Differences between version 5 and predecessor to the previous major change of GeneralPublicLicense.
Other diffs: Previous Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 5 | Last edited on Monday, April 5, 2004 11:18:41 am | by AristotlePagaltzis | Revert |
| Older page: | version 4 | Last edited on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:52:37 pm | by JohnMcPherson | Revert |
@@ -1,5 +1,31 @@
-The most famous (some would say notorious) and one of, if not the most widely used OpenSource license.
+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.
+
+See also:
+
+* [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]
+
+----
+
+!!! 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]):
+
+;: 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."
+
+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
.
----
!!! The preamble
@@ -29,28 +55,5 @@
;: The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification [follow | http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC3].
----
-!!! 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. Only UserSpace programs that use [GPL]'d code (either statically or dynamically) need to also be 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 library is under the GPL and does not allow that). 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 Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
-
-Well-known closed-source applications for [Linux] include [Oracle] and [Quake]2 (although quake2 has since been released under the GPL).
-
-
-!I want to link against GPL'd code without GPL'ing my program. I'll just split my code up into two, a GPL'd library and the rest of the 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."
-
-This is why NVidia make a closed-source binary Linux driver for their graphics cards, but users have to download it separately; no distribution is allowed to make it available with the GPL'd linux kernel.
-
-
-See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851&mode=nocomment for a nice background clarification of the GPL (from a copyright law point-of-view).
-
-----
Part of CategoryLicense
