[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/licenses gpl-faq.ru.html quick-guide-gplv3....
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/licenses gpl-faq.ru.html quick-guide-gplv3.... |
|
Date: |
Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:42:12 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 11/11/15 09:42:12
Modified files:
licenses : gpl-faq.ru.html quick-guide-gplv3.ca.html
quick-guide-gplv3.fr.html translations.pl.html
licenses/po : translations.pl-en.html
Added files:
licenses/po : gpl-faq.ru-en.html quick-guide-gplv3.ca-en.html
quick-guide-gplv3.fr-en.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gpl-faq.ru.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.ca.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.fr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/translations.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.95&r2=1.96
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/translations.pl-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/gpl-faq.ru-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/quick-guide-gplv3.ca-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/quick-guide-gplv3.fr-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: gpl-faq.ru.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gpl-faq.ru.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- gpl-faq.ru.html 30 Oct 2011 16:34:52 -0000 1.1
+++ gpl-faq.ru.html 15 Nov 2011 09:41:57 -0000 1.2
@@ -2317,6 +2317,7 @@
пÑовеÑÑи ÑеÑÑÑ Ð¼ÐµÐ¶Ð´Ñ Ð¿ÑогÑаммами на JavaScript
(Ñ Ð°Ð²ÑоÑÑким левом) и ÑекÑÑом
полÑзоваÑÐµÐ»Ñ (обÑÑно под неÑовмеÑÑимÑми
ÑÑловиÑми).</p>
+<!-- GNUN: localize URL /licenses/template-diagram.png -->
<p><a href="/licenses/template-diagram.png">
<img src="/licenses/template-diagram.png"
alt="СÑ
ема опиÑанного вÑÑе"/></a></p>
@@ -3515,11 +3516,13 @@
найденнÑÑ
оÑибкаÑ
в <a
href="http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-ru";>ÑÑÑÑкой гÑÑппе
пеÑеводов
gnu.org</a>.</em></div>
+
+
<p>
<!-- timestamp start -->
Ðбновлено:
-$Date: 2011/10/30 16:34:52 $
+$Date: 2011/11/15 09:41:57 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: quick-guide-gplv3.ca.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.ca.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- quick-guide-gplv3.ca.html 20 Sep 2011 17:13:21 -0000 1.9
+++ quick-guide-gplv3.ca.html 15 Nov 2011 09:41:57 -0000 1.10
@@ -180,6 +180,8 @@
programari lliure. El següent diagrama il·lustra algunes de les relacions
usuals de compatibilitat entre les diferents llicències de programari
lliure:</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN: localize URL /licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png -->
<img alt="Diagrama sobre les relacions de compatibilitat entre les diferents
llicències de programari lliure. Per a més detalls, vegeu la pà gina amb la
llista de llicències de la FSF." class="align-center"
src="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png" style="width: 594px;
height: 498px;" />
@@ -365,11 +367,13 @@
<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
Darrera actualització: <a href="http://www.puigpe.org/";>puigpe</a>, 25 de
juny de 2010.</div>
+
+
<p>
<!-- timestamp start -->
Updated:
-$Date: 2011/09/20 17:13:21 $
+$Date: 2011/11/15 09:41:57 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
@@ -395,15 +399,19 @@
<!-- use the 3-letter ISO 639-2. -->
<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities. -->
<!-- -->
-<!-- <gnun>
-<ul class="translations-list"> -->
+<!-- <ul class="translations-list">
+ -->
<!-- Catalan -->
-<!-- <li><a
href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.ca.html">Català</a> [ca]</li> -->
+<!-- <li>
+<a href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.ca.html">Català</a> [ca]</li>
-->
<!-- English -->
-<!-- <li><a href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html">English</a> [en]</li>
-->
+<!-- <li>
+<a href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html">English</a> [en]</li> -->
<!-- French -->
-<!-- <li><a
href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
-->
-<!-- </ul></gnun> -->
+<!-- <li>
+<a
href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
-->
+<!-- </ul>
+ -->
<!-- </div>
-->
</div>
Index: quick-guide-gplv3.fr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.fr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- quick-guide-gplv3.fr.html 2 Oct 2011 16:39:47 -0000 1.11
+++ quick-guide-gplv3.fr.html 15 Nov 2011 09:41:58 -0000 1.12
@@ -192,6 +192,8 @@
GPLv3 nourriront plus de coopération et de partage au sein de la communauté
du logiciel libre. Ce diagramme illustre certaines des relations usuelles de
compatibilité entre différentes licences de logiciels libres :</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN: localize URL /licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png -->
<img alt="Diagramme représentant les relations de compatibilités entre les
différentes
licences de logiciels libres." class="align-center"
src="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png" style="width: 594px;
height: 498px;" />
<p>Les flèches pointant d'une licence à une autre indique que la première
@@ -386,11 +388,13 @@
<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
Traduction : Marc Chauvet.<br />Révision : <a
href="mailto:trad-gnu@april.org";>trad-gnu@april.org</a></div>
+
+
<p>
<!-- timestamp start -->
Dernière mise à jour :
-$Date: 2011/10/02 16:39:47 $
+$Date: 2011/11/15 09:41:58 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
@@ -416,15 +420,19 @@
<!-- use the 3-letter ISO 639-2. -->
<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities. -->
<!-- -->
-<!-- <gnun>
-<ul class="translations-list"> -->
+<!-- <ul class="translations-list">
+ -->
<!-- Catalan -->
-<!-- <li><a
href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.ca.html">Català</a> [ca]</li> -->
+<!-- <li>
+<a href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.ca.html">Català</a> [ca]</li>
-->
<!-- English -->
-<!-- <li><a href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html">English</a> [en]</li>
-->
+<!-- <li>
+<a href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html">English</a> [en]</li> -->
<!-- French -->
-<!-- <li><a
href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
-->
-<!-- </ul></gnun> -->
+<!-- <li>
+<a
href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
-->
+<!-- </ul>
+ -->
<!-- </div>
-->
</div>
Index: translations.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/translations.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.95
retrieving revision 1.96
diff -u -b -r1.95 -r1.96
--- translations.pl.html 15 Nov 2011 01:34:01 -0000 1.95
+++ translations.pl.html 15 Nov 2011 09:41:58 -0000 1.96
@@ -323,11 +323,15 @@
-->
<li><code>[fa]</code> PrzekÅad LGPL na <a
href="http://www.kaveh.org/gnu/lgplv3-fa.html";>perski (farsi)</a></li>
- <li><!-- RT #705085 -->
+
+<!--#if expr=" a == b" -->
+<!-- commercial site RT #710854; comment out temporarily -->
+<li><!-- RT #705085 -->
<code>[sk]</code> PrzekÅad LGPL na sÅowacki: <a
href="http://www.lgpl.sk/slovensky--preklad-licencie--gnu-lesser--general-public-license--v-3-0.php";>HTML</a>,
<a href="http://www.gnulicencie.sk/GNU-LGPL-Slovak.pdf";>PDF</a></li>
+<!--#endif -->
<!-- links to hosting site
<li>
<code>[es]</code> <a
href="http://www.viti.es/gnu/licenses/lgpl.html";>Spanish</a>
@@ -516,7 +520,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2011/11/15 01:34:01 $
+$Date: 2011/11/15 09:41:58 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/translations.pl-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/po/translations.pl-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- po/translations.pl-en.html 15 Nov 2011 01:34:10 -0000 1.2
+++ po/translations.pl-en.html 15 Nov 2011 09:42:06 -0000 1.3
@@ -271,11 +271,14 @@
-->
<li><code>[fa]</code> <a
href="http://www.kaveh.org/gnu/lgplv3-fa.html";>Persian
(Farsi)</a> translation of the LGPL</li>
+<!--#if expr=" a == b" -->
+<!-- commercial site RT #710854; comment out temporarily -->
<li><code>[sk]</code> <!-- RT #705085 -->
Slovak translation of the LGPL: <a
href="http://www.lgpl.sk/slovensky--preklad-licencie--gnu-lesser--general-public-license--v-3-0.php";>
HTML</a>, <a
href="http://www.gnulicencie.sk/GNU-LGPL-Slovak.pdf";>PDF</a>.</li>
+<!--#endif -->
<!-- links to hosting site
<li><code>[es]</code> <a
href="http://www.viti.es/gnu/licenses/lgpl.html";>Spanish</a>
translation of the LGPL</li>
@@ -439,7 +442,7 @@
<p>Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2011/11/15 01:34:10 $
+$Date: 2011/11/15 09:42:06 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/gpl-faq.ru-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/gpl-faq.ru-en.html
diff -N po/gpl-faq.ru-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/gpl-faq.ru-en.html 15 Nov 2011 09:42:06 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,3571 @@
+<!--#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" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/gpl-faq.translist" -->
+
+<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>
+
+ <li><a href="#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></li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>Using GNU licenses for your programs</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li><a href="#v3HowToUpgrade">How do I upgrade from (L)GPLv2 to
+ (L)GPLv3?</a></li>
+
+ <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="#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
+ 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="#v3VotingMachine">Does GPLv3 require that voters be
+ able to modify the software running in a voting machine?</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">Can I make binaries
+ available on a network server, 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="#ExportWarranties">Does a distributor violate the GPL
+ if they require me 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?</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="#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>
+
+ <li><a href="#LibGCCException">Where can I learn more about the
+ GCC Runtime Library Exception?</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 software which uses it has to
+ be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?</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 id="WhatDoesGPLStandFor">What does “GPL” stand for?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatDoesGPLStandFor"
+ >#WhatDoesGPLStandFor</a>)</span></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 id="DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL">Does free software mean using
+ the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL"
+ >#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL</a>)</span></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 id="WhyUseGPL">Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than other
+ free software licenses?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyUseGPL"
+ >#WhyUseGPL</a>)</span></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 id="DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense">Does all GNU
+ software use the GNU GPL as its license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense"
+ >#DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense</a>)</span></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 id="DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware">Does using the
+ GPL for a program make it GNU software?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware"
+ >#DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware</a>)</span></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 id="ReportingViolation">What should I do if I discover a possible
+ violation of the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ReportingViolation"
+ >#ReportingViolation</a>)</span></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 id="WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions">Why
+ does the GPL permit users to publish their modified versions?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions"
+ >#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions</a>)</span></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 id="GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">Does the GPL require that
+ source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic"
+ >#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic</a>)</span></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 id="GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">Can I have a GPL-covered
+ program and an unrelated non-free program on the same computer?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine"
+ >#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>Yes.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="CanIDemandACopy">If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered
+ program, can I demand he give me a copy?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CanIDemandACopy"
+ >#CanIDemandACopy</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid"
+ >#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid</a>)</span></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 id="TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">GPLv2 says that modified
+ versions, if released, must be “licensed … to all third
+ parties.” Who are these third parties?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions"
+ >#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions</a>)</span></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 id="RequiredToClaimCopyright">Am I required to claim a copyright
+ on my modifications to a GPL-covered program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#RequiredToClaimCopyright"
+ >#RequiredToClaimCopyright</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+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>
+
+<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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL"
+ >#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL</a>)</span></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 id="DoesTheGPLAllowMoney">Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of
+ the program for money?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney"
+ >#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney</a>)</span></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 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
+“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 id="DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee">Does the GPL allow me to require
+ that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or
+ notify me?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee"
+ >#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">
+ (<a href="#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic"
+ >#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic</a>)</span></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 id="DoesTheGPLAllowNDA">Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies
+ under a nondisclosure agreement?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA"
+ >#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA</a>)</span></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 id="DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA">Does the GPL allow me to distribute a
+ modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA"
+ >#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA</a>)</span></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 id="DevelopChangesUnderNDA">Does the GPL allow me to develop a
+ modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DevelopChangesUnderNDA"
+ >#DevelopChangesUnderNDA</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#IWantCredit"
+ >#IWantCredit</a>)</span></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 id="WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL
+ require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyMustIInclude"
+ >#WhyMustIInclude</a>)</span></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 id="WhatIfWorkIsShort">What
+ if the work is not much longer than the license itself?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort"
+ >#WhatIfWorkIsShort</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLOmitPreamble"
+ >#GPLOmitPreamble</a>)</span></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 id="WhatIsCompatible">What does it
+ mean to say that two licenses are “compatible”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatIsCompatible"
+ >#WhatIsCompatible</a>)</span></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 id="WhatDoesCompatMean">What does it mean to say a license is
+ “compatible with the GPL?”
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatDoesCompatMean"
+ >#WhatDoesCompatMean</a>)</span></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 id="FSWithNFLibs">Can I write
+ free software that uses non-free libraries?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#FSWithNFLibs"
+ >#FSWithNFLibs</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+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>
+
+<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 id="GPLIncompatibleLibs">What legal issues
+ come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL software?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs"
+ >#GPLIncompatibleLibs</a>)</span></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 id="HowIGetCopyright">How do I get a copyright on my program
+ in order to release it under the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#HowIGetCopyright"
+ >#HowIGetCopyright</a>)</span></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 id="WhatIfSchool">What if my school
+ might want to make my program into its own proprietary software product?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatIfSchool"
+ >#WhatIfSchool</a>)</span></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 id="CouldYouHelpApplyGPL">Could
+ you give me step by step instructions on how to apply the GPL to my program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CouldYouHelpApplyGPL"
+ >#CouldYouHelpApplyGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+See the page of <a href="/licenses/gpl-howto.html">GPL
+instructions</a>.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="HeardOtherLicense">I heard that someone got a copy
+ of a GPL'ed program under another license. Is this possible?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#HeardOtherLicense"
+ >#HeardOtherLicense</a>)</span></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 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.
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF"
+ >#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DeveloperViolate"
+ >#DeveloperViolate</a>)</span></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 id="CanDeveloperThirdParty">Can the developer of a program who distributed
+ it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CanDeveloperThirdParty"
+ >#CanDeveloperThirdParty</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF"
+ >#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF</a>)</span></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 id="GPLFairUse">Do I have “fair use”
+ rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLFairUse"
+ >#GPLFairUse</a>)</span></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 id="GPLUSGov">Can the US Government release a program under the GNU GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLUSGov"
+ >#GPLUSGov</a>)</span></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 id="GPLUSGovAdd">Can the US Government
+ release improvements to a GPL-covered program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLUSGovAdd"
+ >#GPLUSGovAdd</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLOutput"
+ >#GPLOutput</a>)</span></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 id="WhatCaseIsOutputGPL">In what cases is the output of a GPL
+ program covered by the GPL too?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL"
+ >#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.</p></dd>
+
+
+<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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLModuleLicense"
+ >#GPLModuleLicense</a>)</span></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 id="IfLibraryIsGPL">If a library is released under the GPL
+ (not the LGPL), does that mean that any software which uses it
+ has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#IfLibraryIsGPL"
+ >#IfLibraryIsGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes, because the software as it is actually run includes the
+library.</p></dd>
+
+
+<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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#IfInterpreterIsGPL"
+ >#IfInterpreterIsGPL</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL"
+ >#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL</a>)</span></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 id="OrigBSD">Why is the original BSD
+ license incompatible with the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#OrigBSD"
+ >#OrigBSD</a>)</span></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 id="GPLAndPlugins">If a program
+ released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for
+ the licenses of a plug-in?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLAndPlugins"
+ >#GPLAndPlugins</a>)</span></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 id="GPLPluginsInNF">Can I apply the
+ GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLPluginsInNF"
+ >#GPLPluginsInNF</a>)</span></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 id="NFUseGPLPlugins">Can I release a non-free program
+ that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NFUseGPLPlugins"
+ >#NFUseGPLPlugins</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LinkingWithGPL"
+ >#LinkingWithGPL</a>)</span></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 id="SwitchToLGPL">If so, is there
+ any chance I could get a license of your program under the Lesser GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SwitchToLGPL"
+ >#SwitchToLGPL</a>)</span></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 id="LinkingOverControlledInterface">How can I allow linking of
+ proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a controlled
+ interface only?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LinkingOverControlledInterface"
+ >#LinkingOverControlledInterface</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ManyDifferentLicenses"
+ >#ManyDifferentLicenses</a>)</span></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 id="MereAggregation">What is the difference between an
+ “aggregate” and other kinds of “modified versions”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#MereAggregation"
+ >#MereAggregation</a>)</span></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 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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AssignCopyright"
+ >#AssignCopyright</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+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>
+
+<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 id="ModifyGPL">Can I modify the GPL
+ and make a modified license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ModifyGPL"
+ >#ModifyGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+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>
+
+<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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLCommercially"
+ >#GPLCommercially</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+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>
+
+<p>These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered
+code you received in a program of your own.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLOtherThanSoftware">Can I use the GPL for something other than
+ software?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware"
+ >#GPLOtherThanSoftware</a>)</span></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 id="LGPLJava">How does the LGPL work with Java?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LGPLJava"
+ >#LGPLJava</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#Consider"
+ >#Consider</a>)</span></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 id="GPLInProprietarySystem">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered
+ software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLInProprietarySystem"
+ >#GPLInProprietarySystem</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+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>
+
+<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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLWrapper"
+ >#GPLWrapper</a>)</span></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 id="LibGCCException">Where can I learn more about the GCC
+ Runtime Library Exception?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LibGCCException"
+ >#LibGCCException</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The GCC Runtime Library Exception covers libgcc, libstdc++,
+libfortran, libgomp, libdecnumber, and other libraries distributed
+with GCC. The exception is meant to allow people to distribute
+programs compiled with GCC under terms of their choice, even when
+parts of these libraries are included in the executable as part of
+the compilation process. To learn more, please read our
+<a href="/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html">FAQ about the GCC
+Runtime Library Exception</a>.</p></dd>
+
+
+<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 obtain those libraries separately. Why doesn't the
+ GPL permit this?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#MoneyGuzzlerInc"
+ >#MoneyGuzzlerInc</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+There are two reasons for this.
+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 id="GPLIncompatibleAlone">If the 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLIncompatibleAlone"
+ >#GPLIncompatibleAlone</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+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>
+
+<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 id="ModifiedJustBinary">Can I release a modified
+ version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ModifiedJustBinary"
+ >#ModifiedJustBinary</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#UnchangedJustBinary"
+ >#UnchangedJustBinary</a>)</span></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 id="DistributeWithSourceOnInternet">I want to distribute
+ binaries via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide
+ source code by FTP?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet"
+ >#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#RedistributedBinariesGetSource"
+ >#RedistributedBinariesGetSource</a>)</span></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 id="SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites">Can I put the binaries on my
+ Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites"
+ >#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DistributeExtendedBinary"
+ >#DistributeExtendedBinary</a>)</span></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 <em>the programs they use</em>. 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 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?
+<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient"
+ >#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient</a>)</span></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 id="AnonFTPAndSendSources">Can I make binaries available
+ on a network server, but send sources only to people who order them?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AnonFTPAndSendSources"
+ >#AnonFTPAndSendSources</a>)</span></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.
+The easiest way to do this would be to publish them on the same
+server, but if you'd like, you can alternatively provide
+instructions for getting the source from another server, or even a
+<a href="#SourceInCVS">version control system</a>. No matter what
+you do, the source should be just as easy to access as the object
+code, though. This is all specified in section 6(d) of GPLv3.</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></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource">How can I make sure each
+ user who downloads the binaries also gets the source?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource"
+ >#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#UnreleasedMods"
+ >#UnreleasedMods</a>)</span></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 id="InternalDistribution">Is making and using multiple copies
+ within one organization or company “distribution”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#InternalDistribution"
+ >#InternalDistribution</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#StolenCopy"
+ >#StolenCopy</a>)</span></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 id="TradeSecretRelease">What if a company distributes a copy as
+ a trade secret?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#TradeSecretRelease"
+ >#TradeSecretRelease</a>)</span></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 id="WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">Why are some GNU libraries released under
+ the ordinary GPL rather than the Lesser GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL"
+ >#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+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>
+
+<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 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.
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WillYouMakeAnException"
+ >#WillYouMakeAnException</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Sorry, we don't make such exceptions. It would not be right.</p>
+
+<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 id="VersionThreeOrLater">Why should programs say
+ “Version 3 of the GPL or any later version”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#VersionThreeOrLater"
+ >#VersionThreeOrLater</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#OnlyLatestVersion"
+ >#OnlyLatestVersion</a>)</span></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 id="WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why don't you use the GPL for manuals?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyNotGPLForManuals"
+ >#WhyNotGPLForManuals</a>)</span></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 id="FontException">How does the GPL apply to fonts?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#FontException"
+ >#FontException</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WMS"
+ >#WMS</a>)</span></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>
+
+<!-- GNUN: localize URL /licenses/template-diagram.png -->
+<p><a href="/licenses/template-diagram.png">
+<img src="/licenses/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 the 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 id="NonFreeTools">Can I release
+ a program under the GPL which I developed using non-free tools?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NonFreeTools"
+ >#NonFreeTools</a>)</span></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. <a href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">The FAQ entry about using
+GPL-incompatible libraries</a> provides more information about
+how to do that.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLTranslations">Are there translations
+ of the GPL into other languages?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLTranslations"
+ >#GPLTranslations</a>)</span></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 id="InterpreterIncompat">If a programming language interpreter has a
+ license that is incompatible with the GPL, can I run GPL-covered
+ programs on it?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#InterpreterIncompat"
+ >#InterpreterIncompat</a>)</span></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 id="WhoHasThePower">Who has the power to enforce the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhoHasThePower"
+ >#WhoHasThePower</a>)</span></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="#ReportingViolation">Learn more about reporting GPL
+violations.</a>
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#OOPLang"
+ >#OOPLang</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#PortProgramToGL"
+ >#PortProgramToGL</a>)</span></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="/licenses/lgpl.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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CompanyGPLCostsMoney"
+ >#CompanyGPLCostsMoney</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ReleaseNotOriginal"
+ >#ReleaseNotOriginal</a>)</span></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 id="DistributeSubsidiary">Does moving a copy to a majority-owned,
+ and controlled, subsidiary constitute distribution?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DistributeSubsidiary"
+ >#DistributeSubsidiary</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ClickThrough"
+ >#ClickThrough</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLCompatInstaller"
+ >#GPLCompatInstaller</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ExportWarranties"
+ >#ExportWarranties</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This is not a violation of the GPL. Those distributors (almost
+all of whom are commercial businesses selling free software
+distributions and related services) are trying to reduce their own
+legal risks, not to control your behavior. Export control law in the
+United States <em>might</em> make them liable if they knowingly export
+software into certain countries, or if they give software to parties
+they know will make such exports. By asking for these statements from
+their customers and others to whom they distribute software, they
+protect themselves in the event they are later asked by regulatory
+authorities what they knew about where software they distributed was
+going to wind up. They are not restricting what you can do with the
+software, only preventing themselves from being blamed with respect to
+anything you do. Because they are not placing additional restrictions
+on the software, they do not violate section 10 of GPLv3 or section 6
+of GPLv2.</p>
+
+<p>The FSF opposes the application of US export control laws to free
+software. Not only are such laws incompatible with the general
+objective of software freedom, they achieve no reasonable governmental
+purpose, because free software is currently and should always be
+available from parties in almost every country, including countries
+that have no export control laws and which do not participate in
+US-led trade embargoes. Therefore, no country's government is
+actually deprived of free software by US export control laws, while no
+country's citizens <em>should</em> be deprived of free software,
+regardless of their governments' policies, as far as we are concerned.
+Copies of all GPL-licensed software published by the FSF can be
+obtained from us without making any representation about where you
+live or what you intend to do. At the same time, the FSF understands
+the desire of commercial distributors located in the US to comply with
+US laws. They have a right to choose to whom they distribute
+particular copies of free software; exercise of that right does not
+violate the GPL unless they add contractual restrictions beyond those
+permitted by the GPL.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="SubscriptionFee">Can I use
+ GPLed software on a device that will stop operating if customers do
+ not continue paying a subscription fee?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SubscriptionFee"
+ >#SubscriptionFee</a>)</span></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 id="v3HowToUpgrade">How do I upgrade from (L)GPLv2 to (L)GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3HowToUpgrade"
+ >#v3HowToUpgrade</a>)</span></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
+of both GPLv3 and LGPLv3, since LGPLv3 is now written as a set
+of additional permissions on top of GPLv3.</p>
+
+<p>Second, replace all your existing v2 license notices (usually at
+the top of each file) with the new recommended text available on
+<a href="/licenses/gpl-howto.html">the GNU licenses howto</a>. It's
+more future-proof because it no longer includes the FSF's postal
+mailing address.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, any descriptive text (such as in a README) which talks about
+the package's license should also be updated appropriately.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="BitTorrent">How does GPLv3 make BitTorrent distribution easier?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#BitTorrent"
+ >#BitTorrent</a>)</span></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 id="Tivoization">What is tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent it?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#Tivoization"
+ >#Tivoization</a>)</span></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 id="DRMProhibited">Does GPLv3 prohibit DRM?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DRMProhibited"
+ >#DRMProhibited</a>)</span></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 id="GPLHardware">Can I use the GPL to license hardware?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLHardware"
+ >#GPLHardware</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GiveUpKeys"
+ >#GiveUpKeys</a>)</span></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 id="v3VotingMachine">Does GPLv3 require that voters be able to
+ modify the software running in a voting machine?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3VotingMachine"
+ >#v3VotingMachine</a>)</span></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 id="v3PatentRetaliation">Does GPLv3 have a “patent retaliation
+ clause”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3PatentRetaliation"
+ >#v3PatentRetaliation</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SourceCodeInDocumentation"
+ >#SourceCodeInDocumentation</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3Under4and5"
+ >#v3Under4and5</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v2OrLaterPatentLicense"
+ >#v2OrLaterPatentLicense</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LGPLv3ContributorVersion"
+ >#LGPLv3ContributorVersion</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The “contributor version” is only your version of the
+library.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v2v3Compatibility">Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v2v3Compatibility"
+ >#v2v3Compatibility</a>)</span></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 id="Cure">What does it mean to “cure” a violation of GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#Cure"
+ >#Cure</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+To cure a violation means to adjust your practices to comply with
+the requirements of the license.</p></dd>
+
+
+<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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3InternationalDisclaimers"
+ >#v3InternationalDisclaimers</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes. Section 7 gives you permission to add your own disclaimers,
+specifically 7(a).</p></dd>
+
+
+<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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NonvisualLegalNotices"
+ >#NonvisualLegalNotices</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3CoworkerConveying"
+ >#v3CoworkerConveying</a>)</span></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 id="v3ConditionalWarranty">If I distribute a GPLv3-covered
+ program, can I provide a warranty that is voided if the user modifies
+ the program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3ConditionalWarranty"
+ >#v3ConditionalWarranty</a>)</span></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 id="SeparateAffero">Why did you decide to write the GNU Affero GPLv3
+ as a separate license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SeparateAffero"
+ >#SeparateAffero</a>)</span></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 id="WhyPropagateAndConvey">Why did you invent the new terms
+ “propagate” and “convey” in GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyPropagateAndConvey"
+ >#WhyPropagateAndConvey</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NoMilitary"
+ >#NoMilitary</a>)</span></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 id="ConveyVsDistribute">Is “convey” in GPLv3 the same
+ thing as what GPLv2 means by “distribute”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ConveyVsDistribute"
+ >#ConveyVsDistribute</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3MakingAvailable"
+ >#v3MakingAvailable</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#PropagationNotConveying"
+ >#PropagationNotConveying</a>)</span></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 id="Prelinking">Does prelinking a
+ GPLed binary to various libraries on the system, to optimize its
+ performance, count as modification?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#Prelinking"
+ >#Prelinking</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LaptopLoan"
+ >#LaptopLoan</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#TwoPartyTivoization"
+ >#TwoPartyTivoization</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SourceInCVS"
+ >#SourceInCVS</a>)</span></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
+version control system, 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 id="RemoteAttestation">Can someone who conveys GPLv3-covered
+ software in a User Product use remote attestation to prevent a user
+ from modifying that software?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#RemoteAttestation"
+ >#RemoteAttestation</a>)</span></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 id="RulesProtocols">What does “rules and protocols for
+ communication across the network” mean in GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#RulesProtocols"
+ >#RulesProtocols</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SupportService"
+ >#SupportService</a>)</span></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 id="v3Notwithstanding">In GPLv3 and AGPLv3, what does it mean when it
+ says “notwithstanding any other provision of this License”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3Notwithstanding"
+ >#v3Notwithstanding</a>)</span></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 id="AGPLv3CorrespondingSource">Under AGPLv3, when I modify the Program
+ under section 13, what Corresponding Source does it have to offer?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AGPLv3CorrespondingSource"
+ >#AGPLv3CorrespondingSource</a>)</span></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). If you have modified those libraries,
+you must provide your modified source code for them.</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 id="AGPLv3InteractingRemotely">In AGPLv3, what counts as
+ “interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer
+ network?”
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely"
+ >#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely</a>)</span></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 id="ApacheLegalEntity">How does GPLv3's concept of
+ “you” compare to the definition of “Legal Entity”
+ in the Apache License 2.0?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ApacheLegalEntity"
+ >#ApacheLegalEntity</a>)</span></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 id="v3TheProgram">In GPLv3, what does “the Program”
+ refer to? Is it every program ever released under GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3TheProgram"
+ >#v3TheProgram</a>)</span></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 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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NoDistributionRequirements"
+ >#NoDistributionRequirements</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this activity.</p></dd>
+
+
+<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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AGPLv3ServerAsUser"
+ >#AGPLv3ServerAsUser</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This should not be required in any typical server-client
+relationship. AGPLv3 requires a program to offer source code to
+“all users interacting with it remotely through a computer
+network.” In most server-client architectures, it simply
+wouldn't be reasonable to argue that the server operator is a
+“user” interacting with the client in any meaningful
+sense.</p>
+
+<p>Consider HTTP as an example. All HTTP clients expect servers to
+provide certain functionality: they should send specified responses to
+well-formed requests. The reverse is not true: servers cannot assume
+that the client will do anything in particular with the data they
+send. The client may be a web browser, an RSS reader, a spider, a
+network monitoring tool, or some special-purpose program. The server
+can make absolutely no assumptions about what the client will
+do—so there's no meaningful way for the server operator to be
+considered a user of that software.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="AllCompatibility">How are the various GNU licenses
+ compatible with each other?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AllCompatibility"
+ >#AllCompatibility</a>)</span></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 software). Find the license for your project 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: Convey project under GPLv2 only <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project under GPLv2 only <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: Convey project under GPLv2 or later <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project under GPLv2 or later <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project under 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: Convey project under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project under 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: Convey code under GPLv2 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey code under GPLv2 or later <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey code under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK <a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-6">[6]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey code under 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: Convey code under GPLv2 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey code under GPLv2 or later <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey code under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK <a href="#compat-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: Convey project and code under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey code under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project and code under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project under LGPLv3 <a
href="#compat-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: Convey project under GPLv2 only <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project under GPLv2 only <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: Convey project under GPLv2 or later <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project under GPLv2 or later <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project under 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: Convey project under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey project under 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="mok">OK: Convey project under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-9">[9]</a></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 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: While you may release your project
+(either your original work and/or work that you received and modified)
+under GPLv2-or-later in this case, note that the other code you're
+using must remain under GPLv2 only. As long as your project depends
+on that code, you won't be able to upgrade the license of your project
+to GPLv3-or-later, and the work as a whole (any combination of both
+your project and the other code) can only be conveyed under the terms
+of GPLv2.</p>
+
+<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 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 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 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>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-9">9: Because GPLv2 does not permit
+combinations with LGPLv3, you must convey the project under GPLv3's
+terms in this case, since it will allow that combination.</p>
+
+<div id="matrix-skip-target"></div></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="/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 © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,</p>
+<p>
+This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2011/11/15 09:42:06 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: po/quick-guide-gplv3.ca-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/quick-guide-gplv3.ca-en.html
diff -N po/quick-guide-gplv3.ca-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/quick-guide-gplv3.ca-en.html 15 Nov 2011 09:42:06 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,361 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<title>A Quick Guide to GPLv3 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
(FSF)</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/quick-guide-gplv3.translist" -->
+<h2>A Quick Guide to GPLv3</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. -->
+
+<img src="/graphics/gplv3-127x51.png" alt="" style="float: right;" />
+
+<p>by <strong>Brett Smith</strong></p>
+
+<p>[This article is also available in <a
+href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.pdf">PDF</a> and <a
+href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.tar.gz">reStructuredText</a>
+formats.]</p>
+
+<p>After a year and a half of public consultation, thousands of comments, and
+four drafts, version 3 of the GNU General Public License (<a class="reference
external" href="/licenses/gpl-3.0.html">GPLv3</a>) was
+finally published on June 29, 2007. While there's been a lot of
discussion about
+the license since the first draft appeared, not many people have talked
+about the benefits that it provides developers. We've published this guide
+to fill that gap. We'll start with a brief refresher on free software,
+copyleft, and the goals of the GPL. We'll then review the major changes in
+the license to see how they advance those goals and benefit developers.</p>
+<div class="section" id="the-foundations-of-the-gpl">
+<h3>The Foundations of the GPL</h3>
+<p>Nobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four
+freedoms that every user should have:</p>
+<ul class="simple">
+<li>the freedom to use the software for any purpose,</li>
+<li>the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,</li>
+<li>the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and</li>
+<li>the freedom to share the changes you make.</li>
+</ul>
+<p>When a program offers users all of these freedoms, we call it <a
class="reference external" href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free
+software</a>.</p>
+<p>Developers who write software can release it under the terms of the GNU
+GPL. When they do, it will be free software and stay free software, no
+matter who changes or distributes the program. We call this copyleft: the
+software is copyrighted, but instead of using those rights to restrict
+users like proprietary software does, we use them to ensure that
+every user has freedom.</p>
+<p>We update the GPL to protect its copyleft from being undermined by legal or
+technological developments. The most recent version protects users from
+three recent threats:</p>
+<ul class="simple">
+<li>Tivoization: Some companies have created various different kinds of
+devices that run GPLed software, and then rigged the hardware so that
+they can change the software that's running, but you cannot. If a device
+can run arbitrary software, it's a general-purpose computer, and its
+owner should control what it does. When a device thwarts you from doing
+that, we call that tivoization.</li>
+<li>Laws prohibiting free software: Legislation like the Digital Millennium
+Copyright Act and the European Union Copyright Directive make it a crime
+to write or share software that can break DRM (Digital Restrictions
+Mismanagement; see
+<a
href="#neutralizing-laws-that-prohibit-free-software-but-not-forbidding-drm">below</a>).
These laws should not
+interfere with the rights the GPL grants you.</li>
+<li>Discriminatory patent deals: Microsoft has recently started
+telling people that they will not sue free software users for patent
+infringement—as long as you get the software from a vendor
+that's paying Microsoft for the privilege. Ultimately, Microsoft is
+trying to collect royalties for the use of free software, which
+interferes with users' freedom. No company should be able to do
+this.</li>
+</ul>
+<p>Version 3 also has a number of improvements to make the license easier for
+everyone to use and understand. But even with all these changes, GPLv3
+isn't a radical new license; instead it's an evolution of the previous
+version. Though a lot of text has changed, much of it simply clarifies
+what GPLv2 said. With that in mind, let's review the major changes in
+GPLv3, and talk about how they improve the license for users and
+developers.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section"
id="neutralizing-laws-that-prohibit-free-software-but-not-forbidding-drm">
+<h3>Neutralizing Laws That Prohibit Free Software — But Not
+Forbidding DRM</h3>
+<p>You're probably familiar with the Digital Restrictions Mismanagement
+(DRM) on
+DVDs and other media. You're probably also familiar with the laws that
+make it illegal to write your own tools to bypass those restrictions, like
+the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the European Union Copyright
+Directive. Nobody should be able to stop you from writing any code that
+you want, and GPLv3 protects this right for you.</p>
+<p>It's always possible to use GPLed code to write software that implements
+DRM. However, if someone does that with code protected by GPLv3, section 3
+says that the system will not count as an effective technological
+"protection" measure. This means that if you break the DRM, you'll
be free
+to distribute your own software that does that, and you won't be threatened
+by the DMCA or 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>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="protecting-your-right-to-tinker">
+<h3>Protecting Your Right to Tinker</h3>
+<p>Tivoization is a dangerous attempt to curtail users' freedom: the
+right to modify your software will become meaningless if none of your
+computers let you do it. GPLv3 stops tivoization by requiring the
+distributor to provide you with whatever information or data is
+necessary to install modified software on the device. This may be as
+simple as a set of instructions, or it may include special data such
+as cryptographic keys or information about how to bypass an integrity
+check in the hardware. It will depend on how the hardware was
+designed—but no matter what information you need, you must be
+able to get it.</p>
+<p>This requirement is limited in scope. Distributors are still allowed to
+use cryptographic keys for any purpose, and they'll only be required to
+disclose a key if you need it to modify GPLed software on the device they
+gave you. The GNU Project itself uses GnuPG to prove the integrity of all
+the software on its FTP site, and measures like that are beneficial to
+users. GPLv3 does not stop people from using cryptography; we wouldn't
+want it to. It only stops people from taking away the rights that the
+license provides you—whether through patent law, technology, or any
+other means.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="stronger-protection-against-patent-threats">
+<h3>Stronger Protection Against Patent Threats</h3>
+<p>In the 17 years since GPLv2 was published, the software patent landscape
+has changed considerably, and free software licenses have developed new
+strategies to address them. GPLv3 reflects these changes too. Whenever
+someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified,
+they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to
+exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any
+licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising
+those rights, their license will be terminated.</p>
+<p>What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work
+with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor
+will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes,
+GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any
+other free software license.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="clarifying-license-compatibility">
+<h3>Clarifying License Compatibility</h3>
+<p>If you found some code and wanted to incorporate it into a GPLed project,
+GPLv2 said that the license on the other code was not allowed to have any
+restrictions that were not already in GPLv2. As long as that was the case,
+we said the license was GPL-compatible.</p>
+<p>However, some licenses had requirements that weren't really restrictive,
+because they were so easy to comply with. For example, some licenses say
+that they don't give you permission to use certain trademarks. That's not
+really an additional restriction: if that clause wasn't there, you still
+wouldn't have permission to use the trademark. We always said those
+licenses were compatible with GPLv2, too.</p>
+<p>Now, GPLv3 explicitly gives everyone permission to use code that has
+requirements like this. These new terms should help clear up
+misunderstandings about which licenses are GPL-compatible, why that is, and
+what you can do with GPL-compatible code.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="new-compatible-licenses">
+<h3>New Compatible Licenses</h3>
+<p>In addition to clarifying the rules about licenses that are already
+GPL-compatible, GPLv3 is also newly compatible with a few other licenses.
+The Apache License 2.0 is a prime example. Lots of great free software is
+available under this license, with strong communities surrounding it. We
+hope that this change in GPLv3 will foster more cooperation and sharing
+within the free software community. The chart below helps illustrate some
+common compatibility relationships between different free software
+licenses:</p>
+<!-- GNUN: localize URL /licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png -->
+<img alt="A chart illustrating compatibility relationships between different
free software licenses. For details, see the FSF's license list page."
class="align-center" src="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png"
style="width: 594px; height: 498px;" />
+<p>Arrows pointing from one license to another indicate that the first license
+is compatible with the second. This is true even if you follow multiple
+arrows to get from one license to the other; so, for example, the ISC
+license is compatible with GPLv3. GPLv2 is compatible with GPLv3 if the
+program allows you to choose "any later version" of the GPL, which
is the
+case for most software released under this license. This diagram is not
+comprehensive (see <a class="reference external"
href="/licenses/license-list.html">our licenses page</a> for a more complete
list of licenses
+compatible with GPLv2 and GPLv3), but plainly illustrates that GPLv3
+is compatible with just about everything GPLv2 is, and then some.</p>
+<p>The GNU Affero GPL version 3 has also been brought into the fold. The
+original Affero GPL was designed to ensure that all users of a web
+application would be able to receive its source. The GNU Affero GPL
+version 3 broadens this goal: it is applicable to all network-interactive
+software, so it will also work well for programs like game servers. The
+additional provision is also more flexible, so that if someone uses AGPLed
+source in an application without a network interface, they'll only have to
+provide source in the same sort of way the GPL has always required.
+By making these two licenses compatible, developers of network-interactive
+software will be able to strengthen their copyleft while still building on
+top of the mature body of GPLed code available to them.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="more-ways-for-developers-to-provide-source">
+<h3>More Ways for Developers to Provide Source</h3>
+<p>One of the fundamental requirements of the GPL is that when you distribute
+object code to users, you must also provide them with a way to get the
+source. GPLv2 gave you a few ways to do this, and GPLv3 keeps those intact
+with some clarification. It also offers you new ways to provide source
+when you convey object code over a network. For instance, when you host
+object code on a web or FTP server, you can simply provide instructions
+that tell visitors how to get the source from a third-party server. Thanks
+to this new option, fulfilling this requirement should be easier for many
+small distributors who only make a few changes to large bodies of source.</p>
+<p>The new license also makes it much easier to convey object code via
+BitTorrent. First, people who are merely downloading or seeding the
+torrent are exempt from the license's requirements for conveying the
+software. Then, whoever starts the torrent can provide source by simply
+telling other torrent users where it is available on a public network
+server.</p>
+<p>These new options help keep the GPL in line with community standards for
+offering source, without making it harder for users to get.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section"
id="less-source-to-distribute-new-system-libraries-exception">
+<h3>Less Source to Distribute: New System Libraries Exception</h3>
+<p>Both versions of the GPL require you to provide all the source necessary to
+build the software, including supporting libraries, compilation scripts,
+and so on. They also draw the line at System Libraries: you're not
+required to provide the source for certain core components of the operating
+system, such as the C library.</p>
+<p>GPLv3 has adjusted the definition of System Library to include software
+that may not come directly with the operating system, but that all users of
+the software can reasonably be expected to have. For example, it now also
+includes the standard libraries of common programming languages such as
+Python and Ruby.</p>
+<p>The new definition also makes it clear that you can combine GPLed software
+with GPL-incompatible System Libraries, such as OpenSolaris' C library, and
+distribute them both together. These changes will make life easier for
+free software distributors who want to provide these combinations to their
+users.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="a-global-license">
+<h3>A Global License</h3>
+<p>GPLv2 talks about "distribution" a lot—when you
+share the program with someone else, you're distributing it. The
+license never says what distribution is, because the term was borrowed
+from United States copyright law. We expected that judges would look
+there for the definition. However, we later found out that copyright
+laws in other countries use the same word, but give it different
+meanings. Because of this, a judge in such a country might analyze
+GPLv2 differently than a judge in the United States.</p>
+<p>GPLv3 uses a new term, "convey," and provides a definition for
that term.
+"Convey" has the same meaning we intended for
"distribute," but now that
+this is explained directly in the license, it should be easy for people
+everywhere to understand what we meant. There are other minor changes
+throughout the license that will also help ensure it is applied
+consistently worldwide.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section"
id="when-the-rules-are-broken-a-smooth-path-to-compliance">
+<h3>When the Rules Are Broken: A Smooth Path to Compliance</h3>
+<p>Under GPLv2, if you violated the license in any way, your rights were
+automatically and permanently lost. The only way to get them back was to
+petition the copyright holder. While a strong defense against violations
+is valuable, this policy could cause a lot of headache when someone
+accidentally ran afoul of the rules. Asking all the copyright holders for
+a formal restoration of the license could be burdensome and costly: a
+typical GNU/Linux distribution draws upon the work of thousands.</p>
+<p>GPLv3 offers a reprieve for good behavior: if you violate the license,
+you'll get your rights back once you stop the violation, unless a copyright
+holder contacts you within 60 days. After you receive such a notice, you
+can have your rights fully restored if you're a first-time violator and
+correct the violation within 30 days. Otherwise, you can work out the
+issue on a case-by-case basis with the copyright holders who contacted you,
+and your rights will be restored afterward.</p>
+<p>Compliance with the GPL has always been the top priority of the FSF
+Compliance Lab and other groups enforcing the license worldwide. These
+changes ensure that compliance remains the top priority for enforcers, and
+gives violators incentive to comply.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="the-latest-and-greatest">
+<h3>The Latest and Greatest</h3>
+<p>Some of these changes probably seem less important to you than others.
+That's okay. Every project is different, and needs different things from
+its license. But odds are that a number of these improvements will help
+you and your work.</p>
+<p>And taken as a whole, all these upgrades represent something more:
+we made a better copyleft. It does more to protect users' freedom,
+but it also enables more cooperation in the free software community.
+But updating the license is only part of the job: in order for people
+to get the benefits it offers, developers need to use GPLv3 for their
+projects, too. By releasing your own software under the new license,
+everyone who deals with it—users, other developers,
+distributors, even lawyers—will benefit. We hope you'll use
+GPLv3 for your next release.</p>
+<p>If you'd like to learn more about upgrading your project to GPLv3, the FSF
+Compliance Lab would be happy to assist you. On <a class="reference external"
href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/";>our web site</a>, you can
+find <a class="reference external"
href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html";>basic instructions
for using the license</a>, and an <a class="reference external"
href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html";>FAQ addressing
+common concerns</a> that people have about it. If your situation is more
+complicated than that, please <a class="reference external"
href="mailto:licensing@fsf.org";>contact us</a> and we'll do what we can to
+help you with your transition. Together, we can help protect freedom for
+all users.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- 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 © 2007, 2008, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+<p>
+This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2011/11/15 09:42:06 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- <div id="translations"> -->
+<!-- <h4>Translations of this page</h4> -->
+<!-- -->
+<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical by language code. -->
+<!-- Comment what the language is for each type, i.e. de is German. -->
+<!-- Write the language name in its own language (Deutsch) in the text. -->
+<!-- If you add a new language here, please -->
+<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+<!-- - /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 language code right; see: -->
+<!-- http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php -->
+<!-- If the 2-letter ISO 639-1 code is not available, -->
+<!-- use the 3-letter ISO 639-2. -->
+<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities. -->
+<!-- -->
+<!-- <ul class="translations-list"> -->
+<!-- Catalan -->
+<!-- <li><a
href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.ca.html">Català</a> [ca]</li> -->
+<!-- English -->
+<!-- <li><a href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html">English</a> [en]</li>
-->
+<!-- French -->
+<!-- <li><a
href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
-->
+<!-- </ul> -->
+<!-- </div> -->
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: po/quick-guide-gplv3.fr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/quick-guide-gplv3.fr-en.html
diff -N po/quick-guide-gplv3.fr-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/quick-guide-gplv3.fr-en.html 15 Nov 2011 09:42:06 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,361 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<title>A Quick Guide to GPLv3 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
(FSF)</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/quick-guide-gplv3.translist" -->
+<h2>A Quick Guide to GPLv3</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. -->
+
+<img src="/graphics/gplv3-127x51.png" alt="" style="float: right;" />
+
+<p>by <strong>Brett Smith</strong></p>
+
+<p>[This article is also available in <a
+href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.pdf">PDF</a> and <a
+href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.tar.gz">reStructuredText</a>
+formats.]</p>
+
+<p>After a year and a half of public consultation, thousands of comments, and
+four drafts, version 3 of the GNU General Public License (<a class="reference
external" href="/licenses/gpl-3.0.html">GPLv3</a>) was
+finally published on June 29, 2007. While there's been a lot of
discussion about
+the license since the first draft appeared, not many people have talked
+about the benefits that it provides developers. We've published this guide
+to fill that gap. We'll start with a brief refresher on free software,
+copyleft, and the goals of the GPL. We'll then review the major changes in
+the license to see how they advance those goals and benefit developers.</p>
+<div class="section" id="the-foundations-of-the-gpl">
+<h3>The Foundations of the GPL</h3>
+<p>Nobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four
+freedoms that every user should have:</p>
+<ul class="simple">
+<li>the freedom to use the software for any purpose,</li>
+<li>the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,</li>
+<li>the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and</li>
+<li>the freedom to share the changes you make.</li>
+</ul>
+<p>When a program offers users all of these freedoms, we call it <a
class="reference external" href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free
+software</a>.</p>
+<p>Developers who write software can release it under the terms of the GNU
+GPL. When they do, it will be free software and stay free software, no
+matter who changes or distributes the program. We call this copyleft: the
+software is copyrighted, but instead of using those rights to restrict
+users like proprietary software does, we use them to ensure that
+every user has freedom.</p>
+<p>We update the GPL to protect its copyleft from being undermined by legal or
+technological developments. The most recent version protects users from
+three recent threats:</p>
+<ul class="simple">
+<li>Tivoization: Some companies have created various different kinds of
+devices that run GPLed software, and then rigged the hardware so that
+they can change the software that's running, but you cannot. If a device
+can run arbitrary software, it's a general-purpose computer, and its
+owner should control what it does. When a device thwarts you from doing
+that, we call that tivoization.</li>
+<li>Laws prohibiting free software: Legislation like the Digital Millennium
+Copyright Act and the European Union Copyright Directive make it a crime
+to write or share software that can break DRM (Digital Restrictions
+Mismanagement; see
+<a
href="#neutralizing-laws-that-prohibit-free-software-but-not-forbidding-drm">below</a>).
These laws should not
+interfere with the rights the GPL grants you.</li>
+<li>Discriminatory patent deals: Microsoft has recently started
+telling people that they will not sue free software users for patent
+infringement—as long as you get the software from a vendor
+that's paying Microsoft for the privilege. Ultimately, Microsoft is
+trying to collect royalties for the use of free software, which
+interferes with users' freedom. No company should be able to do
+this.</li>
+</ul>
+<p>Version 3 also has a number of improvements to make the license easier for
+everyone to use and understand. But even with all these changes, GPLv3
+isn't a radical new license; instead it's an evolution of the previous
+version. Though a lot of text has changed, much of it simply clarifies
+what GPLv2 said. With that in mind, let's review the major changes in
+GPLv3, and talk about how they improve the license for users and
+developers.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section"
id="neutralizing-laws-that-prohibit-free-software-but-not-forbidding-drm">
+<h3>Neutralizing Laws That Prohibit Free Software — But Not
+Forbidding DRM</h3>
+<p>You're probably familiar with the Digital Restrictions Mismanagement
+(DRM) on
+DVDs and other media. You're probably also familiar with the laws that
+make it illegal to write your own tools to bypass those restrictions, like
+the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the European Union Copyright
+Directive. Nobody should be able to stop you from writing any code that
+you want, and GPLv3 protects this right for you.</p>
+<p>It's always possible to use GPLed code to write software that implements
+DRM. However, if someone does that with code protected by GPLv3, section 3
+says that the system will not count as an effective technological
+"protection" measure. This means that if you break the DRM, you'll
be free
+to distribute your own software that does that, and you won't be threatened
+by the DMCA or 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>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="protecting-your-right-to-tinker">
+<h3>Protecting Your Right to Tinker</h3>
+<p>Tivoization is a dangerous attempt to curtail users' freedom: the
+right to modify your software will become meaningless if none of your
+computers let you do it. GPLv3 stops tivoization by requiring the
+distributor to provide you with whatever information or data is
+necessary to install modified software on the device. This may be as
+simple as a set of instructions, or it may include special data such
+as cryptographic keys or information about how to bypass an integrity
+check in the hardware. It will depend on how the hardware was
+designed—but no matter what information you need, you must be
+able to get it.</p>
+<p>This requirement is limited in scope. Distributors are still allowed to
+use cryptographic keys for any purpose, and they'll only be required to
+disclose a key if you need it to modify GPLed software on the device they
+gave you. The GNU Project itself uses GnuPG to prove the integrity of all
+the software on its FTP site, and measures like that are beneficial to
+users. GPLv3 does not stop people from using cryptography; we wouldn't
+want it to. It only stops people from taking away the rights that the
+license provides you—whether through patent law, technology, or any
+other means.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="stronger-protection-against-patent-threats">
+<h3>Stronger Protection Against Patent Threats</h3>
+<p>In the 17 years since GPLv2 was published, the software patent landscape
+has changed considerably, and free software licenses have developed new
+strategies to address them. GPLv3 reflects these changes too. Whenever
+someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified,
+they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to
+exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any
+licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising
+those rights, their license will be terminated.</p>
+<p>What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work
+with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor
+will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes,
+GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any
+other free software license.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="clarifying-license-compatibility">
+<h3>Clarifying License Compatibility</h3>
+<p>If you found some code and wanted to incorporate it into a GPLed project,
+GPLv2 said that the license on the other code was not allowed to have any
+restrictions that were not already in GPLv2. As long as that was the case,
+we said the license was GPL-compatible.</p>
+<p>However, some licenses had requirements that weren't really restrictive,
+because they were so easy to comply with. For example, some licenses say
+that they don't give you permission to use certain trademarks. That's not
+really an additional restriction: if that clause wasn't there, you still
+wouldn't have permission to use the trademark. We always said those
+licenses were compatible with GPLv2, too.</p>
+<p>Now, GPLv3 explicitly gives everyone permission to use code that has
+requirements like this. These new terms should help clear up
+misunderstandings about which licenses are GPL-compatible, why that is, and
+what you can do with GPL-compatible code.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="new-compatible-licenses">
+<h3>New Compatible Licenses</h3>
+<p>In addition to clarifying the rules about licenses that are already
+GPL-compatible, GPLv3 is also newly compatible with a few other licenses.
+The Apache License 2.0 is a prime example. Lots of great free software is
+available under this license, with strong communities surrounding it. We
+hope that this change in GPLv3 will foster more cooperation and sharing
+within the free software community. The chart below helps illustrate some
+common compatibility relationships between different free software
+licenses:</p>
+<!-- GNUN: localize URL /licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png -->
+<img alt="A chart illustrating compatibility relationships between different
free software licenses. For details, see the FSF's license list page."
class="align-center" src="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png"
style="width: 594px; height: 498px;" />
+<p>Arrows pointing from one license to another indicate that the first license
+is compatible with the second. This is true even if you follow multiple
+arrows to get from one license to the other; so, for example, the ISC
+license is compatible with GPLv3. GPLv2 is compatible with GPLv3 if the
+program allows you to choose "any later version" of the GPL, which
is the
+case for most software released under this license. This diagram is not
+comprehensive (see <a class="reference external"
href="/licenses/license-list.html">our licenses page</a> for a more complete
list of licenses
+compatible with GPLv2 and GPLv3), but plainly illustrates that GPLv3
+is compatible with just about everything GPLv2 is, and then some.</p>
+<p>The GNU Affero GPL version 3 has also been brought into the fold. The
+original Affero GPL was designed to ensure that all users of a web
+application would be able to receive its source. The GNU Affero GPL
+version 3 broadens this goal: it is applicable to all network-interactive
+software, so it will also work well for programs like game servers. The
+additional provision is also more flexible, so that if someone uses AGPLed
+source in an application without a network interface, they'll only have to
+provide source in the same sort of way the GPL has always required.
+By making these two licenses compatible, developers of network-interactive
+software will be able to strengthen their copyleft while still building on
+top of the mature body of GPLed code available to them.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="more-ways-for-developers-to-provide-source">
+<h3>More Ways for Developers to Provide Source</h3>
+<p>One of the fundamental requirements of the GPL is that when you distribute
+object code to users, you must also provide them with a way to get the
+source. GPLv2 gave you a few ways to do this, and GPLv3 keeps those intact
+with some clarification. It also offers you new ways to provide source
+when you convey object code over a network. For instance, when you host
+object code on a web or FTP server, you can simply provide instructions
+that tell visitors how to get the source from a third-party server. Thanks
+to this new option, fulfilling this requirement should be easier for many
+small distributors who only make a few changes to large bodies of source.</p>
+<p>The new license also makes it much easier to convey object code via
+BitTorrent. First, people who are merely downloading or seeding the
+torrent are exempt from the license's requirements for conveying the
+software. Then, whoever starts the torrent can provide source by simply
+telling other torrent users where it is available on a public network
+server.</p>
+<p>These new options help keep the GPL in line with community standards for
+offering source, without making it harder for users to get.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section"
id="less-source-to-distribute-new-system-libraries-exception">
+<h3>Less Source to Distribute: New System Libraries Exception</h3>
+<p>Both versions of the GPL require you to provide all the source necessary to
+build the software, including supporting libraries, compilation scripts,
+and so on. They also draw the line at System Libraries: you're not
+required to provide the source for certain core components of the operating
+system, such as the C library.</p>
+<p>GPLv3 has adjusted the definition of System Library to include software
+that may not come directly with the operating system, but that all users of
+the software can reasonably be expected to have. For example, it now also
+includes the standard libraries of common programming languages such as
+Python and Ruby.</p>
+<p>The new definition also makes it clear that you can combine GPLed software
+with GPL-incompatible System Libraries, such as OpenSolaris' C library, and
+distribute them both together. These changes will make life easier for
+free software distributors who want to provide these combinations to their
+users.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="a-global-license">
+<h3>A Global License</h3>
+<p>GPLv2 talks about "distribution" a lot—when you
+share the program with someone else, you're distributing it. The
+license never says what distribution is, because the term was borrowed
+from United States copyright law. We expected that judges would look
+there for the definition. However, we later found out that copyright
+laws in other countries use the same word, but give it different
+meanings. Because of this, a judge in such a country might analyze
+GPLv2 differently than a judge in the United States.</p>
+<p>GPLv3 uses a new term, "convey," and provides a definition for
that term.
+"Convey" has the same meaning we intended for
"distribute," but now that
+this is explained directly in the license, it should be easy for people
+everywhere to understand what we meant. There are other minor changes
+throughout the license that will also help ensure it is applied
+consistently worldwide.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section"
id="when-the-rules-are-broken-a-smooth-path-to-compliance">
+<h3>When the Rules Are Broken: A Smooth Path to Compliance</h3>
+<p>Under GPLv2, if you violated the license in any way, your rights were
+automatically and permanently lost. The only way to get them back was to
+petition the copyright holder. While a strong defense against violations
+is valuable, this policy could cause a lot of headache when someone
+accidentally ran afoul of the rules. Asking all the copyright holders for
+a formal restoration of the license could be burdensome and costly: a
+typical GNU/Linux distribution draws upon the work of thousands.</p>
+<p>GPLv3 offers a reprieve for good behavior: if you violate the license,
+you'll get your rights back once you stop the violation, unless a copyright
+holder contacts you within 60 days. After you receive such a notice, you
+can have your rights fully restored if you're a first-time violator and
+correct the violation within 30 days. Otherwise, you can work out the
+issue on a case-by-case basis with the copyright holders who contacted you,
+and your rights will be restored afterward.</p>
+<p>Compliance with the GPL has always been the top priority of the FSF
+Compliance Lab and other groups enforcing the license worldwide. These
+changes ensure that compliance remains the top priority for enforcers, and
+gives violators incentive to comply.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="section" id="the-latest-and-greatest">
+<h3>The Latest and Greatest</h3>
+<p>Some of these changes probably seem less important to you than others.
+That's okay. Every project is different, and needs different things from
+its license. But odds are that a number of these improvements will help
+you and your work.</p>
+<p>And taken as a whole, all these upgrades represent something more:
+we made a better copyleft. It does more to protect users' freedom,
+but it also enables more cooperation in the free software community.
+But updating the license is only part of the job: in order for people
+to get the benefits it offers, developers need to use GPLv3 for their
+projects, too. By releasing your own software under the new license,
+everyone who deals with it—users, other developers,
+distributors, even lawyers—will benefit. We hope you'll use
+GPLv3 for your next release.</p>
+<p>If you'd like to learn more about upgrading your project to GPLv3, the FSF
+Compliance Lab would be happy to assist you. On <a class="reference external"
href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/";>our web site</a>, you can
+find <a class="reference external"
href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html";>basic instructions
for using the license</a>, and an <a class="reference external"
href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html";>FAQ addressing
+common concerns</a> that people have about it. If your situation is more
+complicated than that, please <a class="reference external"
href="mailto:licensing@fsf.org";>contact us</a> and we'll do what we can to
+help you with your transition. Together, we can help protect freedom for
+all users.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- 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 © 2007, 2008, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+<p>
+This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2011/11/15 09:42:06 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- <div id="translations"> -->
+<!-- <h4>Translations of this page</h4> -->
+<!-- -->
+<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical by language code. -->
+<!-- Comment what the language is for each type, i.e. de is German. -->
+<!-- Write the language name in its own language (Deutsch) in the text. -->
+<!-- If you add a new language here, please -->
+<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+<!-- - /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 language code right; see: -->
+<!-- http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php -->
+<!-- If the 2-letter ISO 639-1 code is not available, -->
+<!-- use the 3-letter ISO 639-2. -->
+<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities. -->
+<!-- -->
+<!-- <ul class="translations-list"> -->
+<!-- Catalan -->
+<!-- <li><a
href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.ca.html">Català</a> [ca]</li> -->
+<!-- English -->
+<!-- <li><a href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html">English</a> [en]</li>
-->
+<!-- French -->
+<!-- <li><a
href="/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
-->
+<!-- </ul> -->
+<!-- </div> -->
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/licenses gpl-faq.ru.html quick-guide-gplv3....,
Yavor Doganov <=