled, simple, ad hoc -copyleft license for each manual. Since each manual’s license was -different, text could not be copied from one manual to another. So -Stallman wrote the GNU Free Documentation License, a copyleft license -designed primarily for software documentation and other practical -written works. - </p> - <p> - The FDL was first published in March 2000. The principles of the -copyleft remain the same: everyone who receives a copy of the work -should be able to modify and redistribute it. Where the FDL differs -from the software licenses is in the details of its implementation: -conditions about how to attribute the work and provide “source -code”—an editable version of the document—are different. - </p> - <a name="Version-3"> - </a> - <h3 class="subheading"> - Version 3 - </h3> - <a name="index-GPL_002c-introduction-to-5"> - </a> - <p> - During the 1990s, as free software became more popular, the GPL -emerged as the clear copyleft license of choice for the community, and -was adopted by the majority of free software projects; at the same -time, however, proprietary developers had come up with methods of -effectively denying users the freedoms that the GPL was meant to -protect, without actually violating the GPL. In addition, there were -other practices that the GPL did not handle conveniently. To deal -with these issues called for an updated version of the license. - </p> - <p> - Around 2002, Stallman and others at the Free Software Foundation began -discussing how to update the GPL, and the LGPL along with it. The FSF -established a public review process, run with help from attorneys at -the Software Freedom Law Center, to catch possible problems before -actually releasing the new licenses. Committees of advisors from the -community studied issues raised by public comments and reported the -various positions and arguments to Stallman, who decided what policy -to adopt; then he wrote license text with advice and suggestions from -the attorneys. The importance of the changes made are explained in -“Why Upgrade to GPLv3”. - <a name="index-Stallman_002c-Richard-5"> - </a> - </p> - <a name="index-patents_002c-GPL-version-3-and"> - </a> - <p> - Version 3 used new terminology to promote uniform interpretations in -different jurisdictions, and modified some requirements to fit new -practices in the free software community. Beyond that, it introduced -several new conditions to strengthen the copyleft and thereby the free -software community as a whole. For instance, it - </p> - <ul> - <li> - <a name="index-copyleft_002c-modified-versions-3"> - </a> - blocked distributors from restricting users by building hardware - that rejects the users’ modified versions - <a name="index-tivoization-1"> - </a> - (“tivoization”); - </li> - <li> - allowed code to carry limited additional requirements, for - compatibility with some other popular free software licenses; - </li> - <li> - and strengthened patent requirements by providing clear terms to - handle patent cross-licenses, which are common arrangements between - large patent-holding companies. - </li> - </ul> - <p> - Both GPLv3 and LGPLv3 included terms to address all of these issues, -and were finally released on 29 June 2007. These licenses are the -state of the art in copyleft, going farther than any other software -license to protect users’ freedom and bring about a world in harmony -with the ideals expressed in this book. - </p> - <p> - @endgroup - <a name="index-copyleft-_0028see-also-copyright_0029-8"> - </a> - </p> - <hr size="2"/> - |