[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
trans-coord/gnun server/gnun/ChangeLog server/g...
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
trans-coord/gnun server/gnun/ChangeLog server/g... |
|
Date: |
Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:51:44 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /sources/trans-coord
Module name: trans-coord
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 08/02/26 09:51:44
Modified files:
gnun/server/gnun: ChangeLog gnun.mk
Added files:
gnun/licenses : gpl-faq.html why-not-lgpl.html
gnun/philosophy: not-ipr.html
Log message:
(licenses): New variable; add `gpl-faq' to test the
compatibility matrix and `why-not-lgpl'.
(ALL_DIRS): Add `licenses'.
(philosophy): Add `not-ipr' to migrate the Afrikaans translation.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/licenses/gpl-faq.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&rev=1.1
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&rev=1.1
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/not-ipr.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&rev=1.1
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/ChangeLog?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.7&r2=1.8
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/gnun.mk?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
Patches:
Index: server/gnun/ChangeLog
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- server/gnun/ChangeLog 25 Feb 2008 21:01:39 -0000 1.7
+++ server/gnun/ChangeLog 26 Feb 2008 09:51:44 -0000 1.8
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+2008-02-26 Yavor Doganov <address@hidden>
+
+ * gnun.mk (licenses): New variable; add `gpl-faq' to test the
+ compatibility matrix and `why-not-lgpl'.
+ (ALL_DIRS): Add `licenses'.
+ (philosophy): Add `not-ipr' to migrate the Afrikaans translation.
+
2008-02-25 Yavor Doganov <address@hidden>
* gnun.texi (Runtime Variables): Ellaborate on the VALIDATE=yes
Index: server/gnun/gnun.mk
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/gnun.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- server/gnun/gnun.mk 23 Feb 2008 17:40:01 -0000 1.3
+++ server/gnun/gnun.mk 26 Feb 2008 09:51:44 -0000 1.4
@@ -30,12 +30,16 @@
rms-lisp \
why-gnu-linux
+licenses := gpl-faq \
+ why-not-lgpl
+
philosophy := bdk \
can-you-trust \
eldred-amicus \
free-software-for-freedom \
free-sw \
java-trap \
+ not-ipr \
open-source-misses-the-point \
philosophy \
right-to-read \
@@ -48,5 +52,6 @@
server := takeaction
ALL_DIRS := gnu \
+ licenses \
philosophy \
server
Index: licenses/gpl-faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: licenses/gpl-faq.html
diff -N licenses/gpl-faq.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ licenses/gpl-faq.html 26 Feb 2008 09:51:43 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,3346 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+
+<title>Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses - GNU Project - Free
Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses</h2>
+
+<p>
+This page contains answers to commonly-asked questions about
+the <a href="/licenses/licenses.html">GNU licenses</a>.
+</p>
+
+<h3>Table of Contents</h3>
+
+ <h4>Basic questions about the GNU Project, the Free
+ Software Foundation, and its licenses</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li><a href="#WhatDoesGPLStandFor">What does “GPL”
+ stand for?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL">Does free software mean
+ using the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyUseGPL">Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than
+ other free software licenses?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense">Does all
+ GNU software use the GNU GPL as its license?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware">Does
+ using the GPL for a program make it GNU software?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware">Can I use the GPL for something
+ other than software?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why don't you use the GPL for
+ manuals?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLTranslations">Are there translations of the GPL
+ into other languages?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">Why are some GNU libraries
+ released under the ordinary GPL rather than the Lesser GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhoHasThePower">Who has the power to enforce the
+ GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#AssignCopyright">Why does the FSF require that
+ contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the
+ FSF? If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this,
+ too? If so, how?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ModifyGPL">Can I modify the GPL and make a modified
+ license?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#SeparateAffero">Why did you decide to write the GNU
+ Affero GPLv3 as a separate license?</a></li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>General understanding of the GNU licenses</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li><a href="#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions">Why
+ does the GPL permit users to publish their modified versions?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">Does the GPL require
+ that source code of modified versions be posted to the
+ public?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">Can I have a GPL-covered
+ program and an unrelated non-free program on the same computer?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CanIDemandACopy">If I know someone has a copy of a
+ GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid">What does “written offer
+ valid for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone
+ in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter
+ what?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">The GPL says that modified
+ versions, if released, must be “licensed ... to all third
+ parties.” Who are these third parties?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney">Does the GPL allow me to sell
+ copies of the program for money?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee">Does the GPL allow me to
+ charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee">Does the GPL allow me to
+ require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee
+ and/or notify me?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic">If I distribute
+ GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to
+ the public without a charge?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA">Does the GPL allow me to
+ distribute a copy under a nondisclosure agreement?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA">Does the GPL allow me to
+ distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure
+ agreement?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DevelopChangesUnderNDA">Does the GPL allow me to
+ develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL require including a
+ copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort">What if the work is not much longer
+ than the license itself?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#RequiredToClaimCopyright">Am I required to claim a
+ copyright on my modifications to a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL">If a program combines
+ public-domain code with GPL-covered code, can I take the
+ public-domain part and use it as public domain code?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#IWantCredit">I want to get credit for my work. I want
+ people to know what I wrote. Can I still get credit if I use the
+ GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLOmitPreamble">Can I omit the preamble of the GPL,
+ or the instructions for how to use it on your own programs, to save
+ space?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhatIsCompatible">What does it mean to say that two
+ licenses are “compatible”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhatDoesCompatMean">What does it mean to say a license
+ is “compatible with the GPL”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#OrigBSD">Why is the original BSD license incompatible
+ with the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#MereAggregation">What is the difference between an
+ “aggregate” and other kinds of “modified
+ versions”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#AssignCopyright">Why does the FSF require that
+ contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the
+ FSF? If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this,
+ too? If so, how?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLCommercially">If I use a piece of software that has
+ been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original
+ code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program
+ commercially?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware">Can I use the GPL for something
+ other than software?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#NoMilitary">I'd like to license my code under the GPL,
+ but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for
+ military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLHardware">Can I use the GPL to license
+ hardware?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#Prelinking">Does prelinking a GPLed binary to various
+ libraries on the system, to optimize its performance, count as
+ modification?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#LGPLJava">How does the LGPL work with Java?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyPropagateAndConvey">Why did you invent the new
+ terms “propagate” and “convey” in
+ GPLv3?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ConveyVsDistribute">Is “convey” in GPLv3
+ the same thing as what GPLv2 means by
+ “distribute”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#NoDistributionRequirements">If I only make copies of a
+ GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying
+ them to others, what does the license require of me?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3MakingAvailable">GPLv3 gives “making available
+ to the public” as an example of propagation. What does this
+ mean? Is making available a form of conveying?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#PropagationNotConveying">Since distribution and making
+ available to the public are forms of propagation that are also
+ conveying in GPLv3, what are some examples of propagation that do
+ not constitute conveying?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#BitTorrent">How does GPLv3 make BitTorrent
+ distribution easier?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#Tivoization">What is tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent
+ it?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DRMProhibited">Does GPLv3 prohibit DRM?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3VotingMachine">Does GPLv3 require that voters be
+ able to modify the software running in a voting machine?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3PatentRetaliation">Does GPLv3 have a “patent
+ retaliation clause”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3Notwithstanding">In GPLv3 and AGPLv3, what does it mean
+ when it says “notwithstanding any other provision of this
+ License”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely">In AGPLv3, what counts as
+ “ interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer
+ network?”</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ApacheLegalEntity">How does GPLv3's concept of
+ “you” compare to the definition of “Legal
+ Entity” in the Apache License 2.0?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3TheProgram">In GPLv3, what does “the
+ Program” refer to? Is it every program ever released under
+ GPLv3?</a></li>
+
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>Using GNU licenses for your programs</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+
+ <li><a href="#CouldYouHelpApplyGPL">Could you give me step by step
+ instructions on how to apply the GPL to my program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyUseGPL">Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than
+ other free software licenses?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL require including a
+ copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort">What if the work is not much longer
+ than the license itself?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLOmitPreamble">Can I omit the preamble of the GPL,
+ or the instructions for how to use it on your own programs, to save
+ space?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#HowIGetCopyright">How do I get a copyright on my
+ program in order to release it under the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhatIfSchool">What if my school might want to make my
+ program into its own proprietary software product?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF">I would like to release a
+ program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same
+ code in non-free programs.</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CanDeveloperThirdParty">Can the developer of a program
+ who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party
+ for exclusive use?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLUSGov">Can the US Government release a program
+ under the GNU GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLUSGovAdd">Can the US Government release
+ improvements to a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#VersionThreeOrLater">Why should programs say
+ “Version 3 of the GPL or any later
+ version”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLOutput">Is there some way that I can GPL the output
+ people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is
+ used to develop hardware designs, can I require these these designs
+ must be free?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why don't you use the GPL for
+ manuals?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#FontException">How does the GPL apply to
+ fonts?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WMS">What license should I use for website maintenance
+ system templates?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#NonFreeTools">Can I release a program under the GPL
+ which I developed using non-free tools?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GiveUpKeys">I use public key cryptography to sign my
+ code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to
+ release my private signing keys?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3InternationalDisclaimers">The warranty and liability
+ disclaimers in GPLv3 seem specific to U.S. law. Can I add my own
+ disclaimers to my own code?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#NonvisualLegalNotices">My program has interactive user
+ interfaces that are non-visual in nature. How can I comply with the
+ Appropriate Legal Notices requirement in GPLv3?</a></li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>Distribution of programs released under the GNU licenses</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+
+ <li><a href="#ModifiedJustBinary">Can I release a modified version
+ of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#UnchangedJustBinary">I downloaded just the binary from
+ the net. If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and
+ distribute that too?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet">I want to distribute
+ binaries via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I
+ provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#RedistributedBinariesGetSource">My friend got a
+ GPL-covered binary with an offer to supply source, and made a copy
+ for me. Can I use the offer to obtain the source?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites">Can I put the
+ binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different
+ Internet site?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DistributeExtendedBinary">I want to distribute an
+ extended version of a GPL-covered program in binary form. Is it
+ enough to distribute the source for the original version?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient">I want to distribute
+ binaries, but distributing complete source is inconvenient. Is it ok
+ if I give users the diffs from the “standard” version along
+ with the binaries?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#AnonFTPAndSendSources">I want to make binaries
+ available for anonymous FTP, but send sources only to people who
+ order them.</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource">How can I make
+ sure each user who downloads the binaries also gets the
+ source?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ReleaseNotOriginal">Can I release a program with a
+ license which says that you can distribute modified versions of it
+ under the GPL but you can't distribute the original itself under the
+ GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CompanyGPLCostsMoney">I just found out that a company
+ has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it.
+ Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it available on the
+ Internet?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#UnreleasedMods">A company is running a modified
+ version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they
+ must release their modified sources?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#InternalDistribution">Is use within one organization
+ or company “distribution”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#StolenCopy">If someone steals a CD containing a
+ version of a GPL-covered program, does the GPL give him the right to
+ redistribute that version?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#TradeSecretRelease">What if a company distributes a
+ copy as a trade secret?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLFairUse">Do I have “fair use” rights in
+ using the source code of a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DistributeSubsidiary">Does moving a copy to a
+ majority-owned, and controlled, subsidiary constitute
+ distribution?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ClickThrough">Can software installers ask people to
+ click to agree to the GPL? If I get some software under the GPL, do
+ I have to agree to anything?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLCompatInstaller">I would like to bundle GPLed
+ software with some sort of installation software. Does that
+ installer need to have a GPL-compatible license?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3Under4and5">The beginning of GPLv3 section 6 says
+ that I can convey a covered work in object code form “under
+ the terms of sections 4 and 5” provided I also meet the
+ conditions of section 6. What does that mean?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v2OrLaterPatentLicense">My company owns a lot of
+ patents. Over the years we've contributed code to projects under
+ “GPL version 2 or any later version”, and the project
+ itself has been distributed under the same terms. If a user decides
+ to take the project's code (incorporating my contributions) under
+ GPLv3, does that mean I've automatically granted GPLv3's explicit
+ patent license to that user?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3ConditionalWarranty">If I distribute a GPLv3-covered
+ program, can I provide a warranty that is voided if the user
+ modifies the program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3CoworkerConveying">If I give a copy of a
+ GPLv3-covered program to a coworker at my company, have I
+ “conveyed” the copy to him?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#SourceInCVS">Am I complying with GPLv3 if I offer
+ binaries on an FTP server and sources by way of a link to a source
+ code repository in a version control system, like CVS or
+ Subversion?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#RemoteAttestation">Can someone who conveys
+ GPLv3-covered software in a User Product use remote attestation to
+ prevent a user from modifying that software?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#RulesProtocols">What does “rules and protocols
+ for communication across the network” mean in GPLv3?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#SupportService">Distributors that provide Installation
+ Information under GPLv3 are not required to provide “support
+ service” for the product. What kind of “support
+ service” do you mean?</a></li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>Using programs released under the GNU licenses when writing other
+ programs</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">Can I have a GPL-covered
+ program and an unrelated non-free program on the same
+ computer?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF">Can I use GPL-covered editors
+ such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use
+ GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLOutput">Is there some way that I can GPL the output
+ people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is
+ used to develop hardware designs, can I require these these designs
+ must be free?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL">In what cases is the output of a
+ GPL program covered by the GPL too?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#PortProgramToGL">If I port my program to GNU/Linux,
+ does that mean I have to release it as free software under the GPL
+ or some other free software license?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLInProprietarySystem">I'd like to incorporate
+ GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do
+ this?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#LibGCCException">Does the libstdc++ exception permit
+ dynamic linking?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#LGPLv3ContributorVersion">If I distribute a
+ proprietary program that links against an LGPLv3-covered library
+ that I've modified, what is the “contributor version”
+ for purposes of determining the scope of the explicit patent license
+ grant I'm making—is it just the library, or is it the whole
+ combination?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#AGPLv3CorrespondingSource">Under AGPLv3, when I modify
+ the Program under section 13, what Corresponding Source does it have to
+ offer?</a></li>
+
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>Combining work with code released under the GNU licenses</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+
+ <li><a href="#v2v3Compatibility">Is GPLv3 compatible with
+ GPLv2?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#AllCompatibility">How are the various GNU licenses
+ compatible with each other?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#MereAggregation">What is the difference between an
+ “aggregate” and other kinds of “modified
+ versions”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLFairUse">Do I have “fair use” rights in
+ using the source code of a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLUSGovAdd">Can the US Government release
+ improvements to a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#IfLibraryIsGPL">If a library is released under the GPL
+ (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to
+ be under the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#LinkingWithGPL">You have a GPL'ed program that I'd
+ like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the
+ fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my
+ program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#SwitchToLGPL">If so, is there any chance I could get a
+ license of your program under the Lesser GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WillYouMakeAnException">Using a certain GNU program
+ under the GPL does not fit our project to make proprietary software.
+ Will you make an exception for us? It would mean more users of that
+ program.</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#IfInterpreterIsGPL">If a programming language
+ interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs
+ written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible
+ licenses?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#InterpreterIncompat">If a programming language
+ interpreter has a license that is incompatible with the GPL, can I
+ run GPL-covered programs on it?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLModuleLicense">If I add a module to a GPL-covered
+ program, do I have to use the GPL as the license for my
+ module?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLAndPlugins">If a program released under the GPL
+ uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a
+ plug-in?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLPluginsInNF">Can I apply the GPL when writing a
+ plug-in for a non-free program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#NFUseGPLPlugins">Can I release a non-free program
+ that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLInProprietarySystem">I'd like to incorporate
+ GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do
+ this?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLWrapper">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered
+ software in my proprietary system. Can I do this by putting a
+ “wrapper” module, under a GPL-compatible lax permissive
+ license (such as the X11 license) in between the GPL-covered part
+ and the proprietary part?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#FSWithNFLibs">Can I write free software that uses
+ non-free libraries?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">What legal issues come up if I
+ use GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL software?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL">I'm writing a Windows
+ application with Microsoft Visual C++ and I will be releasing it
+ under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual
+ C++ run-time library permitted under the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#MoneyGuzzlerInc">I'd like to modify GPL-covered
+ programs and link them with the portability libraries from Money
+ Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code for these
+ libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions would
+ have to obtain those libraries separately. Why doesn't the GPL
+ permit this?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLIncompatibleAlone">If license for a module Q has a
+ requirement that's incompatible with the GPL, but the requirement
+ applies only when Q is distributed by itself, not when Q is included
+ in a larger program, does that make the license GPL-compatible? Can
+ I combine or link Q with a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#OOPLang">In an object-oriented language such as Java,
+ if I use a class that is GPL'ed without modifying, and subclass it,
+ in what way does the GPL affect the larger program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#LinkingOverControlledInterface">How can I allow
+ linking of proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a
+ controlled interface only?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#Consider">Consider this situation:
+ 1. X releases V1 of a project under the GPL.
+ 2. Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code
+ based on V1.
+ 3. X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license. Does X need Y's
+ permission?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ManyDifferentLicenses">I have written an application
+ that links with many different components, that have different
+ licenses. I am very confused as to what licensing requirements are
+ placed on my program. Can you please tell me what licenses I may
+ use?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#SourceCodeInDocumentation">Can I use snippets of
+ GPL-covered source code within documentation that is licensed under
+ some license that is incompatible with the GPL?</a></li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>Questions about violations of the GNU licenses</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+
+ <li><a href="#ReportingViolation">What should I do if I discover a
+ possible violation of the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhoHasThePower">Who has the power to enforce the
+ GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#HeardOtherLicense">I heard that someone got a copy of
+ a GPL'ed program under another license. Is this possible?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DeveloperViolate">Is the developer of a GPL-covered
+ program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a
+ violation of the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CompanyGPLCostsMoney">I just found out that a company
+ has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it.
+ Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it available on the
+ Internet?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#SubscriptionFee">Can I use GPLed software on a device
+ that will stop operating if customers do not continue paying a
+ subscription fee?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#Cure">What does it mean to “cure” a
+ violation of GPLv3?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#LaptopLoan">If someone installs GPLed software on a
+ laptop, and then lends that laptop to a friend without providing
+ source code for the software, have they violated the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#TwoPartyTivoization" >Suppose that two companies try
+ to circumvent the requirement to provide Installation Information by
+ having one company release signed software, and the other release a
+ User Product that only runs signed software from the first
+ company. Is this a violation of GPLv3?</a></li>
+ </ul>
+
+<hr />
+
+<dl>
+
+<dt><b><a name="WhatDoesGPLStandFor">What does “GPL” stand
for?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>“GPL” stands for “General Public License”.
+The most widespread such license is the GNU General Public License, or GNU
+GPL for short. This can be further shortened to “GPL”, when it
+is understood that the GNU GPL is the one intended.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL">
+Does free software mean using the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Not at all—there are many other free software licenses. We
+have an <a href="/licenses/license-list.html">incomplete list</a>. Any
+license that provides the user <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">certain
+specific freedoms</a> is a free software license.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="WhyUseGPL">
+Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than other free software
licenses?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Using the GNU GPL will require that all
+the <a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">released improved versions be free
+software</a>. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with
+a proprietary modified version of your own work. However, in some special
+situations it can be better to use a
+<a href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">more permissive license</a>.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense">
+Does all GNU software use the GNU GPL as its license?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>
+Most GNU software packages use the GNU GPL, but there are a few
+GNU programs (and parts of programs) that use looser licenses, such as the
+Lesser GPL. When we do this, it is a matter of <a
+href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">strategy</a>.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware">
+Does using the GPL for a program make it GNU software?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Anyone can release a program under the GNU GPL but that does not
+make it a GNU package.</p>
+
+<p>Making the program a GNU software package means explicitly contributing
+to the GNU Project. This happens when the program's developers and the GNU
+Project agree to do it. If you are interested in contributing a program to
+the GNU Project, please write to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="ReportingViolation">
+What should I do if I discover a possible violation of the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>You should <a href="/licenses/gpl-violation.html">report it</a>.
+First, check the facts as best you can. Then tell the publisher or
+copyright holder of the specific GPL-covered program. If that is the Free
+Software Foundation, write
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.
+Otherwise, the program's maintainer may be the copyright holder, or else
+could tell you how to contact the copyright holder, so report it to the
+maintainer.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions">
+Why does the GPL permit users to publish their modified versions?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>A crucial aspect of free software is that users are free to cooperate.
+It is absolutely essential to permit users who wish to help each other
+to share their bug fixes and improvements with other users.</p>
+
+<p>Some have proposed alternatives to the GPL that require modified
+versions to go through the original author. As long as the original
+author keeps up with the need for maintenance, this may work well in
+practice, but if the author stops (more or less) to do something else
+or does not attend to all the users' needs, this scheme falls down.
+Aside from the practical problems, this scheme does not allow users to
+help each other.</p>
+
+<p>Sometimes control over modified versions is proposed as a means of
+preventing confusion between various versions made by users. In our
+experience, this confusion is not a major problem. Many versions of
+Emacs have been made outside the GNU Project, but users can tell them
+apart. The GPL requires the maker of a version to place his or her
+name on it, to distinguish it from other versions and to protect the
+reputations of other maintainers.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">Does the GPL require that
+source code of modified versions be posted to the public?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any
+part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately,
+without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including
+companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it
+internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.</p>
+
+<p>But <em>if</em> you release the modified version to the public in some
+way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the
+program's users, under the GPL.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in
+certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release
+it is up to you.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">Can I have a GPL-covered
+program and an unrelated non-free program on the same
+computer?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Yes.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="CanIDemandACopy">If I know
+ someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give
+ me a copy?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of
+the program <em>if he chooses to do so</em>. He also has the right not to
+redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid"> What does “written offer
+ valid for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does that mean
+ everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no
+ matter what?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody
+who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.</p>
+<p>
+If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source
+code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the
+source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the
+binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this
+written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries
+directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with
+the written offer.</p>
+<p>
+The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party
+is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way
+can order the source code from you.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">GPLv2 says that modified
+versions, if released, must be “licensed ... to all third
+parties.” Who are these third parties?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be
+licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third
+parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require
+you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a
+license from you, under the GPL, for your version.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="RequiredToClaimCopyright">Am I required to claim a copyright
+ on my modifications to a GPL-covered program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+You are not required to claim a copyright on your changes. In most
+countries, however, that happens automatically by default, so you need to
+place your changes explicitly in the public domain if you do not want them
+to be copyrighted.
+<p>
+Whether you claim a copyright on your changes or not, either way you
+must release the modified version, as a whole, under the GPL. (<a
+href="#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">if you release your modified
+version at all</a>)
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="CombinePublicDomainWithGPL">If a program combines
+ public-domain code with GPL-covered code, can I take the
+ public-domain part and use it as public domain code?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>You can do that, if you can figure out which part is the public domain
+part and separate it from the rest. If code was put in the public
+domain by its developer, it is in the public domain no matter where it
+has been.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="DoesTheGPLAllowMoney">
+ Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for
money?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The <a
+href="/philosophy/selling.html">right to sell copies</a> is part of
+the definition of free software. Except in one special situation,
+there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is
+the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany
+binary-only release.)
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee">
+ Does the GPL allow me to
+ charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the
+program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide
+“equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the
+fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the
+binary.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee">
+ Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software
+ must pay me a fee and/or notify me?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free.
+If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they
+have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free.
+See the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">
+definition of free software</a>.</p>
+
+<p>The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people
+to use and even redistribute the software without being required to
+pay anyone a fee for doing so.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic">If I
+ distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make
+ it available to the public without a charge?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives
+them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee.
+For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a
+web site for the general public.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="DoesTheGPLAllowNDA">
+ Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a
+ nondisclosure agreement?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the
+right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to
+distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.</p>
+
+<p>If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software
+copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>.</p>
+
+<p>If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright
+holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would
+for any other kind of violation of the GPL.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a name="DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA">
+ Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a
+ nondisclosure agreement?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>No. The GPL says that your modified versions must carry all the
+freedoms stated in the GPL. Thus, anyone who receives a copy of your
+version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or
+not) of that version. You may not distribute any version of the work
+on a more restrictive basis.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="DevelopChangesUnderNDA">
+ Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a
+ nondisclosure agreement?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and
+agree not to release <em>your changes</em> until the client says ok.
+This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is
+being distributed under an NDA.</p>
+
+<p>You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but
+agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In
+this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA,
+or under any additional restrictions.</p>
+
+<p>The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version.
+In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right,
+but does <em>have</em> the right.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="IWantCredit">I want to get credit
+ for my work. I want people to know what I wrote. Can I still get
+ credit if I use the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>You can certainly get credit for the work. Part of releasing a
+program under the GPL is writing a copyright notice in your own name
+(assuming you are the copyright holder). The GPL requires all copies
+to carry an appropriate copyright notice.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL
+ require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the
program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that
+everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are.</p>
+
+<p>It might be tempting to include a URL that refers to the license,
+instead of the license itself. But you cannot be sure that the URL
+will still be valid, five years or ten years from now. Twenty years
+from now, URLs as we know them today may no longer exist.</p>
+
+<p>The only way to make sure that people who have copies of the program
+will continue to be able to see the license, despite all the changes
+that will happen in the network, is to include a copy of the license in
+the program.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="WhatIfWorkIsShort">What
+ if the work is not much longer than the license itself?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple
+all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="GPLOmitPreamble">
+ Can I omit the preamble of the GPL, or the instructions
+ for how to use it on your own programs, to save space?</a></b></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>The preamble and instructions are integral parts of the GNU GPL and
+may not be omitted. In fact, the GPL is copyrighted, and its license
+permits only verbatim copying of the entire GPL. (You can use the
+legal terms to make <a href="#ModifyGPL">another license</a> but it
+won't be the GNU GPL.)</p>
+
+<p>The preamble and instructions add up to some 1000 words, less
+than 1/5 of the GPL's total size. They will not make a substantial
+fractional change in the size of a software package unless the package
+itself is quite small. In that case, you may as well use a simple
+all-permissive license rather than the GNU GPL.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="WhatIsCompatible">What does it
+ mean to say that two licenses are
“compatible”?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>In order to combine two programs (or substantial parts of them) into a
+larger work, you need to have permission to use both programs in this way.
+If the two programs' licenses permit this, they are compatible. If there
+is no way to satisfy both licenses at once, they are incompatible.</p>
+
+<p>For some licenses, the way in which the combination is made may affect
+whether they are compatible—for instance, they may allow linking two
+modules together, but not allow merging their code into one module.</p>
+
+<p>If you just want to install two separate programs in the same system, it
+is not necessary that their licenses be compatible, because this does not
+combine them into a larger work.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="WhatDoesCompatMean">What does it mean to say a license is
+“compatible with the GPL?”</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can
+combine code released under the other license with code released under the
+GNU GPL in one larger program.</p>
+
+<p>All GNU GPL versions permit such combinations privately; they also
+permit distribution of such combinations provided the combination is
+released under the same GNU GPL version. The other license is
+compatible with the GPL if it permits this too.</p>
+
+<p>GPLv3 is compatible with more licenses than GPLv2: it allows you to make
+combinations with code that has specific kinds of additional requirements
+that are not in GPLv3 itself. Section 7 has more information about this,
+including the list of additional requirements that are permitted.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a name="FSWithNFLibs">Can I write
+free software that uses non-free libraries?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+If you do this, your program won't be fully usable in a free
+environment. If your program depends on a non-free library to do a
+certain job, it cannot do that job in the Free World. If it depends on a
+non-free library to run at all, it cannot be part of a free operating
+system such as GNU; it is entirely off limits to the Free World.
+<p>
+So please consider: can you find a way to get the job done without using
+this library? Can you write a free replacement for that library?</p>
+<p>
+If the program is already written using the non-free library, perhaps it
+is too late to change the decision. You may as well release the program
+as it stands, rather than not release it. But please mention in the
+README that the need for the non-free library is a drawback, and suggest
+the task of changing the program so that it does the same job without
+the non-free library. Please suggest that anyone who thinks of doing
+substantial further work on the program first free it from dependence
+on the non-free library.</p>
+<p>
+Note that there may also be legal issues with combining certain non-free
+libraries with GPL-covered Free Software. Please see <a
+href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">the question on GPL software with
+GPL-incompatible libraries</a> for more information.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLIncompatibleLibs">What
+legal issues come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL
+software?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+
+<p>Both versions of the GPL have an exception to their copyleft, commonly
+ called the system library exception. If the GPL-incompatible libraries
+ you want to use meet the criteria for a system library, then you don't
+ have to do anything special to use them; the requirement to distribute
+ source code for the whole program does not include those libraries, even
+ if you distribute a linked executable containing them.</p>
+
+<p>The criteria for what counts as a "system library" vary
+ between different versions of the GPL. GPLv3 explicitly defines
+ "System Libraries" in section 1, to exclude it from the
+ definition of "Corresponding Source." GPLv2 says the following,
+ near the end of section 3:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+ However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
+ include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
+ binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
+ the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
+ component itself accompanies the executable.
+</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>If you want your program to link against a library not covered by the
+ system library exception, you need to provide permission to do that.
+ Below are two example license notices that you can use to do that; one
+ for GPLv3, and the other for GPLv2. In either case, you should put this
+ text in each file to which you are granting this permission.</p>
+
+<p>Only the copyright holders for the program can legally release their
+ software under these terms. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then
+ assuming your employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are
+ the copyright holder—so you can authorize the exception. But if you
want
+ to use parts of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code,
+ you cannot authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval
+ of the copyright holders of those programs.</p>
+
+<p>When other people modify the program, they do not have to make the same
+ exception for their code—it is their choice whether to do so.</p>
+
+<p>If the libraries you intend to link with are non-free, please also see
+ <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">the section on writing Free Software which uses
+ non-free libraries</a>.</p>
+
+<p>If you're using GPLv3, you can accomplish this goal by granting an
+ additional permission under section 7. The following license notice will
+ do that. You must replace all the text in brackets with text that is
+ appropriate for your program. If not everybody can distribute source for
+ the libraries you intend to link with, you should remove the text in
+ braces; otherwise, just remove the braces themselves.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>Copyright (C) <var>[years]</var> <var>[name of copyright
+holder]</var></p>
+
+<p>This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
+under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
+Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option)
+any later version.</p>
+
+<p>This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
+WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY
+or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
+for more details.</p>
+
+<p>You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
+with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses>.</p>
+
+<p>Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7</p>
+
+<p>If you modify this Program, or any covered work, by linking or combining
+it with <var>[name of library]</var> (or a modified version of that
+library), containing parts covered by the terms of <var>[name of library's
+license]</var>, the licensors of this Program grant you additional
+permission to convey the resulting work. {Corresponding Source for a
+non-source form of such a combination shall include the source code for the
+parts of <var>[name of library]</var> used as well as that of the covered
+work.}</p>
+
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>If you're using GPLv2, you can provide your own exception to the
+ license's terms. The following license notice will do that. Again, you
+ must replace all the text in brackets with text that is appropriate for
+ your program. If not everybody can distribute source for
+ the libraries you intend to link with, you should remove the text in
+ braces; otherwise, just remove the braces themselves.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>Copyright (C) <var>[years]</var> <var>[name of copyright
+holder]</var></p>
+
+<p>This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
+under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
+Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
+any later version.</p>
+
+<p>This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
+WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY
+or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
+for more details.</p>
+
+<p>You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
+with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses>.</p>
+
+<p>Linking <var>[name of your program]</var> statically or dynamically with
+other modules is making a combined work based on <var>[name of your
+program]</var>. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public
+License cover the whole combination.</p>
+
+<p>In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of <var>[name
+of your program]</var> give you permission to combine <var>[name of your
+program]</var> with free software programs or libraries that are released
+under the GNU LGPL and with code included in the standard release
+of <var>[name of library]</var> under the <var>[name of library's
+license]</var> (or modified versions of such code, with unchanged license).
+You may copy and distribute such a system following the terms of the GNU
+GPL for <var>[name of your program]</var> and the licenses of the other
+code concerned{, provided that you include the source code of that other
+code when and as the GNU GPL requires distribution of source code}.</p>
+
+<p>Note that people who make modified versions of <var>[name of your
+program]</var> are not obligated to grant this special exception for their
+modified versions; it is their choice whether to do so. The GNU General
+Public License gives permission to release a modified version without this
+exception; this exception also makes it possible to release a modified
+version which carries forward this exception.</p>
+
+</blockquote>
+
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="HowIGetCopyright">How do I
+ get a copyright on my program in order to release it under the
+ GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Under the Berne Convention, everything written is automatically
+copyrighted from whenever it is put in fixed form. So you don't have to do
+anything to “get” the copyright on what you write—as long
+as nobody else can claim to own your work.</p>
+
+<p>However, registering the copyright in the US is a very good idea. It
+will give you more clout in dealing with an infringer in the US.</p>
+
+<p>The case when someone else might possibly claim the copyright is if
+you are an employee or student; then the employer or the school might
+claim you did the job for them and that the copyright belongs to them.
+Whether they would have a valid claim would depend on circumstances
+such as the laws of the place where you live, and on your employment
+contract and what sort of work you do. It is best to consult a lawyer
+if there is any possible doubt.</p>
+
+<p>If you think that the employer or school might have a claim, you can
+resolve the problem clearly by getting a copyright disclaimer signed
+by a suitably authorized officer of the company or school. (Your
+immediate boss or a professor is usually NOT authorized to sign such a
+disclaimer.)
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="WhatIfSchool">What if my school
+ might want to make my program into its own proprietary software
+ product?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Many universities nowadays try to raise funds by restricting the use
+of the knowledge and information they develop, in effect behaving little
+different from commercial businesses. (See “The Kept
+University”, Atlantic Monthly, March 2000, for a general discussion
+of this problem and its effects.)</p>
+
+<p>If you see any chance that your school might refuse to allow your
+program to be released as free software, it is best to raise the issue
+at the earliest possible stage. The closer the program is to working
+usefully, the more temptation the administration might feel to take it
+from you and finish it without you. At an earlier stage, you have
+more leverage.</p>
+
+<p>So we recommend that you approach them when the program is only
+half-done, saying, “If you will agree to releasing this as free
+software, I will finish it.” Don't think of this as a bluff. To
+prevail, you must have the courage to say, “My program will have
+liberty, or never be born.”
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="CouldYouHelpApplyGPL">Could
+ you give me step by step instructions on how to apply the GPL to my
+ program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>See the page of <a href="/licenses/gpl-howto.html">GPL
+instructions</a>.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="HeardOtherLicense">I heard
+ that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program under another license. Is
+ this possible?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to
+the program. But the copyright holder for a program can release it
+under several different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the
+GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>The license that comes in your copy, assuming it was put in by the
+copyright holder and that you got the copy legitimately, is the
+license that applies to your copy.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF">I
+ would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would
+ like to use the same code in non-free programs.</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but
+legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright
+holder for the code, you can release it under various different
+non-exclusive licenses at various times.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="DeveloperViolate">Is the
+ developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the
+ developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others
+to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is
+not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not
+a “violation” of the GPL.</p>
+
+<p>However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if
+done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the
+community.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="CanDeveloperThirdParty">Can the developer of a program who
+ distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for
+ exclusive use?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>No, because the public already has the right to use the program under
+the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="CanIUseGPLToolsForNF">Can I use GPL-covered editors such as
+ GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools
+ such as GCC to compile them?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover
+the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally,
+on the license you use for your code.</p>
+
+<p>Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical
+reasons—for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its
+output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered
+by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the
+part of the output which is derived from the program's input inherits
+the copyright status of the input.</p>
+
+<p>As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs.
+This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison
+standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction. We
+made the decision because there were other tools comparable to Bison
+which already permitted use for non-free programs.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLFairUse">Do I have “fair use”
+ rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Yes, you do. “Fair use” is use that is allowed without any
+special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for
+such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about
+it—in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL
+or any other free software license.</p>
+
+<p>Note, however, that there is no world-wide principle of fair use; what
+kinds of use are considered “fair” varies from country to country.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLUSGov">Can the US Government
+ release a program under the GNU GPL?</a></b></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If the program is written by US federal government employees in the
+course of their employment, it is in the public domain, which means it
+is not copyrighted. Since the GNU GPL is based on copyright, such a
+program cannot be released under the GNU GPL. (It can still be <a
+href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>, however; a public
+domain program is free.)</p>
+
+<p>However, when a US federal government agency uses contractors to
+develop software, that is a different situation. The contract can
+require the contractor to release it under the GNU GPL. (GNU Ada was
+developed in this way.) Or the contract can assign the copyright to
+the government agency, which can then release the software under the
+GNU GPL.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLUSGovAdd">Can the US Government
+ release improvements to a GPL-covered program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Yes. If the improvements are written by US government employees in
+the course of their employment, then the improvements are in the
+public domain. However, the improved version, as a whole, is still
+covered by the GNU GPL. There is no problem in this situation.</p>
+
+<p>If the US government uses contractors to do the job, then the
+improvements themselves can be GPL-covered.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLOutput">Is there some way that
+ I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example,
+ if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that
+ these designs must be free?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you
+any say in the use of the output people make from their data using
+your program. If the user uses your program to enter or convert his
+own data, the copyright on the output belongs to him, not you. More
+generally, when a program translates its input into some other form,
+the copyright status of the output inherits that of the input it was
+generated from.</p>
+
+<p>So the only way you have a say in the use of the output is if
+substantial parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in
+your program. For instance, part of the output of Bison (see above)
+would be covered by the GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in
+this specific case.</p>
+
+<p>You could artificially make a program copy certain text into its
+output even if there is no technical reason to do so. But if that
+copied text serves no practical purpose, the user could simply delete
+that text from the output and use only the rest. Then he would not
+have to obey the conditions on redistribution of the copied text.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="WhatCaseIsOutputGPL">In what cases is the output of a GPL
program covered by the GPL too?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Only when the program copies part of itself into the
+output.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLModuleLicense">If I add
+ a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the GPL as the
+ license for my module?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released
+under the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the
+GPL.</p>
+
+<p>But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. You
+can, if you wish, release your program under a license which is more lax
+than the GPL but compatible with the GPL. The
+<a href="/licenses/license-list.html">license list page</a> gives a partial
+list of GPL-compatible licenses.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="IfLibraryIsGPL">If a library
+ is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any
+ program which uses it has to be under the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the
+library.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="IfInterpreterIsGPL">If a
+ programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that
+ mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under
+ GPL-compatible licenses?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>
+When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The
+interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software
+license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you
+use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program),
+any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data
+to anyone.</p>
+
+<p>However, when the interpreter is extended to provide
+“bindings” to other facilities (often, but not necessarily,
+libraries), the interpreted program is effectively linked to the facilities
+it uses through these bindings. So if these facilities are released under
+the GPL, the interpreted program that uses them must be released in a
+GPL-compatible way. The JNI or Java Native Interface is an example of such
+a binding mechanism; libraries that are accessed in this way are linked
+dynamically with the Java programs that call them. These libraries are
+also linked with the interpreter. If the interpreter is linked statically
+with these libraries, or if it is designed to
+<a href="#GPLPluginsInNF">link dynamically with these specific
+libraries</a>, then it too needs to be released in a GPL-compatible
+way.</p>
+<p>
+Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the
+interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl
+comes with many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with
+many Java classes. These libraries and the programs that call them
+are always dynamically linked together.</p>
+<p>
+A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java
+classes in your program, you must release the program in a
+GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java
+interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="WindowsRuntimeAndGPL">I'm writing a Windows application with
+ Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) and I will be releasing it
+ under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual
+ C++ (or Visual Basic) run-time library permitted under the
+ GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>The GPL permits this because that run-time library normally accompanies
+the compiler or interpreter you are using. The run-time libraries here are
+“System Libraries” as GPLv3 defines them, and as such they are
+not considered part of the Corresponding Source. GPLv2 has a similar
+exception in section 3.</p>
+
+<p>
+That doesn't mean it is a good idea to write the program so that it
+only runs on Windows. Doing so results in a program that is free
+software but “<a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">trapped</a>”
+by Windows.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="OrigBSD">Why is the original BSD
+license incompatible with the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>
+Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL; namely,
+the requirement on advertisements of the program. Section 6 of GPLv2
+states:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>You may not impose any further restrictions on the
+recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>GPLv3 says something similar in section 10. The advertising clause
+provides just such a further restriction, and thus is GPL-incompatible.</p>
+
+<p>The revised BSD license does not have the advertising clause, which
+eliminates the problem.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLAndPlugins">If a program
+ released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for
+ the licenses of a plug-in?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program
+uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate
+programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements
+for them.</p>
+
+<p>If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function
+calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a
+single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main
+program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released
+under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the
+terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are
+distributed.</p>
+
+<p>If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication
+between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in
+with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline
+case.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLPluginsInNF">Can I apply the
+GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the
+plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program
+makes no requirements for them. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in,
+and there are no special requirements.</p>
+
+<p>If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function
+calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a
+single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main
+program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the
+GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the
+GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an
+exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with
+the non-free main program.</p>
+
+<p>See also the question <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">I am
+writing free software that uses a non-free library.</a>
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="NFUseGPLPlugins">Can I
+release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered
+plug-in?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if
+the program uses <em>only</em> simple fork and exec to invoke and
+communicate with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so
+the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main
+program.</p>
+<p>
+If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function
+calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a
+single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main
+program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins,
+the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible
+free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed
+when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.</p>
+<p>
+If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication
+between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in
+with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline
+case.</p>
+<p>
+Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures
+is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking.</p>
+<p>
+See also the question <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">I am
+writing free software that uses a non-free library.</a>
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="LinkingWithGPL">You have a
+ GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a
+ proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean
+ I have to GPL my program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Not exactly. It means you must release your program under a license
+compatible with the GPL (more precisely, compatible with one or more GPL
+versions accepted by all the rest of the code in the combination that you
+link). The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="SwitchToLGPL">If so, is there
+ any chance I could get a license of your program under the Lesser
+ GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>You can ask, but most authors will stand firm and say no.
+The idea of the GPL is that if you want to include our code in your
+program, your program must also be free software. It is supposed
+to put pressure on you to release your program in a way that makes
+it part of our community.</p>
+
+<p>You always have the legal alternative of not using our code.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="LinkingOverControlledInterface">How can I allow linking of
+ proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a controlled
+ interface only?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Add this text to the license notice of each file in the package, at
+the end of the text that says the file is distributed under the GNU
+GPL:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>Linking ABC statically or dynamically with other modules is making a
+combined work based on ABC. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU
+General Public License cover the whole combination.</p>
+
+<p>In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of ABC give
+you permission to combine ABC program with free software programs or
+libraries that are released under the GNU LGPL and with independent
+modules that communicate with ABC solely through the ABCDEF interface.
+You may copy and distribute such a system following the terms of the
+GNU GPL for ABC and the licenses of the other code concerned, provided
+that you include the source code of that other code when and as the
+GNU GPL requires distribution of source code.</p>
+
+<p>Note that people who make modified versions of ABC are not obligated
+to grant this special exception for their modified versions; it is
+their choice whether to do so. The GNU General Public License gives
+permission to release a modified version without this exception; this
+exception also makes it possible to release a modified version which
+carries forward this exception.</p>
+
+</blockquote>
+<p>
+Only the copyright holders for the program can legally authorize this
+exception. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then assuming your
+employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are the copyright
+holder—so you can authorize the exception. But if you want to use parts
+of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code, you cannot
+authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval of the
+copyright holders of those programs.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="ManyDifferentLicenses">I have written an application that links
+ with many different components, that have different licenses. I am
+ very confused as to what licensing requirements are placed on my
+ program. Can you please tell me what licenses I may use?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>To answer this question, we would need to see a list of each component
+that your program uses, the license of that component, and a brief (a
+few sentences for each should suffice) describing how your library
+uses that component. Two examples would be:</p>
+<ul>
+<li>To make my software work, it must be linked to the FOO library,
+ which is available under the Lesser GPL.</li>
+<li>My software makes a system call (with a command line that I built) to
+ run the BAR program, which is licensed under “the GPL, with a
+ special exception allowing for linking with QUUX”.</li>
+</ul>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="MereAggregation">What is the difference between an
+ “aggregate” and other kinds of “modified
+ versions”?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs,
+distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits
+you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the
+other software are non-free or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is
+that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users
+from exercising rights that the each program's individual license would
+grant them.</p>
+
+<p>Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two
+parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We
+believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of
+communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address
+space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of
+information are interchanged).</p>
+
+<p>If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are
+definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run
+linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means
+combining them into one program.</p>
+
+<p>By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are
+communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs.
+So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are
+separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are
+intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too
+could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger
+program.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="AssignCopyright">Why does
+ the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign
+ copyright to the FSF? If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should
+ I do this, too? If so, how?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Our lawyers have told us that to be in the <a
href="/licenses/why-assign.html">best position to enforce
+the GPL</a> in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status
+of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor
+to either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim
+copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.
+<p>
+We also ask individual contributors to get copyright disclaimers from
+their employers (if any) so that we can be sure those employers won't
+claim to own the contributions.</p>
+<p>
+Of course, if all the contributors put their code in the public
+domain, there is no copyright with which to enforce the GPL. So we
+encourage people to assign copyright on large code contributions, and
+only put small changes in the public domain.</p>
+<p>
+If you want to make an effort to enforce the GPL on your program, it
+is probably a good idea for you to follow a similar policy. Please
+contact <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a> if
+you want more information.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="ModifyGPL">Can I modify the GPL
+ and make a modified license?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
+provided that you call your license by another name and do not include
+the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at
+the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention
+GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
+<p>
+If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>
+for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual
+license requirements to see if we approve of them.</p>
+<p>
+Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified
+license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such
+a modified license is almost certainly <a href="#WhatIsCompatible">
+incompatible with the GNU GPL</a>, and that incompatibility blocks
+useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different
+free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLCommercially">If I use a
+ piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I
+ allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then
+ distribute and sell that new program commercially?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially,
+but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must
+make the source code available to the users of the program as
+described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and
+modify it as described in the GPL.
+<p>
+These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered
+code you received in a program of your own.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="GPLOtherThanSoftware">Can I use the GPL for something other than
+software?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear
+what constitutes the “source code” for the work. The GPL
+defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in
+it.</p>
+
+<p>However, for manuals and textbooks, or more generally any sort of work
+that is meant to teach a subject, we recommend using the GFDL rather
+than the GPL.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="LGPLJava">How does the LGPL
+ work with Java?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+
+<p><a href="/licenses/lgpl-java.html">See this article for details.</a> It
works as designed, intended, and expected.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="Consider">Consider this situation:
+ 1. X releases V1 of a project under the GPL.
+ 2. Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code
based on V1.
+ 3. X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license. Does X need Y's
permission?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Yes. Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a
+consequence of basing it on X's version V1. Nothing required Y to
+agree to any other license for its code. Therefore, X must get Y's
+permission before releasing that code under another license.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="GPLInProprietarySystem">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered
+ software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system.
+The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy,
+redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could
+incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have
+the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.
+<p>
+A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of
+that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program
+must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for
+two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the
+freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back
+improvements that they make.</p>
+<p>
+However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software
+alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make
+sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length,
+that they are not combined in a way that would make them
+effectively a single program.</p>
+<p>
+The difference between this and “incorporating” the GPL-covered
+software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive
+part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become
+effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two
+separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.</p>
+<p>
+If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the
+kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two
+separate programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is
+simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we
+care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly
+understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the
+collection.</p>
+<p>
+If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it “part
+of” a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be
+uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they
+know that what they have received is a free program plus another program,
+side by side, their rights will be clear.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLWrapper">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in
+my proprietary system. Can I do this by putting a “wrapper”
+module, under a GPL-compatible lax permissive license (such as the X11
+license) in between the GPL-covered part and the proprietary
+part?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>No. The X11 license is compatible with the GPL, so you can add
+a module to the GPL-covered program and put it under the X11 license.
+But if you were to incorporate them both in a larger program, that
+whole would include the GPL-covered part, so it would have to be
+licensed <em>as a whole</em> under the GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>The fact that proprietary module A communicates with GPL-covered
+module C only through X11-licensed module B is legally irrelevant;
+what matters is the fact that module C is included in the whole.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="LibGCCException">Does the
+libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Yes. The intent of the exception is to allow people to compile
+proprietary software using gcc.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="MoneyGuzzlerInc">I'd like to
+ modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability
+ libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code
+ for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions
+ would have to obtained those libraries separately. Why doesn't the
+ GPL permit this?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+There are two reasons for this.
+<p>
+First, a general one. If we permitted company A to make a proprietary
+file, and company B to distribute GPL-covered software linked with
+that file, the effect would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough to
+drive a truck through. This would be carte blanche for withholding
+the source code for all sorts of modifications and extensions to
+GPL-covered software.</p>
+<p>
+Giving all users access to the source code is one of our main goals,
+so this consequence is definitely something we want to avoid.</p>
+<p>
+More concretely, the versions of the programs linked with the Money
+Guzzler libraries would not really be free software as we understand
+the term—they would not come with full source code that enables users
+to change and recompile the program.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLIncompatibleAlone">If
+license for a module Q has a requirement that's incompatible with the GPL,
+but the requirement applies only when Q is distributed by itself, not when
+Q is included in a larger program, does that make the license
+GPL-compatible? Can I combine or link Q with a GPL-covered
+program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+If a program P is released under the GPL that means *any and every part of
+it* can be used under the GPL. If you integrate module Q, and release the
+combined program P+Q under the GPL, that means any part of P+Q can be used
+under the GPL. One part of P+Q is Q. So releasing P+Q under the GPL says
+that Q any part of it can be used under the GPL. Putting it in other
+words, a user who obtains P+Q under the GPL can delete P, so that just Q
+remains, still under the GPL.
+<p>
+If the license of module Q permits you to give permission for that,
+then it is GPL-compatible. Otherwise, it is not GPL-compatible.</p>
+<p>
+If the license for Q says in no uncertain terms that you must do certain
+things (not compatible with the GPL) when you redistribute Q on its own,
+then it does not permit you to distribute Q under the GPL. It follows that
+you can't release P+Q under the GPL either. So you cannot link or combine
+P with Q.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="ModifiedJustBinary">Can I release a modified
+ version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?</a></b></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions
+must be <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">
+free software</a>—which means, in particular, that the source
+code of the modified version is available to the users.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="UnchangedJustBinary">I
+ downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies,
+ do I have to get the source and distribute that too?</a></b></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute
+the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case
+where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="DistributeWithSourceOnInternet">I want to distribute
+ binaries via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide
+ source code by FTP?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+
+<p>Version 3 of the GPL allows this; see option 6(b) for the full details.
+Under version 2, you're certainly free to offer source via FTP, and most
+users will get it from there. However, if any of them would rather get the
+source on physical media by mail, you are required to provide that.</p>
+
+<p>If you distribute binaries via FTP, <a
+href="#AnonFTPAndSendSources">you should distribute source via FTP.</a></p>
+
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="RedistributedBinariesGetSource">My friend got a GPL-covered
+ binary with an offer to supply source, and made a copy for me.
+ Can I use the offer myself to obtain the source?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Yes, you can. The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy
+of the binary that it accompanies. This is why the GPL says your
+friend must give you a copy of the offer along with a copy of the
+binary—so you can take advantage of it.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites">Can I put the binaries on my
+ Internet server and put the source on a different Internet
+ site?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code
+“from the same place”; that is, next to the binaries. However,
+if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source
+code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next
+to the binaries, we think that qualifies as “from the same
+place”.</p>
+
+<p>Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to
+have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there.
+Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply
+replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would
+no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a
+reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement
+with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available
+there for as long as you keep the binaries available.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="DistributeExtendedBinary">I want to distribute an extended
+ version of a GPL-covered program in binary form. Is it enough to
+ distribute the source for the original version?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>No, you must supply the source code that corresponds to the binary.
+Corresponding source means the source from which users can rebuild the
+same binary.</p>
+
+<p>Part of the idea of free software is that users should have access to
+the source code for *the programs they use*. Those using your version
+should have access to the source code for your version.</p>
+
+<p>A major goal of the GPL is to build up the Free World by making sure
+that improvement to a free program are themselves free. If you
+release an improved version of a GPL-covered program, you must release
+the improved source code under the GPL.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="DistributingSourceIsInconvenient">I want to distribute
+ binaries, but distributing complete source is inconvenient. Is it ok if
+ I give users the diffs from the “standard” version along with
+ the binaries?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the
+source doesn't really do the job.</p>
+
+<p>A user that wants the source a year from now may be unable to get the
+proper version from another site at that time. The standard
+distribution site may have a newer version, but the same diffs
+probably won't work with that version.</p>
+
+<p>So you need to provide complete sources, not just diffs, with
+the binaries.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="AnonFTPAndSendSources">I want to make binaries available for
+ anonymous FTP, but send sources only to people who order them.</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>If you want to distribute binaries by anonymous FTP, you have to
+distribute sources along with them. This should not be hard. If you can
+find a site to distribute your program, you can surely find one that has
+room for the sources.</p>
+
+<p>The sources you provide must correspond exactly to the binaries.
+In particular, you must make sure they are for the same version of
+the program—not an older version and not a newer version.</p>
+
+<p>You can make the sources and binaries available on different machines,
+provided they are equally easy to get to, and provided that you have
+information next to the binaries saying where to find the sources.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource">How can I make sure each
+ user who downloads the binaries also gets the source?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>You don't have to make sure of this. As long as you make the source
+and binaries available so that the users can see what's available and take
+what they want, you have done what is required of you. It is up to the
+user whether to download the source.</p>
+
+<p>Our requirements for redistributors are intended to make sure the
+users can get the source code, not to force users to download the
+source code even if they don't want it.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="UnreleasedMods">A company
+ is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site.
+ Does the GPL say they must release their modified
+ sources?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without
+ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a
+special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release
+the modified sources.</p>
+
+<p>It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and
+use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However,
+putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly
+“private” use, so it would be legitimate to require release of
+the source code in that special case. Developers who wish to address this
+might want to use the <a href="/licenses/agpl.html">GNU Affero GPL</a> for
+programs designed for network server use.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="InternalDistribution">Is making and using multiple copies
+ within one organization or company “distribution”?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for
+itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop
+a modified version and install that version through its own
+facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that
+modified version to outsiders.</p>
+
+<p>However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations
+or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies
+to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a name="StolenCopy">If someone steals
+ a CD containing a version of a GPL-covered program, does the GPL
+ give him the right to redistribute that version?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably
+does have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the GPL,
+but if he is imprisoned for stealing the CD he may have to wait until
+his release before doing so.</p>
+
+<p>If the version in question is unpublished and considered by a company
+to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade
+secret law, depending on other circumstances. The GPL does not change
+that. If the company tried to release its version and still treat it
+as a trade secret, that would violate the GPL, but if the company
+hasn't released this version, no such violation has occurred.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="TradeSecretRelease">What if a company distributes a copy as
+ a trade secret?</a></b></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>If a company distributes a copy to you and claims it is a trade
+secret, the company has violated the GPL and will have to cease
+distribution. Note how this differs from the theft case above; the
+company does not intentionally distribute a copy when a copy is
+stolen, so in that case the company has not violated the GPL.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">Why are some GNU libraries released under
+ the ordinary GPL rather than the Lesser GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Using the Lesser GPL for any particular library constitutes a retreat
+for free software. It means we partially abandon the attempt to
+defend the users' freedom, and some of the requirements to share what
+is built on top of GPL-covered software. In themselves, those are
+changes for the worse.
+<p>
+Sometimes a localized retreat is a good strategy. Sometimes, using
+the LGPL for a library might lead to wider use of that library, and
+thus to more improvement for it, wider support for free software, and
+so on. This could be good for free software if it happens to a large
+extent. But how much will this happen? We can only speculate.</p>
+<p>
+It would be nice to try out the LGPL on each library for a while, see
+whether it helps, and change back to the GPL if the LGPL didn't help.
+But this is not feasible. Once we use the LGPL for a particular
+library, changing back would be difficult.</p>
+<p>
+So we decide which license to use for each library on a case-by-case
+basis. There is a <a href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">long
+explanation</a> of how we judge the question.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+ name="WillYouMakeAnException">Using a certain GNU program under the
+ GPL does not fit our project to make proprietary software. Will you
+ make an exception for us? It would mean more users of that
+ program.</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Sorry, we don't make such exceptions. It would not be right.
+<p>
+Maximizing the number of users is not our aim. Rather, we are trying
+to give the crucial freedoms to as many users as possible. In
+general, proprietary software projects hinder rather than help the
+cause of freedom.</p>
+<p>
+We do occasionally make license exceptions to assist a project which
+is producing free software under a license other than the GPL.
+However, we have to see a good reason why this will advance the cause
+of free software.</p>
+<p>
+We also do sometimes change the distribution terms of a package, when
+that seems clearly the right way to serve the cause of free software;
+but we are very cautious about this, so you will have to show us very
+convincing reasons.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="VersionThreeOrLater">Why should programs say “Version
+3 of the GPL or any later version”?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>From time to time, at intervals of years, we change the
+GPL—sometimes to clarify it, sometimes to permit certain kinds of use
+not previously permitted, and sometimes to tighten up a requirement. (The
+last two changes were in 2007 and 1991.) Using this “indirect
+pointer” in each program makes it possible for us to change the
+distribution terms on the entire collection of GNU software, when we update
+the GPL.</p>
+
+<p>If each program lacked the indirect pointer, we would be forced to
+discuss the change at length with numerous copyright holders, which would
+be a virtual impossibility. In practice, the chance of having uniform
+distribution terms for GNU software would be nil.</p>
+
+<p>Suppose a program says “Version 3 of the GPL or any later
+version” and a new version of the GPL is released. If the new GPL
+version gives additional permission, that permission will be available
+immediately to all the users of the program. But if the new GPL version
+has a tighter requirement, it will not restrict use of the current version
+of the program, because it can still be used under GPL version 3. When a
+program says “Version 3 of the GPL or any later version”, users
+will always be permitted to use it, and even change it, according to the
+terms of GPL version 3—even after later versions of the GPL are
+available.</p>
+
+<p>If a tighter requirement in a new version of the GPL need not be obeyed
+for existing software, how is it useful? Once GPL version 4 is available,
+the developers of most GPL-covered programs will release subsequent
+versions of their programs specifying “Version 4 of the GPL or any
+later version”. Then users will have to follow the tighter
+requirements in GPL version 4, for subsequent versions of the program.</p>
+
+<p>However, developers are not obligated to do this; developers can
+continue allowing use of the previous version of the GPL, if that is their
+preference.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a name="WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why
+don't you use the GPL for manuals?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>It is possible to use the GPL for a manual, but the GNU Free
+Documentation License (GFDL) is much better for manuals.</p>
+
+<p>The GPL was designed for programs; it contains lots of complex clauses
+that are crucial for programs, but that would be cumbersome and
+unnecessary for a book or manual. For instance, anyone publishing the
+book on paper would have to either include machine-readable “source
+code” of the book along with each printed copy, or provide a written
+offer to send the “source code” later.</p>
+
+<p>Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals
+make a profit from selling copies—cover texts, for instance. The
+special rules for Endorsements sections make it possible to use the
+GFDL for an official standard. This would permit modified versions,
+but they could not be labeled as “the standard”.</p>
+
+<p>Using the GFDL, we permit changes in the text of a manual that covers
+its technical topic. It is important to be able to change the
+technical parts, because people who change a program ought to change
+the documentation to correspond. The freedom to do this is an
+ethical imperative.</p>
+
+<p>Our manuals also include sections that state our political position
+about free software. We mark these as “invariant”, so that
+they cannot be changed or removed. The GFDL makes provisions for these
+“invariant sections”.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a name="FontException">How does the
+GPL apply to fonts?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+
+<p>Font licensing is a complex issue which needs serious
+consideration. The following license exception is experimental but
+approved for general use. We welcome suggestions on this subject—please
see this this <a
+href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050425novalis";>explanatory
+essay</a> and write to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>.</p>
+
+<p>To use this exception, add this text to the license notice of each
+file in the package (to the extent possible), at the end of the text
+that says the file is distributed under the GNU GPL:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+As a special exception, if you create a document which uses
+this font, and embed this font or unaltered portions of this font into
+the document, this font does not by itself cause the resulting
+document to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This
+exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the
+document might be covered by the GNU General Public License. If you
+modify this font, you may extend this exception to your version of the
+font, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so,
+delete this exception statement from your version.
+</p></blockquote></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a name="WMS">
+I am writing a website maintenance system</a> (called a “<a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html";>content
+management system</a>” by some), or some other application which
+generates web pages from templates. What license should I use for
+those templates?</b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Templates are minor enough that it is not worth using copyleft to
+protect them. It is normally harmless to use copyleft on minor works,
+but templates are a special case, because they are combined with data
+provided by users of the application and the combination is
+distributed. So, we recommend that you license your templates under
+simple permissive terms. </p>
+
+<p>Some templates make calls into Javascript functions. Since
+Javascript is often non-trivial, it is worth copylefting. Because the
+templates will be combined with user data, it's possible that
+template+user data+Javascript would be considered one work under
+copyright law. A line needs to be drawn between the Javascript
+(copylefted), and the user code
+(usually under incompatible terms). </p>
+
+<p><a href="template-diagram.png"><img src="template-diagram.png" alt="A
diagram of the above content" /></a></p>
+
+<p>Here's an exception for Javascript code that does this:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>As a special exception to GPL, any HTML file which merely makes
+function calls to this code, and for that purpose includes it by
+reference shall be deemed a separate work for copyright law purposes.
+In addition, the copyright holders of this code give you permission to
+combine this code with free software libraries that are released under
+the GNU LGPL. You may copy and distribute such a system following the
+terms of the GNU GPL for this code and the LGPL for the libraries. If
+you modify this code, you may extend this exception to your version of
+the code, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do
+so, delete this exception statement from your version.
+</p></blockquote>
+
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="NonFreeTools">Can I release
+ a program under the GPL which I developed using non-free
tools?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Which programs you used to edit the source code, or to compile it, or
+study it, or record it, usually makes no difference for issues
+concerning the licensing of that source code.</p>
+
+<p>However, if you link non-free libraries with the source code, that would be
+an issue you need to deal with. It does not preclude releasing the source
+code under the GPL, but if the libraries don't fit under the “system
+library” exception, you should affix an explicit notice giving
+permission to link your program with them. The FSF can give you advice on
+doing this.</p>
+</dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLTranslations">Are there
+translations of the GPL into other languages?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>It would be useful to have translations of the GPL into languages
+other than English. People have even written translations and sent
+them to us. But we have not dared to approve them as officially
+valid. That carries a risk so great we do not dare accept it.</p>
+
+<p>A legal document is in some ways like a program. Translating it is
+like translating a program from one language and operating system to
+another. Only a lawyer skilled in both languages can do it—and even
+then, there is a risk of introducing a bug.</p>
+
+<p>If we were to approve, officially, a translation of the GPL, we would
+be giving everyone permission to do whatever the translation says they
+can do. If it is a completely accurate translation, that is fine.
+But if there is an error in the translation, the results could be a
+disaster which we could not fix.</p>
+
+<p>If a program has a bug, we can release a new version, and eventually
+the old version will more or less disappear. But once we have given
+everyone permission to act according to a particular translation, we
+have no way of taking back that permission if we find, later on, that
+it had a bug.</p>
+
+<p>Helpful people sometimes offer to do the work of translation for us.
+If the problem were a matter of finding someone to do the work, this
+would solve it. But the actual problem is the risk of error, and
+offering to do the work does not avoid the risk. We could not
+possibly authorize a translation written by a non-lawyer.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, for the time being, we are not approving translations
+of the GPL as globally valid and binding. Instead, we are doing two
+things:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li><p>Referring people to unofficial translations.
+This means that we permit people to write translations of the GPL, but
+we don't approve them as legally valid and binding.</p>
+
+<p>An unapproved translation has no legal force, and it should say so
+explicitly. It should be marked as follows:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+ This translation of the GPL is informal, and not officially approved
+ by the Free Software Foundation as valid. To be completely sure of
+ what is permitted, refer to the original GPL (in English).
+</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>But the unapproved translation can serve as a hint for how to
+understand the English GPL. For many users, that is sufficient.</p>
+
+<p>However, businesses using GNU software in commercial activity, and
+people doing public ftp distribution, should need to check the real
+English GPL to make sure of what it permits.</p>
+</li>
+
+<li><p>Publishing translations valid for a single country only.</p>
+
+<p>We are considering the idea of publishing translations which are
+officially valid only for one country. This way, if there is a mistake, it
+will be limited to that country, and the damage will not be too great.</p>
+
+<p>It will still take considerable expertise and effort from a sympathetic
+and capable lawyer to make a translation, so we cannot promise any
+such translations soon.</p>
+</li>
+</ul>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="InterpreterIncompat">If
+a programming language interpreter has a license that is incompatible
+with the GPL, can I run GPL-covered programs on it?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is yes.
+The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; the GPL
+doesn't restrict what tools you process the program with.</p>
+
+<p>However, when the interpreter is extended to provide
+“bindings” to other facilities (often, but not necessarily,
+libraries), the interpreted program is effectively linked to the facilities
+it uses through these bindings. The JNI or Java Native Interface is an
+example of such a facility; libraries that are accessed in this way are
+linked dynamically with the Java programs that call them.</p>
+
+<p>So if these facilities are released under a GPL-incompatible license,
+the situation is like linking in any other way with a GPL-incompatible
+library. Which implies that:</p>
+<ol>
+ <li>If you are writing code and releasing it under the GPL, you can
+ state an explicit exception giving permission to link it with those
+ GPL-incompatible facilities.</li>
+
+ <li>If you wrote and released the program under the GPL, and you
+ designed it specifically to work with those facilities, people can
+ take that as an implicit exception permitting them to link it with
+ those facilities. But if that is what you intend, it is better
+ to say so explicitly.</li>
+
+ <li>You can't take someone else's GPL-covered code and use it that
+ way, or add such exceptions to it. Only the copyright holders of that
+ code can add the exception.</li>
+</ol>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="WhoHasThePower">Who has the
+power to enforce the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the
+software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If you
+see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the
+GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders,
+or are connected with the copyright holders. <a
+href="http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReportingViolation";>Learn
+more about reporting GPL violations.</a>
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a name="OOPLang">In an object-oriented
+language such as Java, if I use a class that is GPL'ed without
+modifying, and subclass it, in what way does the GPL affect the larger
+program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of
+the GPL affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed
+class.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="PortProgramToGL">If I port
+my program to GNU/Linux, does that mean I have to release it as Free
+Software under the GPL or some other Free Software license?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>In general, the answer is no—this is not a legal requirement. In
+specific, the answer depends on which libraries you want to use and what
+their licenses are. Most system libraries either use the <a
+href="/copyleft/lesser.html">GNU Lesser GPL</a>, or use the GNU GPL plus an
+exception permitting linking the library with anything. These libraries
+can be used in non-free programs; but in the case of the Lesser GPL, it
+does have some requirements you must follow.</p>
+
+<p>Some libraries are released under the GNU GPL alone; you must use a
+GPL-compatible license to use those libraries. But these are normally
+the more specialized libraries, and you would not have had anything much
+like them on another platform, so you probably won't find yourself
+wanting to use these libraries for simple porting.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, your software is not a contribution to our community if it is
+not free, and people who value their freedom will refuse to use it.
+Only people willing to give up their freedom will use your software,
+which means that it will effectively function as an inducement for people
+to lose their freedom.</p>
+
+<p>If you hope some day to look back on your career and feel that
+it has contributed to the growth of a good and free society, you
+need to make your software free.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="CompanyGPLCostsMoney">
+I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it
+costs money to get it. Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it
+available on the Internet?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for
+distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to
+redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even if
+someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL
+doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any
+other person in particular.</p>
+
+<p>What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a
+copy to you <em>if he wishes to</em>. Once the copyright holder does
+distribute a copy program to someone, that someone can then redistribute
+the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="ReleaseNotOriginal">Can
+I release a program with a license which says that you can distribute
+modified versions of it under the GPL but you can't distribute the
+original itself under the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>No. Such a license would be self-contradictory. Let's look at its
+implications for me as a user.</p>
+
+<p>Suppose I start with the original version (call it version A), add
+some code (let's imagine it is 1000 lines), and release that modified
+version (call it B) under the GPL. The GPL says anyone can change
+version B again and release the result under the GPL. So I (or
+someone else) can delete those 1000 lines, producing version C which
+has the same code as version A but is under the GPL.</p>
+
+<p>If you try to block that path, by saying explicitly in the license that
+I'm not allowed to reproduce something identical to version A under
+the GPL by deleting those lines from version B, in effect the license
+now says that I can't fully use version B in all the ways that the GPL
+permits. In other words, the license does not in fact allow a user to
+release a modified version such as B under the GPL.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="DistributeSubsidiary">Does moving a copy to a
+majority-owned, and controlled, subsidiary constitute
+distribution?</a></b></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>
+Whether moving a copy to or from this subsidiary constitutes
+“distribution” is a matter to be decided in each case under the
+copyright law of the appropriate jurisdiction. The GPL does not and cannot
+override local laws. US copyright law is not entirely clear on the point,
+but appears not to consider this distribution.
+</p><p>
+If, in some country, this is considered distribution, and the
+subsidiary must receive the right to redistribute the program,
+that will not make a practical difference. The subsidiary is
+controlled by the parent company; rights or no rights, it won't
+redistribute the program unless the parent company decides to do
+so.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="ClickThrough">Can software installers ask people
+ to click to agree to the GPL? If I get some software under the GPL,
+ do I have to agree to anything?</a></b></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>
+Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to
+click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL.
+This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click
+through, the GPL's rules remain the same.</p>
+
+<p>
+Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You
+are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is
+licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or
+distribute the software. If it really bothers you to click through
+the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the GPLed software to bypass this.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLCompatInstaller">I would
+ like to bundle GPLed software with some sort of installation software.
+ Does that installer need to have a GPL-compatible license?</a></b></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>No. The installer and the files it installs are separate works. As a
+result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation software.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="SubscriptionFee">Can I use
+GPLed software on a device that will stop operating if customers do
+not continue paying a subscription fee?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>No. In this scenario, the requirement to keep paying a fee limits
+the user's ability to run the program. This is an additional
+requirement on top of the GPL, and the license prohibits it.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="BitTorrent">How does GPLv3 make
+BitTorrent distribution easier?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Because GPLv2 was written before peer-to-peer distribution of
+software was common, it is difficult to meet its requirements when you
+share code this way. The best way to make sure you are in compliance
+when distributing GPLv2 object code on BitTorrent would be to include
+all the corresponding source in the same torrent, which is
+prohibitively expensive.</p>
+<p>GPLv3 addresses this problem in two ways. First, people who
+download this torrent and send the data to others as part of that
+process are not required to do anything. That's because section 9
+says “Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a
+consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy
+likewise does not require acceptance [of the license].”</p>
+<p>Second, section 6(e) of GPLv3 is designed to give
+distributors—people who initially seed torrents—a clear and
+straightforward way to provide the source, by telling recipients where it
+is available on a public network server. This ensures that everyone who
+wants to get the source can do so, and it's almost no hassle for the
+distributor.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="Tivoization">What is
+tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent it?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are
+designed so that users are not allowed to modify that software. There
+are lots of different ways to do this; for example, sometimes the
+hardware checksums the software that is installed, and shuts down if
+it doesn't match an expected signature. The manufacturers comply with
+GPLv2 by giving you the source code, but you still don't have the
+freedom to modify the software you're using. We call this practice
+tivoization.</p>
+<p>When people distribute User Products that include software under
+GPLv3, section 6 requires that they provide you with information
+necessary to modify that software. User Products is a term specially
+defined in the license; examples of User Products include portable
+music players, digital video recorders, and home security systems.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="DRMProhibited">Does GPLv3
+prohibit DRM?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>It does not; you can use code released under GPLv3 to develop any
+kind of DRM technology you like. However, if you do this, section 3
+says that the system will not count as an effective technological
+“protection” measure, which means that if someone breaks the DRM,
he
+will be free to distribute his software too, unhindered by the DMCA
+and similar laws.</p>
+<p>As usual, the GNU GPL does not restrict what people do in software,
+it just stops them from restricting others.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GPLHardware">Can I use the GPL
+to license hardware?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL.
+GPLv3 can also be used to license materials covered by other
+copyright-like laws, such as semiconductor masks. So, as an example,
+you can release a drawing of a hardware design under the GPL.
+However, if someone used that information to create physical hardware,
+they would have no license obligations when distributing or selling
+that device: it falls outside the scope of copyright and thus the GPL
+itself.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="GiveUpKeys">I use public key
+cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true
+that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is
+if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware
+checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it
+would function. In that specific case, you would be required to
+provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign
+and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If
+each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only
+give each purchaser the key for his instance.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="v3VotingMachine">Does
+GPLv3 require that voters be able to modify the software running in a
+voting machine?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>No. Companies distributing devices that include software under
+GPLv3 are at most required to provide the source and Installation
+Information for the software to people who possess a copy of the
+object code. The voter who uses a voting machine (like any other
+kiosk) doesn't get possession of it, not even temporarily, so the
+voter also does not get possession of the binary software in it.</p>
+<p>Note, however, that voting is a very special case. Just because
+the software in a computer is free does not mean you can trust the
+computer for voting. We believe that computers cannot be trusted for
+voting. Voting should be done on paper.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="v3PatentRetaliation">Does GPLv3 have a “patent retaliation
+clause”?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the
+software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone
+did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license
+and any patent licenses that accompanied it.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="SourceCodeInDocumentation">Can I use snippets of GPL-covered
+source code within documentation that is licensed under some license
+that is incompatible with the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>If the snippets are small enough that you can incorporate them
+under fair use or similar laws, then yes. Otherwise, no.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="v3Under4and5">The beginning
+of GPLv3 section 6 says that I can convey a covered work in object
+code form “under the terms of sections 4 and 5” provided I also
meet
+the conditions of section 6. What does that mean?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>This means that all the permissions and conditions you have to
+convey source code also apply when you convey object code: you may
+charge a fee, you must keep copyright notices intact, and so on.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="v2OrLaterPatentLicense">My company owns a lot of patents.
+Over the years we've contributed code to projects under “GPL version 2
+or any later version”, and the project itself has been distributed
+under the same terms. If a user decides to take the project's code
+(incorporating my contributions) under GPLv3, does that mean I've
+automatically granted GPLv3's explicit patent license to that
+user?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>No. When you convey GPLed software, you must follow the terms and
+conditions of one particular version of the license. When you do so,
+that version defines the obligations you have. If users may also
+elect to use later versions of the GPL, that's merely an additional
+permission they have—it does not require you to fulfill the
+terms of the later version of the GPL as well.</p>
+<p>Do not take this to mean that you can threaten the community with
+your patents. In many countries, distributing software under GPLv2
+provides recipients with an implicit patent license to exercise their
+rights under the GPL. Even if it didn't, anyone considering enforcing
+their patents aggressively is an enemy of the community, and we will
+defend ourselves against such an attack.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="LGPLv3ContributorVersion">If I distribute a proprietary
+program that links against an LGPLv3-covered library that I've
+modified, what is the “contributor version” for purposes of
+determining the scope of the explicit patent license grant I'm
+making—is it just the library, or is it the whole
+combination?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>The “contributor version” is only your version of the
library.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="v2v3Compatibility">Is
+GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to
+provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result,
+the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released
+under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2.</p>
+<p>However, if code is released under GPL “version 2 or later,”
that
+is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it
+permits.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="Cure">What does it mean to “cure” a
+violation of GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>To cure a violation means to adjust your practices to comply with
+the requirements of the license.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="v3InternationalDisclaimers">The warranty and liability
+disclaimers in GPLv3 seem specific to U.S. law. Can I add my own
+disclaimers to my own code?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Yes. Section 7 gives you permission to add your own disclaimers,
+specifically 7(a).</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="NonvisualLegalNotices">My program has interactive user
+interfaces that are non-visual in nature. How can I comply with the
+Appropriate Legal Notices requirement in GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>All you need to do is ensure that the Appropriate Legal Notices are
+readily available to the user in your interface. For example, if you
+have written an audio interface, you could include a command that
+reads the notices aloud.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="v3CoworkerConveying">If I give a copy of a GPLv3-covered
+program to a coworker at my company, have I “conveyed” the copy to
+him?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>As long as you're both using the software in your work at the
+company, rather than personally, then the answer is no. The copies
+belong to the company, not to you or the coworker. This copying is
+propagation, not conveying, because the company is not making copies
+available to others.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="v3ConditionalWarranty">If I distribute a GPLv3-covered
+program, can I provide a warranty that is voided if the user modifies
+the program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Yes. Just as devices do not need to be warranted if users modify
+the software inside them, you are not required to provide a warranty
+that covers all possible activities someone could undertake with
+GPLv3-covered software.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="SeparateAffero">Why did you
+decide to write the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a separate
+license?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Early drafts of GPLv3 allowed licensors to add an Affero-like
+requirement to publish source in section 7. However, some companies
+that develop and rely upon free software consider this requirement to
+be too burdensome. They want to avoid code with this requirement, and
+expressed concern about the administrative costs of checking code for
+this additional requirement. By publishing the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a
+separate license, with provisions in it and GPLv3 to allow code under
+these licenses to link to each other, we accomplish all of our
+original goals while making it easier to determine which code has the
+source publication requirement.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="WhyPropagateAndConvey">Why did you invent the new terms
+“propagate” and “convey” in GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>The term “distribute” used in GPLv2 was borrowed from United
States
+copyright law. Over the years, we learned that some jurisdictions
+used this same word in their own copyright laws, but gave it different
+meanings. We invented these new terms to make our intent as clear as
+possible no matter where the license is interpreted. They are not
+used in any copyright law in the world, and we provide their
+definitions directly in the license.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="NoMilitary">I'd like to license
+my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it
+can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do
+this?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is
+designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions.
+GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other
+added restriction can be removed by the user.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="ConveyVsDistribute">Is
+“convey” in GPLv3 the same thing as what GPLv2 means by
+“distribute”?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Yes, more or less. During the course of enforcing GPLv2, we
+learned that some jurisdictions used the word “distribute” in their
+own copyright laws, but gave it different meanings. We invented a new
+term to make our intent clear and avoid any problems that could be
+caused by these differences.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="v3MakingAvailable">GPLv3
+gives “making available to the public” as an example of
propagation.
+What does this mean? Is making available a form of
+conveying?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>One example of “making available to the public” is putting the
+software on a public web or FTP server. After you do this, some time
+may pass before anybody actually obtains the software from
+you—but because it could happen right away, you need to fulfill
+the GPL's obligations right away as well. Hence, we defined conveying
+to include this activity.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="PropagationNotConveying">Since distribution and making
+available to the public are forms of propagation that are also
+conveying in GPLv3, what are some examples of propagation that do not
+constitute conveying?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Making copies of the software for yourself is the main form of
+propagation that is not conveying. You might do this to install the
+software on multiple computers, or to make backups.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="Prelinking">Does prelinking a
+GPLed binary to various libraries on the system, to optimize its
+performance, count as modification?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>No. Prelinking is part of a compilation process; it doesn't
+introduce any license requirements above and beyond what other aspects
+of compilation would. If you're allowed to link the program to the
+libraries at all, then it's fine to prelink with them as well. If you
+distribute prelinked object code, you need to follow the terms of
+section 6.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="LaptopLoan">If someone installs
+GPLed software on a laptop, and then lends that laptop to a friend
+without providing source code for the software, have they violated the
+GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>No. In the jurisdictions where we have investigated this issue,
+this sort of loan would not count as conveying. The laptop's owner
+would not have any obligations under the GPL.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="TwoPartyTivoization">Suppose that two companies try to
+circumvent the requirement to provide Installation Information by
+having one company release signed software, and the other release a
+User Product that only runs signed software from the first company. Is
+this a violation of GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Yes. If two parties try to work together to get around the
+requirements of the GPL, they can both be pursued for copyright
+infringement. This is especially true since the definition of convey
+explicitly includes activities that would make someone responsible for
+secondary infringement.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="SourceInCVS">Am I complying
+with GPLv3 if I offer binaries on an FTP server and sources by way of
+a link to a source code repository in a version control system, like
+CVS or Subversion?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>This is acceptable as long as the source checkout process does not
+become burdensome or otherwise restrictive. Anybody who can download
+your object code should also be able to check out source from your
+VCS, using a publicly available free software client. Users should be
+provided with clear and convenient instructions for how to get the
+source for the exact object code they downloaded—they may not
+necessarily want the latest development code, after all.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="RemoteAttestation">Can
+someone who conveys GPLv3-covered software in a User Product use
+remote attestation to prevent a user from modifying that
+software?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>No. The definition of Installation Information, which must be
+provided with source when the software is conveyed inside a User
+Product, explicitly says: “The information must suffice to ensure that
+the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case
+prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been
+made.” If the device uses remote attestation in some way, the
+Installation Information must provide you some means for your modified
+software to report itself as legitimate.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="RulesProtocols">What does
+“rules and protocols for communication across the network” mean in
+GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>This refers to rules about traffic you can send over the network. For
+example, if there is a limit on the number of requests you can send to a
+server per day, or the size of a file you can upload somewhere, your access
+to those resources may be denied if you do not respect those limits.</p>
+<p>These rules do not include anything that does not pertain directly to
+data traveling across the network. For instance, if a server on the
+network sent messages for users to your device, your access to the network
+could not be denied merely because you modified the software so that it did
+not display the messages.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a
+name="SupportService">Distributors that provide Installation
+Information under GPLv3 are not required to provide “support
service”
+for the product. What kind of “support service”do you
+mean?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>This includes the kind of service many device manufacturers provide to
+help you install, use, or troubleshoot the product. If a device relies on
+access to web services or similar technology to function properly, those
+should normally still be available to modified versions, subject to the
+terms in section 6 regarding access to a network.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="v3Notwithstanding">In GPLv3 and AGPLv3, what does it mean
+ when it says “notwithstanding any other provision of this
+ License”?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>This simply means that the following terms prevail over anything
+else in the license that may conflict with them. For example, without this
+text, some people might have claimed that you could not combine code under
+GPLv3 with code under AGPLv3, because the AGPL's additional requirements
+would be classified as “further restrictions” under section 7
+of GPLv3. This text makes clear that our intended interpretation is the
+correct one, and you can make the combination.
+</p><p>
+This text only resolves conflicts between different terms of the license.
+When there is no conflict between two conditions, then you must meet them
+both. These paragraphs don't grant you carte blanche to ignore the rest of
+the license—instead they're carving out very limited exceptions.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="AGPLv3CorrespondingSource">Under AGPLv3, when I modify the
+Program under section 13, what Corresponding Source does it have to
+offer?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p> “Corresponding Source” is defined in section 1 of the
+license, and you should provide what it lists. So, if your modified
+version depends on libraries under other licenses, such as the Expat
+license or GPLv3, the Corresponding Source should include those libraries
+(unless they are System Libraries).
+</p><p>
+The last sentence of the first paragraph of section 13 is only meant to
+reinforce what most people would have naturally assumed: even though
+combinations with code under GPLv3 are handled through a special exception
+in section 13, the Corresponding Source should still include the code that
+is combined with the Program this way. This sentence does not mean that
+you <em>only</em> have to provide the source that's covered under GPLv3;
+instead it means that such code is <em>not</em> excluded from the
+definition of Corresponding Source.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="AGPLv3InteractingRemotely">In AGPLv3, what counts as
+“interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer
+network?”</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send
+responses over a network, then it meets these criteria. Common examples of
+programs that would fall into this category include web and mail servers,
+interactive web-based applications, and servers for games that are played
+online.
+</p><p>
+If a program is not expressly designed to interact with a user through a
+network, but is being run in an environment where it happens to do so, then
+it does not fall into this category. For example, an application is not
+required to provide source merely because the user is running it over SSH,
+or a remote X session.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="ApacheLegalEntity">How does GPLv3's concept of
+“you” compare to the definition of “Legal Entity”
+in the Apache License 2.0?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>They're effectively identical. The definition of “Legal
+Entity” in the Apache License 2.0 is very standard in various kinds
+of legal agreements—so much so that it would be very surprising if a
+court did not interpret the term in the same way in the absence of an
+explicit definition. We fully expect them to do the same when they look at
+GPLv3 and consider who qualifies as a licensee.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="v3TheProgram">In GPLv3, what does “the Program”
+refer to? Is it every program ever released under GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>The term “the Program” means one particular work that is
+licensed under GPLv3 and is received by a particular licensee from an
+upstream licensor or distributor. The Program is the particular work of
+software that you received in a given instance of GPLv3 licensing, as you
+received it.</p>
+
+<p>“The Program” cannot mean “all the works ever licensed
+under GPLv3”; that interpretation makes no sense for a number of
+reasons. We've published
+an <a href="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html">analysis of the term
+“the Program”</a> for those who would like to learn more about
+this.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="NoDistributionRequirements">If I only make copies of a
+GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to
+others, what does the license require of me?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this
+activity.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a name="AllCompatibility">How are the various GNU licenses
+compatible with each other?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>The various GNU licenses enjoy broad compatibility between each
+other. The only time you may not be able to combine code under two of
+these licenses is when you want to use code that's <em>only</em> under
+an older version of a license with code that's under a newer
+version.</p>
+
+<p>Below is a detailed compatibility matrix for various combinations of the
+GNU licenses, to provide an easy-to-use reference for specific cases. It
+assumes that someone else has written some software under one of these
+licenses, and you want to somehow incorporate code from that into a project
+that you're releasing (either your own original work, or a modified version
+of someone else's GPLed software). Find the license for your own work in a
+column at the top of the table, and the license for the other code in a row
+on the left. The cell where they meet will tell you whether or not this
+combination is permitted.</p>
+
+<p>When we say “copy code,” we mean just that: you're taking a
+section of code from one source, with or without modification, and
+inserting it into your own program, thus forming a work based on the first
+section of code. “Use a library” means that you're not copying
+any source directly, but instead interacting with it through linking,
+importing, or other typical mechanisms that bind the sources together when
+you compile or run the code.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#matrix-skip-target">Skip compatibility matrix</a></p>
+
+<table id="gpl-compat-matrix">
+<tbody><tr>
+<th rowspan="2" colspan="2"><br /></th>
+<th colspan="6">I want to release a project under:</th>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 only</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 or later</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-border">GPLv3 or later</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 only</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 or later</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv3 or later</th>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th rowspan="6">I want to copy code under:</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 only</th>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK <a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv2 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv2 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 or later</th>
+<td class="ok">OK <a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPL <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPL <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv3</th>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you upgrade to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1
+only</th>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv2 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPL <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK <a href="#comat-matrix-footnote-6">[6]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1
+or later</th>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv2 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPL <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK <a href="#comat-matrix-footnote-5">[5]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv3</th>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you upgrade and convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you upgrade to LGPLv3 <a
href="#comat-matrix-footnote-4">[4]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr class="gpl-matrix-use-type">
+<th rowspan="6">I want to use a library under:</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 only</th>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK <a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv2 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv2 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 or later</th>
+<td class="ok">OK <a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPL <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPL <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv3</th>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you upgrade to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 only</th>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 or later</th>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv3</th>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+</tr>
+
+</tbody></table>
+
+<p><a href="#matrix-skip-target">Skip footnotes</a></p>
+
+<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-1">1</a>: You must follow the terms of
+GPLv2 when incorporating the code in this case. You cannot take advantage
+of terms in later versions of the GPL.</p>
+
+<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-2">2</a>: If you do this, as long as the
+project contains the code released under GPLv2 only, you will not be able
+to upgrade the project's license to GPLv3 or later.</p>
+
+<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-3">3</a>: If you have the ability to
+release the project under GPLv2 or any later version, you can choose to
+release it under GPLv3 or any later version—and once you do
+that, you'll be able to incorporate the code released under GPLv3.</p>
+
+<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-4">4</a>: If you have the ability to
+release the project under LGPLv2.1 or any later version, you can choose to
+release it under LGPLv3 or any later version—and once you
+do that, you'll be able to incorporate the code released under LGPLv3.</p>
+
+<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-5">5</a>: You must follow the terms of
+LGPLv2.1 when incorporating the code in this case. You cannot take
+advantage of terms in later versions of the LGPL.</p>
+
+<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-6">6</a>: If you do this, as long as the
+project contains the code released under LGPLv2.1 only, you will not be
+able to upgrade the project's license to LGPLv3 or later.</p>
+
+<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-7">7</a>: LGPLv2.1 gives you permission
+to relicense the code under any version of the GPL since GPLv2. If you can
+switch the LGPLed code in this case to using an appropriate version of the
+GPL instead (as noted in the table), you can make this combination.</p>
+
+<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-8">8</a>: LGPLv3 gives you permission to
+relicense the code under GPLv3. In these cases, you can combine the code
+if you convert the LGPLed code to GPLv3.</p>
+
+<a name="matrix-skip-target"></a>
+</dd>
+
+
+</dl>
+
+</div>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+
+<div id="footer">
+ <p>
+ Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+ <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+ There are also <a href="http://www.fsf.org/about/contact.html";>other ways
to contact</a>
+ the FSF.
+ <br />
+ Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+ <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ Please see the
+ <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+ translations of this article.
+ </p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA
+<br />
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
+permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+</p>
+
+ <p>
+ Updated:
+ <!-- timestamp start -->
+ $Date: 2008/02/26 09:51:43 $
+ <!-- timestamp end -->
+ </p>
+</div>
+
+<div id="translations">
+ <h4>Translations of this page</h4>
+
+ <!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
+ <!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
+ <!-- If you do not have it English, please comment what the -->
+ <!-- English is. If you add a new language here, please -->
+ <!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+ <!-- - in /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
+ <!-- - in /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+ <!-- one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+ <!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+ <!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+ <!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
+ <!-- http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm -->
+
+ <ul class="translations-list">
+ <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.cs.html">Česky</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.html">English</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.es.html">Español</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.fr.html">Français</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.it.html">Italiano</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.ja.html">日本語</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.ko.html">한국어</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.pl.html">Polski</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.pt.html">Português</a></li>
+ </ul>
+
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
diff -N licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ licenses/why-not-lgpl.html 26 Feb 2008 09:51:43 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<title>Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library - GNU
Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library</h2>
+
+<!-- This document uses XHTML 1.0 Strict, but may be served as -->
+<!-- text/html. Please ensure that markup style considers -->
+<!-- appendex C of the XHTML 1.0 standard. See validator.w3.org. -->
+
+<!-- Please ensure links are consistent with Apache's MultiView. -->
+<!-- Change include statements to be consistent with the relevant -->
+<!-- language, where necessary. -->
+
+<p>
+The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One
+is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice
+of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use
+of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a
+library makes it available only for free programs.</p>
+<p>
+Which license is best for a given library is a matter of strategy, and
+it depends on the details of the situation. At present, most GNU
+libraries are covered by the Lesser GPL, and that means we are using
+only one of these two strategies, neglecting the other. So we are
+now seeking more libraries to release <strong>under the ordinary
GPL</strong>.</p>
+<p>
+Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free
+software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the
+ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage
+over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while
+proprietary developers cannot use it.</p>
+<p>
+Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There
+are reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain
+cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are
+readily available for proprietary software through other alternative
+libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any
+particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that
+library.</p>
+<p>
+This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all,
+there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would
+have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem
+for them, only for us.</p>
+<p>
+However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like
+GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline
+library implements input editing and history for interactive programs,
+and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it
+under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our
+community a real boost. At least one application program is free
+software today specifically because that was necessary for using
+Readline.</p>
+<p>
+If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have
+no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a
+range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free
+programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free
+software development, and some projects will decide to make software
+free in order to use these libraries. University projects can easily
+be influenced; nowadays, as companies begin to consider making
+software free, even some commercial projects can be influenced in this
+way.</p>
+<p>
+Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition
+an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute
+libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal
+to the ego, promising “more users for this library” if we
+let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is
+tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the
+idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the
+community needs above all.</p>
+<p>
+But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve
+much more if we stand together. We free software developers should
+support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free
+software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo
+the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will
+have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up
+better against the competition.</p>
+
+<!-- If needed, change the copyright block at the bottom. In general, -->
+<!-- all pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
+<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
+<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
+<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
+<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>
+Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.
+<br />
+Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Please see the
+<a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+translations of this article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright © 1999, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+</p>
+<address>51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA</address>
+<p>Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are
+permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this
+notice, and the copyright notice, are preserved.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2008/02/26 09:51:43 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<div id="translations">
+<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
+
+<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical. -->
+<!-- Comment what the language is for each type, i.e. de is Deutsch.-->
+<!-- If you add a new language here, please -->
+<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+<!-- - /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
+<!-- - /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+<!-- - one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+<!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
+<!-- <URL:http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm> -->
+<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities -->
+
+<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">English</a> [en]</li>
+<!-- Spanish -->
+<li><a href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.es.html">Español</a> [es]</li>
+<!-- French -->
+<li><a href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
+<!-- Indonesian -->
+<li><a href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.id.html">Bahasa
Indonesia</a> [id]</li>
+<!-- Japanese -->
+<li><a
href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.ja.html">日本語</a> [ja]</li>
+<!-- Korean -->
+<li><a
href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.ko.html">한국어</a> [ko]</li>
+<!-- Polish -->
+<li><a href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.pl.html">Polski</a> [pl]</li>
+<!-- Romanian -->
+<li><a
href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.ro.html">Română</a> [ro]</li>
+<!-- Russian -->
+<li><a
href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.ru.html">Русский</a> [ru]</li>
+<!-- Serbian -->
+<li><a
href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.sr.html">Српски</a> [sr]</li>
+<!-- Chinese(Simplified) -->
+<li><a
href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.zh-cn.html">简体中文</a> [zh-cn]</li>
+<!-- Chinese(Traditional) -->
+<li><a
href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.zh-tw.html">繁體中文</a> [zh-tw]</li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: philosophy/not-ipr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/not-ipr.html
diff -N philosophy/not-ipr.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/not-ipr.html 26 Feb 2008 09:51:43 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,277 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<title>Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive
Mirage - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive
Mirage</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard M. Stallman</a></p>
+
+<p>
+It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks
+— three separate and different entities involving three separate
+and different sets of laws — into one pot and call it
+“intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term
+did not arise by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion
+promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the
+term entirely.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School,
+the widespread use of the term “intellectual property” is
+a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World “Intellectual
+Property” Organization, and only became really common in recent
+years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the
+interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.)
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking
+about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property
+rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal
+philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law,
+but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like
+physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to
+change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the
+companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the
+bias of “intellectual property” suits them.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The bias is enough reason to reject the term, and people have often
+asked me to propose some other name for the overall category —
+or have proposed their own alternatives (often humorous). Suggestions
+include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for
+Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies. Some speak of
+“exclusive rights regimes”, but referring to restrictions
+as “rights” is doublethink too.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a
+mistake to replace “intellectual property” with any other
+term. A different name will not address the term's deeper problem:
+overgeneralization. There is no such unified thing as
+“intellectual property”—it is a mirage. The only
+reason people think it makes sense as a coherent category is that
+widespread use of the term gives that impression.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to
+lump together disparate laws. Non-lawyers who hear one term applied to
+these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common
+principle, and function similarly.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Nothing could be further from the case.
+These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different
+activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers
+the details of expression of a work. Patent law was intended to
+promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the
+one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price
+that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular
+way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are
+buying. Legislators under the influence of “intellectual
+property”, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides
+incentives for advertising.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Since these laws developed independently, they are different in every
+detail, as well as in their basic purposes and methods. Thus, if you
+learn some fact about copyright law, you'd be wise to assume that
+patent law is different. You'll rarely go wrong!
+</p>
+
+<p>
+People often say “intellectual property” when they really
+mean some larger or smaller category. For instance, rich countries
+often impose unjust laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of
+them. Some of these laws are “intellectual property” laws,
+and others are not; nonetheless, critics of the practice often grab
+for that label because it has become familiar to them. By using it,
+they misrepresent the nature of the issue. It would be better to use
+an accurate term, such as “legislative colonization”, that
+gets to the heart of the matter.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Laymen are not alone in being confused by this term. Even law
+professors who teach these laws are lured by, and distracted by, the
+seductiveness of the term “intellectual property”, and
+make general statements that conflict with facts they know. For
+example, one professor wrote in 2006:
+</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+Unlike their descendants who now work the floor at WIPO, the framers
+of the US constitution had a principled, pro-competitive attitude to
+intellectual property. They knew rights might be necessary,
+but…they tied congress's hands, restricting its power in
+multiple ways.
+</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>
+That statement refers to the article 1 section 8, clause 8 in the US
+Constitution, which authorizes copyright law and patent law. That
+clause, though, has nothing to do with trademark law. The term
+“intellectual property” led that professor into a false
+generalization.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “intellectual property” also leads to simplistic
+thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form
+that these disparate laws have—that they create artificial
+privileges for certain parties—and to disregard the details
+which form their substance: the specific restrictions each law places
+on the public, and the consequences that result. This simplistic focus
+on the form encourages an “economistic” approach to all
+these issues.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Economics operates here, as it often does, as a vehicle for unexamined
+assumptions. These include assumptions about values, such as that
+amount of production matters, while freedom and way of life do not,
+and factual assumptions which are mostly false, such as that
+copyrights on music supports musicians, or that patents on drugs
+support life-saving research.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Another problem is that, at the broad scale of “intellectual
+property”, the specific issues raised by the various laws become
+nearly invisible. These issues arise from the specifics of each
+law—precisely what the term “intellectual property”
+encourages people to ignore. For instance, one issue relating to
+copyright law is whether music sharing should be allowed. Patent law
+has nothing to do with this. Patent law raises issues such as whether
+poor countries should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell
+them cheaply to save lives. Copyright law has nothing to do with such
+matters.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Neither of these issues is solely economic in nature, and their
+noneconomic aspects are very different; using the shallow economic
+overgeneralization as the basis for considering them means ignoring the
+differences. Putting the two laws in the “intellectual
+property” pot obstructs clear thinking about each one.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Thus, any opinions about “the issue of intellectual
+property” and any generalizations about this supposed category
+are almost surely foolish. If you think all those laws are one issue,
+you will tend to choose your opinions from a selection of sweeping
+overgeneralizations, none of which is any good.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or
+copyrights, or trademarks, the first step is to forget the idea of
+lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics. The second
+step is to reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic picture the
+term “intellectual property” suggests. Consider each of
+these issues separately, in its fullness, and you have a chance of
+considering them well.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+And when it comes to reforming WIPO, among other things
+<a href="http://www.fsfeurope.org/documents/wiwo.html";>let's call for
+changing its name</a>.
+</p>
+</div>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>
+Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.
+<br />
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Please see the
+<a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+translations of this article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright © 2004, 2006 Richard M. Stallman
+<br />
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
+permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided
+this notice is preserved.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2008/02/26 09:51:43 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<div id="translations">
+<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
+
+<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
+<!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
+<!-- If you do not have it English, please comment what the -->
+<!-- English is. If you add a new language here, please -->
+<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+<!-- - in /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
+<!-- - in /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+<!-- one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+<!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
+<!-- http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm -->
+<!-- Please use xhtml normative character entities, instead of -->
+<!-- non-w3c entities. xhtml should be XML compliant -->
+
+<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- Afrikaans -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.af.html">Afrikaans</a> [af]</li>
+<!-- German -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.de.html">Deutsch</a> [de]</li>
+<!-- Greek -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/not-ipr.el.html">Ελληνικά</a> [el]</li>
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">English</a> [en]</li>
+<!-- Spanish -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.es.html">Español</a> [es]</li>
+<!-- French -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
+<!-- Italian -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.it.html">Italiano</a> [it]</li>
+<!-- Japanese -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/not-ipr.ja.html">日本語</a> [ja]</li>
+<!-- Dutch -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.nl.html">Nederlands</a> [nl]</li>
+<!-- Polish -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.pl.html">Polski</a> [pl]</li>
+<!-- Tamil -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/not-ipr.ta.html">தமிழ்</a> [ta]</li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>