www/licenses gpl-faq.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       14/01/25 14:10:18

Modified files:
        licenses       : gpl-faq.html 

Log message:
        (TranslateCode, LicenseCopyOnly, NoticeInSourceFile): New questions.
        Minor cleanup elsewhere.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.192&r2=1.193

Patches:
Index: gpl-faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.192
retrieving revision 1.193
diff -u -b -r1.192 -r1.193
--- gpl-faq.html        16 Dec 2013 21:37:04 -0000      1.192
+++ gpl-faq.html        25 Jan 2014 14:10:17 -0000      1.193
@@ -118,6 +118,9 @@
     <li><a href="#RequiredToClaimCopyright">Am I required to claim a
     copyright on my modifications to a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
   
+    <li><a href="#TranslateCode">What does the GPL say about translating
+    some code to a different programming language?</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>
@@ -240,6 +243,12 @@
     <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="#LicenseCopyOnly">Is putting a copy
+    of the GNU GPL in my repository enough to apply the GPL?</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#NoticeInSourceFile">Why should I put a license
+    notice in each source file?</a></li>
+
     <li><a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort">What if the work is not very
     long?</a></li>
   
@@ -844,6 +853,16 @@
 version at all</a>).</p></dd>
 
 
+<dt id="TranslateCode">What does the GPL say about translating
+    some code to a different programming language?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#TranslateCode"
+ >#TranslateCode</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p> Under copyright law, translation of a work is considered a
+kind of modification.  Therefore, what the GPL says about modified
+versions applies also to translated versions.
+</p></dd>
+
+
 <dt id="CombinePublicDomainWithGPL">If a program combines
     public-domain code with GPL-covered code, can I take the
     public-domain part and use it as public domain code?
@@ -990,14 +1009,60 @@
 the program.</p></dd>
 
 
+<dt id="LicenseCopyOnly">Is it enough just to put a copy
+    of the GNU GPL in my repository?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LicenseCopyOnly"
+ >#LicenseCopyOnly</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>Just putting a copy of the GNU GPL in a file in your repository
+does not explicitly state that the code in the same repository may be
+used under the GNU GPL.  Without such a statement, it's not entirely
+clear that the permissions in the license really apply to any
+particular source file.  An explicit statement saying that eliminates
+all doubt.</p>
+
+<p>A file containing just a license, without a statement that certain
+other files are covered by that license, resembles a file containing
+just a subroutine which is never called from anywhere else.  The
+resemblance is not perfect: lawyers and courts might apply common
+sense and conclude that you must have put the copy of the GNU GPL
+there because you wanted to license the code that way.  But why leave
+any uncertainty?</p>
+
+<p>This has nothing to do with the specifics of the GNU GPL.
+It is true for any free license.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="NoticeInSourceFile">Why should I put a license notice in each
+    source file?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NoticeInSourceFile"
+ >#NoticeInSourceFile</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>You should put a notice at the start of each source file,
+stating what license it carries, in order to avoid risk of the code's
+getting disconnected from its license.  If your repository's README
+says that source file is under the GNU GPL, what happens if someone
+copies that file to another program?  That other context may not show
+what the file's license is.  It may appear to have some other license,
+or <a href="/licenses/license-list.html#NoLicense">no license at
+all</a> (which would make the code nonfree).</p>
+
+<p>Adding a copyright notice and a license notice at the start of each
+source file is easy and makes such confusion unlikely.</p>
+
+<p>This has nothing to do with the specifics of the GNU GPL.
+It is true for any free license.</p></dd>
+
+
 <dt id="WhatIfWorkIsShort">What if the work is not very long?
  <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort"
  >#WhatIfWorkIsShort</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd><p>If a whole software package contains very little
 code&mdash;less than 300 lines is the benchmark we use&mdash;you may
-as well use a simple lax license for it, rather than a copyleft
-license like the GNU GPL.
+as well use a lax permissive license for it, rather than a copyleft
+license like the GNU GPL.  (Unless, that is, the code is specially
+important.)
 We <a href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html#software">recommend
 the Apache License 2.0</a> for such cases.</p></dd>
 
@@ -3694,7 +3759,7 @@
 
 <p>Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2013/12/16 21:37:04 $
+$Date: 2014/01/25 14:10:17 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>