From 22c3bfee9148e1836817ef00b4829a8385570c69 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2022 17:04:26 +0200 Subject: update RMS articles --- .../blog/articles/en/assigning-copyright.html | 67 +++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/assigning-copyright.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/assigning-copyright.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/assigning-copyright.html index e2e3ef8..be5ce3d 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/assigning-copyright.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/assigning-copyright.html @@ -1,22 +1,31 @@ - + + + + When a Company Asks For Your Copyright - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + href="https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/assigning-copyright" /> + + + +

When a Company Asks For Your Copyright

+

Companies that develop free software and release it under the GNU GPL sometimes distribute some copies of the code in other ways. If they distribute the exact same code under a different license to certain users that pay for this, typically permitting including the code in -proprietary programs, we call it “selling exceptions”. If they +proprietary programs, we call it “selling exceptions.” If they distribute some version of the code solely in a proprietary manner, we call that releasing a purely proprietary version of the program.

-

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html explains why +

“Selling exceptions +to the GNU GPL” explains why selling exceptions is acceptable, though only barely. By contrast, releasing a purely proprietary version is outright wrong, like any other proprietary software.

@@ -83,11 +92,11 @@ contains your code, but refuse to let the company release purely proprietary versions containing your code, you can insist on a condition more or less like this:

-
+

Any program based on (as defined in GNU General Public License version 3) Hacker's code that FOO distributes shall be made - available by FOO under a) the “GNU General Public License (GPL), - version 2 or later”, or b) the licensing in (a), above, but with “2” + available by FOO under (a) the “GNU General Public License (GPL), + version 2 or later,” or (b) the licensing in (a), above, but with “2” replaced by any higher existing GPL version number. Provided FOO makes the program available as source code gratis to the public in this way, it may also distribute the identical program to some of @@ -100,11 +109,11 @@ condition more or less like this:

might be released solely in a proprietary version, you can insist on a condition more or less like this:

-
+

Any program based on (as defined in GNU General Public License version 3) Hacker's code that FOO distributes shall be made - available by FOO under a) the “GNU General Public License (GPL), - version 2 or later”, or b) the licensing in (a), above, but with “2” + available by FOO under (a) the “GNU General Public License (GPL), + version 2 or later,” or (b) the licensing in (a), above, but with “2” replaced by any higher existing GPL version number. Provided FOO makes the program available as source code gratis to the public in this way, it may also distribute the same version of Hacker's code @@ -112,10 +121,10 @@ condition more or less like this:

If the program is released under the GNU Affero GPL, then add “Affero” -before “General”, change “GPL” to “AGPL”, change “2 or” to “3 or”, and +before “General,” change “GPL” to “AGPL,” change “2 or” to “3 or,” and it could make sense to replace “that FOO distributes” with “that FOO distributes, or deploys on a server accessible to users other than -FOO”.

+FOO.”

The FSF has had these texts reviewed by a lawyer, but you should get your own legal advice before using them.

@@ -125,10 +134,11 @@ will show you how far it plans to depart from the principles of free software. Then you can respond to ensure your work will contribute to the free software community and not be diverted into proprietary software.

+
- + -- cgit v1.2.3