Differences between current version and predecessor to the previous major change of GeneralPublicLicense.
Other diffs: Previous Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 8 | Last edited on Monday, September 10, 2007 4:52:55 pm | by AristotlePagaltzis | |
| Older page: | version 7 | Last edited on Sunday, July 8, 2007 9:52:34 pm | by PeterHewett | Revert |
@@ -1,13 +1,11 @@
-The General Public License
(GPL
) is published by the [Free Software Foundation| http://www.fsf.org/
] and is
intended to guarantee every user the freedom to run, study, adapt, improve, and redistribute the software that it covers. The most famous (some would say notorious) and one of, if not the most widely used OpenSource license.
It also a very misunderstood piece of text.
+The most famous
(and some would say notorious
) FreeSoftware licence. It
is published by the FreeSoftwareFoundation and is probably the most widely used licence for
[Free] and OpenSource software,
intended to guarantee every user the freedom to run, study, adapt, improve, and redistribute the software that it covers. It also a very misunderstood piece of text.
-RichardStallman wrote the version 1 and 2
of the GNU
GPL. Version
1 was released in 1989,
and version 2 in 1991.
-
-of the GPL
was released on 29 June 2007.
This version strengthens the guarantee of freedom,
by ensuring that users can modify the free software
on their personal and household devices, and granting patent
licenses to every user. It also extends compatibility with other free software licenses
and increases international uniformity.
+RichardStallman wrote the first two versions
of the [
GPL]; version
1 was released in 1989 and version 2 in 1991. Version 3 was developed by the [FSF] with input from a community effort and
released on 29 June 2007. This version strengthens the guarantee of freedom by ensuring that users can modify the FreeSoftware
on their personal and household devices, and granting [Patent]
licenses to every user. It also extends compatibility with other free software licences (though it has been criticised for doing this as a one-way road)
and increases international uniformity.
See also:
* [GPL v3 | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html]
-* [The GPL --
a simple guide | http://www.it-director.com/article.php?articleid=11819]
+* [The GPL –
a simple guide | http://www.it-director.com/article.php?articleid=11819]
* [Open source software: What is it and how does it work? | http://www.freehills.com/CA256AD900137BAA/page/00201A46?opendocument]
* [The GPL is a license, not a contract | http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851]
----
@@ -15,19 +13,21 @@
!!! Some common misconceptions
! If I write a program for [Linux] then I have to give away the source code!
-This is not true at all. The following quote is from the top of __/usr/src/linux/COPYING__ which is LinusTorvalds' CopyRight licence over the LinuxKernel (this quote is then followed by the [GPL]):
+This is not true at all. The following quote is from the top of __/usr/src/linux/COPYING__ which is LinusTorvalds' CopyRight licence over the LinuxKernel (this quote is then followed by the [GPL]):''''
-;:
NOTE! This copyright does __not__ cover user programs that use [Kernel] services by normal system calls -- this is merely considered normal use of the [Kernel], and does __not__ fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the [GPL] below is copyrighted by the FreeSoftwareFoundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the [Linux] kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
+
NOTE! This copyright does __not__ cover user programs that use [Kernel] services by normal system calls -- this is merely considered normal use of the [Kernel], and does __not__ fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the [GPL] below is copyrighted by the FreeSoftwareFoundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the [Linux] kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
UserSpace programs must be [GPL]d only if linked (either statically or dynamically) to libraries licensed under the [GPL]. For example, the [C] [Library] is under the [LGPL] which allows non-[GPL] programs to link to it, while the [GNU] readline(3) [Library] is under the [GPL] so it does not allow that. Well-known ClosedSource applications for [Linux] include [Oracle] and [Quake]2 (although the latter has since been released under the [GPL]).
! To link against [GPL]d code without [GPL]ing my program, I'll just split it in two, a [GPL]d [Library] and a program that uses that [Library]...
By dynamically linking to [GPL]d code, you are creating a derived work. The [GPL] does not allow you to distribute your derivative program together with the [GPL]d work.
-;
From section 2 of the [GPL] : "
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
+From section 2 of the [GPL]:''''
+
+
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
This is why users have to download nVidia's ClosedSource BinaryDriver for [Linux] separately: since its source is not provided, it may not be redistributed as part of the [Linux] [Kernel], whose license states that any modifications must be made available in SourceCode.
----
@@ -35,29 +35,31 @@
!!! The preamble
This is just here for reference. [The full license | http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html] is available at the [GNU project homepage | http://www.gnu.org/].
-;: __
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE__ %%%
Version 2, June 1991
+ !!
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
+
Version 2, June 1991
-;:
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. %%%
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
+
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <br>
+
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
-;: __
Preamble__
+ !
Preamble
-;:
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
+
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
-;:
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
+
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
-;:
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
+
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
-;:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
+
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
-;:
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
+
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
-;:
Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.
+
Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.
-;:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
+
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
-;:
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification [follow | http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC3].
+
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification [follow | http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC3].
----
Part of CategoryLicense
