[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www licenses/gpl-faq.fr.html server/footer-text...
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www licenses/gpl-faq.fr.html server/footer-text... |
|
Date: |
Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:26:17 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 10/06/21 08:26:17
Modified files:
licenses : gpl-faq.fr.html
server : footer-text.pl.html takeaction.pl.html
server/po : takeaction.pl.po
software : software.it.html
software/po : software.it.po
Added files:
licenses : gpl-faq.ta.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gpl-faq.fr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.48&r2=1.49
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gpl-faq.ta.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.3
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/server/footer-text.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.7&r2=1.8
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/server/takeaction.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.33&r2=1.34
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/server/po/takeaction.pl.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.4&r2=1.5
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/software/software.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.18&r2=1.19
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/software/po/software.it.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.41&r2=1.42
Patches:
Index: licenses/gpl-faq.fr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gpl-faq.fr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.48
retrieving revision 1.49
diff -u -b -r1.48 -r1.49
--- licenses/gpl-faq.fr.html 15 Jun 2010 08:25:47 -0000 1.48
+++ licenses/gpl-faq.fr.html 21 Jun 2010 08:25:49 -0000 1.49
@@ -3871,7 +3871,7 @@
<!-- timestamp start -->
Dernière mise à jour :
-$Date: 2010/06/15 08:25:47 $
+$Date: 2010/06/21 08:25:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
@@ -3911,8 +3911,6 @@
<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>
-<!-- Tamil -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/gpl-faq.ta.html">தமிழ்</a> [ta]</li>
<!-- Brazilian Portuguese -->
<li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.pt-br.html">português do
Brasil</a> [pt-br]</li>
</ul>
Index: server/footer-text.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/server/footer-text.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- server/footer-text.pl.html 19 Jun 2010 20:25:43 -0000 1.7
+++ server/footer-text.pl.html 21 Jun 2010 08:25:54 -0000 1.8
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
tÅumaczyÄ tÄ witrynÄ</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li><a href="/server/takeaction.html#unmaint">Przejmij nieutrzymywany
pakiet</a></li>
- <li><a href="/server/takeaction.html#gnustep">Use GNUstep</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/server/takeaction.html#gnustep">Używaj GNUstep</a></li>
<li><a href="/distros/free-distros.html">Pobież GNU</a></li>
<li><a href="http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/";>Pakiety GNU</a></li>
<li><a href="/manual/manual.html">Wolna dokumentacja</a></li>
Index: server/takeaction.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/server/takeaction.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.33
retrieving revision 1.34
diff -u -b -r1.33 -r1.34
--- server/takeaction.pl.html 20 Jun 2010 20:25:34 -0000 1.33
+++ server/takeaction.pl.html 21 Jun 2010 08:25:56 -0000 1.34
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@
<dd>
<ul>
<li>JeÅli chcecie rozwijaÄ wolne oprogramowanie i dokumentacjÄ, odwiedźcie
<a
-href="http://savannah.gnu.org";>Savannah</a>. Przydatne bÄdÄ
także a
+href="http://savannah.gnu.org";>Savannah</a>. Przydatne bÄdÄ
także <a
href="/software/devel.html">GNU Development Resources</a>.</li>
<li>JeÅli potrzebujecie pomocy przy tworzeniu oprogramowania, odwiedźcie
stronÄ
<a href="/help/gethelp.html">Jak uzyskaÄ pomoc</a>.</li>
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@
<!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2010/06/20 20:25:34 $
+$Date: 2010/06/21 08:25:56 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: server/po/takeaction.pl.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/server/po/takeaction.pl.po,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -b -r1.4 -r1.5
--- server/po/takeaction.pl.po 21 Jun 2010 08:00:41 -0000 1.4
+++ server/po/takeaction.pl.po 21 Jun 2010 08:26:06 -0000 1.5
@@ -17,67 +17,165 @@
# type: Content of: <title>
msgid "Take Action - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)"
-msgstr "Podejmij dziaÅania - Projekt GNU - Fundacja wolnego oprogramowania
(FSF)"
+msgstr ""
+"Podejmij dziaÅania - Projekt GNU - Fundacja wolnego oprogramowania (FSF)"
# type: Content of: <h2>
msgid "Take Action"
msgstr "Podejmij dziaÅania"
# type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid "<a id=\"licenses\"><strong>Read and comment on proposed license
changes</strong></a>"
-msgstr "<a id=\"licenses\"><strong>Przeczytaj i skomentuj proponowane zmiany w
licencjach</strong></a>"
+msgid ""
+"<a id=\"licenses\"><strong>Read and comment on proposed license changes</"
+"strong></a>"
+msgstr ""
+"<a id=\"licenses\"><strong>Przeczytaj i skomentuj proponowane zmiany w "
+"licencjach</strong></a>"
# type: Content of: <dl><dd>
-msgid "Please <a href=\"http://gplv3.fsf.org\";>read and leave comments</a> on
the current drafts of the GNU Free Documentation License, and the GNU Simple
Free Documentation License."
-msgstr "<a href=\"http://gplv3.fsf.org\";>Przeczytaj i zostaw komentarz</a>
odnoÅnie licencji GNU Free Documentation License i GNU Simple Free
Documentation License."
+msgid ""
+"Please <a href=\"http://gplv3.fsf.org\";>read and leave comments</a> on the "
+"current drafts of the GNU Free Documentation License, and the GNU Simple "
+"Free Documentation License."
+msgstr ""
+"<a href=\"http://gplv3.fsf.org\";>Przeczytaj i zostaw komentarz</a> odnoÅnie "
+"licencji GNU Free Documentation License i GNU Simple Free Documentation "
+"License."
# type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid "<a id=\"priority\"><b>Contribute to high priority free software
projects</b></a>"
-msgstr "<a id=\"priority\"><b>Wesprzyj priorytetowy projekt wolnego
oprogramowania</b></a>"
+msgid ""
+"<a id=\"priority\"><b>Contribute to high priority free software projects</"
+"b></a>"
+msgstr ""
+"<a id=\"priority\"><b>Wesprzyj priorytetowy projekt wolnego oprogramowania</"
+"b></a>"
# type: Content of: <dl><dd>
-msgid "As listed on the <a
href=\"http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html\";>FSF web site</a>."
-msgstr "Jak wymienione na <a
href=\"http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html\";>stronie FSF</a>."
+msgid ""
+"As listed on the <a href=\"http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html\";>FSF "
+"web site</a>."
+msgstr ""
+"Jak wymienione na <a href=\"http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html";
+"\">stronie FSF</a>."
# type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid "<a id=\"gnustep\"><strong>Contribute to the GNUstep
Project</strong></a>"
+msgid ""
+"<a id=\"gnustep\"><strong>Contribute to the GNUstep Project</strong></a>"
msgstr "<a id=\"gnustep\"><strong>Wesprzyj projekt GNUstep</strong></a>"
# type: Content of: <dl><dd>
-msgid "Please contribute as a user and developer to <a
href=\"http://www.gnustep.org\";>GNUstep</a>, a free object-oriented framework
for application development, and help it achieve the status of a complete and
featured desktop environment."
-msgstr "Wesprzyj jako użytkownik i programista <a
href=\"http://www.gnustep.org\";>projekt GNUstep</a>, wolnÄ
strukturÄ do
programowania na bazie obiektów - pomóż aby siÄ przeksztaÅciÅa w
kompletne Årodowisko użytkownika."
+msgid ""
+"Please contribute as a user and developer to <a href=\"http://www.gnustep.org";
+"\">GNUstep</a>, a free object-oriented framework for application "
+"development, and help it achieve the status of a complete and featured "
+"desktop environment."
+msgstr ""
+"Wesprzyj jako użytkownik i programista <a href=\"http://www.gnustep.org";
+"\">projekt GNUstep</a>, wolnÄ
strukturÄ do programowania na bazie obiektów
- "
+"pomóż aby siÄ przeksztaÅciÅa w kompletne Årodowisko użytkownika."
# type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid "<a id=\"wipochange\"><b>Call on WIPO to change its name and
mission:</b></a>"
-msgstr "<a id=\"wipochange\"><b>Wezwij WIPO do zmiany nazwy i celu
funkcjonowania:</b></a>"
+msgid ""
+"<a id=\"wipochange\"><b>Call on WIPO to change its name and mission:</b></a>"
+msgstr ""
+"<a id=\"wipochange\"><b>Wezwij WIPO do zmiany nazwy i celu funkcjonowania:</"
+"b></a>"
# type: Content of: <dl><dd>
-msgid "People are invited to support this declaration calling on WIPO to
change its name and mission. <a
href=\"http://fsfeurope.org/documents/wiwo.en.html\";>http://fsfeurope.org/documents/wiwo.en.html</a>"
-msgstr "ZachÄcamy wszystkich do poparcia tej deklaracji, wzywajÄ
cej WIPO do
zmiany nazwy i celu funkcjonowania. <a
href=\"http://fsfeurope.org/documents/wiwo.en.html\";>http://fsfeurope.org/documents/wiwo.en.html</a>"
+msgid ""
+"People are invited to support this declaration calling on WIPO to change its "
+"name and mission. <a href=\"http://fsfeurope.org/documents/wiwo.en.html";
+"\">http://fsfeurope.org/documents/wiwo.en.html</a>"
+msgstr ""
+"ZachÄcamy wszystkich do poparcia tej deklaracji, wzywajÄ
cej WIPO do zmiany "
+"nazwy i celu funkcjonowania. <a href=\"http://fsfeurope.org/documents/wiwo.";
+"en.html\">http://fsfeurope.org/documents/wiwo.en.html</a>"
# type: Content of: <dl><dt>
msgid "<a id=\"swpat\"><b>Help Fight Software Patents in Europe:</b></a>"
-msgstr "<a id=\"swpat\"><b>Pomóż walczyÄ przeciw patentom na oprogramowanie
w Europie:</b></a>"
+msgstr ""
+"<a id=\"swpat\"><b>Pomóż walczyÄ przeciw patentom na oprogramowanie w "
+"Europie:</b></a>"
# type: Content of: <dl><dd>
-msgid "Please see <a href=\"http://eupat.ffii.org/girzu/#hd003\";>
http://eupat.ffii.org/girzu/#hd003</a> for what you can do to help fight
against software patents in Europe. (For more specific involvement see <a
href=\"http://kwiki.ffii.org/FfiiprojEn\";>
http://kwiki.ffii.org/FfiiprojEn</a>.)"
-msgstr "Prosimy o odwiedzenie <a
href=\"http://eupat.ffii.org/girzu/#hd003\";>http://eupat.ffii.org/girzu/#hd003</a>,
gdzie wskazano, w jaki sposób można pomóc w walce przeciw patentowaniu
oprogramowania w Europie. (WymagajÄ
ce szczególnego zaangażowania zadania
wymieniono na stronie <a href=\"http://kwiki.ffii.org/FfiiprojEn\";>
http://kwiki.ffii.org/FfiiprojEn</a>.). "
+msgid ""
+"Please see <a href=\"http://eupat.ffii.org/girzu/#hd003\";> http://eupat.ffii.";
+"org/girzu/#hd003</a> for what you can do to help fight against software "
+"patents in Europe. (For more specific involvement see <a href=\"http://";
+"kwiki.ffii.org/FfiiprojEn\"> http://kwiki.ffii.org/FfiiprojEn</a>.)"
+msgstr ""
+"Prosimy o odwiedzenie <a href=\"http://eupat.ffii.org/girzu/#hd003\";>http://";
+"eupat.ffii.org/girzu/#hd003</a>, gdzie wskazano, w jaki sposób można pomóc
w "
+"walce przeciw patentowaniu oprogramowania w Europie. (WymagajÄ
ce "
+"szczególnego zaangażowania zadania wymieniono na stronie <a href=\"http://";
+"kwiki.ffii.org/FfiiprojEn\"> http://kwiki.ffii.org/FfiiprojEn</a>.). "
# type: Content of: <dl><dt>
msgid "<a id=\"unmaint\"><b>Take over an unmaintained GNU package:</b></a>"
msgstr "<a id=\"unmaint\"><b>Przejmij opiekÄ na pakietami GNU:</b></a>"
# type: Content of: <dl><dd>
-msgid "<a href=\"/software/alive/\">alive</a>, <a
href=\"/software/dr-geo/\">dr-geo</a>, <a
href=\"/software/fontutils/\">fontutils</a>, <a
href=\"/software/gift/\">gift</a>, <a href=\"/software/gleem/\">gleem</a>, <a
href=\"/software/gnatsweb/\">gnatsweb</a>, <a
href=\"/software/goldwater/\">goldwater</a>, <a
href=\"/software/halifax/\">halifax</a>, <a
href=\"/software/pgccfd/\">pgccfd</a>, <a
href=\"/software/polyxmass/\">polyxmass</a>, <a
href=\"/software/quickthreads/\">quickthreads</a>, <a
href=\"/software/rpge/\">rpge</a>, <a href=\"/software/sather/\">sather</a>, <a
href=\"/software/snakecharmer/\">snakecharmer</a>, <a
href=\"/software/vmslib/\">vmslib</a>. We are also looking for a co-maintainer
for the CASE tool <a href=\"/software/ferret/\">ferret</a> and the bug tracking
tool <a href=\"/software/gnats/\">gnats</a>. See the package web pages for
specific information, and <a href=\"/help/evaluation.html#whatmeans\">this
general information about GNU packages and maintenance</a>, and then email <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a> if you have time and interest
in taking over one of these projects. Of course, many GNU projects are seeking
other help of various kinds; see the <a href=\"/prep/tasks.html\">GNU Task
list</a>."
-msgstr "<a href=\"/software/alive/\">alive</a>, <a
href=\"/software/dr-geo/\">dr-geo</a>, <a
href=\"/software/fontutils/\">fontutils</a>, <a
href=\"/software/gift/\">gift</a>, <a href=\"/software/gleem/\">gleem</a>, <a
href=\"/software/gnatsweb/\">gnatsweb</a>, <a
href=\"/software/goldwater/\">goldwater</a>, <a
href=\"/software/halifax/\">halifax</a>, <a
href=\"/software/pgccfd/\">pgccfd</a>, <a
href=\"/software/polyxmass/\">polyxmass</a>, <a
href=\"/software/quickthreads/\">quickthreads</a>, <a
href=\"/software/rpge/\">rpge</a>, <a href=\"/software/sather/\">sather</a>, <a
href=\"/software/snakecharmer/\">snakecharmer</a>, <a
href=\"/software/vmslib/\">vmslib</a>. Poszukujemy także co-opiekuna
narzÄdzia CASE <a href=\"/software/ferret/\">ferret</a> oraz narzÄdzia do
Åledzenia bugów <a href=\"/software/gnats/\">gnats</a>. Sprawdź strony
konkretnego pakietu oraz <a href=\"/help/evaluation.html#whatmeans\">ogólnej
informacji o pakietach GNU i ich utrzymywaniu</a>, a potem wyÅlij maila na
adres <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a> jeÅli masz czas i
zainteresowanie przejÄcia któregoÅ z tych projektów. OczywiÅcie, wiele
projektów GNU szuka pomocy różnego rodzaju - sprawdź <a
href=\"/prep/tasks.html\">GNU Task list</a>."
+msgid ""
+"<a href=\"/software/alive/\">alive</a>, <a href=\"/software/dr-geo/\">dr-"
+"geo</a>, <a href=\"/software/fontutils/\">fontutils</a>, <a href=\"/software/"
+"gift/\">gift</a>, <a href=\"/software/gleem/\">gleem</a>, <a href=\"/"
+"software/gnatsweb/\">gnatsweb</a>, <a href=\"/software/goldwater/"
+"\">goldwater</a>, <a href=\"/software/halifax/\">halifax</a>, <a href=\"/"
+"software/pgccfd/\">pgccfd</a>, <a href=\"/software/polyxmass/\">polyxmass</"
+"a>, <a href=\"/software/quickthreads/\">quickthreads</a>, <a href=\"/"
+"software/rpge/\">rpge</a>, <a href=\"/software/sather/\">sather</a>, <a href="
+"\"/software/snakecharmer/\">snakecharmer</a>, <a href=\"/software/vmslib/"
+"\">vmslib</a>. We are also looking for a co-maintainer for the CASE tool <a "
+"href=\"/software/ferret/\">ferret</a> and the bug tracking tool <a href=\"/"
+"software/gnats/\">gnats</a>. See the package web pages for specific "
+"information, and <a href=\"/help/evaluation.html#whatmeans\">this general "
+"information about GNU packages and maintenance</a>, and then email <a href="
+"\"mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a> if you have time and "
+"interest in taking over one of these projects. Of course, many GNU projects "
+"are seeking other help of various kinds; see the <a href=\"/prep/tasks.html"
+"\">GNU Task list</a>."
+msgstr ""
+"<a href=\"/software/alive/\">alive</a>, <a href=\"/software/dr-geo/\">dr-"
+"geo</a>, <a href=\"/software/fontutils/\">fontutils</a>, <a href=\"/software/"
+"gift/\">gift</a>, <a href=\"/software/gleem/\">gleem</a>, <a href=\"/"
+"software/gnatsweb/\">gnatsweb</a>, <a href=\"/software/goldwater/"
+"\">goldwater</a>, <a href=\"/software/halifax/\">halifax</a>, <a href=\"/"
+"software/pgccfd/\">pgccfd</a>, <a href=\"/software/polyxmass/\">polyxmass</"
+"a>, <a href=\"/software/quickthreads/\">quickthreads</a>, <a href=\"/"
+"software/rpge/\">rpge</a>, <a href=\"/software/sather/\">sather</a>, <a href="
+"\"/software/snakecharmer/\">snakecharmer</a>, <a href=\"/software/vmslib/"
+"\">vmslib</a>. Poszukujemy także co-opiekuna narzÄdzia CASE <a href=\"/"
+"software/ferret/\">ferret</a> oraz narzÄdzia do Åledzenia bugów <a
href=\"/"
+"software/gnats/\">gnats</a>. Sprawdź strony konkretnego pakietu oraz <a "
+"href=\"/help/evaluation.html#whatmeans\">ogólnej informacji o pakietach GNU "
+"i ich utrzymywaniu</a>, a potem wyÅlij maila na adres <a href=\"mailto:";
+"address@hidden">address@hidden</a> jeÅli masz czas i "
+"zainteresowanie przejÄcia któregoÅ z tych projektów. OczywiÅcie, wiele "
+"projektów GNU szuka pomocy różnego rodzaju - sprawdź <a
href=\"/prep/tasks."
+"html\">GNU Task list</a>."
# type: Content of: <dl><dt>
msgid "<a id=\"directory\"><b>Enhance the Free Software Directory:</b></a>"
msgstr "<a id=\"directory\"><b>WzbogaÄ Katalog Wolnego
Oprogramowania:</b></a>"
# type: Content of: <dl><dd>
-msgid "We would like your suggestions for free software packages to add to the
<a href=\"/directory\">Free Software Directory</a>. Please look up your
favorite free software packages there, and if one of them is not found, please
suggest it. <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";>Please email us</a> the package
name and the URL for where it can be found. You can also help even further by
<a href=\"http://www.gnu.org/help/directory.html#adding-entries\";> writing a
draft entry</a> that we could start with."
-msgstr "Oczekujemy na wasze propozycje pakietów wolnego oprogramowania, jakie
należaÅoby dodaÄ do <a href=\"/directory\">Katalogu Wolnego
Oprogramowania</a>. Prosimy, poszukajcie w nim swoich ulubionych programów, a
jeÅli któregoÅ z nich nie ma, zaproponujcie go â <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";>przeÅlijcie nam</a> nazwÄ pakietu i adres URL,
pod którym można go znaleźÄ. Możecie pomóc jeszcze bardziej <a
href=\"http://www.gnu.org/help/directory.html#adding-entries\";>piszÄ
c wstÄpnÄ
wersjÄ notki</a>, od której moglibyÅmy zaczÄ
Ä. "
+msgid ""
+"We would like your suggestions for free software packages to add to the <a "
+"href=\"/directory\">Free Software Directory</a>. Please look up your "
+"favorite free software packages there, and if one of them is not found, "
+"please suggest it. <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";>Please email "
+"us</a> the package name and the URL for where it can be found. You can also "
+"help even further by <a href=\"http://www.gnu.org/help/directory.html#adding-";
+"entries\"> writing a draft entry</a> that we could start with."
+msgstr ""
+"Oczekujemy na wasze propozycje pakietów wolnego oprogramowania, jakie "
+"należaÅoby dodaÄ do <a href=\"/directory\">Katalogu Wolnego
Oprogramowania</"
+"a>. Prosimy, poszukajcie w nim swoich ulubionych programów, a jeÅli
któregoŠ"
+"z nich nie ma, zaproponujcie go â <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
+"\">przeÅlijcie nam</a> nazwÄ pakietu i adres URL, pod którym można go "
+"znaleźÄ. Możecie pomóc jeszcze bardziej <a
href=\"http://www.gnu.org/help/";
+"directory.html#adding-entries\">piszÄ
c wstÄpnÄ
wersjÄ notki</a>, od
której "
+"moglibyÅmy zaczÄ
Ä. "
# type: Content of: <dl><dt>
msgid "<a id=\"antidmca\"><b>Petitions to Sign:</b></a>"
@@ -90,32 +188,60 @@
#. http://www.digitalspeech.org</a> and help resist the media
#. companies' campaign to impose restrictions on what your computer
#. can do.
-msgid "Please sign <em>both</em> the <a
href=\"http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petition.html\";> Petition Against
Software Patents</a> and the <a
href=\"http://www.petitiononline.com/nixdmca/petition.html\";> Anti-DMCA
Petition</a>."
-msgstr "Prosimy o podpisanie <em>zarówno</em> <a
href=\"http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petition.html\";>petycji przeciw
patentom na oprogramowanie</a>, jak i <a
href=\"http://www.petitiononline.com/nixdmca/petition.html\";>petycji przeciw
DMCA</a>. "
+msgid ""
+"Please sign <em>both</em> the <a href=\"http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/";
+"petition.html\"> Petition Against Software Patents</a> and the <a href="
+"\"http://www.petitiononline.com/nixdmca/petition.html\";> Anti-DMCA Petition</"
+"a>."
+msgstr ""
+"Prosimy o podpisanie <em>zarówno</em> <a href=\"http://www.petitiononline.";
+"com/pasp01/petition.html\">petycji przeciw patentom na oprogramowanie</a>, "
+"jak i <a href=\"http://www.petitiononline.com/nixdmca/petition.html";
+"\">petycji przeciw DMCA</a>. "
# type: Content of: <dl><dt>
msgid "You can help the GNU Project, visit these links."
msgstr "Możesz pomóc Projektowi GNU; odwiedź poniższe strony."
# type: Content of: <dl><dd><ul><li>
-msgid "For Development free software and documents click <a
href=\"http://savannah.gnu.org\";>here</a>. And <a
href=\"/software/devel.html\">GNU Development Resources</a>"
-msgstr "JeÅli chcecie rozwijaÄ wolne oprogramowanie i dokumentacjÄ,
odwiedźcie <a href=\"http://savannah.gnu.org\";>Savannah</a>. Przydatne bÄdÄ
także <a href=\"/software/devel.html\">GNU Development Resources</a>."
+msgid ""
+"For Development free software and documents click <a href=\"http://savannah.";
+"gnu.org\">here</a>. And <a href=\"/software/devel.html\">GNU Development "
+"Resources</a>"
+msgstr ""
+"JeÅli chcecie rozwijaÄ wolne oprogramowanie i dokumentacjÄ, odwiedźcie <a
"
+"href=\"http://savannah.gnu.org\";>Savannah</a>. Przydatne bÄdÄ
także <a
href="
+"\"/software/devel.html\">GNU Development Resources</a>."
# type: Content of: <dl><dd><ul><li>
-msgid "If you need help for development, visit <a
href=\"/help/gethelp.html\">Get Help</a>"
-msgstr "JeÅli potrzebujecie pomocy przy tworzeniu oprogramowania, odwiedźcie
stronÄ <a href=\"/help/gethelp.html\">Jak uzyskaÄ pomoc</a>."
+msgid ""
+"If you need help for development, visit <a href=\"/help/gethelp.html\">Get "
+"Help</a>"
+msgstr ""
+"JeÅli potrzebujecie pomocy przy tworzeniu oprogramowania, odwiedźcie
stronÄ "
+"<a href=\"/help/gethelp.html\">Jak uzyskaÄ pomoc</a>."
# type: Content of: <dl><dd><ul><li>
-msgid "Start a GNU/Linux User Group in your town or country, and send us
group's name. Visit for more information <a
href=\"/gnu/gnu-user-groups.html\">GNU Users Groups</a>"
-msgstr "ZaÅóżcie GrupÄ Użytkowników GNU/Linuksa w swoim mieÅcie lub
kraju i przeÅlijcie nam informacjÄ o tym. WiÄcej na stronie <a
href=\"/gnu/gnu-user-groups.html\">Grupy użytkowników GNU</a>."
+msgid ""
+"Start a GNU/Linux User Group in your town or country, and send us group's "
+"name. Visit for more information <a href=\"/gnu/gnu-user-groups.html\">GNU "
+"Users Groups</a>"
+msgstr ""
+"ZaÅóżcie GrupÄ Użytkowników GNU/Linuksa w swoim mieÅcie lub kraju i "
+"przeÅlijcie nam informacjÄ o tym. WiÄcej na stronie <a
href=\"/gnu/gnu-user-"
+"groups.html\">Grupy użytkowników GNU</a>."
# type: Content of: <dl><dd><ul><li>
msgid "Work in GNU projects."
msgstr "Pracujcie przy projektach GNU."
# type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid "Finally visit <a href=\"/help/help.html\">How You Can Help the GNU
Project</a> for more information."
-msgstr "Na koniec odwiedź <a href=\"/help/help.html\">Jak możesz pomóc
Projektowi GNU</a>."
+msgid ""
+"Finally visit <a href=\"/help/help.html\">How You Can Help the GNU Project</"
+"a> for more information."
+msgstr ""
+"Na koniec odwiedź <a href=\"/help/help.html\">Jak możesz pomóc Projektowi "
+"GNU</a>."
# type: Content of: <div>
#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.
@@ -123,20 +249,47 @@
msgstr " "
# type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid "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>."
-msgstr "Pytania dotyczÄ
ce GNU i FSF prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. IstniejÄ
także <a
href=\"/contact/contact.html\">inne sposoby skontaktowania siÄ</a> z FSF. <br
/> Informacje o niedziaÅajÄ
cych odnoÅnikach oraz inne poprawki (lub
propozycje) prosimy wysyÅaÄ na adres <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>."
+msgid ""
+"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>."
+msgstr ""
+"Pytania dotyczÄ
ce GNU i FSF prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a href=\"mailto:";
+"address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>. IstniejÄ
także <a
href=\"/contact/"
+"contact.html\">inne sposoby skontaktowania siÄ</a> z FSF. <br /> Informacje "
+"o niedziaÅajÄ
cych odnoÅnikach oraz inne poprawki (lub propozycje) prosimy "
+"wysyÅaÄ na adres <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><web-"
+"address@hidden></a>."
# type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid "Please see the <a
href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html\">Translations README</a> for
information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article."
-msgstr "Aby zapoznaÄ siÄ z informacjami dotyczÄ
cymi tÅumaczenia i
koordynowania tÅumaczeÅ artykuÅów, proszÄ odwiedziÄ stronÄ <a
href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html\">tÅumaczeÅ</a>. <br />
Komentarze odnoÅnie tÅumaczenia polskiego oraz zgÅoszenia dotyczÄ
ce chÄci
wspóÅpracy w tÅumaczeniu prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>."
+msgid ""
+"Please see the <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html"
+"\">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting "
+"translations of this article."
+msgstr ""
+"Aby zapoznaÄ siÄ z informacjami dotyczÄ
cymi tÅumaczenia i koordynowania "
+"tÅumaczeÅ artykuÅów, proszÄ odwiedziÄ stronÄ <a
href=\"/server/standards/"
+"README.translations.html\">tÅumaczeÅ</a>. <br /> Komentarze odnoÅnie "
+"tÅumaczenia polskiego oraz zgÅoszenia dotyczÄ
ce chÄci wspóÅpracy w "
+"tÅumaczeniu prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
+"\">address@hidden</a>."
# type: Content of: <div><p>
msgid "Copyright © 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc."
msgstr "Copyright © 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc."
# type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted
worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the
copyright notice, are preserved."
-msgstr "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted
in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. <br /> Zezwala siÄ na
wykonywanie i dystrybucjÄ wiernych kopii tego tekstu, niezależnie od
noÅnika, pod warunkiem zachowania niniejszego zezwolenia."
+msgid ""
+"Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted "
+"worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the "
+"copyright notice, are preserved."
+msgstr ""
+"Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any "
+"medium, provided this notice is preserved. <br /> Zezwala siÄ na wykonywanie
"
+"i dystrybucjÄ wiernych kopii tego tekstu, niezależnie od noÅnika, pod "
+"warunkiem zachowania niniejszego zezwolenia."
# type: Content of: <div><div>
#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.
@@ -151,4 +304,3 @@
# type: Content of: <div><h4>
msgid "Translations of this page"
msgstr "TÅumaczenia tej strony"
-
Index: software/software.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/software/software.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.18
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -u -b -r1.18 -r1.19
--- software/software.it.html 2 May 2010 08:26:08 -0000 1.18
+++ software/software.it.html 21 Jun 2010 08:26:09 -0000 1.19
@@ -17,6 +17,10 @@
libero</a>.</span></p>
</div>
+<p>Se cercate un sistema completo da installare, consultate la nostra <a
+href="/distros/free-distros.html">lista di distribuzioni GNU/Linux che
+comprendono esclusivamente software libero</a>.</p>
+
<p>Per cercare pacchetti individuali di software libero, sia <acronym
title="GNU's Not Unix!">GNU</acronym> che non-GNU, potete dare uno sguardo
alla <a href="http://directory.fsf.org/";>Free Software Directory</a>: una
@@ -67,12 +71,11 @@
preinstallato, presso <a href="/links/companies.html">una delle aziende</a>
che offrono tale servizio.</li>
-<li>Ottenere i sorgenti di sviluppo di un pacchetto e compilarli. In questo
modo
-potrete provare tutte le ultime caratteristiche. Molti pacchetti GNU
-mantengono i loro sorgenti di sviluppo sul sito GNU <a
-href="http://savannah.gnu.org/";>savannah.gnu.org</a>. Alcuni pacchetti
-utilizzano altri repository per i sorgenti; le pagine web del pacchetto
-dovrebbero dire dove si trova il repository.</li>
+<li>Ottenere i sorgenti di sviluppo di un pacchetto e compilarli, per aiutare
+nello sviluppo. Molti pacchetti GNU mantengono i loro sorgenti di sviluppo
+sul sito GNU <a href="http://savannah.gnu.org/";>savannah.gnu.org</a>. Alcuni
+pacchetti utilizzano altri repository per i sorgenti, o non usano questi
+mezzi. Per informazioni vedete le pagine web di ciascun pacchetto.</li>
</ul>
@@ -160,7 +163,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Ultimo aggiornamento:
-$Date: 2010/05/02 08:26:08 $
+$Date: 2010/06/21 08:26:09 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: software/po/software.it.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/software/po/software.it.po,v
retrieving revision 1.41
retrieving revision 1.42
diff -u -b -r1.41 -r1.42
--- software/po/software.it.po 16 Jun 2010 20:45:11 -0000 1.41
+++ software/po/software.it.po 21 Jun 2010 08:26:12 -0000 1.42
@@ -49,10 +49,6 @@
"span>"
# type: Content of: <div><p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "<span class=\"highlight\">If you're looking for a whole system to "
-#| "install, see our <a href=\"/distros/free-distros.html\">list of GNU/Linux "
-#| "distributions which are entirely free software</a>.</span>"
msgid ""
"If you're looking for a whole system to install, see our <a href=\"/distros/"
"free-distros.html\">list of GNU/Linux distributions which are entirely free "
@@ -163,12 +159,6 @@
"a> che offrono tale servizio."
# type: Content of: <ul><li>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "Get the development sources for a package and build them. That way you "
-#| "can try all the latest features. Many GNU packages keep their development "
-#| "sources at the GNU hosting site <a href=\"http://savannah.gnu.org/";
-#| "\">savannah.gnu.org</a>. Some packages use other source repositories; the "
-#| "package's web pages should say where the repository is."
msgid ""
"Get the development sources for a package and build them, to help with "
"development. Many GNU packages keep their development sources at the GNU "
Index: licenses/gpl-faq.ta.html
===================================================================
RCS file: licenses/gpl-faq.ta.html
diff -N licenses/gpl-faq.ta.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ licenses/gpl-faq.ta.html 21 Jun 2010 08:25:50 -0000 1.3
@@ -0,0 +1,3209 @@
+
+
+<!--#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" -->
+<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="#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="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 © 2007, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,</p>
+<address>51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA</address>
+<p>
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article 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: 2010/06/21 08:25:50 $
+
+<!-- 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/gpl-faq.fr.html server/footer-text...,
Yavor Doganov <=