[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/licenses po/gpl-faq.translist gpl-faq.ta.html
|
From: |
Pavel Kharitonov |
|
Subject: |
www/licenses po/gpl-faq.translist gpl-faq.ta.html |
|
Date: |
Tue, 03 Sep 2013 09:56:41 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev> 13/09/03 09:56:41
Modified files:
licenses/po : gpl-faq.translist
Removed files:
licenses : gpl-faq.ta.html
Log message:
Remove spurious GNUN output
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gpl-faq.ta.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.13&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/gpl-faq.translist?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
Patches:
Index: po/gpl-faq.translist
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/po/gpl-faq.translist,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- po/gpl-faq.translist 30 Apr 2013 00:28:34 -0000 1.11
+++ po/gpl-faq.translist 3 Sep 2013 09:56:41 -0000 1.12
@@ -12,7 +12,6 @@
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="pl" hreflang="pl"
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.pl.html">polski</a> [pl]</span>
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="pt-br" hreflang="pt-br"
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.pt-br.html">português do Brasil</a> [pt-br]</span>
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="ru" hreflang="ru"
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.ru.html">ÑÑÑÑкий</a> [ru]</span>
-<span dir="ltr"><a lang="ta" hreflang="ta"
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.ta.html">தமிழà¯</a> [ta]</span>
</p>
</div>' -->
<!--#if expr="$HTML_BODY = yes" -->
Index: gpl-faq.ta.html
===================================================================
RCS file: gpl-faq.ta.html
diff -N gpl-faq.ta.html
--- gpl-faq.ta.html 16 Sep 2012 05:25:40 -0000 1.13
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,3258 +0,0 @@
-
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ta.html" -->
-
-<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
-<title>à®à¯à®©à¯ à®à®°à®¿à®®à®à¯à®à®³à¯ பறà¯à®±à®¿ à®
à®à®¿à®à¯à®à®à®¿ à®à¯à®à¯à®à®ªà¯à®ªà®à¯à®®à¯
à®à¯à®³à¯à®µà®¿à®à®³à¯ - à®à¯à®©à¯ திà®à¯à®à®®à¯ -
-à®à®à¯à®à®±à¯à®± à®®à¯à®©à¯à®ªà¯à®°à¯à®³à¯ à®
à®±à®à¯à®à®à¯à®à®³à¯</title>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ta.html" -->
-<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
- value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/po/gpl-faq.ta.po";>
- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/po/gpl-faq.ta.po</a>' -->
- <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/licenses/gpl-faq.html" -->
- <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="" -->
- <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2011-09-20" -->
- <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ta.html" -->
-<h2>à®à¯à®©à¯ à®à®°à®¿à®®à®à¯à®à®³à¯ பறà¯à®±à®¿ à®
à®à®¿à®à¯à®à®à®¿ à®à¯à®à¯à®à®ªà¯à®ªà®à¯à®®à¯
à®à¯à®³à¯à®µà®¿à®à®³à¯</h2>
-
-<p>
-<a href="/licenses/licenses.html">à®à¯à®©à¯ à®à®°à®¿à®®à®à¯à®à®³à¯</a>
பறà¯à®±à®¿ à®
à®à®¿à®à¯à®à®à®¿
-à®à¯à®à¯à®à®ªà¯à®ªà®à¯à®®à¯
à®à¯à®³à¯à®µà®¿à®à®³à¯à®à¯à®à®¾à®© விà®à¯à®à®³à¯
à®à®ªà¯à®ªà®à¯à®à®®à¯ à®à¯à®£à¯à®à¯à®³à¯à®³à®¤à¯.
-</p>
-
-<h3>விவர à®
à®à¯à®à®µà®£à¯</h3>
-
- <h4>à®à¯à®©à¯ திà®à¯à®à®®à¯ பறà¯à®±à®¿à®¯à¯à®®à¯
à®à®à¯à®à®±à¯à®± à®®à¯à®©à¯à®ªà¯à®°à¯à®³à¯ à®
à®±à®à¯à®à®à¯à®à®³à¯ பறà¯à®±à®¿à®¯à¯à®®à¯ à®
தனà¯
-à®à®°à®¿à®®à®à¯à®à®³à¯ பறà¯à®±à®¿à®¯à¯à®®à®¾à®© à®
à®à®¿à®ªà¯à®ªà®à¯ à®à¯à®³à¯à®µà®¿à®à®³à¯</h4>
-
- <ul>
- <li><a href="#WhatDoesGPLStandFor">“GPL” à®à®©à¯
விரிவாà®à¯à®à®®à¯ à®à®©à¯à®©r?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL">à®à®à¯à®à®±à¯à®±
à®®à¯à®©à¯à®ªà¯à®°à¯à®³à¯ à®à®©à¯à®ªà®¤à®©à¯ பà¯à®°à¯à®³à¯
-GPL஠பயனà¯à®ªà®à¯à®¤à¯à®¤à¯à®µà®¤à®¾?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#WhyUseGPL">à®à®©à¯à®¯ à®à®à¯à®à®±à¯à®±
à®à®°à®¿à®®à®à¯à®à®³à¯ à®à®¾à®à¯à®à®¿à®²à¯à®®à¯ நானà¯
à®à®©à¯ GNU GPLà®
-பயனà¯à®ªà®à¯à®¤à¯à®¤ வà¯à®£à¯à®à¯à®®à¯?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense">à®
னà¯à®¤à¯à®¤à¯ à®à¯à®©à¯
-à®®à¯à®©à¯à®ªà¯à®°à¯à®³à¯à®à®³à¯à®®à¯ GNU GPL஠தனதà¯
à®à®°à®¿à®®à®®à®¾à® à®à¯à®£à¯à®à¯à®³à¯à®³à®¤à®¾?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware">நிரலà¯
à®à®©à¯à®±à¯à®à¯à®à¯ GPLà®
-பயனà¯à®ªà®à¯à®¤à¯à®¤à¯à®µà®¤à¯ à®
தனà¯
à®à¯à®©à¯à®µà®¿à®©à¯
à®®à¯à®©à¯à®ªà¯à®°à¯à®³à®¾à®à¯à®à®¿à®µà®¿à®à¯à®®à®¾?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware">à®®à¯à®©à¯à®ªà¯à®°à¯à®³à¯
நà¯à®à¯à®à®²à®¾à® வà¯à®±à¯ à®à®¤à®±à¯à®à®¾à®à®µà®¾à®µà®¤à¯
-à®à®©à¯à®©à®¾à®²à¯ GPL஠பயனà¯à®ªà®à¯à®¤à¯à®¤
à®®à¯à®à®¿à®¯à¯à®®à®¾?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#WhyNotGPLForManuals">தாà®à¯à®à®³à¯ à®à®©à¯
à®à®µà®£à®®à®¾à®à¯à®à®¤à¯à®¤à®¿à®±à¯à®à¯ GPLà®
-பயனà¯à®ªà®à¯à®¤à¯à®¤à¯à®µà®¤à¯ à®à®¿à®à¯à®¯à®¾à®¤à¯?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#GPLTranslations">GPLà®à®©à¯
à®®à¯à®´à®¿à®ªà¯à®¯à®°à¯à®ªà¯à®ªà¯à®à®³à¯ பிற
à®®à¯à®´à®¿à®à®³à®¿à®²à¯
-à®à®¿à®à¯à®à¯à®à®¿à®±à®¤à®¾?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">à®à¯à®©à¯à®µà®¿à®©à¯
நிரலà®à®à¯à®à®³à¯à®³à¯ à®à®¿à®² Lesser GPL à®®à¯à®²à®®à¯
-வà¯à®³à®¿à®¯à®¿à®à®ªà¯à®ªà®à®¾à®®à®²à¯ à®à®©à¯ à®à®¾à®¤à®¾à®°à®£ GPL
à®à® வà¯à®³à®¿à®¯à®¿à®à®ªà¯à®ªà®à¯à®à¯à®³à¯à®³à®©?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#WhoHasThePower">GPLà® à®à®à¯à®à®°à¯à®¤à®¿à®¯à®¾à®
à®à¯à®¯à®²à¯à®ªà®à¯à®¤à¯à®¤à¯à®®à¯ à®à®°à®¿à®®à¯
யாரà¯à®à¯à®à¯
-à®à®°à¯à®à¯à®à®¿à®±à®¤à¯?</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">à®®à¯à®©à¯à®ªà¯à®°à¯à®³à¯
நà¯à®à¯à®à®²à®¾à® வà¯à®±à¯ à®à®¤à®±à¯à®à®¾à®à®µà®¾à®µà®¤à¯
-à®à®©à¯à®©à®¾à®²à¯ GPL஠பயனà¯à®ªà®à¯à®¤à¯à®¤
à®®à¯à®à®¿à®¯à¯à®®à®¾?</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">à®à®©à¯à®¯ à®à®à¯à®à®±à¯à®±
à®à®°à®¿à®®à®à¯à®à®³à¯ à®à®¾à®à¯à®à®¿à®²à¯à®®à¯ நானà¯
à®à®©à¯ GNU GPLà®
-பயனà¯à®ªà®à¯à®¤à¯à®¤ வà¯à®£à¯à®à¯à®®à¯?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL require including a copy
of the
-GPL with every copy of the program?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort">What if the work is not much longer than
the
-license itself?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#GPLOmitPreamble">Can I omit the preamble of the GPL, or the
-instructions for how to use it on your own programs, to save space?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#HowIGetCopyright">How do I get a copyright on my program in
order
-to release it under the GPL?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#WhatIfSchool">What if my school might want to make my
program into
-its own proprietary software product?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF">I would like to release a program I
wrote
-under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in non-free
-programs.</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#CanDeveloperThirdParty">Can the developer of a program who
-distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive
-use?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#GPLUSGov">Can the US Government release a program under the
GNU
-GPL?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#GPLUSGovAdd">Can the US Government release improvements to a
-GPL-covered program?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#VersionThreeOrLater">Why should programs say
“Version 3
-of the GPL or any later version”?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#GPLOutput">Is there some way that I can GPL the output
people get
-from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop
-hardware designs, can I require these these designs must be free?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#WhyNotGPLForManuals">தாà®à¯à®à®³à¯ à®à®©à¯
à®à®µà®£à®®à®¾à®à¯à®à®¤à¯à®¤à®¿à®±à¯à®à¯ GPLà®
-பயனà¯à®ªà®à¯à®¤à¯à®¤à¯à®µà®¤à¯ à®à®¿à®à¯à®¯à®¾à®¤à¯?</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 program 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">GPLà® à®à®à¯à®à®°à¯à®¤à®¿à®¯à®¾à®
à®à¯à®¯à®²à¯à®ªà®à¯à®¤à¯à®¤à¯à®®à¯ à®à®°à®¿à®®à¯
யாரà¯à®à¯à®à¯
-à®à®°à¯à®à¯à®à®¿à®±à®¤à¯?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#HeardOtherLicense">I heard that someone got a copy of a
GPL'ed
-program under another license. Is this possible?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#DeveloperViolate">Is the developer of a GPL-covered program
bound
-by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the
-GPL?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#CompanyGPLCostsMoney">I just found out that a company has a
copy
-of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it. Aren't they violating
-the GPL by not making it available on the Internet?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#SubscriptionFee">Can I use GPLed software on a device that
will
-stop operating if customers do not continue paying a subscription fee?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#Cure">What does it mean to “cure” a violation of
-GPLv3?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#LaptopLoan">If someone installs GPLed software on a laptop,
and
-then lends that laptop to a friend without providing source code for the
-software, have they violated the GPL?</a></li>
-
- <li><a href="#TwoPartyTivoization" >Suppose that two companies try to
circumvent
-the requirement to provide Installation Information by having one company
-release signed software, and the other release a User Product that only runs
-signed software from the first company. Is this a violation of GPLv3?</a></li>
- </ul>
-
-<hr />
-
-<dl>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhatDoesGPLStandFor">What does “GPL” stand
-for?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>“GPL” stands for “General Public License”. The
most
-widespread such license is the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for
-short. This can be further shortened to “GPL”, when it is
-understood that the GNU GPL is the one intended.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL"> Does free software mean using
-the GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Not at all—there are many other free software licenses. We have
an <a
-href="/licenses/license-list.html">incomplete list</a>. Any license that
-provides the user <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">certain specific
-freedoms</a> is a free software license.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhyUseGPL"> Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than other free
-software licenses?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Using the GNU GPL will require that all the <a
-href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">released improved versions be free
-software</a>. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a
-proprietary modified version of your own work. However, in some special
-situations it can be better to use a <a
-href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">more permissive license</a>.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense"> Does all GNU
-software use the GNU GPL as its license?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>
-Most GNU software packages use the GNU GPL, but there are a few GNU programs
-(and parts of programs) that use looser licenses, such as the Lesser GPL.
-When we do this, it is a matter of <a
-href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">strategy</a>.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware"> Does using the
GPL
-for a program make it GNU software?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Anyone can release a program under the GNU GPL but that does not make it a
-GNU package.</p>
-
-<p>Making the program a GNU software package means explicitly contributing to
-the GNU Project. This happens when the program's developers and the GNU
-Project agree to do it. If you are interested in contributing a program to
-the GNU Project, please write to <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="ReportingViolation"> What should I do if I discover a possible
-violation of the GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>You should <a href="/licenses/gpl-violation.html">report it</a>. First,
-check the facts as best you can. Then tell the publisher or copyright
-holder of the specific GPL-covered program. If that is the Free Software
-Foundation, write to <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.
-Otherwise, the program's maintainer may be the copyright holder, or else
-could tell you how to contact the copyright holder, so report it to the
-maintainer.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions"> Why
-does the GPL permit users to publish their modified versions?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>A crucial aspect of free software is that users are free to cooperate. It
-is absolutely essential to permit users who wish to help each other to share
-their bug fixes and improvements with other users.</p>
-
-<p>Some have proposed alternatives to the GPL that require modified versions to
-go through the original author. As long as the original author keeps up
-with the need for maintenance, this may work well in practice, but if the
-author stops (more or less) to do something else or does not attend to all
-the users' needs, this scheme falls down. Aside from the practical
-problems, this scheme does not allow users to help each other.</p>
-
-<p>Sometimes control over modified versions is proposed as a means of
-preventing confusion between various versions made by users. In our
-experience, this confusion is not a major problem. Many versions of Emacs
-have been made outside the GNU Project, but users can tell them apart. The
-GPL requires the maker of a version to place his or her name on it, to
-distinguish it from other versions and to protect the reputations of other
-maintainers.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">Does the GPL require that source
-code of modified versions be posted to the public?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part
-of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without
-ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies),
-too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally
-without ever releasing it outside the organization.</p>
-
-<p>But <em>if</em> you release the modified version to the public in some way,
-the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the
-program's users, under the GPL.</p>
-
-<p>Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain
-ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up
-to you.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">Can I have a GPL-covered program
and
-an unrelated non-free program on the same computer?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Yes.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="CanIDemandACopy">If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered
-program, can I demand he give me a copy?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the
-program <em>if he chooses to do so</em>. He also has the right not to
-redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid"> What does “written offer
valid
-for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone in the
-world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who
-requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.</p>
-<p>
-If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code,
-the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code
-later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received
-from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means
-that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive
-copies of the source code, along with the written offer.</p>
-<p>
-The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that
-people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source
-code from you.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">GPLv2 says that modified versions,
-if released, must be “licensed … to all third parties.”
-Who are these third parties?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed
to all
-third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means
-absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to *do* anything
-physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the
-GPL, for your version.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="RequiredToClaimCopyright">Am I required to claim a copyright on
-my modifications to a GPL-covered program?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-You are not required to claim a copyright on your changes. In most
-countries, however, that happens automatically by default, so you need to
-place your changes explicitly in the public domain if you do not want them
-to be copyrighted.
-<p>
-Whether you claim a copyright on your changes or not, either way you must
-release the modified version, as a whole, under the GPL. (<a
-href="#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">if you release your modified version at
-all</a>)
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="CombinePublicDomainWithGPL">If a program combines public-domain
-code with GPL-covered code, can I take the public-domain part and use it as
-public domain code?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>You can do that, if you can figure out which part is the public domain
part
-and separate it from the rest. If code was put in the public domain by its
-developer, it is in the public domain no matter where it has been.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DoesTheGPLAllowMoney"> Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of
-the program for money?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The <a
-href="/philosophy/selling.html">right to sell copies</a> is part of the
-definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no
-limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required
-written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only
-release.)
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee"> Does the GPL allow me to charge a
-fee for downloading the program from my site?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the
-program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide
-“equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the
-fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the
-binary.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee"> Does the GPL allow me to require
-that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify
-me?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free.
If
-people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to
-notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the <a
-href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"> definition of free software</a>.</p>
-
-<p>The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use
-and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a
-fee for doing so.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic">If I distribute GPL'd
-software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public
-without a charge?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives
them
-the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For
-example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for
-the general public.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DoesTheGPLAllowNDA"> Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies
-under a nondisclosure agreement?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the
right to
-redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the
-work on any more restrictive basis.</p>
-
-<p>If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software
-copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>.</p>
-
-<p>If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright
-holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other
-kind of violation of the GPL.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA"> Does the GPL allow me to distribute a
-modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>No. The GPL says that your modified versions must carry all the
freedoms
-stated in the GPL. Thus, anyone who receives a copy of your version from
-you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version.
-You may not distribute any version of the work on a more restrictive basis.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DevelopChangesUnderNDA"> Does the GPL allow me to develop a
-modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and
agree
-not to release <em>your changes</em> until the client says ok. This is
-permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed
-under an NDA.</p>
-
-<p>You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not
-to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this case,
-too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any
-additional restrictions.</p>
-
-<p>The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version. In
-this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right,
-but does <em>have</em> the right.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="IWantCredit">I want to get credit for my work. I want people
to
-know what I wrote. Can I still get credit if I use the GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>You can certainly get credit for the work. Part of releasing a program
-under the GPL is writing a copyright notice in your own name (assuming you
-are the copyright holder). The GPL requires all copies to carry an
-appropriate copyright notice.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL require including a copy of
-the GPL with every copy of the program?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that everyone
who
-gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are.</p>
-
-<p>It might be tempting to include a URL that refers to the license, instead of
-the license itself. But you cannot be sure that the URL will still be
-valid, five years or ten years from now. Twenty years from now, URLs as we
-know them today may no longer exist.</p>
-
-<p>The only way to make sure that people who have copies of the program will
-continue to be able to see the license, despite all the changes that will
-happen in the network, is to include a copy of the license in the program.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhatIfWorkIsShort">What if the work is not much longer than the
-license itself?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple
-all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLOmitPreamble"> Can I omit the preamble of the GPL, or the
-instructions for how to use it on your own programs, to save
space?</a></b></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>The preamble and instructions are integral parts of the GNU GPL and may not
-be omitted. In fact, the GPL is copyrighted, and its license permits only
-verbatim copying of the entire GPL. (You can use the legal terms to make <a
-href="#ModifyGPL">another license</a> but it won't be the GNU GPL.)</p>
-
-<p>The preamble and instructions add up to some 1000 words, less than 1/5 of
-the GPL's total size. They will not make a substantial fractional change in
-the size of a software package unless the package itself is quite small. In
-that case, you may as well use a simple all-permissive license rather than
-the GNU GPL.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhatIsCompatible">What does it mean to say that two licenses
are
-“compatible”?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>In order to combine two programs (or substantial parts of them) into a
-larger work, you need to have permission to use both programs in this way.
-If the two programs' licenses permit this, they are compatible. If there is
-no way to satisfy both licenses at once, they are incompatible.</p>
-
-<p>For some licenses, the way in which the combination is made may affect
-whether they are compatible—for instance, they may allow linking two
-modules together, but not allow merging their code into one module.</p>
-
-<p>If you just want to install two separate programs in the same system, it is
-not necessary that their licenses be compatible, because this does not
-combine them into a larger work.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhatDoesCompatMean">What does it mean to say a license is
-“compatible with the GPL?”</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can
-combine code released under the other license with code released under the
-GNU GPL in one larger program.</p>
-
-<p>All GNU GPL versions permit such combinations privately; they also permit
-distribution of such combinations provided the combination is released under
-the same GNU GPL version. The other license is compatible with the GPL if
-it permits this too.</p>
-
-<p>GPLv3 is compatible with more licenses than GPLv2: it allows you to make
-combinations with code that has specific kinds of additional requirements
-that are not in GPLv3 itself. Section 7 has more information about this,
-including the list of additional requirements that are permitted.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="FSWithNFLibs">Can I write free software that uses non-free
-libraries?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-If you do this, your program won't be fully usable in a free environment. If
-your program depends on a non-free library to do a certain job, it cannot do
-that job in the Free World. If it depends on a non-free library to run at
-all, it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU; it is
-entirely off limits to the Free World.
-<p>
-So please consider: can you find a way to get the job done without using
-this library? Can you write a free replacement for that library?</p>
-<p>
-If the program is already written using the non-free library, perhaps it is
-too late to change the decision. You may as well release the program as it
-stands, rather than not release it. But please mention in the README that
-the need for the non-free library is a drawback, and suggest the task of
-changing the program so that it does the same job without the non-free
-library. Please suggest that anyone who thinks of doing substantial further
-work on the program first free it from dependence on the non-free library.</p>
-<p>
-Note that there may also be legal issues with combining certain non-free
-libraries with GPL-covered Free Software. Please see <a
-href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">the question on GPL software with
-GPL-incompatible libraries</a> for more information.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLIncompatibleLibs">What legal issues come up if I use
-GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL software?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-
-<p>Both versions of the GPL have an exception to their copyleft, commonly
-called the system library exception. If the GPL-incompatible libraries you
-want to use meet the criteria for a system library, then you don't have to
-do anything special to use them; the requirement to distribute source code
-for the whole program does not include those libraries, even if you
-distribute a linked executable containing them.</p>
-
-<p>The criteria for what counts as a "system library" vary between
-different versions of the GPL. GPLv3 explicitly defines "System
-Libraries" in section 1, to exclude it from the definition of
-"Corresponding Source." GPLv2 says the following, near the end of
-section 3:</p>
-
-<blockquote><p>
- However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
-include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
-form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
-operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself
-accompanies the executable.
-</p></blockquote>
-
-<p>If you want your program to link against a library not covered by the system
-library exception, you need to provide permission to do that. Below are two
-example license notices that you can use to do that; one for GPLv3, and the
-other for GPLv2. In either case, you should put this text in each file to
-which you are granting this permission.</p>
-
-<p>Only the copyright holders for the program can legally release their
-software under these terms. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then
-assuming your employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are the
-copyright holder—so you can authorize the exception. But if you want
-to use parts of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code,
-you cannot authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval of
-the copyright holders of those programs.</p>
-
-<p>When other people modify the program, they do not have to make the same
-exception for their code—it is their choice whether to do so.</p>
-
-<p>If the libraries you intend to link with are non-free, please also see <a
-href="#FSWithNFLibs">the section on writing Free Software which uses
-non-free libraries</a>.</p>
-
-<p>If you're using GPLv3, you can accomplish this goal by granting an
-additional permission under section 7. The following license notice will do
-that. You must replace all the text in brackets with text that is
-appropriate for your program. If not everybody can distribute source for
-the libraries you intend to link with, you should remove the text in braces;
-otherwise, just remove the braces themselves.</p>
-
-<blockquote>
-
-<p>Copyright (C) <var>[years]</var> <var>[name of copyright holder]</var></p>
-
-<p>This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
-under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
-Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option)
-any later version.</p>
-
-<p>This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
-ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
-FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for
-more details.</p>
-
-<p>You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with
-this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses>.</p>
-
-<p>Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7</p>
-
-<p>If you modify this Program, or any covered work, by linking or combining it
-with <var>[name of library]</var> (or a modified version of that library),
-containing parts covered by the terms of <var>[name of library's
-license]</var>, the licensors of this Program grant you additional
-permission to convey the resulting work. {Corresponding Source for a
-non-source form of such a combination shall include the source code for the
-parts of <var>[name of library]</var> used as well as that of the covered
-work.}</p>
-
-</blockquote>
-
-<p>If you're using GPLv2, you can provide your own exception to the license's
-terms. The following license notice will do that. Again, you must replace
-all the text in brackets with text that is appropriate for your program. If
-not everybody can distribute source for the libraries you intend to link
-with, you should remove the text in braces; otherwise, just remove the
-braces themselves.</p>
-
-<blockquote>
-
-<p>Copyright (C) <var>[years]</var> <var>[name of copyright holder]</var></p>
-
-<p>This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
-under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
-Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
-any later version.</p>
-
-<p>This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
-ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
-FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for
-more details.</p>
-
-<p>You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with
-this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses>.</p>
-
-<p>Linking <var>[name of your program]</var> statically or dynamically with
-other modules is making a combined work based on <var>[name of your
-program]</var>. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public
-License cover the whole combination.</p>
-
-<p>In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of <var>[name of
-your program]</var> give you permission to combine <var>[name of your
-program]</var> with free software programs or libraries that are released
-under the GNU LGPL and with code included in the standard release of
-<var>[name of library]</var> under the <var>[name of library's
-license]</var> (or modified versions of such code, with unchanged license).
-You may copy and distribute such a system following the terms of the GNU GPL
-for <var>[name of your program]</var> and the licenses of the other code
-concerned{, provided that you include the source code of that other code
-when and as the GNU GPL requires distribution of source code}.</p>
-
-<p>Note that people who make modified versions of <var>[name of your
-program]</var> are not obligated to grant this special exception for their
-modified versions; it is their choice whether to do so. The GNU General
-Public License gives permission to release a modified version without this
-exception; this exception also makes it possible to release a modified
-version which carries forward this exception.</p>
-
-</blockquote>
-
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="HowIGetCopyright">How do I get a copyright on my program in
-order to release it under the GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Under the Berne Convention, everything written is automatically copyrighted
-from whenever it is put in fixed form. So you don't have to do anything to
-“get” the copyright on what you write—as long as nobody
-else can claim to own your work.</p>
-
-<p>However, registering the copyright in the US is a very good idea. It will
-give you more clout in dealing with an infringer in the US.</p>
-
-<p>The case when someone else might possibly claim the copyright is if you are
-an employee or student; then the employer or the school might claim you did
-the job for them and that the copyright belongs to them. Whether they would
-have a valid claim would depend on circumstances such as the laws of the
-place where you live, and on your employment contract and what sort of work
-you do. It is best to consult a lawyer if there is any possible doubt.</p>
-
-<p>If you think that the employer or school might have a claim, you can resolve
-the problem clearly by getting a copyright disclaimer signed by a suitably
-authorized officer of the company or school. (Your immediate boss or a
-professor is usually NOT authorized to sign such a disclaimer.)
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhatIfSchool">What if my school might want to make my program
-into its own proprietary software product?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Many universities nowadays try to raise funds by restricting the use of
the
-knowledge and information they develop, in effect behaving little different
-from commercial businesses. (See “The Kept University”,
-Atlantic Monthly, March 2000, for a general discussion of this problem and
-its effects.)</p>
-
-<p>If you see any chance that your school might refuse to allow your program to
-be released as free software, it is best to raise the issue at the earliest
-possible stage. The closer the program is to working usefully, the more
-temptation the administration might feel to take it from you and finish it
-without you. At an earlier stage, you have more leverage.</p>
-
-<p>So we recommend that you approach them when the program is only half-done,
-saying, “If you will agree to releasing this as free software, I will
-finish it.” Don't think of this as a bluff. To prevail, you must have
-the courage to say, “My program will have liberty, or never be
-born.”
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="CouldYouHelpApplyGPL">Could you give me step by step
-instructions on how to apply the GPL to my program?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>See the page of <a href="/licenses/gpl-howto.html">GPL
instructions</a>.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="HeardOtherLicense">I heard that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed
-program under another license. Is this possible?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to
the
-program. But the copyright holder for a program can release it under
-several different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the GNU GPL.</p>
-
-<p>The license that comes in your copy, assuming it was put in by the copyright
-holder and that you got the copy legitimately, is the license that applies
-to your copy.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF">I would like to release a program I wrote
-under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in non-free
-programs.</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally
there
-is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the
-code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at
-various times.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DeveloperViolate">Is the developer of a GPL-covered program
-bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the
-GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to
-use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound
-by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a
-“violation” of the GPL.</p>
-
-<p>However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done
-by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the
-community.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="CanDeveloperThirdParty">Can the developer of a program who
-distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive
-use?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>No, because the public already has the right to use the program under
the
-GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="CanIUseGPLToolsForNF">Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU
-Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC
-to compile them?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the
code
-you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the
-license you use for your code.</p>
-
-<p>Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical
-reasons—for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its
-output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered by the
-same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the
-output which is derived from the program's input inherits the copyright
-status of the input.</p>
-
-<p>As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs. This is
-because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard parser
-program in Bison output files without restriction. We made the decision
-because there were other tools comparable to Bison which already permitted
-use for non-free programs.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLFairUse">Do I have “fair use” rights in using
the
-source code of a GPL-covered program?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Yes, you do. “Fair use” is use that is allowed without any
-special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for
-such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about
-it—in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or
-any other free software license.</p>
-
-<p>Note, however, that there is no world-wide principle of fair use; what kinds
-of use are considered “fair” varies from country to country.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLUSGov">Can the US Government release a program under the GNU
-GPL?</a></b></dt>
-<dd><p>
-If the program is written by US federal government employees in the course
-of their employment, it is in the public domain, which means it is not
-copyrighted. Since the GNU GPL is based on copyright, such a program cannot
-be released under the GNU GPL. (It can still be <a
-href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>, however; a public domain
-program is free.)</p>
-
-<p>However, when a US federal government agency uses contractors to develop
-software, that is a different situation. The contract can require the
-contractor to release it under the GNU GPL. (GNU Ada was developed in this
-way.) Or the contract can assign the copyright to the government agency,
-which can then release the software under the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLUSGovAdd">Can the US Government release improvements to a
-GPL-covered program?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Yes. If the improvements are written by US government employees in the
-course of their employment, then the improvements are in the public domain.
-However, the improved version, as a whole, is still covered by the GNU GPL.
-There is no problem in this situation.</p>
-
-<p>If the US government uses contractors to do the job, then the improvements
-themselves can be GPL-covered.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLOutput">Is there some way that I can GPL the output people
-get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop
-hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you
any
-say in the use of the output people make from their data using your
-program. If the user uses your program to enter or convert his own data,
-the copyright on the output belongs to him, not you. More generally, when a
-program translates its input into some other form, the copyright status of
-the output inherits that of the input it was generated from.</p>
-
-<p>So the only way you have a say in the use of the output is if substantial
-parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in your program.
-For instance, part of the output of Bison (see above) would be covered by
-the GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in this specific case.</p>
-
-<p>You could artificially make a program copy certain text into its output even
-if there is no technical reason to do so. But if that copied text serves no
-practical purpose, the user could simply delete that text from the output
-and use only the rest. Then he would not have to obey the conditions on
-redistribution of the copied text.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhatCaseIsOutputGPL">In what cases is the output of a GPL
-program covered by the GPL too?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLModuleLicense">If I add a module to a GPL-covered program,
do
-I have to use the GPL as the license for my module?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released under
the
-GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the GPL.</p>
-
-<p>But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. You can,
-if you wish, release your program under a license which is more lax than the
-GPL but compatible with the GPL. The <a
-href="/licenses/license-list.html">license list page</a> gives a partial
-list of GPL-compatible licenses.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="IfLibraryIsGPL">If a library is released under the GPL (not the
-LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL
-or a GPL-compatible license?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the
library.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="IfInterpreterIsGPL">If a programming language interpreter is
-released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by
-it must be under GPL-compatible licenses?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>
-When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The
-interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software
-license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use
-the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any
-way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to
-anyone.</p>
-
-<p>However, when the interpreter is extended to provide “bindings”
-to other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the interpreted
-program is effectively linked to the facilities it uses through these
-bindings. So if these facilities are released under the GPL, the interpreted
-program that uses them must be released in a GPL-compatible way. The JNI or
-Java Native Interface is an example of such a binding mechanism; libraries
-that are accessed in this way are linked dynamically with the Java programs
-that call them. These libraries are also linked with the interpreter. If
-the interpreter is linked statically with these libraries, or if it is
-designed to <a href="#GPLPluginsInNF">link dynamically with these specific
-libraries</a>, then it too needs to be released in a GPL-compatible way.</p>
-<p>
-Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the
-interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl comes with
-many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with many Java classes.
-These libraries and the programs that call them are always dynamically
-linked together.</p>
-<p>
-A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java
-classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible
-way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the
-combined Perl or Java program will run on.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WindowsRuntimeAndGPL">I'm writing a Windows application with
-Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) and I will be releasing it under the
-GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++ (or Visual
-Basic) run-time library permitted under the GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>The GPL permits this because that run-time library normally accompanies the
-compiler or interpreter you are using. The run-time libraries here are
-“System Libraries” as GPLv3 defines them, and as such they are
-not considered part of the Corresponding Source. GPLv2 has a similar
-exception in section 3.</p>
-
-<p>
-That doesn't mean it is a good idea to write the program so that it only
-runs on Windows. Doing so results in a program that is free software but
-“<a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">trapped</a>” by Windows.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="OrigBSD">Why is the original BSD license incompatible with the
-GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>
-Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL; namely,
-the requirement on advertisements of the program. Section 6 of GPLv2
-states:</p>
-
-<blockquote><p>You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of
-the rights granted herein.</p></blockquote>
-
-<p>GPLv3 says something similar in section 10. The advertising clause provides
-just such a further restriction, and thus is GPL-incompatible.</p>
-
-<p>The revised BSD license does not have the advertising clause, which
-eliminates the problem.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLAndPlugins">If a program released under the GPL uses
-plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses
-fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs,
-so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them.</p>
-
-<p>If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to
-each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program,
-which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the
-plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a
-GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be
-followed when those plug-ins are distributed.</p>
-
-<p>If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between
-them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in
-with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLPluginsInNF">Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for
a
-non-free program?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins
are
-separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements
-for them. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in, and there are no special
-requirements.</p>
-
-<p>If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to
-each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program,
-which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the
-plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the
-non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that
-legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving
-permission to link it with the non-free main program.</p>
-
-<p>See also the question <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">I am writing free software
-that uses a non-free library.</a>
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="NFUseGPLPlugins">Can I release a non-free program that's
-designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if the
-program uses <em>only</em> simple fork and exec to invoke and communicate
-with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of
-the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program.</p>
-<p>
-If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to
-each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program,
-which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the
-plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must
-be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and
-that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is
-distributed for use with these plug-ins.</p>
-<p>
-If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between
-them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in
-with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.</p>
-<p>
-Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty
-much equivalent to dynamic linking.</p>
-<p>
-See also the question <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">I am writing free software
-that uses a non-free library.</a>
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="LinkingWithGPL">You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link
-with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with
-your program mean I have to GPL my program?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Not exactly. It means you must release your program under a license
-compatible with the GPL (more precisely, compatible with one or more GPL
-versions accepted by all the rest of the code in the combination that you
-link). The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="SwitchToLGPL">If so, is there any chance I could get a license
-of your program under the Lesser GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>You can ask, but most authors will stand firm and say no. The idea of
the
-GPL is that if you want to include our code in your program, your program
-must also be free software. It is supposed to put pressure on you to
-release your program in a way that makes it part of our community.</p>
-
-<p>You always have the legal alternative of not using our code.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="LinkingOverControlledInterface">How can I allow linking of
-proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a controlled interface
-only?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Add this text to the license notice of each file in the package, at the end
-of the text that says the file is distributed under the GNU GPL:</p>
-
-<blockquote>
-<p>Linking ABC statically or dynamically with other modules is making a
-combined work based on ABC. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU
-General Public License cover the whole combination.</p>
-
-<p>In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of ABC give you
-permission to combine ABC program with free software programs or libraries
-that are released under the GNU LGPL and with independent modules that
-communicate with ABC solely through the ABCDEF interface. You may copy and
-distribute such a system following the terms of the GNU GPL for ABC and the
-licenses of the other code concerned, provided that you include the source
-code of that other code when and as the GNU GPL requires distribution of
-source code.</p>
-
-<p>Note that people who make modified versions of ABC are not obligated to
-grant this special exception for their modified versions; it is their choice
-whether to do so. The GNU General Public License gives permission to
-release a modified version without this exception; this exception also makes
-it possible to release a modified version which carries forward this
-exception.</p>
-
-</blockquote>
-<p>
-Only the copyright holders for the program can legally authorize this
-exception. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then assuming your
-employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are the copyright
-holder—so you can authorize the exception. But if you want to use
-parts of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code, you
-cannot authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval of the
-copyright holders of those programs.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="ManyDifferentLicenses">I have written an application that links
-with many different components, that have different licenses. I am very
-confused as to what licensing requirements are placed on my program. Can
-you please tell me what licenses I may use?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>To answer this question, we would need to see a list of each component that
-your program uses, the license of that component, and a brief (a few
-sentences for each should suffice) describing how your library uses that
-component. Two examples would be:</p>
-<ul>
-<li>To make my software work, it must be linked to the FOO library, which is
-available under the Lesser GPL.</li>
-<li>My software makes a system call (with a command line that I built) to run
-the BAR program, which is licensed under “the GPL, with a special
-exception allowing for linking with QUUX”.</li>
-</ul>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="MereAggregation">What is the difference between an
-“aggregate” and other kinds of “modified
-versions”?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs,
-distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you
-to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other
-software are non-free or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is that you
-cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from
-exercising rights that each program's individual license would grant them.</p>
-
-<p>Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two
-parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We
-believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of
-communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address
-space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of
-information are interchanged).</p>
-
-<p>If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely
-combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in
-a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one
-program.</p>
-
-<p>By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication
-mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are
-used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if
-the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex
-internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two
-parts as combined into a larger program.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="AssignCopyright">Why does the FSF require that contributors to
-FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the FSF? If I hold copyright on
-a GPL'ed program, should I do this, too? If so, how?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-Our lawyers have told us that to be in the <a
-href="/licenses/why-assign.html">best position to enforce the GPL</a> in
-court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the program
-as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either
-assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright
-on it and thus put it in the public domain.
-<p>
-We also ask individual contributors to get copyright disclaimers from their
-employers (if any) so that we can be sure those employers won't claim to own
-the contributions.</p>
-<p>
-Of course, if all the contributors put their code in the public domain,
-there is no copyright with which to enforce the GPL. So we encourage people
-to assign copyright on large code contributions, and only put small changes
-in the public domain.</p>
-<p>
-If you want to make an effort to enforce the GPL on your program, it is
-probably a good idea for you to follow a similar policy. Please contact <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a> if you want
-more information.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="ModifyGPL">Can I modify the GPL and make a modified
-license?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided
-that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL
-preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough
-to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the
-actual procedure you describe may be similar).
-<p>
-If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a> for
-permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license
-requirements to see if we approve of them.</p>
-<p>
-Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified
-license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a
-modified license is almost certainly <a href="#WhatIsCompatible">
-incompatible with the GNU GPL</a>, and that incompatibility blocks useful
-combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software
-licenses is a burden in and of itself.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLCommercially">If I use a piece of software that has been
-obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a
-new program, then distribute and sell that new program
commercially?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but
-only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the
-source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL,
-and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the
-GPL.
-<p>
-These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you
-received in a program of your own.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLOtherThanSoftware">Can I use the GPL for something other
than
-software?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what
-constitutes the “source code” for the work. The GPL defines
-this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it.</p>
-
-<p>However, for manuals and textbooks, or more generally any sort of work that
-is meant to teach a subject, we recommend using the GFDL rather than the
-GPL.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="LGPLJava">How does the LGPL work with Java?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-
-<p><a href="/licenses/lgpl-java.html">See this article for details.</a> It
-works as designed, intended, and expected.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="Consider">Consider this situation: 1) X releases V1 of a
project
-under the GPL. 2) Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and
-new code based on V1. 3) X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license. Does X
-need Y's permission?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Yes. Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a
-consequence of basing it on X's version V1. Nothing required Y to agree to
-any other license for its code. Therefore, X must get Y's permission before
-releasing that code under another license.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLInProprietarySystem">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered
-software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The
-goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute,
-understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered
-software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the
-GPL-covered software non-free too.
-<p>
-A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that
-program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be
-released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons:
-to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should
-have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.</p>
-<p>
-However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside
-your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the
-free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not
-combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.</p>
-<p>
-The difference between this and “incorporating” the GPL-covered
-software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive
-part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become
-effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two
-separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.</p>
-<p>
-If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel,
-or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate
-programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of
-form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this?
-Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of
-the GPL-covered software in the collection.</p>
-<p>
-If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it “part
-of” a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be
-uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they
-know that what they have received is a free program plus another program,
-side by side, their rights will be clear.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLWrapper">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my
-proprietary system. Can I do this by putting a “wrapper”
-module, under a GPL-compatible lax permissive license (such as the X11
-license) in between the GPL-covered part and the proprietary part?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>No. The X11 license is compatible with the GPL, so you can add a
module to
-the GPL-covered program and put it under the X11 license. But if you were
-to incorporate them both in a larger program, that whole would include the
-GPL-covered part, so it would have to be licensed <em>as a whole</em> under
-the GNU GPL.</p>
-
-<p>The fact that proprietary module A communicates with GPL-covered module C
-only through X11-licensed module B is legally irrelevant; what matters is
-the fact that module C is included in the whole.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="LibGCCException">Where can I learn more about the GCC Runtime
-Library Exception?</a></b></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><b><a name="MoneyGuzzlerInc">I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and
-link them with the portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot
-distribute the source code for these libraries, so any user who wanted to
-change these versions would have to obtained those libraries separately.
-Why doesn't the GPL permit this?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-There are two reasons for this.
-<p>
-First, a general one. If we permitted company A to make a proprietary file,
-and company B to distribute GPL-covered software linked with that file, the
-effect would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a truck
-through. This would be carte blanche for withholding the source code for
-all sorts of modifications and extensions to GPL-covered software.</p>
-<p>
-Giving all users access to the source code is one of our main goals, so this
-consequence is definitely something we want to avoid.</p>
-<p>
-More concretely, the versions of the programs linked with the Money Guzzler
-libraries would not really be free software as we understand the
-term—they would not come with full source code that enables users to
-change and recompile the program.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLIncompatibleAlone">If license for a module Q has a
-requirement that's incompatible with the GPL, but the requirement applies
-only when Q is distributed by itself, not when Q is included in a larger
-program, does that make the license GPL-compatible? Can I combine or link Q
-with a GPL-covered program?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-If a program P is released under the GPL that means *any and every part of
-it* can be used under the GPL. If you integrate module Q, and release the
-combined program P+Q under the GPL, that means any part of P+Q can be used
-under the GPL. One part of P+Q is Q. So releasing P+Q under the GPL says
-that Q any part of it can be used under the GPL. Putting it in other words,
-a user who obtains P+Q under the GPL can delete P, so that just Q remains,
-still under the GPL.
-<p>
-If the license of module Q permits you to give permission for that, then it
-is GPL-compatible. Otherwise, it is not GPL-compatible.</p>
-<p>
-If the license for Q says in no uncertain terms that you must do certain
-things (not compatible with the GPL) when you redistribute Q on its own,
-then it does not permit you to distribute Q under the GPL. It follows that
-you can't release P+Q under the GPL either. So you cannot link or combine P
-with Q.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="ModifiedJustBinary">Can I release a modified version of a
-GPL-covered program in binary form only?</a></b></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be <a
-href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"> free software</a>—which means, in
-particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the
-users.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="UnchangedJustBinary">I downloaded just the binary from the net.
-If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that
-too?</a></b></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute
-the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case
-where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DistributeWithSourceOnInternet">I want to distribute binaries
-via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code
-by FTP?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-
-<p>Version 3 of the GPL allows this; see option 6(b) for the full details.
-Under version 2, you're certainly free to offer source via FTP, and most
-users will get it from there. However, if any of them would rather get the
-source on physical media by mail, you are required to provide that.</p>
-
-<p>If you distribute binaries via FTP, <a href="#AnonFTPAndSendSources">you
-should distribute source via FTP.</a></p>
-
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="RedistributedBinariesGetSource">My friend got a GPL-covered
-binary with an offer to supply source, and made a copy for me. Can I use
-the offer myself to obtain the source?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Yes, you can. The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy of the
-binary that it accompanies. This is why the GPL says your friend must give
-you a copy of the offer along with a copy of the binary—so you can
-take advantage of it.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites">Can I put the binaries on my
-Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Yes. Section 6(d) allows this. However, you must provide clear
-instructions people can follow to obtain the source, and you must take care
-to make sure that the source remains available for as long as you distribute
-the object code.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DistributeExtendedBinary">I want to distribute an extended
-version of a GPL-covered program in binary form. Is it enough to distribute
-the source for the original version?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>No, you must supply the source code that corresponds to the binary.
-Corresponding source means the source from which users can rebuild the same
-binary.</p>
-
-<p>Part of the idea of free software is that users should have access to the
-source code for *the programs they use*. Those using your version should
-have access to the source code for your version.</p>
-
-<p>A major goal of the GPL is to build up the Free World by making sure that
-improvement to a free program are themselves free. If you release an
-improved version of a GPL-covered program, you must release the improved
-source code under the GPL.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DistributingSourceIsInconvenient">I want to distribute
binaries,
-but distributing complete source is inconvenient. Is it ok if I give users
-the diffs from the “standard” version along with the
-binaries?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the source
-doesn't really do the job.</p>
-
-<p>A user that wants the source a year from now may be unable to get the proper
-version from another site at that time. The standard distribution site may
-have a newer version, but the same diffs probably won't work with that
-version.</p>
-
-<p>So you need to provide complete sources, not just diffs, with the binaries.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="AnonFTPAndSendSources">Can I make binaries available on a
-network server, but send sources only to people who order them?</a></b></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><b><a name="HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource">How can I make sure each
-user who downloads the binaries also gets the source?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>You don't have to make sure of this. As long as you make the source and
-binaries available so that the users can see what's available and take what
-they want, you have done what is required of you. It is up to the user
-whether to download the source.</p>
-
-<p>Our requirements for redistributors are intended to make sure the users can
-get the source code, not to force users to download the source code even if
-they don't want it.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="UnreleasedMods">A company is running a modified version of a
-GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their
-modified sources?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever
-distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of
-that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified
sources.</p>
-
-<p>It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use
-them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However,
-putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly
-“private” use, so it would be legitimate to require release of
-the source code in that special case. Developers who wish to address this
-might want to use the <a href="/licenses/agpl.html">GNU Affero GPL</a> for
-programs designed for network server use.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="InternalDistribution">Is making and using multiple copies
within
-one organization or company “distribution”?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself.
As
-a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified
-version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving
-the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.</p>
-
-<p>However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or
-individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to
-contractors for use off-site is distribution.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="StolenCopy">If someone steals a CD containing a version of a
-GPL-covered program, does the GPL give him the right to redistribute that
-version?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably does
-have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the GPL, but if he
-is imprisoned for stealing the CD he may have to wait until his release
-before doing so.</p>
-
-<p>If the version in question is unpublished and considered by a company to be
-its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade secret law,
-depending on other circumstances. The GPL does not change that. If the
-company tried to release its version and still treat it as a trade secret,
-that would violate the GPL, but if the company hasn't released this version,
-no such violation has occurred.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="TradeSecretRelease">What if a company distributes a copy as a
-trade secret?</a></b></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>If a company distributes a copy to you and claims it is a trade secret, the
-company has violated the GPL and will have to cease distribution. Note how
-this differs from the theft case above; the company does not intentionally
-distribute a copy when a copy is stolen, so in that case the company has not
-violated the GPL.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">Why are some GNU libraries released under
-the ordinary GPL rather than the Lesser GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-Using the Lesser GPL for any particular library constitutes a retreat for
-free software. It means we partially abandon the attempt to defend the
-users' freedom, and some of the requirements to share what is built on top
-of GPL-covered software. In themselves, those are changes for the worse.
-<p>
-Sometimes a localized retreat is a good strategy. Sometimes, using the LGPL
-for a library might lead to wider use of that library, and thus to more
-improvement for it, wider support for free software, and so on. This could
-be good for free software if it happens to a large extent. But how much
-will this happen? We can only speculate.</p>
-<p>
-It would be nice to try out the LGPL on each library for a while, see
-whether it helps, and change back to the GPL if the LGPL didn't help. But
-this is not feasible. Once we use the LGPL for a particular library,
-changing back would be difficult.</p>
-<p>
-So we decide which license to use for each library on a case-by-case basis.
-There is a <a href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">long explanation</a> of how
-we judge the question.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WillYouMakeAnException">Using a certain GNU program under the
-GPL does not fit our project to make proprietary software. Will you make an
-exception for us? It would mean more users of that program.</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-Sorry, we don't make such exceptions. It would not be right.
-<p>
-Maximizing the number of users is not our aim. Rather, we are trying to
-give the crucial freedoms to as many users as possible. In general,
-proprietary software projects hinder rather than help the cause of freedom.</p>
-<p>
-We do occasionally make license exceptions to assist a project which is
-producing free software under a license other than the GPL. However, we
-have to see a good reason why this will advance the cause of free software.</p>
-<p>
-We also do sometimes change the distribution terms of a package, when that
-seems clearly the right way to serve the cause of free software; but we are
-very cautious about this, so you will have to show us very convincing
-reasons.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="VersionThreeOrLater">Why should programs say “Version 3
of
-the GPL or any later version”?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>From time to time, at intervals of years, we change the
GPL—sometimes
-to clarify it, sometimes to permit certain kinds of use not previously
-permitted, and sometimes to tighten up a requirement. (The last two changes
-were in 2007 and 1991.) Using this “indirect pointer” in each
-program makes it possible for us to change the distribution terms on the
-entire collection of GNU software, when we update the GPL.</p>
-
-<p>If each program lacked the indirect pointer, we would be forced to discuss
-the change at length with numerous copyright holders, which would be a
-virtual impossibility. In practice, the chance of having uniform
-distribution terms for GNU software would be nil.</p>
-
-<p>Suppose a program says “Version 3 of the GPL or any later
-version” and a new version of the GPL is released. If the new GPL
-version gives additional permission, that permission will be available
-immediately to all the users of the program. But if the new GPL version has
-a tighter requirement, it will not restrict use of the current version of
-the program, because it can still be used under GPL version 3. When a
-program says “Version 3 of the GPL or any later version”, users
-will always be permitted to use it, and even change it, according to the
-terms of GPL version 3—even after later versions of the GPL are
-available.</p>
-
-<p>If a tighter requirement in a new version of the GPL need not be obeyed for
-existing software, how is it useful? Once GPL version 4 is available, the
-developers of most GPL-covered programs will release subsequent versions of
-their programs specifying “Version 4 of the GPL or any later
-version”. Then users will have to follow the tighter requirements in
-GPL version 4, for subsequent versions of the program.</p>
-
-<p>However, developers are not obligated to do this; developers can continue
-allowing use of the previous version of the GPL, if that is their
-preference.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why don't you use the GPL for
-manuals?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>It is possible to use the GPL for a manual, but the GNU Free
Documentation
-License (GFDL) is much better for manuals.</p>
-
-<p>The GPL was designed for programs; it contains lots of complex clauses that
-are crucial for programs, but that would be cumbersome and unnecessary for a
-book or manual. For instance, anyone publishing the book on paper would
-have to either include machine-readable “source code” of the
-book along with each printed copy, or provide a written offer to send the
-“source code” later.</p>
-
-<p>Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals make a
-profit from selling copies—cover texts, for instance. The special
-rules for Endorsements sections make it possible to use the GFDL for an
-official standard. This would permit modified versions, but they could not
-be labeled as “the standard”.</p>
-
-<p>Using the GFDL, we permit changes in the text of a manual that covers its
-technical topic. It is important to be able to change the technical parts,
-because people who change a program ought to change the documentation to
-correspond. The freedom to do this is an ethical imperative.</p>
-
-<p>Our manuals also include sections that state our political position about
-free software. We mark these as “invariant”, so that they
-cannot be changed or removed. The GFDL makes provisions for these
-“invariant sections”.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="FontException">How does the GPL apply to fonts?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-
-<p>Font licensing is a complex issue which needs serious consideration. The
-following license exception is experimental but approved for general use.
-We welcome suggestions on this subject—please see this this <a
-href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050425novalis";>explanatory
-essay</a> and write to <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>.</p>
-
-<p>To use this exception, add this text to the license notice of each file in
-the package (to the extent possible), at the end of the text that says the
-file is distributed under the GNU GPL:</p>
-
-<blockquote><p>
-As a special exception, if you create a document which uses this font, and
-embed this font or unaltered portions of this font into the document, this
-font does not by itself cause the resulting document to be covered by the
-GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any
-other reasons why the document might be covered by the GNU General Public
-License. If you modify this font, you may extend this exception to your
-version of the font, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish
-to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.
-</p></blockquote></dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="WMS">I am writing a website maintenance system</a> (called a
-“<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">content management
-system</a>” by some), or some other application which generates web
-pages from templates. What license should I use for those templates?</b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Templates are minor enough that it is not worth using copyleft to protect
-them. It is normally harmless to use copyleft on minor works, but templates
-are a special case, because they are combined with data provided by users of
-the application and the combination is distributed. So, we recommend that
-you license your templates under simple permissive terms. </p>
-
-<p>Some templates make calls into Javascript functions. Since Javascript is
-often non-trivial, it is worth copylefting. Because the templates will be
-combined with user data, it's possible that template+user data+Javascript
-would be considered one work under copyright law. A line needs to be drawn
-between the Javascript (copylefted), and the user code (usually under
-incompatible terms). </p>
-
-<p><a href="template-diagram.png"><img src="template-diagram.png" alt="A
diagram of the above content" /></a></p>
-
-<p>Here's an exception for Javascript code that does this:</p>
-
-<blockquote><p>As a special exception to 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><b><a name="NonFreeTools">Can I release a program under the GPL which I
-developed using non-free tools?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Which programs you used to edit the source code, or to compile it, or
study
-it, or record it, usually makes no difference for issues concerning the
-licensing of that source code.</p>
-
-<p>However, if you link non-free libraries with the source code, that would be
-an issue you need to deal with. It does not preclude releasing the source
-code under the GPL, but if the libraries don't fit under the “system
-library” exception, you should affix an explicit notice giving
-permission to link your program with them. <a
-href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">Our FAQ about using GPL-incompatible
-libraries</a> provides more information about how to do that.</p>
-</dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLTranslations">Are there translations of the GPL into other
-languages?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>It would be useful to have translations of the GPL into languages other than
-English. People have even written translations and sent them to us. But we
-have not dared to approve them as officially valid. That carries a risk so
-great we do not dare accept it.</p>
-
-<p>A legal document is in some ways like a program. Translating it is like
-translating a program from one language and operating system to another.
-Only a lawyer skilled in both languages can do it—and even then, there
-is a risk of introducing a bug.</p>
-
-<p>If we were to approve, officially, a translation of the GPL, we would be
-giving everyone permission to do whatever the translation says they can do.
-If it is a completely accurate translation, that is fine. But if there is
-an error in the translation, the results could be a disaster which we could
-not fix.</p>
-
-<p>If a program has a bug, we can release a new version, and eventually the old
-version will more or less disappear. But once we have given everyone
-permission to act according to a particular translation, we have no way of
-taking back that permission if we find, later on, that it had a bug.</p>
-
-<p>Helpful people sometimes offer to do the work of translation for us. If the
-problem were a matter of finding someone to do the work, this would solve
-it. But the actual problem is the risk of error, and offering to do the
-work does not avoid the risk. We could not possibly authorize a translation
-written by a non-lawyer.</p>
-
-<p>Therefore, for the time being, we are not approving translations of the GPL
-as globally valid and binding. Instead, we are doing two things:</p>
-
-<ul>
-<li><p>Referring people to unofficial translations. This means that we permit
-people to write translations of the GPL, but we don't approve them as
-legally valid and binding.</p>
-
-<p>An unapproved translation has no legal force, and it should say so
-explicitly. It should be marked as follows:</p>
-
-<blockquote><p>
- This translation of the GPL is informal, and not officially approved by the
-Free Software Foundation as valid. To be completely sure of what is
-permitted, refer to the original GPL (in English).
-</p></blockquote>
-
-<p>But the unapproved translation can serve as a hint for how to understand the
-English GPL. For many users, that is sufficient.</p>
-
-<p>However, businesses using GNU software in commercial activity, and people
-doing public ftp distribution, should need to check the real English GPL to
-make sure of what it permits.</p>
-</li>
-
-<li><p>Publishing translations valid for a single country only.</p>
-
-<p>We are considering the idea of publishing translations which are officially
-valid only for one country. This way, if there is a mistake, it will be
-limited to that country, and the damage will not be too great.</p>
-
-<p>It will still take considerable expertise and effort from a sympathetic and
-capable lawyer to make a translation, so we cannot promise any such
-translations soon.</p>
-</li>
-</ul>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="InterpreterIncompat">If a programming language interpreter has
a
-license that is incompatible with the GPL, can I run GPL-covered programs on
-it?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is yes. The
-interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; the GPL doesn't
-restrict what tools you process the program with.</p>
-
-<p>However, when the interpreter is extended to provide “bindings”
-to other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the interpreted
-program is effectively linked to the facilities it uses through these
-bindings. The JNI or Java Native Interface is an example of such a
-facility; libraries that are accessed in this way are linked dynamically
-with the Java programs that call them.</p>
-
-<p>So if these facilities are released under a GPL-incompatible license, the
-situation is like linking in any other way with a GPL-incompatible library.
-Which implies that:</p>
-<ol>
- <li>If you are writing code and releasing it under the GPL, you can state an
-explicit exception giving permission to link it with those GPL-incompatible
-facilities.</li>
-
- <li>If you wrote and released the program under the GPL, and you designed it
-specifically to work with those facilities, people can take that as an
-implicit exception permitting them to link it with those facilities. But if
-that is what you intend, it is better to say so explicitly.</li>
-
- <li>You can't take someone else's GPL-covered code and use it that way, or
add
-such exceptions to it. Only the copyright holders of that code can add the
-exception.</li>
-</ol>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhoHasThePower">Who has the power to enforce the
GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the
software
-are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If you see a violation
-of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software
-involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the
-copyright holders. <a href="#ReportingViolation">Learn more about reporting
-GPL violations.</a>
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><b><a name="OOPLang">In an object-oriented language such as Java, if I use
a
-class that is GPL'ed without modifying, and subclass it, in what way does
-the GPL affect the larger program?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of the
GPL
-affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed class.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="PortProgramToGL">If I port my program to GNU/Linux, does that
-mean I have to release it as Free Software under the GPL or some other Free
-Software license?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>In general, the answer is no—this is not a legal requirement. In
-specific, the answer depends on which libraries you want to use and what
-their licenses are. Most system libraries either use the <a
-href="/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><b><a name="CompanyGPLCostsMoney"> I just found out that a company has a
-copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it. Aren't they
-violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for distribution.
-It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program.
-And (outside of one special case), even if someone does decide to
-redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute
-a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular.</p>
-
-<p>What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy
-to you <em>if he wishes to</em>. Once the copyright holder does distribute
-a copy program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to
-you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="ReleaseNotOriginal">Can I release a program with a license
which
-says that you can distribute modified versions of it under the GPL but you
-can't distribute the original itself under the GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>No. Such a license would be self-contradictory. Let's look at its
-implications for me as a user.</p>
-
-<p>Suppose I start with the original version (call it version A), add some code
-(let's imagine it is 1000 lines), and release that modified version (call it
-B) under the GPL. The GPL says anyone can change version B again and
-release the result under the GPL. So I (or someone else) can delete those
-1000 lines, producing version C which has the same code as version A but is
-under the GPL.</p>
-
-<p>If you try to block that path, by saying explicitly in the license that I'm
-not allowed to reproduce something identical to version A under the GPL by
-deleting those lines from version B, in effect the license now says that I
-can't fully use version B in all the ways that the GPL permits. In other
-words, the license does not in fact allow a user to release a modified
-version such as B under the GPL.
-</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DistributeSubsidiary">Does moving a copy to a majority-owned,
-and controlled, subsidiary constitute distribution?</a></b></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>
-Whether moving a copy to or from this subsidiary constitutes
-“distribution” is a matter to be decided in each case under the
-copyright law of the appropriate jurisdiction. The GPL does not and cannot
-override local laws. US copyright law is not entirely clear on the point,
-but appears not to consider this distribution.
-</p><p>
-If, in some country, this is considered distribution, and the subsidiary
-must receive the right to redistribute the program, that will not make a
-practical difference. The subsidiary is controlled by the parent company;
-rights or no rights, it won't redistribute the program unless the parent
-company decides to do so.
-</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="ClickThrough">Can software installers ask people to click to
-agree to the GPL? If I get some software under the GPL, do I have to agree
-to anything?</a></b></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>
-Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click
-through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is
-neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's
-rules remain the same.</p>
-
-<p>
-Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You are
-not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed
-under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the
-software. If it really bothers you to click through the GPL, nothing stops
-you from hacking the GPLed software to bypass this.
-</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLCompatInstaller">I would like to bundle GPLed software with
-some sort of installation software. Does that installer need to have a
-GPL-compatible license?</a></b></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>No. The installer and the files it installs are separate works. As a
-result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation software.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="ExportWarranties">Some distributors of GPL'd software require
me
-in their umbrella EULAs or as part of their downloading process to
-“represent and warrant” that I am located in the US or that I
-intend to distribute the software in compliance with relevant export control
-laws. Why are they doing this and is it a violation of those distributors'
-obligations under GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<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 GPL unless they add
-contractual restrictions beyond those permitted by GPL.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="SubscriptionFee">Can I use GPLed software on a device that will
-stop operating if customers do not continue paying a subscription
-fee?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>No. In this scenario, the requirement to keep paying a fee limits the
-user's ability to run the program. This is an additional requirement on top
-of the GPL, and the license prohibits it.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="v3HowToUpgrade">How do I upgrade from (L)GPLv2 to
-(L)GPLv3?</a></b></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><b><a name="BitTorrent">How does GPLv3 make BitTorrent distribution
-easier?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Because GPLv2 was written before peer-to-peer distribution of software was
-common, it is difficult to meet its requirements when you share code this
-way. The best way to make sure you are in compliance when distributing
-GPLv2 object code on BitTorrent would be to include all the corresponding
-source in the same torrent, which is prohibitively expensive.</p>
-<p>GPLv3 addresses this problem in two ways. First, people who download this
-torrent and send the data to others as part of that process are not required
-to do anything. That's because section 9 says “Ancillary propagation
-of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer
-transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance [of the
-license].”</p>
-<p>Second, section 6(e) of GPLv3 is designed to give distributors—people
-who initially seed torrents—a clear and straightforward way to provide
-the source, by telling recipients where it is available on a public network
-server. This ensures that everyone who wants to get the source can do so,
-and it's almost no hassle for the distributor.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="Tivoization">What is tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent
-it?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are designed so
-that users are not allowed to modify that software. There are lots of
-different ways to do this; for example, sometimes the hardware checksums the
-software that is installed, and shuts down if it doesn't match an expected
-signature. The manufacturers comply with GPLv2 by giving you the source
-code, but you still don't have the freedom to modify the software you're
-using. We call this practice tivoization.</p>
-<p>When people distribute User Products that include software under GPLv3,
-section 6 requires that they provide you with information necessary to
-modify that software. User Products is a term specially defined in the
-license; examples of User Products include portable music players, digital
-video recorders, and home security systems.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="DRMProhibited">Does GPLv3 prohibit DRM?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>It does not; you can use code released under GPLv3 to develop any kind of
-DRM technology you like. However, if you do this, section 3 says that the
-system will not count as an effective technological “protection”
-measure, which means that if someone breaks the DRM, he will be free to
-distribute his software too, unhindered by the DMCA and similar laws.</p>
-<p>As usual, the GNU GPL does not restrict what people do in software, it just
-stops them from restricting others.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GPLHardware">Can I use the GPL to license
hardware?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL. GPLv3
-can also be used to license materials covered by other copyright-like laws,
-such as semiconductor masks. So, as an example, you can release a drawing
-of a hardware design under the GPL. However, if someone used that
-information to create physical hardware, they would have no license
-obligations when distributing or selling that device: it falls outside the
-scope of copyright and thus the GPL itself.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="GiveUpKeys">I use public key cryptography to sign my code to
-assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my
-private signing keys?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you
-conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the
-software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In
-that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the
-device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his
-device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different
-key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="v3VotingMachine">Does GPLv3 require that voters be able to
-modify the software running in a voting machine?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>No. Companies distributing devices that include software under GPLv3 are at
-most required to provide the source and Installation Information for the
-software to people who possess a copy of the object code. The voter who
-uses a voting machine (like any other kiosk) doesn't get possession of it,
-not even temporarily, so the voter also does not get possession of the
-binary software in it.</p>
-<p>Note, however, that voting is a very special case. Just because the
-software in a computer is free does not mean you can trust the computer for
-voting. We believe that computers cannot be trusted for voting. Voting
-should be done on paper.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="v3PatentRetaliation">Does GPLv3 have a “patent
retaliation
-clause”?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from
-filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway,
-section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses
-that accompanied it.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="SourceCodeInDocumentation">Can I use snippets of GPL-covered
-source code within documentation that is licensed under some license that is
-incompatible with the GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>If the snippets are small enough that you can incorporate them under fair
-use or similar laws, then yes. Otherwise, no.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="v3Under4and5">The beginning of GPLv3 section 6 says that I can
-convey a covered work in object code form “under the terms of sections
-4 and 5” provided I also meet the conditions of section 6. What does
-that mean?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>This means that all the permissions and conditions you have to convey source
-code also apply when you convey object code: you may charge a fee, you must
-keep copyright notices intact, and so on.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="v2OrLaterPatentLicense">My company owns a lot of patents. Over
-the years we've contributed code to projects under “GPL version 2 or
-any later version”, and the project itself has been distributed under
-the same terms. If a user decides to take the project's code (incorporating
-my contributions) under GPLv3, does that mean I've automatically granted
-GPLv3's explicit patent license to that user?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>No. When you convey GPLed software, you must follow the terms and
-conditions of one particular version of the license. When you do so, that
-version defines the obligations you have. If users may also elect to use
-later versions of the GPL, that's merely an additional permission they
-have—it does not require you to fulfill the terms of the later version
-of the GPL as well.</p>
-<p>Do not take this to mean that you can threaten the community with your
-patents. In many countries, distributing software under GPLv2 provides
-recipients with an implicit patent license to exercise their rights under
-the GPL. Even if it didn't, anyone considering enforcing their patents
-aggressively is an enemy of the community, and we will defend ourselves
-against such an attack.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="LGPLv3ContributorVersion">If I distribute a proprietary program
-that links against an LGPLv3-covered library that I've modified, what is the
-“contributor version” for purposes of determining the scope of
-the explicit patent license grant I'm making—is it just the library,
-or is it the whole combination?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>The “contributor version” is only your version of the
library.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="v2v3Compatibility">Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide
-Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses
-are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these
-licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2.</p>
-<p>However, if code is released under GPL “version 2 or later,”
-that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it
-permits.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="Cure">What does it mean to “cure” a violation of
-GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>To cure a violation means to adjust your practices to comply with the
-requirements of the license.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="v3InternationalDisclaimers">The warranty and liability
-disclaimers in GPLv3 seem specific to U.S. law. Can I add my own disclaimers
-to my own code?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Yes. Section 7 gives you permission to add your own disclaimers,
-specifically 7(a).</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="NonvisualLegalNotices">My program has interactive user
-interfaces that are non-visual in nature. How can I comply with the
-Appropriate Legal Notices requirement in GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>All you need to do is ensure that the Appropriate Legal Notices are readily
-available to the user in your interface. For example, if you have written
-an audio interface, you could include a command that reads the notices
-aloud.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="v3CoworkerConveying">If I give a copy of a GPLv3-covered
program
-to a coworker at my company, have I “conveyed” the copy to
-him?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>As long as you're both using the software in your work at the company,
-rather than personally, then the answer is no. The copies belong to the
-company, not to you or the coworker. This copying is propagation, not
-conveying, because the company is not making copies available to others.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="v3ConditionalWarranty">If I distribute a GPLv3-covered program,
-can I provide a warranty that is voided if the user modifies the
-program?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Yes. Just as devices do not need to be warranted if users modify the
-software inside them, you are not required to provide a warranty that covers
-all possible activities someone could undertake with GPLv3-covered
software.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="SeparateAffero">Why did you decide to write the GNU Affero
GPLv3
-as a separate license?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Early drafts of GPLv3 allowed licensors to add an Affero-like requirement to
-publish source in section 7. However, some companies that develop and rely
-upon free software consider this requirement to be too burdensome. They
-want to avoid code with this requirement, and expressed concern about the
-administrative costs of checking code for this additional requirement. By
-publishing the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a separate license, with provisions in it
-and GPLv3 to allow code under these licenses to link to each other, we
-accomplish all of our original goals while making it easier to determine
-which code has the source publication requirement.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="WhyPropagateAndConvey">Why did you invent the new terms
-“propagate” and “convey” in GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>The term “distribute” used in GPLv2 was borrowed from United
-States copyright law. Over the years, we learned that some jurisdictions
-used this same word in their own copyright laws, but gave it different
-meanings. We invented these new terms to make our intent as clear as
-possible no matter where the license is interpreted. They are not used in
-any copyright law in the world, and we provide their definitions directly in
-the license.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="NoMilitary">I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd
-also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or
-commercial uses. Can I do this?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed
-specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows
-a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction
-can be removed by the user.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="ConveyVsDistribute">Is “convey” in GPLv3 the same
-thing as what GPLv2 means by “distribute”?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Yes, more or less. During the course of enforcing GPLv2, we learned that
-some jurisdictions used the word “distribute” in their own
-copyright laws, but gave it different meanings. We invented a new term to
-make our intent clear and avoid any problems that could be caused by these
-differences.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="v3MakingAvailable">GPLv3 gives “making available to the
-public” as an example of propagation. What does this mean? Is making
-available a form of conveying?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>One example of “making available to the public” is putting the
-software on a public web or FTP server. After you do this, some time may
-pass before anybody actually obtains the software from you—but because
-it could happen right away, you need to fulfill the GPL's obligations right
-away as well. Hence, we defined conveying to include this activity.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="PropagationNotConveying">Since distribution and making
available
-to the public are forms of propagation that are also conveying in GPLv3,
-what are some examples of propagation that do not constitute
-conveying?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Making copies of the software for yourself is the main form of propagation
-that is not conveying. You might do this to install the software on
-multiple computers, or to make backups.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="Prelinking">Does prelinking a GPLed binary to various libraries
-on the system, to optimize its performance, count as modification?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>No. Prelinking is part of a compilation process; it doesn't introduce any
-license requirements above and beyond what other aspects of compilation
-would. If you're allowed to link the program to the libraries at all, then
-it's fine to prelink with them as well. If you distribute prelinked object
-code, you need to follow the terms of section 6.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="LaptopLoan">If someone installs GPLed software on a laptop, and
-then lends that laptop to a friend without providing source code for the
-software, have they violated the GPL?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>No. In the jurisdictions where we have investigated this issue, this sort
-of loan would not count as conveying. The laptop's owner would not have any
-obligations under the GPL.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="TwoPartyTivoization">Suppose that two companies try to
-circumvent the requirement to provide Installation Information by having one
-company release signed software, and the other release a User Product that
-only runs signed software from the first company. Is this a violation of
-GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Yes. If two parties try to work together to get around the requirements of
-the GPL, they can both be pursued for copyright infringement. This is
-especially true since the definition of convey explicitly includes
-activities that would make someone responsible for secondary infringement.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="SourceInCVS">Am I complying with GPLv3 if I offer binaries on
an
-FTP server and sources by way of a link to a source code repository in a
-version control system, like CVS or Subversion?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>This is acceptable as long as the source checkout process does not become
-burdensome or otherwise restrictive. Anybody who can download your object
-code should also be able to check out source from your 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><b><a name="RemoteAttestation">Can someone who conveys GPLv3-covered
-software in a User Product use remote attestation to prevent a user from
-modifying that software?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>No. The definition of Installation Information, which must be provided with
-source when the software is conveyed inside a User Product, explicitly says:
-“The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning
-of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with
-solely because modification has been made.” If the device uses remote
-attestation in some way, the Installation Information must provide you some
-means for your modified software to report itself as legitimate.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="RulesProtocols">What does “rules and protocols for
-communication across the network” mean in GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>This refers to rules about traffic you can send over the network. For
-example, if there is a limit on the number of requests you can send to a
-server per day, or the size of a file you can upload somewhere, your access
-to those resources may be denied if you do not respect those limits.</p>
-<p>These rules do not include anything that does not pertain directly to data
-traveling across the network. For instance, if a server on the network sent
-messages for users to your device, your access to the network could not be
-denied merely because you modified the software so that it did not display
-the messages.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="SupportService">Distributors that provide Installation
-Information under GPLv3 are not required to provide “support
-service” for the product. What kind of “support service”do
-you mean?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>This includes the kind of service many device manufacturers provide to help
-you install, use, or troubleshoot the product. If a device relies on access
-to web services or similar technology to function properly, those should
-normally still be available to modified versions, subject to the terms in
-section 6 regarding access to a network.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="v3Notwithstanding">In GPLv3 and AGPLv3, what does it mean when
-it says “notwithstanding any other provision of this
-License”?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>This simply means that the following terms prevail over anything else
in the
-license that may conflict with them. For example, without this text, some
-people might have claimed that you could not combine code under GPLv3 with
-code under AGPLv3, because the AGPL's additional requirements would be
-classified as “further restrictions” under section 7 of GPLv3.
-This text makes clear that our intended interpretation is the correct one,
-and you can make the combination.
-</p><p>
-This text only resolves conflicts between different terms of the license.
-When there is no conflict between two conditions, then you must meet them
-both. These paragraphs don't grant you carte blanche to ignore the rest of
-the license—instead they're carving out very limited exceptions.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="AGPLv3CorrespondingSource">Under AGPLv3, when I modify the
-Program under section 13, what Corresponding Source does it have to
-offer?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p> “Corresponding Source” is defined in section 1 of the
license,
-and you should provide what it lists. So, if your modified version depends
-on libraries under other licenses, such as the Expat license or GPLv3, the
-Corresponding Source should include those libraries (unless they are System
-Libraries). 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><b><a name="AGPLv3InteractingRemotely">In AGPLv3, what counts as
-“interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer
-network?”</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send
-responses over a network, then it meets these criteria. Common examples of
-programs that would fall into this category include web and mail servers,
-interactive web-based applications, and servers for games that are played
-online.
-</p><p>
-If a program is not expressly designed to interact with a user through a
-network, but is being run in an environment where it happens to do so, then
-it does not fall into this category. For example, an application is not
-required to provide source merely because the user is running it over SSH,
-or a remote X session.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="ApacheLegalEntity">How does GPLv3's concept of
“you”
-compare to the definition of “Legal Entity” in the Apache
-License 2.0?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>They're effectively identical. The definition of “Legal
Entity”
-in the Apache License 2.0 is very standard in various kinds of legal
-agreements—so much so that it would be very surprising if a court did
-not interpret the term in the same way in the absence of an explicit
-definition. We fully expect them to do the same when they look at GPLv3 and
-consider who qualifies as a licensee.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="v3TheProgram">In GPLv3, what does “the Program”
-refer to? Is it every program ever released under GPLv3?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>The term “the Program” means one particular work that is
-licensed under GPLv3 and is received by a particular licensee from an
-upstream licensor or distributor. The Program is the particular work of
-software that you received in a given instance of GPLv3 licensing, as you
-received it.</p>
-
-<p>“The Program” cannot mean “all the works ever licensed
-under GPLv3”; that interpretation makes no sense for a number of
-reasons. We've published an <a
-href="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html">analysis of the term “the
-Program”</a> for those who would like to learn more about this.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="NoDistributionRequirements">If I only make copies of a
-GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to
-others, what does the license require of me?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this
activity.</p></dd>
-
-<dt><b><a name="AGPLv3ServerAsUser">If some network client software is released
-under AGPLv3, does it have to be able to provide source to the servers it
-interacts with?</a></b></dt>
-
-<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><b><a name="AllCompatibility">How are the various GNU licenses compatible
-with each other?</a></b></dt>
-
-<dd><p>The various GNU licenses enjoy broad compatibility between each other.
The
-only time you may not be able to combine code under two of these licenses is
-when you want to use code that's <em>only</em> under an older version of a
-license with code that's under a newer version.</p>
-
-<p>Below is a detailed compatibility matrix for various combinations of the GNU
-licenses, to provide an easy-to-use reference for specific cases. It
-assumes that someone else has written some software under one of these
-licenses, and you want to somehow incorporate code from that into a project
-that you're releasing (either your own original work, or a modified version
-of someone else's GPLed software). Find the license for your own work in a
-column at the top of the table, and the license for the other code in a row
-on the left. The cell where they meet will tell you whether or not this
-combination is permitted.</p>
-
-<p>When we say “copy code,” we mean just that: you're taking a
-section of code from one source, with or without modification, and inserting
-it into your own program, thus forming a work based on the first section of
-code. “Use a library” means that you're not copying any source
-directly, but instead interacting with it through linking, importing, or
-other typical mechanisms that bind the sources together when you compile or
-run the code.</p>
-
-<p><a href="#matrix-skip-target">Skip compatibility matrix</a></p>
-
-<table id="gpl-compat-matrix">
-<tbody><tr>
-<th rowspan="2" colspan="2"><br /></th>
-<th colspan="6">I want to release a project under:</th>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 only</th>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 or later</th>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-border">GPLv3 or later</th>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 only</th>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 or later</th>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv3 or later</th>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<th rowspan="6">I want to copy code under:</th>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 only</th>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK <a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
-<td class="nok">NO</td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv2 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv2 <a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
-<td class="nok">NO</td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 or later</th>
-<td class="ok">OK <a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPL <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPL <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv3</th>
-<td class="nok">NO</td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you upgrade to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 only</th>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv2 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPL <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK <a href="#comat-matrix-footnote-6">[6]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 or later</th>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv2 <a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPL <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
-<td class="ok">OK <a href="#comat-matrix-footnote-5">[5]</a></td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv3</th>
-<td class="nok">NO</td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you upgrade and convert to GPLv3 <a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a><a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you upgrade to LGPLv3 <a
href="#comat-matrix-footnote-4">[4]</a></td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr class="gpl-matrix-use-type">
-<th rowspan="6">I want to use a library under:</th>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 only</th>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK <a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
-<td class="nok">NO</td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv2 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv2 <a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
-<td class="nok">NO</td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 or later</th>
-<td class="ok">OK <a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPL <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPL <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv3</th>
-<td class="nok">NO</td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you upgrade to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
-href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
-<td class="mok">OK if you convert to GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 only</th>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 or later</th>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr>
-<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv3</th>
-<td class="nok">NO</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-<td class="ok">OK</td>
-</tr>
-
-</tbody></table>
-
-<p><a href="#matrix-skip-target">Skip footnotes</a></p>
-
-<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-1">1</a>: You must follow the terms of GPLv2
-when incorporating the code in this case. You cannot take advantage of terms
-in later versions of the GPL.</p>
-
-<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-2">2</a>: If you do this, as long as the
-project contains the code released under GPLv2 only, you will not be able to
-upgrade the project's license to GPLv3 or later.</p>
-
-<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-3">3</a>: If you have the ability to release
-the project under GPLv2 or any later version, you can choose to release it
-under GPLv3 or any later version—and once you do that, you'll be able
-to incorporate the code released under GPLv3.</p>
-
-<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-4">4</a>: If you have the ability to release
-the project under LGPLv2.1 or any later version, you can choose to release
-it under LGPLv3 or any later version—and once you do that, you'll be
-able to incorporate the code released under LGPLv3.</p>
-
-<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-5">5</a>: You must follow the terms of
-LGPLv2.1 when incorporating the code in this case. You cannot take advantage
-of terms in later versions of the LGPL.</p>
-
-<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-6">6</a>: If you do this, as long as the
-project contains the code released under LGPLv2.1 only, you will not be able
-to upgrade the project's license to LGPLv3 or later.</p>
-
-<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-7">7</a>: LGPLv2.1 gives you permission to
-relicense the code under any version of the GPL since GPLv2. If you can
-switch the LGPLed code in this case to using an appropriate version of the
-GPL instead (as noted in the table), you can make this combination.</p>
-
-<p><a name="compat-matrix-footnote-8">8</a>: LGPLv3 gives you permission to
-relicense the code under GPLv3. In these cases, you can combine the code if
-you convert the LGPLed code to GPLv3.</p>
-
-<a name="matrix-skip-target"></a>
-</dd>
-
-
-</dl>
-
-
-<div style="font-size: small;">
-
-<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
-*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S NOTES*</div>
-</div>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.ta.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 © 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,</p>
-<p>
-Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any
-medium, provided this notice is preserved.
-</p>
-
-
-<div class="translators-credits">
-
-<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
-*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*</div>
- <p>
-<!-- timestamp start -->
-Updated:
-
-$Date: 2012/09/16 05:25:40 $
-
-<!-- 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">
-<!-- Czech -->
-<li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.cs.html">Česky</a> [cs]</li>
-<!-- English -->
-<li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.html">English</a> [en]</li>
-<!-- Spanish -->
-<li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.es.html">Español</a> [es]</li>
-<!-- French -->
-<li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
-<!-- Italian -->
-<li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.it.html">Italiano</a> [it]</li>
-<!-- Japanese -->
-<li><a
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.ja.html">日本語</a> [ja]</li>
-<!-- Korean -->
-<li><a
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.ko.html">한국어</a> [ko]</li>
-<!-- Polish -->
-<li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.pl.html">polski</a> [pl]</li>
-<!-- Brazilian Portuguese -->
-<li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.pt-br.html">português do
Brasil</a> [pt-br]</li>
-</ul>
-</div>
-</div>
-</body>
-</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/licenses po/gpl-faq.translist gpl-faq.ta.html,
Pavel Kharitonov <=