summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_27.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_27.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_27.html422
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
-&amp; 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"/>
-