You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason not limited to patent issues , conditions are imposed on you whether by court order, agreement or otherwise that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License.
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms. To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
One line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does. If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.
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 incompatible with the GNU GPL , and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules.
The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself. These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.
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. A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program.
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. 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 nonfree programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.
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. 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.
But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear. The fact that proprietary module A communicates with GPL-covered module C only through Xlicensed module B is legally irrelevant; what matters is the fact that module C is included in the whole.
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. Giving all users access to the source code is one of our main goals, so this consequence is definitely something we want to avoid.
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. If the license of module Q permits you to give permission for that, then it is GPL-compatible. Otherwise, it is not GPL-compatible. 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.
So you cannot link or combine P with Q. When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine—that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post. If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy.
If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that. 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. 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.
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. 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. If you want to distribute binaries by anonymous FTP, you still have to provide source through one of the options listed in section 3. This should not be hard. You can provide a written offer for source if you want; section 3 b allows this. But if you can find a site to distribute your program, you can surely find one that has room for the sources. No matter how you distribute the source, 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. 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.
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.
It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. We are thinking about doing something like this in GPL version 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet.
In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use. 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. 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.
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. But this is not feasible. Once we use the LGPL for a particular library, changing back would be difficult.
So we decide which license to use for each library on a case-by-case basis. There is a long explanation of how we judge the question. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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 2.
If a tighter requirement in a new version of the GPL need not be obeyed for existing software, how is it useful? Then users will have to follow the tighter requirements in GPL version 3, for subsequent versions of the program. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes.
Yes, to people to whom you have distributed the binary. Improve this answer. Keep in mind that the first user of the software is going to have to pay for it, if you refuse to license your software to anyone under the GPL except for payment and you start out with the only copy.
So you might want to set a high initial price. For it to be GPLv2, I need provide access to my source files? It would not make sense. Actually, it is perfectly possible to charge money and make profit off GPLv2-licensed software: Just because the GPLv2 allows your users to re-distribute the software doesn't mean they will.
Some corporate users want to pay for software, or actually, they want to pay for the possibility of having a contract with someone that they can sue if the software turns out to hurt their business in some way. You don't sell the software, you sell support and services related to the software.
Maybe you give training on how to efficiently use the software, maybe you give extended support contracts, maybe you sell bespoke feature development. A lot of high-profile projects have an "open core" model, where the core and basic functionality is open source, but the real value of the product is in extensions and plugins, some of which are commercial and proprietary. Note that if your product includes third-party GPLv2 code then you do have to release the source to comply with the third party's license.
Basically, a larger work that includes the licensed code can be distributed without disclosing the source code of the additions. Modifications of any existing files, however, must be released under GPL 2. Like the Mozilla Public License 2. But it also comes with a few requirements that go beyond those of the GPL v2. By using this license, you encourage other developers to improve upon your work, add to it, and create the best version possible.
You also avoid the possibility of a company taking your work, tweaking it slightly, then making it proprietary. One reason a company may choose to incorporate GPL v2-licensed code is, as mentioned, that many innovative developers and open source projects find the license appealing. The code resulting from cooperation and knowledge-sharing may be more valuable and effective than a project built in a more closed-off developer ecosystem.
0コメント