[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
trans-coord/gnun/licenses gpl-faq.html
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
trans-coord/gnun/licenses gpl-faq.html |
|
Date: |
Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:10:55 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /sources/trans-coord
Module name: trans-coord
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 11/01/04 19:10:55
Modified files:
gnun/licenses : gpl-faq.html
Log message:
Automatic sync from the master www repository.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/licenses/gpl-faq.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.24&r2=1.25
Patches:
Index: gpl-faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/licenses/gpl-faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.24
retrieving revision 1.25
diff -u -b -r1.24 -r1.25
--- gpl-faq.html 28 Jul 2010 18:10:07 -0000 1.24
+++ gpl-faq.html 4 Jan 2011 19:10:55 -0000 1.25
@@ -272,6 +272,10 @@
“Version 3 of the GPL or any later
version”?</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#OnlyLatestVersion">Is it a good idea to use a
+ license saying that a certain program can be used only under the
+ latest version of the GNU GPL?</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
@@ -637,7 +641,7 @@
<dl>
-<dt><b><a name="WhatDoesGPLStandFor">What does “GPL” stand
for?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="WhatDoesGPLStandFor">What does “GPL” stand for?</dt>
<dd><p>“GPL” stands for “General Public License”.
The most widespread such license is the GNU General Public License, or GNU
@@ -645,16 +649,16 @@
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>
+<dt id="DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL">Does free software mean using
+the GPL?</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>
+<dt id="WhyUseGPL">Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than other
+free software licenses?</dt>
<dd><p>Using the GNU GPL will require that all
the <a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">released improved versions be free
@@ -664,8 +668,8 @@
<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>
+<dt id="DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense">Does all GNU
+software use the GNU GPL as its license?</dt>
<dd><p>
Most GNU software packages use the GNU GPL, but there are a few
@@ -674,8 +678,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware">Does using the
+GPL for a program make it GNU software?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Anyone can release a program under the GNU GPL but that does not
@@ -688,8 +692,8 @@
<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>
+<dt id="ReportingViolation">What should I do if I discover a possible
+violation of the GPL?</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
@@ -701,8 +705,8 @@
maintainer.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions">
-Why does the GPL permit users to publish their modified versions?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions">Why
+does the GPL permit users to publish their modified versions?</dt>
<dd>
<p>A crucial aspect of free software is that users are free to cooperate.
@@ -726,8 +730,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">Does the GPL require that
+source code of modified versions be posted to the public?</dt>
<dd>
<p>The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any
@@ -745,24 +749,24 @@
it is up to you.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">Can I have a GPL-covered
+<dt id="GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">Can I have a GPL-covered
program and an unrelated non-free program on the same
-computer?</a></b></dt>
+computer?</dt>
<dd><p>Yes.</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="CanIDemandACopy">If I know
+<dt id="CanIDemandACopy">If I know
someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give
- me a copy?</a></b></dt>
+ me a copy?</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
+<dt id="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>
+ matter what?</dt>
<dd>
<p>If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody
@@ -781,9 +785,9 @@
can order the source code from you.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">GPLv2 says that modified
+<dt id="TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">GPLv2 says that modified
versions, if released, must be “licensed … to all third
-parties.” Who are these third parties?</a></b></dt>
+parties.” Who are these third parties?</dt>
<dd><p>Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be
licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third
@@ -792,9 +796,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="RequiredToClaimCopyright">Am I required to claim a copyright
+ on my modifications to a GPL-covered program?</dt>
<dd>
You are not required to claim a copyright on your changes. In most
@@ -809,10 +812,9 @@
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a
- name="CombinePublicDomainWithGPL">If a program combines
+<dt id="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>
+ public-domain part and use it as public domain code?</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
@@ -820,8 +822,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowMoney">Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of
+the program for money?</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
@@ -831,9 +833,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee">Does the GPL allow me to charge a
+ fee for downloading the program from my site?</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
@@ -842,9 +843,9 @@
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>
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee">Does the GPL allow me to require
+ that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or
+ notify me?</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
@@ -857,10 +858,9 @@
pay anyone a fee for doing so.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a
- name="DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic">If I
+<dt id="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>
+ it available to the public without a charge?</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.
@@ -868,9 +868,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowNDA">Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies
+ under a nondisclosure agreement?</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
@@ -886,9 +885,8 @@
</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>
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA">Does the GPL allow me to distribute a
+ modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?</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
@@ -897,9 +895,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="DevelopChangesUnderNDA">Does the GPL allow me to develop a
+ modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?</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.
@@ -916,9 +913,9 @@
but does <em>have</em> the right.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="IWantCredit">I want to get credit
+<dt id="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>
+ credit if I use the GPL?</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
@@ -926,8 +923,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL
+ require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the
program?</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>
@@ -943,16 +940,15 @@
the program.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="WhatIfWorkIsShort">What
- if the work is not much longer than the license itself?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="WhatIfWorkIsShort">What
+ if the work is not much longer than the license itself?</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>
+<dt id="GPLOmitPreamble">Can I omit the preamble of the GPL, or the
+ instructions for how to use it on your own programs, to save
+ space?</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
@@ -967,8 +963,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="WhatIsCompatible">What does it
+ mean to say that two licenses are “compatible”?</dt>
<dd>
<p>In order to combine two programs (or substantial parts of them) into a
@@ -985,8 +981,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="WhatDoesCompatMean">What does it mean to say a license is
+“compatible with the GPL?”</dt>
<dd>
<p>It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can
@@ -1005,8 +1001,8 @@
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="FSWithNFLibs">Can I write
-free software that uses non-free libraries?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="FSWithNFLibs">Can I write
+free software that uses non-free libraries?</dt>
<dd>
If you do this, your program won't be fully usable in a free
@@ -1034,9 +1030,9 @@
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="GPLIncompatibleLibs">What
+<dt id="GPLIncompatibleLibs">What
legal issues come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL
-software?</a></b></dt>
+software?</dt>
<dd>
@@ -1172,9 +1168,9 @@
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="HowIGetCopyright">How do I
+<dt id="HowIGetCopyright">How do I
get a copyright on my program in order to release it under the
- GPL?</a></b></dt>
+ GPL?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Under the Berne Convention, everything written is automatically
@@ -1200,9 +1196,9 @@
disclaimer.)
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="WhatIfSchool">What if my school
+<dt id="WhatIfSchool">What if my school
might want to make my program into its own proprietary software
- product?</a></b></dt>
+ product?</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
@@ -1224,16 +1220,16 @@
liberty, or never be born.”
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="CouldYouHelpApplyGPL">Could
+<dt id="CouldYouHelpApplyGPL">Could
you give me step by step instructions on how to apply the GPL to my
- program?</a></b></dt>
+ program?</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
+<dt id="HeardOtherLicense">I heard
that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program under another license. Is
- this possible?</a></b></dt>
+ this possible?</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
@@ -1245,9 +1241,9 @@
license that applies to your copy.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF">I
+<dt id="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>
+ like to use the same code in non-free programs.</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
@@ -1255,9 +1251,9 @@
non-exclusive licenses at various times.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="DeveloperViolate">Is the
+<dt id="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>
+ developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?</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
@@ -1269,18 +1265,16 @@
community.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a
- name="CanDeveloperThirdParty">Can the developer of a program who
+<dt id="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>
+ exclusive use?</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
+<dt id="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>
+ such as GCC to compile them?</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,
@@ -1300,8 +1294,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="GPLFairUse">Do I have “fair use”
+ rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?</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
@@ -1313,8 +1307,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="GPLUSGov">Can the US Government
+ release a program under the GNU GPL?</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
@@ -1330,8 +1324,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="GPLUSGovAdd">Can the US Government
+ release improvements to a GPL-covered program?</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
@@ -1342,10 +1336,10 @@
improvements themselves can be GPL-covered.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="GPLOutput">Is there some way that
+<dt id="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>
+ these designs must be free?</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
@@ -1368,14 +1362,14 @@
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>
+<dt id="WhatCaseIsOutputGPL">In what cases is the output of a GPL program
covered by the GPL too?</dt>
<dd><p>Only when the program copies part of itself into the
output.</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="GPLModuleLicense">If I add
+<dt id="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>
+ license for my module?</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
@@ -1388,18 +1382,18 @@
list of GPL-compatible licenses.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="IfLibraryIsGPL">If a library
+<dt id="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 or a GPL-compatible
- license?</a></b></dt>
+ license?</dt>
<dd><p>Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the
library.</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="IfInterpreterIsGPL">If a
+<dt id="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>
+ GPL-compatible licenses?</dt>
<dd><p>
When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The
@@ -1435,12 +1429,11 @@
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
+<dt id="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>
+ GPL?</dt>
<dd>
<p>The GPL permits this because that run-time library normally accompanies
@@ -1456,8 +1449,8 @@
by Windows.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="OrigBSD">Why is the original BSD
-license incompatible with the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="OrigBSD">Why is the original BSD
+license incompatible with the GPL?</dt>
<dd>
<p>
@@ -1475,9 +1468,9 @@
eliminates the problem.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="GPLAndPlugins">If a program
+<dt id="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>
+ the licenses of a plug-in?</dt>
<dd>
<p>It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program
@@ -1499,8 +1492,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="GPLPluginsInNF">Can I apply the
+GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?</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
@@ -1520,9 +1513,9 @@
writing free software that uses a non-free library.</a>
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="NFUseGPLPlugins">Can I
+<dt id="NFUseGPLPlugins">Can I
release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered
-plug-in?</a></b></dt>
+plug-in?</dt>
<dd>
<p>It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if
@@ -1551,10 +1544,10 @@
writing free software that uses a non-free library.</a>
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="LinkingWithGPL">You have a
+<dt id="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>
+ I have to GPL my program?</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
@@ -1562,9 +1555,9 @@
link). The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="SwitchToLGPL">If so, is there
+<dt id="SwitchToLGPL">If so, is there
any chance I could get a license of your program under the Lesser
- GPL?</a></b></dt>
+ GPL?</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
@@ -1575,10 +1568,9 @@
<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
+<dt id="LinkingOverControlledInterface">How can I allow linking of
proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a controlled
- interface only?</a></b></dt>
+ interface only?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Add this text to the license notice of each file in the package, at
@@ -1617,11 +1609,10 @@
copyright holders of those programs.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a
- name="ManyDifferentLicenses">I have written an application that links
+<dt id="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>
+ program. Can you please tell me what licenses I may use?</dt>
<dd>
<p>To answer this question, we would need to see a list of each component
@@ -1637,9 +1628,9 @@
</ul>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="MereAggregation">What is the difference between an
+<dt id="MereAggregation">What is the difference between an
“aggregate” and other kinds of “modified
- versions”?</a></b></dt>
+ versions”?</dt>
<dd>
<p>An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs,
@@ -1671,10 +1662,10 @@
program.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="AssignCopyright">Why does
+<dt id="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>
+ I do this, too? If so, how?</dt>
<dd>
Our lawyers have told us that to be in the <a
href="/licenses/why-assign.html">best position to enforce
@@ -1698,8 +1689,8 @@
you want more information.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="ModifyGPL">Can I modify the GPL
- and make a modified license?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="ModifyGPL">Can I modify the GPL
+ and make a modified license?</dt>
<dd>
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
@@ -1721,10 +1712,10 @@
free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="GPLCommercially">If I use a
+<dt id="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>
+ distribute and sell that new program commercially?</dt>
<dd>
You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially,
@@ -1738,9 +1729,8 @@
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a
-name="GPLOtherThanSoftware">Can I use the GPL for something other than
-software?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="GPLOtherThanSoftware">Can I use the GPL for something other than
+software?</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
@@ -1753,19 +1743,18 @@
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a
-name="LGPLJava">How does the LGPL
- work with Java?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="LGPLJava">How does the LGPL
+ work with Java?</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:
+<dt id="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>
+ 3) X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license. Does X need Y's
permission?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Yes. Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a
@@ -1775,9 +1764,8 @@
</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>
+<dt id="GPLInProprietarySystem">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered
+ software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?</dt>
<dd>
You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system.
@@ -1820,11 +1808,11 @@
side by side, their rights will be clear.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="GPLWrapper">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in
+<dt id="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>
+part?</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.
@@ -1837,8 +1825,8 @@
what matters is the fact that module C is included in the whole.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="LibGCCException">Where can I learn more about the GCC
- Runtime Library Exception?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="LibGCCException">Where can I learn more about the GCC
+ Runtime Library Exception?</dt>
<dd><p>The GCC Runtime Library Exception covers libgcc, libstdc++,
libfortran, libgomp, libdecnumber, and other libraries distributed
@@ -1849,12 +1837,12 @@
<a href="/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html">FAQ about the GCC
Runtime Library Exception</a>.</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="MoneyGuzzlerInc">I'd like to
+<dt id="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>
+ GPL permit this?</dt>
<dd>
There are two reasons for this.
@@ -1875,12 +1863,12 @@
to change and recompile the program.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="GPLIncompatibleAlone">If
+<dt id="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>
+program?</dt>
<dd>
If a program P is released under the GPL that means *any and every part of
@@ -1901,9 +1889,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="ModifiedJustBinary">Can I release a modified
+ version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?</dt>
<dd>
<p>No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions
must be <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">
@@ -1912,19 +1899,18 @@
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a
- name="UnchangedJustBinary">I
+<dt id="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>
+ do I have to get the source and distribute that too?</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
+<dt id="DistributeWithSourceOnInternet">I want to distribute
binaries via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide
- source code by FTP?</a></b></dt>
+ source code by FTP?</dt>
<dd>
@@ -1938,10 +1924,9 @@
</dd>
-<dt><b><a
- name="RedistributedBinariesGetSource">My friend got a GPL-covered
+<dt id="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>
+ Can I use the offer myself to obtain the source?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Yes, you can. The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy
@@ -1950,20 +1935,18 @@
binary—so you can take advantage of it.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a
- name="SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites">Can I put the binaries on my
+<dt id="SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites">Can I put the binaries on my
Internet server and put the source on a different Internet
- site?</a></b></dt>
+ site?</dt>
<dd><p>Yes. Section 6(d) allows this. However, you must provide
clear instructions people can follow to obtain the source, and you
must take care to make sure that the source remains available for
as long as you distribute the object code.</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a
- name="DistributeExtendedBinary">I want to distribute an extended
+<dt id="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>
+ distribute the source for the original version?</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
@@ -1979,10 +1962,10 @@
the improved source code under the GPL.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="DistributingSourceIsInconvenient">I want to distribute
+<dt id="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>
+ the binaries?</dt>
<dd><p>This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the
source doesn't really do the job.</p>
@@ -1996,9 +1979,9 @@
the binaries.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="AnonFTPAndSendSources">Can I make binaries available
+<dt id="AnonFTPAndSendSources">Can I make binaries available
on a network server, but send sources only to people who order
- them?</a></b></dt>
+ them?</dt>
<dd><p>If you make object code available on a network server, you have
to provide the Corresponding Source on a network server as well.
@@ -2015,9 +1998,8 @@
</dd>
-<dt><b><a
- name="HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource">How can I make sure each
- user who downloads the binaries also gets the source?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource">How can I make sure each
+ user who downloads the binaries also gets the source?</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
@@ -2029,10 +2011,10 @@
source code even if they don't want it.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="UnreleasedMods">A company
+<dt id="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>
+ sources?</dt>
<dd>
<p>The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without
@@ -2049,9 +2031,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="InternalDistribution">Is making and using multiple copies
+ within one organization or company “distribution”?</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
@@ -2065,9 +2046,9 @@
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="StolenCopy">If someone steals
+<dt id="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>
+ give him the right to redistribute that version?</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,
@@ -2082,9 +2063,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="TradeSecretRelease">What if a company distributes a copy as
+ a trade secret?</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
@@ -2093,9 +2073,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">Why are some GNU libraries released under
+ the ordinary GPL rather than the Lesser GPL?</dt>
<dd>
Using the Lesser GPL for any particular library constitutes a retreat
@@ -2120,11 +2099,10 @@
explanation</a> of how we judge the question.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a
- name="WillYouMakeAnException">Using a certain GNU program under the
+<dt id="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>
+ program.</dt>
<dd>
Sorry, we don't make such exceptions. It would not be right.
@@ -2145,8 +2123,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="VersionThreeOrLater">Why should programs say “Version
+3 of the GPL or any later version”?</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
@@ -2184,9 +2162,34 @@
preference.
</p></dd>
+<dt id="OnlyLatestVersion">Is it a good idea to use a license saying
+ that a certain program can be used only under the latest version
+ of the GNU GPL?</dt>
+
+<dd><p>The reason you shouldn't do that is that it could result some
+day in withdrawing automatically some permissions that the users
+previously had.</p>
+
+<p>Suppose a program was released in 2000 under “the latest GPL
+version”. At that time, people could have used it under GPLv2.
+The day we published GPLv3 in 2007, everyone would have been suddenly
+compelled to use it under GPLv3 instead.</p>
+
+<p>Some users may not even have known about GPL version 3—but
+they would have been required to use it. They could have violated the
+program's license unintentionally just because they did not get the
+news. That's a bad way to treat people.</p>
+
+<p>We think it is wrong to take back permissions already granted,
+except due to a violation. If your freedom could be revoked, then it
+isn't really freedom. Thus, if you get a copy of a program version
+under one version of a license, you should <em>always</em> have the
+rights granted by that version of the license. Releasing under
+“GPL version N or any later version” upholds that
+principle.</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why
-don't you use the GPL for manuals?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why
+don't you use the GPL for manuals?</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>
@@ -2217,8 +2220,8 @@
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="FontException">How does the
-GPL apply to fonts?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="FontException">How does the
+GPL apply to fonts?</dt>
<dd>
@@ -2246,11 +2249,11 @@
</p></blockquote></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="WMS">I am writing a website maintenance system</a>
+<dt id="WMS">I am writing a website maintenance system
(called a “<a href="/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>
+those templates?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Templates are minor enough that it is not worth using copyleft to
@@ -2286,8 +2289,8 @@
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="NonFreeTools">Can I release
- a program under the GPL which I developed using non-free
tools?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="NonFreeTools">Can I release
+ a program under the GPL which I developed using non-free tools?</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
@@ -2304,8 +2307,8 @@
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="GPLTranslations">Are there
-translations of the GPL into other languages?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="GPLTranslations">Are there
+translations of the GPL into other languages?</dt>
<dd>
<p>It would be useful to have translations of the GPL into languages
@@ -2375,9 +2378,9 @@
</ul>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="InterpreterIncompat">If
+<dt id="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>
+with the GPL, can I run GPL-covered programs on it?</dt>
<dd>
<p>When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is yes.
@@ -2411,8 +2414,8 @@
</ol>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="WhoHasThePower">Who has the
-power to enforce the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="WhoHasThePower">Who has the
+power to enforce the GPL?</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
@@ -2424,19 +2427,19 @@
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="OOPLang">In an object-oriented
+<dt id="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>
+program?</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
+<dt id="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>
+Software under the GPL or some other Free Software license?</dt>
<dd>
<p>In general, the answer is no—this is not a legal requirement. In
@@ -2464,10 +2467,9 @@
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>
+<dt id="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?</dt>
<dd>
<p>No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for
@@ -2483,10 +2485,10 @@
the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="ReleaseNotOriginal">Can
+<dt id="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>
+original itself under the GPL?</dt>
<dd><p>No. Such a license would be self-contradictory. Let's look at its
implications for me as a user.</p>
@@ -2507,9 +2509,9 @@
</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="DistributeSubsidiary">Does moving a copy to a
+<dt id="DistributeSubsidiary">Does moving a copy to a
majority-owned, and controlled, subsidiary constitute
-distribution?</a></b></dt>
+distribution?</dt>
<dd>
<p>
Whether moving a copy to or from this subsidiary constitutes
@@ -2527,9 +2529,9 @@
</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="ClickThrough">Can software installers ask people
+<dt id="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>
+ do I have to agree to anything?</dt>
<dd>
<p>
Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to
@@ -2546,20 +2548,20 @@
</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="GPLCompatInstaller">I would
+<dt id="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>
+ Does that installer need to have a GPL-compatible license?</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="ExportWarranties">Some distributors of GPL'd software
+<dt id="ExportWarranties">Some distributors of GPL'd software
require me in their umbrella EULAs or as part of their downloading
process to “represent and warrant” that I am located in
the US or that I intend to distribute the software in compliance with
relevant export control laws. Why are they doing this and is it a
-violation of those distributors' obligations under GPL?</a></b></dt>
+violation of those distributors' obligations under GPL?</dt>
<dd><p>This is not a violation of the GPL. Those distributors (almost
all of whom are commercial businesses selling free software
@@ -2596,9 +2598,9 @@
violate GPL unless they add contractual restrictions beyond those
permitted by GPL.</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="SubscriptionFee">Can I use
+<dt id="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>
+not continue paying a subscription fee?</dt>
<dd>
<p>No. In this scenario, the requirement to keep paying a fee limits
@@ -2606,8 +2608,8 @@
requirement on top of the GPL, and the license prohibits it.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="v3HowToUpgrade">How do I upgrade from (L)GPLv2 to
-(L)GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="v3HowToUpgrade">How do I upgrade from (L)GPLv2 to
+(L)GPLv3?</dt>
<dd><p>First, include the new version of the license in your package.
If you're using LGPLv3 in your project, be sure to include copies
@@ -2624,8 +2626,8 @@
the package's license should also be updated appropriately.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="BitTorrent">How does GPLv3 make
-BitTorrent distribution easier?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="BitTorrent">How does GPLv3 make
+BitTorrent distribution easier?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Because GPLv2 was written before peer-to-peer distribution of
@@ -2648,8 +2650,8 @@
distributor.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="Tivoization">What is
-tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent it?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="Tivoization">What is
+tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent it?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are
@@ -2667,8 +2669,8 @@
music players, digital video recorders, and home security systems.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="DRMProhibited">Does GPLv3
-prohibit DRM?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="DRMProhibited">Does GPLv3
+prohibit DRM?</dt>
<dd>
<p>It does not; you can use code released under GPLv3 to develop any
@@ -2681,8 +2683,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="GPLHardware">Can I use the GPL
+to license hardware?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL.
@@ -2695,9 +2697,9 @@
itself.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="GiveUpKeys">I use public key
+<dt id="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>
+that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?</dt>
<dd>
<p>No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is
@@ -2710,9 +2712,9 @@
give each purchaser the key for his instance.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="v3VotingMachine">Does
+<dt id="v3VotingMachine">Does
GPLv3 require that voters be able to modify the software running in a
-voting machine?</a></b></dt>
+voting machine?</dt>
<dd>
<p>No. Companies distributing devices that include software under
@@ -2727,9 +2729,8 @@
voting. Voting should be done on paper.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a
-name="v3PatentRetaliation">Does GPLv3 have a “patent retaliation
-clause”?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="v3PatentRetaliation">Does GPLv3 have a “patent retaliation
+clause”?</dt>
<dd>
<p>In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the
@@ -2738,20 +2739,19 @@
and any patent licenses that accompanied it.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a
-name="SourceCodeInDocumentation">Can I use snippets of GPL-covered
+<dt id="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>
+that is incompatible with the GPL?</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
+<dt id="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>
+the conditions of section 6. What does that mean?</dt>
<dd>
<p>This means that all the permissions and conditions you have to
@@ -2759,14 +2759,13 @@
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.
+<dt id="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>
+user?</dt>
<dd>
<p>No. When you convey GPLed software, you must follow the terms and
@@ -2783,20 +2782,19 @@
defend ourselves against such an attack.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a
-name="LGPLv3ContributorVersion">If I distribute a proprietary
+<dt id="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>
+combination?</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>
+<dt id="v2v3Compatibility">Is
+GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?</dt>
<dd>
<p>No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to
@@ -2808,28 +2806,26 @@
permits.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="Cure">What does it mean to “cure” a
-violation of GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="Cure">What does it mean to “cure” a
+violation of GPLv3?</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
+<dt id="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>
+disclaimers to my own code?</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
+<dt id="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>
+Appropriate Legal Notices requirement in GPLv3?</dt>
<dd>
<p>All you need to do is ensure that the Appropriate Legal Notices are
@@ -2838,10 +2834,9 @@
reads the notices aloud.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a
-name="v3CoworkerConveying">If I give a copy of a GPLv3-covered
+<dt id="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>
+him?</dt>
<dd>
<p>As long as you're both using the software in your work at the
@@ -2851,10 +2846,9 @@
available to others.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a
-name="v3ConditionalWarranty">If I distribute a GPLv3-covered
+<dt id="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>
+the program?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Yes. Just as devices do not need to be warranted if users modify
@@ -2863,9 +2857,9 @@
GPLv3-covered software.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="SeparateAffero">Why did you
+<dt id="SeparateAffero">Why did you
decide to write the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a separate
-license?</a></b></dt>
+license?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Early drafts of GPLv3 allowed licensors to add an Affero-like
@@ -2880,9 +2874,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="WhyPropagateAndConvey">Why did you invent the new terms
+“propagate” and “convey” in GPLv3?</dt>
<dd>
<p>The term “distribute” used in GPLv2 was borrowed from United
States
@@ -2894,10 +2887,10 @@
definitions directly in the license.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="NoMilitary">I'd like to license
+<dt id="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>
+this?</dt>
<dd>
<p>No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is
@@ -2906,9 +2899,9 @@
added restriction can be removed by the user.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="ConveyVsDistribute">Is
+<dt id="ConveyVsDistribute">Is
“convey” in GPLv3 the same thing as what GPLv2 means by
-“distribute”?</a></b></dt>
+“distribute”?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Yes, more or less. During the course of enforcing GPLv2, we
@@ -2918,10 +2911,10 @@
caused by these differences.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="v3MakingAvailable">GPLv3
+<dt id="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>
+conveying?</dt>
<dd>
<p>One example of “making available to the public” is putting the
@@ -2932,11 +2925,10 @@
to include this activity.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a
-name="PropagationNotConveying">Since distribution and making
+<dt id="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>
+constitute conveying?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Making copies of the software for yourself is the main form of
@@ -2944,9 +2936,9 @@
software on multiple computers, or to make backups.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="Prelinking">Does prelinking a
+<dt id="Prelinking">Does prelinking a
GPLed binary to various libraries on the system, to optimize its
-performance, count as modification?</a></b></dt>
+performance, count as modification?</dt>
<dd>
<p>No. Prelinking is part of a compilation process; it doesn't
@@ -2957,10 +2949,10 @@
section 6.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="LaptopLoan">If someone installs
+<dt id="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>
+GPL?</dt>
<dd>
<p>No. In the jurisdictions where we have investigated this issue,
@@ -2968,12 +2960,11 @@
would not have any obligations under the GPL.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a
-name="TwoPartyTivoization">Suppose that two companies try to
+<dt id="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>
+this a violation of GPLv3?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Yes. If two parties try to work together to get around the
@@ -2983,10 +2974,10 @@
secondary infringement.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="SourceInCVS">Am I complying
+<dt id="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>
+CVS or Subversion?</dt>
<dd>
<p>This is acceptable as long as the source checkout process does not
@@ -2999,10 +2990,10 @@
code, after all.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="RemoteAttestation">Can
+<dt id="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>
+software?</dt>
<dd>
<p>No. The definition of Installation Information, which must be
@@ -3015,9 +3006,9 @@
software to report itself as legitimate.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="RulesProtocols">What does
+<dt id="RulesProtocols">What does
“rules and protocols for communication across the network” mean in
-GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
+GPLv3?</dt>
<dd>
<p>This refers to rules about traffic you can send over the network. For
@@ -3031,11 +3022,10 @@
not display the messages.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a
-name="SupportService">Distributors that provide Installation
+<dt id="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>
+mean?</dt>
<dd>
<p>This includes the kind of service many device manufacturers provide to
@@ -3044,9 +3034,9 @@
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
+<dt id="v3Notwithstanding">In GPLv3 and AGPLv3, what does it mean
when it says “notwithstanding any other provision of this
- License”?</a></b></dt>
+ License”?</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
@@ -3062,9 +3052,9 @@
the license—instead they're carving out very limited exceptions.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="AGPLv3CorrespondingSource">Under AGPLv3, when I modify the
+<dt id="AGPLv3CorrespondingSource">Under AGPLv3, when I modify the
Program under section 13, what Corresponding Source does it have to
-offer?</a></b></dt>
+offer?</dt>
<dd><p> “Corresponding Source” is defined in section 1 of the
license, and you should provide what it lists. So, if your modified
@@ -3082,9 +3072,9 @@
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
+<dt id="AGPLv3InteractingRemotely">In AGPLv3, what counts as
“interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer
-network?”</a></b></dt>
+network?”</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
@@ -3099,9 +3089,9 @@
or a remote X session.
</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="ApacheLegalEntity">How does GPLv3's concept of
+<dt id="ApacheLegalEntity">How does GPLv3's concept of
“you” compare to the definition of “Legal Entity”
-in the Apache License 2.0?</a></b></dt>
+in the Apache License 2.0?</dt>
<dd><p>They're effectively identical. The definition of “Legal
Entity” in the Apache License 2.0 is very standard in various kinds
@@ -3110,8 +3100,8 @@
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>
+<dt id="v3TheProgram">In GPLv3, what does “the Program”
+refer to? Is it every program ever released under GPLv3?</dt>
<dd>
<p>The term “the Program” means one particular work that is
@@ -3128,16 +3118,16 @@
this.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><b><a name="NoDistributionRequirements">If I only make copies of a
+<dt id="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>
+others, what does the license require of me?</dt>
<dd><p>Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this
activity.</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="AGPLv3ServerAsUser">If some network client software is
+<dt id="AGPLv3ServerAsUser">If some network client software is
released under AGPLv3, does it have to be able to provide source to
-the servers it interacts with?</a></b></dt>
+the servers it interacts with?</dt>
<dd><p>This should not be required in any typical server-client
relationship. AGPLv3 requires a program to offer source code to
@@ -3157,8 +3147,8 @@
do—so there's no meaningful way for the server operator to be
considered a user of that software.</p></dd>
-<dt><b><a name="AllCompatibility">How are the various GNU licenses
-compatible with each other?</a></b></dt>
+<dt id="AllCompatibility">How are the various GNU licenses
+compatible with each other?</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
@@ -3329,42 +3319,44 @@
<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 id="compat-matrix-footnote-1">1: 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 id="compat-matrix-footnote-2">2: 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
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-3">3: 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 id="compat-matrix-footnote-4">4: 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
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-5">5: 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>
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-6">6: 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 id="compat-matrix-footnote-7">7: 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 id="compat-matrix-footnote-8">8: 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>
+<div id="matrix-skip-target"></div>
</dd>
@@ -3402,7 +3394,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/07/28 18:10:07 $
+$Date: 2011/01/04 19:10:55 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
- trans-coord/gnun/licenses gpl-faq.html,
Yavor Doganov <=