diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_27.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_27.html | 422 |
1 files changed, 422 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_27.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_27.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c7dbacc --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_27.html @@ -0,0 +1,422 @@ +<!-- 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"/> + |