[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/licenses gpl-faq.ja.html old-licenses/gpl-2...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/licenses gpl-faq.ja.html old-licenses/gpl-2... |
|
Date: |
Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:29:26 -0400 (EDT) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 17/04/03 16:29:26
Modified files:
licenses : gpl-faq.ja.html
licenses/old-licenses: gpl-2.0-faq.ja.html
Added files:
licenses/old-licenses/po: gpl-2.0-faq.ja-diff.html
licenses/po : gpl-faq.ja-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gpl-faq.ja.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.77&r2=1.78
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.ja.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.29&r2=1.30
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/old-licenses/po/gpl-2.0-faq.ja-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/gpl-faq.ja-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: gpl-faq.ja.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gpl-faq.ja.html,v
retrieving revision 1.77
retrieving revision 1.78
diff -u -b -r1.77 -r1.78
--- gpl-faq.ja.html 4 Jan 2017 02:28:46 -0000 1.77
+++ gpl-faq.ja.html 3 Apr 2017 20:29:25 -0000 1.78
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/licenses/po/gpl-faq.ja.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/po/gpl-faq.ja.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/licenses/gpl-faq.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/licenses/po/gpl-faq.ja-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2017-02-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ja.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -46,6 +51,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/gpl-faq.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ja.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ja.html" -->
<h2>GNUã©ã¤ã»ã³ã¹ã«é¢ãã¦ããèããã質å</h2>
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.ja.html" -->
@@ -2419,7 +2425,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æçµæ´æ°:
-$Date: 2017/01/04 02:28:46 $
+$Date: 2017/04/03 20:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.ja.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.ja.html,v
retrieving revision 1.29
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -u -b -r1.29 -r1.30
--- old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.ja.html 3 Feb 2016 09:13:25 -0000 1.29
+++ old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.ja.html 3 Apr 2017 20:29:25 -0000 1.30
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html"
-->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/licenses/old-licenses/po/gpl-2.0-faq.ja.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/po/gpl-2.0-faq.ja.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/licenses/old-licenses/po/gpl-2.0-faq.ja-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2017-02-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ja.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/old-licenses/po/gpl-2.0-faq.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ja.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ja.html" -->
<h2>GNU GPL v2.0ã«é¢ãã¦ããèããã質å</h2>
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.ja.html" -->
@@ -1582,7 +1588,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æçµæ´æ°:
-$Date: 2016/02/03 09:13:25 $
+$Date: 2017/04/03 20:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: old-licenses/po/gpl-2.0-faq.ja-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: old-licenses/po/gpl-2.0-faq.ja-diff.html
diff -N old-licenses/po/gpl-2.0-faq.ja-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ old-licenses/po/gpl-2.0-faq.ja-diff.html 3 Apr 2017 20:29:26 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2573 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL v2.0
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/old-licenses/po/gpl-2.0-faq.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Frequently Asked Questions about version 2 of the GNU GPL</h2>
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.html" -->
+
+<p>
+This page contains answers to commonly asked questions about the GNU General
+Public License (GPL), version 2. The FAQ for the current version of the GPL is
+<a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.html">here</a>. To learn more about the
Free
+Software Foundation's other licenses, please see <a
+href="/licenses/licenses.html">our licenses page</a>.</p>
+
+<p>
+After you read this FAQ, <a href="/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi">you can
+test your knowledge of Free Software licensing with our quiz</a>.
+</p>
+
+<!-- Replace this list with the page's contents. -->
+<h4>Table of Contents</h4>
+
+ <h4>Basic questions about the GPL, the GNU Project, and the Free
+ Software Foundation</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li><a href="#WhatDoesGPLStandFor"
name="TOCWhatDoesGPLStandFor">What
+ does “GPL” stand for?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL"
+ name="TOCDoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL">Does free software mean
+ using the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense"
+ name="TOCDoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense">Does all GNU
+ software use the GNU GPL as its license?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware"
+ name="TOCDoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware">Does using the
+ GPL for a program make it GNU software?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware"
name="TOCGPLOtherThanSoftware">Can
+ I use the GPL for something other than software?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyNotGPLForManuals"
name="TOCWhyNotGPLForManuals">Why
+ don't you use the GPL for manuals?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLTranslations" name="TOCGPLTranslations">Are
there
+ translations of the GPL into other languages?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL"
name="TOCWhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">Why
+ are some GNU libraries released under the ordinary GPL rather than the
+ Lesser GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#AssignCopyright" name="TOCAssignCopyright">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" name="TOCModifyGPL">Can I modify the
GPL
+ and make a modified license?</a></li>
+
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>General understanding of the GPL</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li><a
href="#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions"
+ name="TOCWhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions">Why
does
+ the GPL permit users to publish their modified
versions?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic"
+ name="TOCGPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">Does
+ the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the
public?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine"
+ name="TOCGPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine"> Can I have a GPL-covered
+ program and an unrelated <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> program on the same
+ computer?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CanIDemandACopy" name="TOCCanIDemandACopy">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"
+ name="TOCWhatDoesWrittenOfferValid">What does this “written
+ offer valid for any third party” mean? 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"
+ name="TOCTheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">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"
name="TOCDoesTheGPLAllowMoney">Does
+ the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for
money?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee"
+ name="TOCDoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee"> Does the GPL allow me to
+ charge a fee for downloading the program from my distribution
+ site?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee"
name="TOCDoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee">
+ 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"
+ name="TOCDoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic">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"
name="TOCDoesTheGPLAllowNDA">Does
+ the GPL allow me to distribute a copy under a
+ nondisclosure agreement?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA"
name="TOCDoesTheGPLAllowModNDA">Does
+ the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a
+ nondisclosure agreement?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DevelopChangesUnderNDA"
name="TOCDevelopChangesUnderNDA">Does
+ the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a
+ nondisclosure agreement?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#RequiredToClaimCopyright"
+ name="TOCRequiredToClaimCopyright">Am I required to claim a copyright on
+ my modifications to a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL"
+ name="TOCCombinePublicDomainWithGPL">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" name="TOCIWantCredit">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="#WhatIsCompatible"
name="TOCWhatIsCompatible">What does it mean to
+ say that two licenses are “compatible”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhatDoesCompatMean"
+ name="TOCWhatDoesCompatMean">What does it mean to say a license is
+ “compatible with the GPL”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#OrigBSD" name="TOCOrigBSD">Why is the original
BSD
+ license incompatible with the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLCommercially" name="TOCGPLCommercially">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="#LGPLJava" name="TOCLGPLJava">How does the LGPL
+ work with Java?</a></li>
+
+
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>Using the GPL for your programs</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+
+ <li><a href="#CouldYouHelpApplyGPL"
name="TOCCouldYouHelpApplyGPL">Could
+ you give me step by step instructions on how to apply the GPL to my
+ program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyUseGPL" name="TOCWhyUseGPL">Why should I use
the GNU GPL
+ rather than other free software licenses?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyMustIInclude" name="TOCWhyMustIInclude">Why
does the GPL
+ require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the
program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort"
name="TOCWhatIfWorkIsShort">What
+ if the work is not much longer than the license
itself?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLOmitPreamble" name="TOCGPLOmitPreamble">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" name="TOCHowIGetCopyright">How
do I
+ get a copyright on my program in order to release it under the
+ GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhatIfSchool" name="TOCWhatIfSchool">What if my
school
+ might want to make my program into its own proprietary software
+ product?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF"
name="TOCReleaseUnderGPLAndNF">I
+ would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would
+ like to use the same code in <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
programs.</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CanDeveloperThirdParty"
+ name="TOCCanDeveloperThirdParty">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" name="TOCGPLUSGov">Can the US
Government
+ release a program under the GNU GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#VersionTwoOrLater"
name="TOCVersionTwoOrLater">Why
+ should programs say “Version 2 of the GPL or any later
+ version”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#FontException" name="TOCFontException">How does
the
+ GPL apply to fonts?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WMS" name="TOCWMS">What license should I use for
+ website maintenance system templates?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#NonFreeTools" name="TOCNonFreeTools">Can I
release
+ a program under the GPL which I developed using <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> tools?</a></li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>Distribution of programs released under the GPL</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+
+ <li><a href="#ModifiedJustBinary"
+ name="TOCModifiedJustBinary">Can I release a modified
+ version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#UnchangedJustBinary"
name="TOCUnchangedJustBinary">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"
+ name="TOCDistributeWithSourceOnInternet">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"
+ name="TOCRedistributedBinariesGetSource">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"
+ name="TOCSourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites">Can I put the binaries on my
+ Internet server and put the source on a different Internet
site?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DistributeExtendedBinary"
+ name="TOCDistributeExtendedBinary">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"
+ name="TOCDistributingSourceIsInconvenient">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"
name="TOCAnonFTPAndSendSources">I
+ want to make binaries available for anonymous FTP, but send sources
+ only to people who order them.</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource"
+ name="TOCHowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource">How can I make sure
+ each user who downloads the binaries also gets the
source?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ReleaseNotOriginal"
name="TOCReleaseNotOriginal"> 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="#UnreleasedMods" name="TOCUnreleasedMods"> 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"
+ name="TOCInternalDistribution"> Is use within one organization or
+ company “distribution”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#StolenCopy" name="TOCStolenCopy">
+ 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" name="TOCTradeSecretRelease">
+ What if a company distributes a copy as a trade
secret?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DistributeSubsidiary"
name="TOCDistributeSubsidiary">
+ Does moving a copy to a majority-owned, and controlled, subsidiary
+ constitute distribution?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ClickThrough" name="TOCClickThrough"> 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"
name="TOCGPLCompatInstaller">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>
+
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>Using programs released under the GPL when writing other
+ programs</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+
+ <li><a href="#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF"
name="TOCCanIUseGPLToolsForNF">Can
+ I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
+ programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile
+ them?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLOutput" name="TOCGPLOutput">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></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL"
name="TOCWhatCaseIsOutputGPL">In
+ what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL
too?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#PortProgramToGL" name="TOCPortProgramToGL">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="#LibGCCException" name="TOCLibGCCException">Does
the
+ libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?</a></li>
+
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>Combining work with code released under the GPL</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+
+ <li><a href="#MereAggregation" name="TOCMereAggregation">What
is
+ the difference between “mere aggregation” and
+ “combining two modules into one program”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLFairUse" name="TOCGPLFairUse">Do I have
+ “fair use” rights in using the source code of a
+ GPL-covered program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLUSGovAdd" name="TOCGPLUSGovAdd">Can the US
Government
+ release improvements to a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#IfLibraryIsGPL" name="TOCIfLibraryIsGPL">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?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#LinkingWithGPL" name="TOCLinkingWithGPL">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" name="TOCSwitchToLGPL">If so, is
there any
+ chance I could get a license of your program under the Lesser
GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WillYouMakeAnException"
+ name="TOCWillYouMakeAnException">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"
name="TOCIfInterpreterIsGPL">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"
name="TOCInterpreterIncompat">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" name="TOCGPLModuleLicense">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 <span class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#GPLPlugins"
name="TOCGPLPlugins">
+ When are a program and its plug-ins
+ considered a single combined program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a</em></ins></span> href="#GPLAndPlugins"
name="TOCGPLAndPlugins">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" name="TOCGPLPluginsInNF">Can I
apply the
+ GPL when writing a plug-in for a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#NFUseGPLPlugins" name="TOCNFUseGPLPlugins">Can I
+ release a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> program that's designed to
load a GPL-covered
+ plug-in?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLInProprietarySystem"
+ name="TOCGPLInProprietarySystem">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered
+ software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLWrapper" name="TOCGPLWrapper">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" name="TOCFSWithNFLibs"> Can I write
+ free software that uses <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
libraries?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs"
name="TOCGPLIncompatibleLibs">
+ What legal issues come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with
+ GPL software?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL"
name="TOCWindowsRuntimeAndGPL">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" name="TOCMoneyGuzzlerInc">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"
name="TOCGPLIncompatibleAlone">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" name="TOCOOPLANG"> 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"
+ name="TOCLinkingOverControlledInterface">How can I allow linking of
+ proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a controlled
+ interface only?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#Consider" name="TOCConsider">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"
name="TOCManyDifferentLicenses">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>
+
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>Questions about violations of the GPL</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+
+ <li><a href="#ReportingViolation"
name="TOCReportingViolation">What
+ should I do if I discover a possible violation of the
GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhoHasThePower" name="TOCWhoHasThePower">Who has
the
+ power to enforce the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#HeardOtherLicense" name="TOCHeardOtherLicense">I
heard
+ that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program under another license. Is
+ this possible?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DeveloperViolate" name="TOCDeveloperViolate">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"
name="TOCCompanyGPLCostsMoney"> 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>
+
+ </ul>
+
+<hr />
+
+<dl>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCWhatDoesGPLStandFor"
+name="WhatDoesGPLStandFor">What does “GPL” stand
+for?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>“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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCDoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL"
name="DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL">
+Does free software mean using the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCWhyUseGPL" name="WhyUseGPL">
+Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than other free software
licenses?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCDoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense"
name="DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense">
+Does all GNU software use the GNU GPL as its
license?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a
href="#TOCDoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware"
name="DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware">
+Does using the GPL for a program make it GNU
software?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Anyone can release a program under the GNU GPL but that does not
+make it a GNU package.
+<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 href="#TOCReportingViolation"
name="ReportingViolation">
+What should I do if I discover a possible violation of the
GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a
href="#TOCWhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions"
name="WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions">
+Why does the GPL permit users to publish their modified
versions?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCGPLRequireSourcePostedPublic"
+ name="GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">
+ Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be
+ posted to the public?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. 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>
+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 href="#TOCGPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine"
name="GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">
+ Can I have a GPL-covered program and an unrelated <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> program on the same
computer?</a></b></dt>
+<dd>
+Yes. The “mere aggregation” clause in the GPL makes this
+permission explicit, but that only reinforces what we believe would be
+true anyway.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCCanIDemandACopy"
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>
+No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of
+the program <em>if and when he chooses to do so</em>. He also has
the
+right not to redistribute the program, when that is what he
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>chooses.<p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>chooses.</dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCWhatDoesWrittenOfferValid"
+ name="WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid"> What does this
+ “written offer valid for any third party” mean?
+ 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 href="#TOCTheGPLSaysModifiedVersions"
+ name="TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">The GPL says that modified
+ versions, if released, must be “licensed … to all
+ third parties.” Who are these third
+ parties?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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 <strong>do</strong> anything physically for them. It only means
+they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCRequiredToClaimCopyright"
+ 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 href="#TOCCombinePublicDomainWithGPL"
+ 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>
+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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowMoney"
name="DoesTheGPLAllowMoney">
+ Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for
money?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.)
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee"
name="DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee">
+ Does the GPL allow me to
+ charge a fee for downloading the program from my distribution
site?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee"
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>
+No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree.</em></ins></span>
+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>
+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>
+
+<p>You <em>can</em> charge people a fee
+to <a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney">get a copy <em>from
you</em></a>.
+You can't require people to pay you when they get a copy <em>from
+someone else</em>.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCDoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic"
+ 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>
+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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowNDA"
name="DoesTheGPLAllowNDA">
+ Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a
+ nondisclosure agreement?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>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 href="#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowModNDA"
name="DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA">
+ Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a
+ nondisclosure agreement?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCDevelopChangesUnderNDA"
name="DevelopChangesUnderNDA">
+ Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a
+ nondisclosure agreement?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCIWantCredit" 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>
+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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCWhyMustIInclude"
name="WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL
+ require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the
program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCWhatIfWorkIsShort"
name="WhatIfWorkIsShort">What
+ if the work is not much longer than the license
itself?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple
+all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCGPLOmitPreamble"
+ 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>
+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>
+The preamble and instructions add up to some 5000 characters, less
+than 1/3 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 href="#TOCWhatIsCompatible"
name="WhatIsCompatible">What
+ does it mean to say that two licenses are
+ “compatible”?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+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>
+Just 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 href="#TOCWhatDoesCompatMean"
name="WhatDoesCompatMean">What
+does it mean to say a license is “compatible with the
+GPL”.</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+The GPL permits such a combination provided it is released under the
+GNU GPL. The other license is compatible with the GPL if it permits
+this too.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCFSWithNFLibs" name="FSWithNFLibs">Can I
write
+free software that uses <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> library to do a
+certain job, it cannot do that job in the Free World. If it depends on a
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> library is a drawback, and
suggest
+the task of changing the program so that it does the same job without
+the <span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> library. Please suggest
that anyone who thinks of doing
+substantial further work on the program first free it from dependence
+on the <span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> library.</p>
+<p>
+Note that there may also be legal issues with combining certain <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
+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 href="#TOCGPLIncompatibleLibs"
name="GPLIncompatibleLibs">What
+legal issues come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL
+software?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+If the libraries that you link with fall within the following exception
+in the GPL:
+<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>
+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.
+Thus, if the libraries you need come with major parts of a proprietary
+operating system, the GPL says people can link your program with them
+without any conditions.
+</p><p>
+If you want your program to link against a library not covered by that
+exception, you need to add your own exception, wholly outside of the
+GPL. This copyright notice and license notice give permission to link
+with the program FOO:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+ Copyright (C) yyyy <name of copyright holder>
+</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, write to the Free Software
+ Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
+</p>
+
+<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 code included
+in the standard release of DEF under the XYZ license (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 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>
+You should put this text in each file to which the exception applies.
+</p><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><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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree,</em></ins></span> please also see
+<a href="#FSWithNFLibs">the section on writing Free Software which
+uses <span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> libraries</a>.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCHowIGetCopyright"
name="HowIGetCopyright">How do I
+ get a copyright on my program in order to release it under the
+ GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCWhatIfSchool" name="WhatIfSchool">What
if my school
+ might want to make my program into its own proprietary software
+ product?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCCouldYouHelpApplyGPL"
name="CouldYouHelpApplyGPL">Could
+ you give me step by step instructions on how to apply the GPL to my
+ program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+See the page of <a href="/licenses/gpl-howto.html">
+GPL instructions</a>.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCHeardOtherLicense"
name="HeardOtherLicense">I heard
+ that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program under another license. Is
+ this possible?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCReleaseUnderGPLAndNF"
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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
programs.</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+To release a <span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCDeveloperViolate"
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>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCCanDeveloperThirdParty"
+ 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>
+No, because the public already has the right to use the program under
+the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCCanIUseGPLToolsForNF"
+ name="CanIUseGPLToolsForNF">Can I use GPL-covered editors such as
+ GNU Emacs to develop <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> programs? Can I use
GPL-covered tools
+ such as GCC to compile them?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> programs.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCGPLFairUse" name="GPLFairUse">Do I have
+ “fair use” rights in using the source code of a
+ GPL-covered program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCGPLUSGov" name="GPLUSGov">Can the US
Government
+ release a program under the GNU GPL?</a></b></dt>
+<dd>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCGPLUSGovAdd" name="GPLUSGovAdd">Can the
US Government
+ release improvements to a GPL-covered
program?</a></b></dt>
+<dd>
+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>
+If the US government uses contractors to do the job, then the
+improvements themselves can be GPL-covered.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCGPLOutput" 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>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCWhatCaseIsOutputGPL"
name="WhatCaseIsOutputGPL">In what cases is the output of a GPL program
covered by the GPL too?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCGPLModuleLicense"
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>
+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>
+But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. You
+can, if you wish, release your <span
class="removed"><del><strong>program</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>module</em></ins></span> 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 href="#TOCIfLibraryIsGPL" 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?</a></b></dt>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><dd>
+Yes,</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><dd><p>Yes,</em></ins></span>
because the program <span class="inserted"><ins><em>actually links to the
library. As such,
+the terms of the GPL apply to the entire combination. The software modules
+that link with the library may be under various GPL compatible licenses, but
the
+work</em></ins></span> as <span class="inserted"><ins><em>a whole must be
licensed under the GPL. See also:
+<a href="#WhatDoesCompatMean">What does</em></ins></span> it <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>mean to say a license</em></ins></span> is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>actually run includes</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“compatible with</em></ins></span> the
<span class="removed"><del><strong>library.
+<p></p></dd></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>GPL”?</a>
+</p></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCIfInterpreterIsGPL"
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>
+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>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 href="#TOCWindowsRuntimeAndGPL"
+ 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>
+The GPL permits this because that run-time library normally
+accompanies the compiler or interpreter you are using. So it falls
+under the exception in GPL section 3.
+<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>
(in
+this case, trapped by Windows instead of by Java, but the effect is
+the same). (Historical note: As of December 2006 Sun is in the middle
+of <a
href="http://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-welcomes-gpl-java.html">rereleasing
+its Java platform under GNU GPL</a>.)
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCOrigBSD" name="OrigBSD">Why is the
original BSD
+license incompatible with the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL;
+namely, the requirement on advertisements of the program. The GPL
+states:
+<pre>
+ You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise
+ of the rights granted herein.
+</pre>
+<p>
+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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#TOCGPLAndPlugins"
name="GPLAndPlugins">If</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#TOCGPLPlugins" name="GPLPlugins">
+When are</em></ins></span> a program
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>released under the GPL uses plug-ins,
what are the requirements for
+ the licenses of</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>and
its plug-ins considered</em></ins></span> a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>plug-in?</a></b></dt></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>single combined program?
+</a></b></dt></em></ins></span>
+<dd>
+ It depends on how the <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>main</em></ins></span> program invokes its plug-ins.
If the
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>main</em></ins></span> program uses fork and
exec to invoke plug-ins, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>then</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>and they establish
+intimate communication by sharing complex data structures, or shipping
+complex data structures back and forth, that can make them one single
+combined program. A main program that uses simple fork and exec to
+invoke plug-ins and does not establish intimate communication between
+them results in</em></ins></span> the plug-ins <span
class="removed"><del><strong>are</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>being a</em></ins></span> separate
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>programs, so the license for the main
program makes no requirements
+for them.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>program.</em></ins></span>
+
+<p> If the <span class="inserted"><ins><em>main</em></ins></span>
program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make
+function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe
+they form a single <span class="inserted"><ins><em>combined</em></ins></span>
program, which must be treated as an
+extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>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></strong></del></span> If the <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>main</em></ins></span>
+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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>case.</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>case.</p>
+
+<p>Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is
+pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCGPLAndPlugins" 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>
+Please see this question <a href="#GPLPlugins">for determining when
+plug-ins and a main program are considered a single combined program
+and when they are considered separate works</a>.
+
+<p> If the main program and the plugins are a single combined program
then this means
+you must license the plug-in under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free
+software license and distribute it with source code in a GPL-compliant
+way. A main program that is separate from its plug-ins makes no
+requirements for the plug-ins.</em></ins></span> </p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCGPLPluginsInNF"
name="GPLPluginsInNF">Can I apply the
+GPL when writing a plug-in for a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
program?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>If the program uses fork and exec to invoke
plug-ins, then the</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Please see this question <a
href="#GPLPlugins">for determining when</em></ins></span>
+plug-ins <span class="removed"><del><strong>are separate programs, so the
license for the</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>and
a</em></ins></span> main program
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>makes no requirements for them. So you can
use the GPL for</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>are
considered</em></ins></span> a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>plug-in,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>single combined program</em></ins></span>
+and <span class="removed"><del><strong>there</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>when they</em></ins></span> are <span
class="removed"><del><strong>no special requirements.</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>considered separate
programs</a>.</em></ins></span>
+<p> If <span class="removed"><del><strong>the program dynamically links
plug-ins, and they make function
+calls to each other and share data structures, we
believe</strong></del></span> they form a
+single <span class="removed"><del><strong>program, which must be treated as an
extension of both the main</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>combined</em></ins></span> program <span
class="removed"><del><strong>and the plug-ins. This</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>this</em></ins></span> means that combination
of the GPL-covered
+plug-in with the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> main
+program.</p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+See</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>See</em></ins></span> also the
question <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">I am
+writing free software that uses a <span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free
library.</a>
+</p></dd></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree
library.</a></p></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCNFUseGPLPlugins"
name="NFUseGPLPlugins">Can I
+release a <span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> program that's
designed to load a GPL-covered
+plug-in?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>It depends on how the</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Please see this question <a
href="#GPLPlugins">for determining when
+plug-ins and a main</em></ins></span> program <span
class="removed"><del><strong>invokes its plug-ins.
+If the</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>are considered a
single combined</em></ins></span> program <span
class="removed"><del><strong>uses fork</strong></del></span>
+and <span class="removed"><del><strong>exec to invoke plug-ins, then the
+plug-ins</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>when
they</em></ins></span> are <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>considered</em></ins></span> separate <span
class="removed"><del><strong>programs, so the license of the plug-in
+makes no requirements about the main program.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>programs</a>.</em></ins></span>
+<p>
+If <span class="removed"><del><strong>the program dynamically links plug-ins,
and they make function
+calls to each other and share data structures, we
believe</strong></del></span> they form a single <span
class="removed"><del><strong>program, which must be treated as an extension of
both the main</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>combined</em></ins></span> program <span
class="removed"><del><strong>and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered
plug-ins,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>then</em></ins></span> the
+main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free
+software license, and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>that</strong></del></span> the terms of the GPL
must be followed when
+the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.</p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication
+between them is limited to invoking</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>However, if they are separate works
then</em></ins></span> the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>‘main’ function</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>license</em></ins></span> of the plug-in <span
class="removed"><del><strong>with some options and waiting for it to return,
that is a
+borderline case.</p>
+<p>
+See</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>makes no requirements about the main
program.</p>
+
+<p>See</em></ins></span> also the question <a
href="#FSWithNFLibs">I am
+writing free software that uses a <span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free
library.</a>
+</p></dd></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree
library.</a></p></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCLinkingWithGPL"
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>
+Yes.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCSwitchToLGPL" name="SwitchToLGPL">If so,
is there
+ any chance I could get a license of your program under the Lesser
+ GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+You always have the legal alternative of not using our code.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCLinkingOverControlledInterface"
+ name="LinkingOverControlledInterface">How can I allow linking of
+ proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a controlled
+ interface only?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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:
+<pre>
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+</pre>
+<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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong></p><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></p></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCManyDifferentLicenses"
+ 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>
+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:
+<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>
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCMereAggregation"
name="MereAggregation">What is
+ the difference between “mere aggregation” and
+ “combining two modules into one
program”?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on
+the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they
+are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case,
+if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the
+other program.
+<p>
+Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form
+a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the
+whole combination must also be released under the GPL—if you
+can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.</p>
+<p>
+What constitutes combining two parts into one program? 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 href="#TOCAssignCopyright"
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 href="#TOCModifyGPL" 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 href="#TOCGPLCommercially"
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 href="#TOCGPLOtherThanSoftware"
+name="GPLOtherThanSoftware">Can I use the GPL for something other than
+software?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCLGPLJava"
+name="LGPLJava">How does the LGPL
+ work with Java?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p><a</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><a</em></ins></span>
href="/licenses/lgpl-java.html">See this article for details.</a> It
works as designed, intended, and expected.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCConsider" 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>
+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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCGPLInProprietarySystem"
+ 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> system, it would have
+the effect of making the GPL-covered software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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 href="#TOCGPLWrapper" 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>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><dd><p>No.</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><dd>No.</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>GPL.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>GPL.</em></ins></span>
+
+<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 href="#TOCLibGCCException" name="LibGCCException">
Does the
+libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?</a></b></dt>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><dd><p>Yes.</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><dd>Yes.</em></ins></span> The intent
of the exception is to allow people to compile
+proprietary software using <span
class="removed"><del><strong>gcc.</p></dd></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>gcc.</dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCMoneyGuzzlerInc"
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 href="#TOCGPLIncompatibleAlone"
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 <strong>any and
+every part of it</strong> 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 href="#TOCModifiedJustBinary"
+ name="ModifiedJustBinary">Can I release a modified
+ version of a GPL-covered program in binary form
only?</a></b></dt>
+<dd>
+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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCUnchangedJustBinary"
+ 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>
+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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCDistributeWithSourceOnInternet"
+ name="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></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical
+medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way
+to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the
+mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to
+satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
+<p>
+When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source
+to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source
+from you by anonymous FTP, fine—that does the job. But not
+every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as
+entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be
+prepared to send it to them by post.</p>
+<p>
+If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to
+mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you
+cannot assume that.</p>
+<p>
+Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the
+first place.
+</p>
+<p>If you distribute binaries via FTP, <a
+href="#AnonFTPAndSendSources">you should distribute source via
FTP.</a></p>
+
+</dd>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCRedistributedBinariesGetSource"
+ 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>
+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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCSourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites"
+ name="SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites">Can I put the binaries on my
+ Internet server and put the source on a different Internet
+ site?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code “from
+the same place”; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you
+make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code
+available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next
+to the binaries, we think that qualifies as “from the same
+place”.
+<p>
+Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to
+have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there.
+Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply
+replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would
+no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a
+reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement
+with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available
+there for as long as you keep the binaries available.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCDistributeExtendedBinary"
+ 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>
+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>
+Part of the idea of free software is that users should have access to
+the source code for <strong>the programs they use</strong>. 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 href="#TOCDistributingSourceIsInconvenient"
+ 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>
+This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the
+source doesn't really do the job.
+<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 href="#TOCAnonFTPAndSendSources"
+ name="AnonFTPAndSendSources">I want to make binaries available for
+ anonymous FTP, but send sources only to people who order
them.</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>If you want to distribute binaries by anonymous FTP, you still have
+to provide source through one of the options listed in section 3.
+This should not be hard. You can provide a written offer for source
+if you want; section 3(b) allows this. But if you can find a site to
+distribute your program, you can surely find one that has room for the
+sources.
+</p><p>No matter how you distribute the source, the sources you
+provide must correspond exactly to the binaries. In particular, you
+must make sure they are for the same version of the program—not
+an older version and not a newer version.</p>
+<p>
+You can make the sources and binaries available on different machines,
+provided they are equally easy to get to, and provided that you have
+information next to the binaries saying where to find the sources.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCHowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource"
+ name="HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource">How can I make sure each
+ user who downloads the binaries also gets the
source?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCUnreleasedMods" 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>
+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>
+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. We are
+thinking about doing something like this in GPL version 3, but we
+don't have precise wording in mind yet.</p>
+<p>
+In the mean time, you might want to use the <a
+href="http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html">Affero GPL</a> for programs
+designed for network server use.
+</p></dd>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCInternalDistribution"
+ name="InternalDistribution">Is making and using multiple copies
+ within one organization or company
+ “distribution”?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCStolenCopy" 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>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCTradeSecretRelease"
+ name="TradeSecretRelease">What if a company distributes a copy as
+ a trade secret?</a></b></dt>
+<dd>
+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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCWhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL"
+ 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 href="#TOCWillYouMakeAnException"
+ 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 href="#TOCVersionTwoOrLater"
name="VersionTwoOrLater">Why
+should programs say “Version 2 of the GPL or any later
+version”?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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 change was in 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>
+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 2 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 2. When a program says “Version 2 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 2—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 3 is
+available, the developers of most GPL-covered programs will release
+subsequent versions of their programs specifying “Version 3 of
+the GPL or any later version”. Then users will have to follow
+the tighter requirements in GPL version 3, 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 href="#TOCWhyNotGPLForManuals"
name="WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why
+don't you use the GPL for manuals?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It is possible to use the GPL for a manual, but the GNU Free
+Documentation License (GFDL) is much better for manuals.
+<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 href="#TOCFontException" name="FontException">How
does the
+GPL apply to fonts?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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 <a
href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050425novalis">explanatory
+essay</a> and write to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+
+<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>
+<p>
+<tt>
+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.
+</tt>
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCWMS" 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>
+
+<!-- GNUN: localize URL /licenses/template-diagram.png -->
+<p><a href="/licenses/template-diagram.png"><img
src="/licenses/template-diagram.png" alt="A diagram of the above content"
/></a></p>
+
+<p>Here's an exception for Javascript code that does this:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>As a special exception to 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 href="#TOCNonFreeTools" name="NonFreeTools">Can I
release
+ a program under the GPL which I developed using <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
tools?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+However, if you link <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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.
+The FSF can give you advice on doing this.</p>
+</dd>
+
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCGPLTranslations"
name="GPLTranslations">Are there
+translations of the GPL into other languages?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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>
+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> 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>
+An unapproved translation has no legal force, and it should say so
+explicitly. It should be marked as follows:</p>
+<pre>
+ 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).
+</pre>
+<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>
+Publishing translations valid for a single country only.
+<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>
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCInterpreterIncompat"
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>
+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>
+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>
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCWhoHasThePower"
name="WhoHasThePower">Who has the
+power to enforce the GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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="http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReportingViolation">Learn
+more about reporting GPL violations.</a>
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCOOPLang" 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>
+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.
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCPortProgramToGL"
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>
+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="/copyleft/lesser.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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> programs; but in the case of
+the Lesser GPL, it does have some requirements you must follow.
+<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 href="#TOCCompanyGPLCostsMoney"
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>
+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>
+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 href="#TOCReleaseNotOriginal"
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>
+No. Such a license would be self-contradictory. Let's look at its
+implications for me as a user.
+<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 href="#TOCDistributeSubsidiary"
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 href="#TOCClickThrough" 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 href="#TOCGPLCompatInstaller"
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>
+
+</dl>
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>. There are
also <a
+href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and
other
+corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for
+information on coordinating and submitting translations of this
article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2014, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2015</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2015, 2017</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2017/04/03 20:29:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/gpl-faq.ja-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/gpl-faq.ja-diff.html
diff -N po/gpl-faq.ja-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/gpl-faq.ja-diff.html 3 Apr 2017 20:29:26 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,3955 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/licenses/gpl-faq.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<title>Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<style type="text/css" media="screen">
+<!--
+#template-diagram {
+ width: 37.5em; max-width: 100%;
+ margin: auto;
+}
+#template-diagram img { width: 100%; }
+
+table#gpl-compat-matrix {
+ display: block;
+ width: 100%;
+ overflow: auto;
+ padding: .1em;
+ margin: auto;
+ border-collapse: collapse;
+}
+table#gpl-compat-matrix td, th.gpl-matrix-border {
+ text-align: center;
+ padding: .3em;
+ margin: 0;
+ border: 1px solid black;
+}
+table#gpl-compat-matrix td.ok { background-color: #ccffcc; }
+table#gpl-compat-matrix td.mok { background-color: #e4ffcc; }
+table#gpl-compat-matrix td.nok { background-color: #dddddd; }
+th.gpl-matrix-license { text-align: right; }
+tr.gpl-matrix-use-type { border-top: 2px solid black; }
+-->
+<!--#if expr="$LANGUAGE_SUFFIX = /[.](ar|fa|he)/" -->
+<!--
+th.gpl-matrix-license { text-align: left; }
+-->
+<!--#endif -->
+</style>
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/gpl-faq.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses</h2>
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.html" -->
+
+<h3>Table of Contents</h3>
+
+ <h4>Basic questions about the GNU Project, the Free
+ Software Foundation, and its licenses</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li><a href="#WhatDoesGPLStandFor">What does “GPL”
+ stand for?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL">Does free
software mean
+ using the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyUseGPL">Why should I use the GNU GPL rather
than
+ other free software licenses?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense">Does
all
+ GNU software use the GNU GPL as its license?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware">Does
+ using the GPL for a program make it GNU software?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware">Can I use the GPL for
something
+ other than software?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why don't you use the GPL
for
+ manuals?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLTranslations">Are there translations of the
GPL
+ into other languages?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">Why are some GNU libraries
+ released under the ordinary GPL rather than the Lesser
GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhoHasThePower">Who has the power to enforce the
+ GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#AssignCopyright">Why does the FSF require that
+ contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the
+ FSF? If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this,
+ too? If so, how?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ModifyGPL">Can I modify the GPL and make a
modified
+ license?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#SeparateAffero">Why did you decide to write the
GNU
+ Affero GPLv3 as a separate license?</a></li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>General understanding of the GNU licenses</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li><a
href="#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions">Why
+ does the GPL permit users to publish their modified
versions?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">Does the GPL
require
+ that source code of modified versions be posted to the
+ public?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">Can I have a
GPL-covered
+ program and an unrelated <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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 they 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 distribution
+ 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 very
+ long?</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="#TranslateCode">What does the GPL say about
translating
+ some code to a different programming language?</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="#RequireCitation">Does the GPL allow me to add
terms
+ that would require citation or acknowledgment in research papers
+ which use the GPL-covered software or its output?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLOmitPreamble">Can I omit the preamble of the
GPL,
+ or the instructions for how to use it on your own programs, to save
+ space?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhatIsCompatible">What does it mean to say that
two
+ licenses are “compatible”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhatDoesCompatMean">What does it mean to say a
license
+ is “compatible with the GPL”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#OrigBSD">Why is the original BSD license
incompatible
+ with the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#MereAggregation">What is the difference between
an
+ “aggregate” and other kinds of “modified
+ versions”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#AssignCopyright">Why does the FSF require that
+ contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the
+ FSF? If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this,
+ too? If so, how?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLCommercially">If I use a piece of software
that has
+ been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original
+ code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program
+ commercially?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware">Can I use the GPL for
something
+ other than software?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#NoMilitary">I'd like to license my code under
the GPL,
+ but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for
+ military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLHardware">Can I use the GPL to license
+ hardware?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#Prelinking">Does prelinking a GPLed binary to
various
+ libraries on the system, to optimize its performance, count as
+ modification?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#LGPLJava">How does the LGPL work with
Java?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyPropagateAndConvey">Why did you invent the new
+ terms “propagate” and “convey” in
+ GPLv3?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ConveyVsDistribute">Is “convey” in
GPLv3
+ the same thing as what GPLv2 means by
+ “distribute”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#NoDistributionRequirements">If I only make
copies of a
+ GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying
+ them to others, what does the license require of me?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3MakingAvailable">GPLv3 gives “making
available
+ to the public” as an example of propagation. What does this
+ mean? Is making available a form of conveying?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#PropagationNotConveying">Since distribution and
making
+ available to the public are forms of propagation that are also
+ conveying in GPLv3, what are some examples of propagation that do
+ not constitute conveying?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#BitTorrent">How does GPLv3 make BitTorrent
+ distribution easier?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#Tivoization">What is tivoization? How does GPLv3
prevent
+ it?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DRMProhibited">Does GPLv3 prohibit
DRM?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3VotingMachine">Does GPLv3 require that voters
be
+ able to modify the software running in a voting
machine?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3PatentRetaliation">Does GPLv3 have a
“patent
+ retaliation clause”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3Notwithstanding">In GPLv3 and AGPLv3, what
does it mean
+ when it says “notwithstanding any other provision of this
+ License”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely">In AGPLv3, what
counts as
+ “ interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer
+ network?”</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ApacheLegalEntity">How does GPLv3's concept of
+ “you” compare to the definition of “Legal
+ Entity” in the Apache License 2.0?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3TheProgram">In GPLv3, what does “the
+ Program” refer to? Is it every program ever released under
+ GPLv3?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#AGPLv3ServerAsUser">If some network client
software
+ is released under AGPLv3, does it have to be able to provide
+ source to the servers it interacts with?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#AGPLProxy">For software that runs a proxy server
+ licensed under the AGPL, how can I provide an offer of source to
+ users interacting with that code?</a></li>
+
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>Using GNU licenses for your programs</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li><a href="#v3HowToUpgrade">How do I upgrade from (L)GPLv2 to
+ (L)GPLv3?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CouldYouHelpApplyGPL">Could you give me step by
step
+ instructions on how to apply the GPL to my program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyUseGPL">Why should I use the GNU GPL rather
than
+ other free software licenses?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL require
including a
+ copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#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>
+
+ <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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
programs.</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CanDeveloperThirdParty">Can the developer of a
program
+ who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party
+ for exclusive use?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLUSGov">Can the US Government release a program
+ under the GNU GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLUSGovAdd">Can the US Government release
+ improvements to a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#VersionThreeOrLater">Why should programs say
+ “Version 3 of the GPL or any later
+ version”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#OnlyLatestVersion">Is it a good idea to use a
+ license saying that a certain program can be used only under the
+ latest version of the GNU GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLOutput">Is there some way that I can GPL the
output
+ people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is
+ used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs
+ must be free?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why don't you use the GPL
for
+ manuals?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#FontException">How does the GPL apply to
+ fonts?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WMS">What license should I use for website
maintenance
+ system templates?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#NonFreeTools">Can I release a program under the
GPL
+ which I developed using <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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="#MustSourceBuildToMatchExactHashOfBinary">Does the
+ GPL require me to provide source code that can be built to match
+ the exact hash of the binary I am distributing?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ReleaseNotOriginal">Can I release a program with
a
+ license which says that you can distribute modified versions of it
+ under the GPL but you can't distribute the original itself under the
+ GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CompanyGPLCostsMoney">I just found out that a
company
+ has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it.
+ Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it available on the
+ Internet?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#UnreleasedMods">A company is running a modified
+ version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they
+ must release their modified sources?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#InternalDistribution">Is use within one
organization
+ or company “distribution”?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#StolenCopy">If someone steals a CD containing a
+ version of a GPL-covered program, does the GPL give him the right to
+ redistribute that version?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#TradeSecretRelease">What if a company
distributes a
+ copy as a trade secret?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLFairUse">Do I have “fair use”
rights in
+ using the source code of a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DistributeSubsidiary">Does moving a copy to a
+ majority-owned, and controlled, subsidiary constitute
+ distribution?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ClickThrough">Can software installers ask people
to
+ click to agree to the GPL? If I get some software under the GPL, do
+ I have to agree to anything?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLCompatInstaller">I would like to bundle GPLed
+ software with some sort of installation software. Does that
+ installer need to have a GPL-compatible license?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ExportWarranties">Does a distributor violate the
GPL
+ if they require me to “represent and warrant” that I
+ am located in the US, or that I intend to distribute the software
+ in compliance with relevant export control laws?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3Under4and5">The beginning of GPLv3 section 6
says
+ that I can convey a covered work in object code form “under
+ the terms of sections 4 and 5” provided I also meet the
+ conditions of section 6. What does that mean?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v2OrLaterPatentLicense">My company owns a lot of
+ patents. Over the years we've contributed code to projects under
+ “GPL version 2 or any later version”, and the project
+ itself has been distributed under the same terms. If a user decides
+ to take the project's code (incorporating my contributions) under
+ GPLv3, does that mean I've automatically granted GPLv3's explicit
+ patent license to that user?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3ConditionalWarranty">If I distribute a
GPLv3-covered
+ program, can I provide a warranty that is voided if the user
+ modifies the program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#v3CoworkerConveying">If I give a copy of a
+ GPLv3-covered program to a coworker at my company, have I
+ “conveyed” the copy to that coworker?</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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> program on the same
+ computer?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF">Can I use GPL-covered
editors
+ such as GNU Emacs to develop <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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 that 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. I have no permission to use
+ that software except what the GPL gives me. 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="#InstInfo">Does GPLv2 have a requirement about
+ delivering installation information?</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="#GPLStaticVsDynamic">Does the GPL have different
+ requirements for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a
+ covered work?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#LGPLStaticVsDynamic">Does the LGPL have different
+ requirements for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a
+ covered work?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#IfLibraryIsGPL">If a library is released under
the GPL
+ (not the LGPL), does that mean that any software which uses it has to
+ be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#LinkingWithGPL">You have a GPL'ed program that
I'd
+ like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the
+ fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my
+ program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#SwitchToLGPL">If so, is there any chance I could
get a
+ license of your program under the Lesser GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WillYouMakeAnException">Using a certain GNU
program
+ under the GPL does not fit our project to make proprietary software.
+ Will you make an exception for us? It would mean more users of that
+ program.</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#IfInterpreterIsGPL">If a programming language
+ interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs
+ written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible
+ licenses?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#InterpreterIncompat">If a programming language
+ interpreter has a license that is incompatible with the GPL, can I
+ run GPL-covered programs on it?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLModuleLicense">If I add a module to a
GPL-covered
+ program, do I have to use the GPL as the license for my
+ module?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a <span class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#GPLPlugins">When
are a program and its plug-ins
+ considered a single combined program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a</em></ins></span> href="#GPLAndPlugins">If I write a
plug-in to use with
+ a GPL-covered program, what requirements does that impose
+ on the licenses I can use for distributing my plug-in?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#GPLPluginsInNF">Can I apply the GPL when writing
a
+ plug-in for a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
program?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#NFUseGPLPlugins">Can I release a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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. I have no permission to use
+ that software except what the GPL gives me. 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
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
libraries?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#SystemLibraryException">Can I link a GPL program
with
+ a proprietary system library?</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++ runtime 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="#NonfreeDriverKernelLinux">Does distributing a
+ nonfree driver meant to link with the kernel Linux violate the
+ GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#LinkingOverControlledInterface">How can I allow
+ linking of proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a
+ controlled interface only?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#Consider">Consider this situation:
+ 1) X releases V1 of a project under the GPL.
+ 2) Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code
+ based on V1.
+ 3) X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license. Does X need Y's
+ permission?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#ManyDifferentLicenses">I have written an
application
+ that links with many different components, that have different
+ licenses. I am very confused as to what licensing requirements are
+ placed on my program. Can you please tell me what licenses I may
+ use?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#SourceCodeInDocumentation">Can I use snippets of
+ GPL-covered source code within documentation that is licensed under
+ some license that is incompatible with the GPL?</a></li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h4>Questions about violations of the GNU licenses</h4>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li><a href="#ReportingViolation">What should I do if I
discover a
+ possible violation of the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#WhoHasThePower">Who has the power to enforce the
+ GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#HeardOtherLicense">I heard that someone got a
copy of
+ a GPL'ed program under another license. Is this
possible?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#DeveloperViolate">Is the developer of a
GPL-covered
+ program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a
+ violation of the GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#CompanyGPLCostsMoney">I just found out that a
company
+ has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it.
+ Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it available on the
+ Internet?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#SubscriptionFee">Can I use GPLed software on a
device
+ that will stop operating if customers do not continue paying a
+ subscription fee?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#Cure">What does it mean to “cure” a
+ violation of GPLv3?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#LaptopLoan">If someone installs GPLed software
on a
+ laptop, and then lends that laptop to a friend without providing
+ source code for the software, have they violated the
GPL?</a></li>
+
+ <li><a href="#TwoPartyTivoization" >Suppose that two companies
try
+ to circumvent the requirement to provide Installation Information by
+ having one company release signed software, and the other release a
+ User Product that only runs signed software from the first
+ company. Is this a violation of GPLv3?</a></li>
+ </ul>
+
+<hr />
+
+<dl>
+
+<dt id="WhatDoesGPLStandFor">What does “GPL” stand for?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatDoesGPLStandFor"
+ >#WhatDoesGPLStandFor</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+“GPL” stands for “General Public License”.
+The most widespread such license is the GNU General Public License, or GNU
+GPL for short. This can be further shortened to “GPL”, when it
+is understood that the GNU GPL is the one intended.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL">Does free software mean using
+ the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL"
+ >#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Not at all—there are many other free software licenses. We
+have an <a href="/licenses/license-list.html">incomplete list</a>.
Any
+license that provides the user <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">certain
+specific freedoms</a> is a free software license.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhyUseGPL">Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than other
+ free software licenses?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyUseGPL"
+ >#WhyUseGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Using the GNU GPL will require that all
+the <a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">released improved versions be
free
+software</a>. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete
with
+a proprietary modified version of your own work. However, in some special
+situations it can be better to use a
+<a href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">more permissive
license</a>.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense">Does all GNU
+ software use the GNU GPL as its license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense"
+
>#DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Most GNU software packages use the GNU GPL, but there are a few
+GNU programs (and parts of programs) that use looser licenses, such as the
+Lesser GPL. When we do this, it is a matter of <a
+href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">strategy</a>.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware">Does using the
+ GPL for a program make it GNU software?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware"
+
>#DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Anyone can release a program under the GNU GPL, but that does not
+make it a GNU package.</p>
+
+<p>Making the program a GNU software package means explicitly
contributing
+to the GNU Project. This happens when the program's developers and the GNU
+Project agree to do it. If you are interested in contributing a program to
+the GNU Project, please write to
+<a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ReportingViolation">What should I do if I discover a possible
+ violation of the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ReportingViolation"
+ >#ReportingViolation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+You should <a href="/licenses/gpl-violation.html">report it</a>.
+First, check the facts as best you can. Then tell the publisher or
+copyright holder of the specific GPL-covered program. If that is the Free
+Software Foundation, write
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+Otherwise, the program's maintainer may be the copyright holder, or else
+could tell you how to contact the copyright holder, so report it to the
+maintainer.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions">Why
+ does the GPL permit users to publish their modified versions?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions"
+
>#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+A crucial aspect of free software is that users are free to cooperate.
+It is absolutely essential to permit users who wish to help each other
+to share their bug fixes and improvements with other users.</p>
+
+<p>Some have proposed alternatives to the GPL that require modified
+versions to go through the original author. As long as the original
+author keeps up with the need for maintenance, this may work well in
+practice, but if the author stops (more or less) to do something else
+or does not attend to all the users' needs, this scheme falls down.
+Aside from the practical problems, this scheme does not allow users to
+help each other.</p>
+
+<p>Sometimes control over modified versions is proposed as a means of
+preventing confusion between various versions made by users. In our
+experience, this confusion is not a major problem. Many versions of
+Emacs have been made outside the GNU Project, but users can tell them
+apart. The GPL requires the maker of a version to place his or her
+name on it, to distinguish it from other versions and to protect the
+reputations of other maintainers.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">Does the GPL require that
+ source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic"
+ >#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any
+part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately,
+without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including
+companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it
+internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.</p>
+
+<p>But <em>if</em> you release the modified version to the
public in some
+way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the
+program's users, under the GPL.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in
+certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release
+it is up to you.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">Can I have a GPL-covered
+ program and an unrelated <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> program on the same
computer?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine"
+ >#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>Yes.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="CanIDemandACopy">If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered
+ program, can I demand they give me a copy?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CanIDemandACopy"
+ >#CanIDemandACopy</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. The GPL gives a person permission to make and redistribute copies
+of the program <em>if and when that person chooses to do so</em>.
+That person also has the right not to choose to redistribute the
+program.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid">What does “written offer
+ valid for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does that mean
+ everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program
+ no matter what?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid"
+ >#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody
+who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.</p>
+
+<p>If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source
+code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the
+source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the
+binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this
+written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries
+directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with
+the written offer.</p>
+
+<p>The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party
+is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way
+can order the source code from you.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">GPLv2 says that modified
+ versions, if released, must be “licensed … to all third
+ parties.” Who are these third parties?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions"
+ >#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be
+licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third
+parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require
+you to <em>do</em> anything physically for them. It only means
they have a
+license from you, under the GPL, for your version. </p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="RequiredToClaimCopyright">Am I required to claim a copyright
+ on my modifications to a GPL-covered program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#RequiredToClaimCopyright"
+ >#RequiredToClaimCopyright</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+You are not required to claim a copyright on your changes. In most
+countries, however, that happens automatically by default, so you need to
+place your changes explicitly in the public domain if you do not want them
+to be copyrighted.</p>
+
+<p>Whether you claim a copyright on your changes or not, either way you
+must release the modified version, as a whole, under the GPL (<a
+href="#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">if you release your modified
+version at all</a>).</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL"
+ >#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+You can do that, if you can figure out which part is the public domain
+part and separate it from the rest. If code was put in the public
+domain by its developer, it is in the public domain no matter where it
+has been.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowMoney">Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of
+ the program for money?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney"
+ >#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The <a
+href="/philosophy/selling.html">right to sell copies</a> is part of
the
+definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is
+no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the
+required written offer to provide source code that must accompany
+binary-only release.)</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee">Does the GPL allow me to charge a
+ fee for downloading the program from my distribution site?</dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the
+program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide
+“equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the
+fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the
+binary.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee">Does the GPL allow me to require
+ that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or
+ notify me?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee"
+ >#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree.</em></ins></span>
+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>
+
+<p>You <em>can</em> charge people a fee
+to <a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney">get a copy <em>from
you</em></a>.
+You can't require people to pay you when they get a copy <em>from
+someone else</em>.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic">If I
+ distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make
+ it available to the public without a charge?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">
+ (<a href="#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic"
+ >#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives
+them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee.
+For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a
+web site for the general public.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowNDA">Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies
+ under a nondisclosure agreement?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA"
+ >#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the
+right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to
+distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.</p>
+
+<p>If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software
+copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden">address@hidden</a>.</p>
+
+<p>If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other
copyright
+holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would
+for any other kind of violation of the GPL.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA">Does the GPL allow me to distribute a
+ modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA"
+ >#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. The GPL says that your modified versions must carry all the
+freedoms stated in the GPL. Thus, anyone who receives a copy of your
+version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or
+not) of that version. You may not distribute any version of the work
+on a more restrictive basis.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DevelopChangesUnderNDA">Does the GPL allow me to develop a
+ modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DevelopChangesUnderNDA"
+ >#DevelopChangesUnderNDA</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and
+agree not to release <em>your changes</em> until the client says
ok.
+This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is
+being distributed under an NDA.</p>
+
+<p>You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but
+agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In
+this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA,
+or under any additional restrictions.</p>
+
+<p>The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version.
+In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right,
+but does <em>have</em> the right.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="IWantCredit">I want to get credit
+ for my work. I want people to know what I wrote. Can I still get
+ credit if I use the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#IWantCredit"
+ >#IWantCredit</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+You can certainly get credit for the work. Part of releasing a
+program under the GPL is writing a copyright notice in your own name
+(assuming you are the copyright holder). The GPL requires all copies
+to carry an appropriate copyright notice.</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="RequireCitation">Does the GPL allow me to add terms
+ that would require citation or acknowledgment in research papers
+ which use the GPL-covered software or its output?
+<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#RequireCitation">#RequireCitation</a>)</span>
+</dt>
+<dd><p> No, this is not permitted under the terms of the GPL.
While we
+recognize that proper citation is an important part of academic
+publications, citation cannot be added as an additional requirement to
+the GPL. Requiring citation in research papers which made use of GPL'd
+software goes beyond what would be an acceptable additional
+requirement under section 7(b) of GPLv3, and therefore would be
+considered an additional restriction under Section 7 of the GPL. And
+copyright law does not allow you to place such
+a <a href="#GPLOutput">requirement on the output of software</a>,
+regardless of whether it is licensed under the terms of the GPL or
+some other license.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL
+ require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyMustIInclude"
+ >#WhyMustIInclude</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that
+everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what their rights
are.</p>
+
+<p>It might be tempting to include a URL that refers to the license,
+instead of the license itself. But you cannot be sure that the URL
+will still be valid, five years or ten years from now. Twenty years
+from now, URLs as we know them today may no longer exist.</p>
+
+<p>The only way to make sure that people who have copies of the program
+will continue to be able to see the license, despite all the changes
+that will happen in the network, is to include a copy of the license in
+the program.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="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. Or they might
+not. Why leave an uncertainty?</p>
+
+<p>This statement should be in each source file. A clear statement in
+the program's README file is legally sufficient <em>as long as that
+accompanies the code</em>, but it is easy for them to get separated.
+Why take a risk of <a href="#NoticeInSourceFile">uncertainty about
+your code's license</a>?</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—less than 300 lines is the benchmark we use—you may
+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>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLOmitPreamble">Can I omit the preamble of the GPL, or the
+ instructions for how to use it on your own programs, to save space?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLOmitPreamble"
+ >#GPLOmitPreamble</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The preamble and instructions are integral parts of the GNU GPL and
+may not be omitted. In fact, the GPL is copyrighted, and its license
+permits only verbatim copying of the entire GPL. (You can use the
+legal terms to make <a href="#ModifyGPL">another license</a> but it
+won't be the GNU GPL.)</p>
+
+<p>The preamble and instructions add up to some 1000 words, less
+than 1/5 of the GPL's total size. They will not make a substantial
+fractional change in the size of a software package unless the package
+itself is quite small. In that case, you may as well use a simple
+all-permissive license rather than the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhatIsCompatible">What does it
+ mean to say that two licenses are “compatible”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatIsCompatible"
+ >#WhatIsCompatible</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+In order to combine two programs (or substantial parts of them) into a
+larger work, you need to have permission to use both programs in this way.
+If the two programs' licenses permit this, they are compatible. If there
+is no way to satisfy both licenses at once, they are incompatible.</p>
+
+<p>For some licenses, the way in which the combination is made may affect
+whether they are compatible—for instance, they may allow linking two
+modules together, but not allow merging their code into one module.</p>
+
+<p>If you just want to install two separate programs in the same system,
it
+is not necessary that their licenses be compatible, because this does not
+combine them into a larger work.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhatDoesCompatMean">What does it mean to say a license is
+ “compatible with the GPL?”
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatDoesCompatMean"
+ >#WhatDoesCompatMean</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can
+combine code released under the other license with code released under the
+GNU GPL in one larger program.</p>
+
+<p>All GNU GPL versions permit such combinations privately; they also
+permit distribution of such combinations provided the combination is
+released under the same GNU GPL version. The other license is
+compatible with the GPL if it permits this too.</p>
+
+<p>GPLv3 is compatible with more licenses than GPLv2: it allows you to
make
+combinations with code that has specific kinds of additional requirements
+that are not in GPLv3 itself. Section 7 has more information about this,
+including the list of additional requirements that are
permitted.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="FSWithNFLibs">Can I write
+ free software that uses <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> libraries?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#FSWithNFLibs"
+ >#FSWithNFLibs</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If you do this, your program won't be fully usable in a free
+environment. If your program depends on a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> library to do a
+certain job, it cannot do that job in the Free World. If it depends on a
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> library to run at
all, it cannot be part of a free operating
+system such as GNU; it is entirely off limits to the Free World.</p>
+
+<p>So please consider: can you find a way to get the job done without
using
+this library? Can you write a free replacement for that library?</p>
+
+<p>If the program is already written using the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> library is a drawback, and
suggest
+the task of changing the program so that it does the same job without
+the <span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> library. Please suggest
that anyone who thinks of doing
+substantial further work on the program first free it from dependence
+on the <span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> library.</p>
+
+<p>Note that there may also be legal issues with combining certain <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
+libraries with GPL-covered free software. Please see <a
+href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">the question on GPL software with
+GPL-incompatible libraries</a> for more information.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="SystemLibraryException">Can I link a GPL program with a
+proprietary system library? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#SystemLibraryException">#SystemLibraryException</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Both versions of the GPL have an exception to their copyleft, commonly
+called the system library exception. If the GPL-incompatible libraries
+you want to use meet the criteria for a system library, then you don't
+have to do anything special to use them; the requirement to distribute
+source code for the whole program does not include those libraries, even
+if you distribute a linked executable containing them.</p>
+
+<p>The criteria for what counts as a "system library" vary
+between different versions of the GPL. GPLv3 explicitly defines
+"System Libraries" in section 1, to exclude it from the
+definition of "Corresponding Source." GPLv2 deals with this
+issue slightly differently, near the end of section 3.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="GPLIncompatibleLibs">What legal issues
+ come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL software?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs"
+ >#GPLIncompatibleLibs</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree,</em></ins></span> please also see
+<a href="#FSWithNFLibs">the section on writing Free Software which uses
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
libraries</a>.</p>
+
+<p>If you're using GPLv3, you can accomplish this goal by granting an
+additional permission under section 7. The following license notice will
+do that. You must replace all the text in brackets with text that is
+appropriate for your program. If not everybody can distribute source for
+the libraries you intend to link with, you should remove the text in
+braces; otherwise, just remove the braces themselves.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>Copyright (C) <var>[years]</var> <var>[name of
copyright
+holder]</var></p>
+
+<p>This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it
+under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
+Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option)
+any later version.</p>
+
+<p>This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
+WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY
+or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
+for more details.</p>
+
+<p>You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along
+with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses>.</p>
+
+<p>Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7</p>
+
+<p>If you modify this Program, or any covered work, by linking or
combining
+it with <var>[name of library]</var> (or a modified version of that
+library), containing parts covered by the terms of <var>[name of
library's
+license]</var>, the licensors of this Program grant you additional
+permission to convey the resulting work. {Corresponding Source for a
+non-source form of such a combination shall include the source code for the
+parts of <var>[name of library]</var> used as well as that of the
covered
+work.}</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>If you're using GPLv2, you can provide your own exception to the
+license's terms. The following license notice will do that. Again, you
+must replace all the text in brackets with text that is appropriate for
+your program. If not everybody can distribute source for
+the libraries you intend to link with, you should remove the text in
+braces; otherwise, just remove the braces themselves.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>Copyright (C) <var>[years]</var> <var>[name of
copyright
+holder]</var></p>
+
+<p>This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it
+under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
+Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
+any later version.</p>
+
+<p>This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
+WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY
+or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
+for more details.</p>
+
+<p>You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along
+with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses>.</p>
+
+<p>Linking <var>[name of your program]</var> statically or
dynamically with
+other modules is making a combined work based on <var>[name of your
+program]</var>. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public
+License cover the whole combination.</p>
+
+<p>In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of
<var>[name
+of your program]</var> give you permission to combine <var>[name
of your
+program]</var> with free software programs or libraries that are released
+under the GNU LGPL and with code included in the standard release
+of <var>[name of library]</var> under the <var>[name of
library's
+license]</var> (or modified versions of such code, with unchanged
license).
+You may copy and distribute such a system following the terms of the GNU
+GPL for <var>[name of your program]</var> and the licenses of the
other
+code concerned{, provided that you include the source code of that other
+code when and as the GNU GPL requires distribution of source code}.</p>
+
+<p>Note that people who make modified versions of <var>[name of
your
+program]</var> are not obligated to grant this special exception for
their
+modified versions; it is their choice whether to do so. The GNU General
+Public License gives permission to release a modified version without this
+exception; this exception also makes it possible to release a modified
+version which carries forward this exception.</p>
+</blockquote></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="HowIGetCopyright">How do I get a copyright on my program
+ in order to release it under the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#HowIGetCopyright"
+ >#HowIGetCopyright</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Under the Berne Convention, everything written is automatically
+copyrighted from whenever it is put in fixed form. So you don't have to do
+anything to “get” the copyright on what you write—as long
+as nobody else can claim to own your work.</p>
+
+<p>However, registering the copyright in the US is a very good idea. It
+will give you more clout in dealing with an infringer in the US.</p>
+
+<p>The case when someone else might possibly claim the copyright is if
+you are an employee or student; then the employer or the school might
+claim you did the job for them and that the copyright belongs to them.
+Whether they would have a valid claim would depend on circumstances
+such as the laws of the place where you live, and on your employment
+contract and what sort of work you do. It is best to consult a lawyer
+if there is any possible doubt.</p>
+
+<p>If you think that the employer or school might have a claim, you can
+resolve the problem clearly by getting a copyright disclaimer signed
+by a suitably authorized officer of the company or school. (Your
+immediate boss or a professor is usually NOT authorized to sign such a
+disclaimer.)</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhatIfSchool">What if my school
+ might want to make my program into its own proprietary software product?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatIfSchool"
+ >#WhatIfSchool</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Many universities nowadays try to raise funds by restricting the use
+of the knowledge and information they develop, in effect behaving little
+different from commercial businesses. (See “The Kept
+University”, Atlantic Monthly, March 2000, for a general discussion
+of this problem and its effects.)</p>
+
+<p>If you see any chance that your school might refuse to allow your
+program to be released as free software, it is best to raise the issue
+at the earliest possible stage. The closer the program is to working
+usefully, the more temptation the administration might feel to take it
+from you and finish it without you. At an earlier stage, you have
+more leverage.</p>
+
+<p>So we recommend that you approach them when the program is only
+half-done, saying, “If you will agree to releasing this as free
+software, I will finish it.” Don't think of this as a bluff. To
+prevail, you must have the courage to say, “My program will have
+liberty, or never be born.”</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="CouldYouHelpApplyGPL">Could
+ you give me step by step instructions on how to apply the GPL to my program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CouldYouHelpApplyGPL"
+ >#CouldYouHelpApplyGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+See the page of <a href="/licenses/gpl-howto.html">GPL
+instructions</a>.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="HeardOtherLicense">I heard that someone got a copy
+ of a GPL'ed program under another license. Is this possible?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#HeardOtherLicense"
+ >#HeardOtherLicense</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to
+the program. But the copyright holder for a program can release it
+under several different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the
+GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>The license that comes in your copy, assuming it was put in by the
+copyright holder and that you got the copy legitimately, is the
+license that applies to your copy.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF">I would like to release a program I wrote
+ under the GNU GPL, but I would
+ like to use the same code in <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> programs.
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF"
+ >#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+To release a <span class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> program is always
ethically tainted, but
+legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright
+holder for the code, you can release it under various different
+non-exclusive licenses at various times.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DeveloperViolate">Is the
+ developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the
+ developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DeveloperViolate"
+ >#DeveloperViolate</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others
+to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is
+not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not
+a “violation” of the GPL.</p>
+
+<p>However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if
+done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the
+community.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="CanDeveloperThirdParty">Can the developer of a program who
distributed
+ it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CanDeveloperThirdParty"
+ >#CanDeveloperThirdParty</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No, because the public already has the right to use the program under
+the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="CanIUseGPLToolsForNF">Can I use GPL-covered editors such as
+ GNU Emacs to develop <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> programs? Can I use
GPL-covered tools
+ such as GCC to compile them?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF"
+ >#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover
+the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally,
+on the license you use for your code.</p>
+
+<p>Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical
+reasons—for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its
+output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered
+by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the
+part of the output which is derived from the program's input inherits
+the copyright status of the input.</p>
+
+<p>As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
programs.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLFairUse">Do I have “fair use”
+ rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLFairUse"
+ >#GPLFairUse</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes, you do. “Fair use” is use that is allowed without any
+special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for
+such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about
+it—in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL
+or any other free software license.</p>
+
+<p>Note, however, that there is no world-wide principle of fair use; what
+kinds of use are considered “fair” varies from country to
+country.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLUSGov">Can the US Government release a program under the GNU
GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLUSGov"
+ >#GPLUSGov</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+
+If the program is written by US federal government employees in the
+course of their employment, it is in the public domain, which means it
+is not copyrighted. Since the GNU GPL is based on copyright, such a
+program cannot be released under the GNU GPL. (It can still be <a
+href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>, however; a public
+domain program is free.)</p>
+
+<p>However, when a US federal government agency uses contractors to
+develop software, that is a different situation. The contract can
+require the contractor to release it under the GNU GPL. (GNU Ada was
+developed in this way.) Or the contract can assign the copyright to
+the government agency, which can then release the software under the
+GNU GPL.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLUSGovAdd">Can the US Government
+ release improvements to a GPL-covered program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLUSGovAdd"
+ >#GPLUSGovAdd</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes. If the improvements are written by US government employees in
+the course of their employment, then the improvements are in the
+public domain. However, the improved version, as a whole, is still
+covered by the GNU GPL. There is no problem in this situation.</p>
+
+<p>If the US government uses contractors to do the job, then the
+improvements themselves can be GPL-covered.</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="GPLStaticVsDynamic">Does the GPL have different requirements
+ for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a covered
+ work? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#GPLStaticVsDynamic"
+ >#GPLStaticVsDynamic</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>No. Linking a GPL covered work statically or dynamically
with
+other modules is making a combined work based on the GPL covered
+work. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License
+cover the whole combination. See
+also <a href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">What legal issues come up if I use
+GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL software?</a></p></dd>
+
+<dt id="LGPLStaticVsDynamic">Does the LGPL have different requirements
+ for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a covered
+ work? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#LGPLStaticVsDynamic"
+ >#LGPLStaticVsDynamic</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>For the purpose of complying with the LGPL (any extant
+version: v2, v2.1 or v3): </p>
+
+<blockquote>
+ <p>(1) If you statically link against an LGPL'd library, you must
+also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source)
+format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and
+relink the application.</p>
+
+<p>(2) If you dynamically link against an LGPL'd library
<em>already
+present on the user's computer</em>, you need not convey the library's
+source. On the other hand, if you yourself convey the executable
+LGPL'd library along with your application, whether linked with
+statically or dynamically, you must also convey the library's sources,
+in one of the ways for which the LGPL provides.</p>
+</blockquote></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLOutput">Is there some way that
+ I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example,
+ if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that
+ these designs must be free?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLOutput"
+ >#GPLOutput</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you
+any say in the use of the output people make from their data using
+your program. If the user uses your program to enter or convert her
+own data, the copyright on the output belongs to her, not you. More
+generally, when a program translates its input into some other form,
+the copyright status of the output inherits that of the input it was
+generated from.</p>
+
+<p>So the only way you have a say in the use of the output is if
+substantial parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in
+your program. For instance, part of the output of Bison (see above)
+would be covered by the GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in
+this specific case.</p>
+
+<p>You could artificially make a program copy certain text into its
+output even if there is no technical reason to do so. But if that
+copied text serves no practical purpose, the user could simply delete
+that text from the output and use only the rest. Then he would not
+have to obey the conditions on redistribution of the copied
text.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhatCaseIsOutputGPL">In what cases is the output of a GPL
+ program covered by the GPL too?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL"
+ >#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+
+The output of a program is not, in general, covered by the copyright
+on the code of the program. So the license of the code of the program
+does not apply to the output, whether you pipe it into a file, make a
+screenshot, screencast, or video.</p>
+
+<p>The exception would be when the program displays a full screen
+of text and/or art that comes from the program. Then the
+copyright on that text and/or art covers the output. Programs
+that output audio, such as video games, would also fit into this
+exception.</p>
+
+<p>If the art/music is under the GPL, then the GPL applies when you
+copy it no matter how you copy it. However,
+<a href="#GPLFairUse">fair use</a> may still apply.</p>
+
+<p>Keep in mind that some programs, particularly video games, can have
+artwork/audio that is licensed separately from the underlying GPLed
+game. In such cases, the license on the artwork/audio would dictate
+the terms under which video/streaming may occur. See also:
+<a href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware">Can I use the GPL for something
+other than software?</a></p></dd>
+
+<dt id="GPLModuleLicense">If I add a module to a GPL-covered program,
+ do I have to use the GPL as the license for my module?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLModuleLicense"
+ >#GPLModuleLicense</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released
+under the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the
+GPL.</p>
+
+<p>But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. You
+can, if you wish, release your <span
class="removed"><del><strong>program</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>module</em></ins></span> under a license which is
more lax
+than the GPL but compatible with the GPL. The
+<a href="/licenses/license-list.html">license list page</a> gives
a partial
+list of GPL-compatible licenses. </p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="IfLibraryIsGPL">If a library is released under the GPL
+ (not the LGPL), does that mean that any software which uses it
+ has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#IfLibraryIsGPL"
+ >#IfLibraryIsGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes, because the <span class="inserted"><ins><em>program actually links to the
library. As such,
+the terms of the GPL apply to the entire combination. The</em></ins></span>
software <span class="inserted"><ins><em>modules
+that link with the library may be under various GPL compatible licenses, but
the
+work</em></ins></span> as <span class="inserted"><ins><em>a whole must be
licensed under the GPL. See also:
+<a href="#WhatDoesCompatMean">What does</em></ins></span> it <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>mean to say a license</em></ins></span> is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>actually run includes</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“compatible with</em></ins></span> the
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>library.</p></dd></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>GPL”?</a>
+</p></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+
+<dt id="IfInterpreterIsGPL">If a programming language interpreter
+ is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be
+ interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#IfInterpreterIsGPL"
+ >#IfInterpreterIsGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The
+interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software
+license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you
+use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program),
+any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data
+to anyone.</p>
+
+<p>However, when the interpreter is extended to provide
+“bindings” to other facilities (often, but not necessarily,
+libraries), the interpreted program is effectively linked to the facilities
+it uses through these bindings. So if these facilities are released under
+the GPL, the interpreted program that uses them must be released in a
+GPL-compatible way. The JNI or Java Native Interface is an example of such
+a binding mechanism; libraries that are accessed in this way are linked
+dynamically with the Java programs that call them. These libraries are
+also linked with the interpreter. If the interpreter is linked statically
+with these libraries, or if it is designed to
+<a href="#GPLPluginsInNF">link dynamically with these specific
+libraries</a>, then it too needs to be released in a GPL-compatible
+way.</p>
+
+<p>Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the
+interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl
+comes with many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with
+many Java classes. These libraries and the programs that call them
+are always dynamically linked together.</p>
+
+<p>A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java
+classes in your program, you must release the program in a
+GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java
+interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WindowsRuntimeAndGPL">I'm writing a Windows application with
+Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) and I will be releasing it
+under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual
+C++ (or Visual Basic) runtime library permitted under the GPL?
+<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL"
+>#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>You may link your program to these libraries, and distribute
+the compiled program to others. When you do this, the runtime
+libraries are “System Libraries” as GPLv3 defines them.
+That means that you don't need to worry about including their source
+code with the program's Corresponding Source. GPLv2 provides a similar
+exception in section 3.</p>
+
+<p>You may not distribute these libraries in compiled DLL form with
+the program. To prevent unscrupulous distributors from trying to use
+the System Library exception as a loophole, the GPL says that
+libraries can only qualify as System Libraries as long as they're not
+distributed with the program itself. If you distribute the DLLs with
+the program, they won't be eligible for this exception anymore; then
+the only way to comply with the GPL would be to provide their source
+code, which you are unable to do.</p>
+
+<p>It is possible to write free programs that only run on Windows, but
+it is not a good idea. These programs would be
+“<a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">trapped</a>” by
+Windows, and therefore contribute zero to the Free World.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="OrigBSD">Why is the original BSD
+ license incompatible with the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#OrigBSD"
+ >#OrigBSD</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL; namely,
+the requirement on advertisements of the program. Section 6 of GPLv2
+states:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>You may not impose any further restrictions on the
+recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>GPLv3 says something similar in section 10. The advertising clause
+provides just such a further restriction, and thus is
GPL-incompatible.</p>
+
+<p>The revised BSD license does not have the advertising clause, which
+eliminates the problem.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt <span class="removed"><del><strong>id="GPLAndPlugins">If I
write</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="GPLPlugins">When are</em></ins></span> a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>plug-in to use with</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>program and its plug-ins considered</em></ins></span>
a <span class="removed"><del><strong>GPL-covered
+ program, what requirements does that impose on the licenses I can
+ use for distributing my plug-in?</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>single combined program?</em></ins></span>
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#GPLAndPlugins"
+ >#GPLAndPlugins</a>)</span></dt></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#GPLPlugins"
+ >#GPLPlugins</a>)</span></dt></em></ins></span>
+<dd><p>
+ It depends on how the <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>main</em></ins></span> program invokes its plug-ins.
If the
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>main</em></ins></span> program uses fork and
exec to invoke plug-ins, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>then</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>and they establish
+intimate communication by sharing complex data structures, or shipping
+complex data structures back and forth, that can make them one single
+combined program. A main program that uses simple fork and exec to
+invoke plug-ins and does not establish intimate communication between
+them results in</em></ins></span> the plug-ins <span
class="removed"><del><strong>are</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>being a</em></ins></span> separate
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>programs, so the license
for</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>program.</p>
+
+<p> If</em></ins></span> the main program <span
class="removed"><del><strong>makes no requirements
+for them.</p>
+
+<p>If the program</strong></del></span> dynamically links plug-ins, and
they make
+function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe
+they form a single <span class="inserted"><ins><em>combined</em></ins></span>
program, which must be treated as an
+extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>This means you must license the plug-in
+under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license and distribute
+it with source code in a GPL-compliant way.</p>
+
+<p>If</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>If</em></ins></span> the <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>main</em></ins></span>
+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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>case.</p></dd></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>case.</p>
+
+<p>Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is
+pretty much equivalent to dynamic
linking.</p></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+
+<dt <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="GPLPluginsInNF">Can</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="GPLAndPlugins">If</em></ins></span> I
<span class="removed"><del><strong>apply the
+ GPL when writing</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>write</em></ins></span> a plug-in <span
class="removed"><del><strong>for</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>to use with</em></ins></span> a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free program?
+ <span</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>GPL-covered
+ program, what requirements does that impose on the licenses I can
+ use for distributing my plug-in?
+ <span</em></ins></span> class="anchor-reference-id">(<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#GPLPluginsInNF"
+ >#GPLPluginsInNF</a>)</span></dt></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#GPLAndPlugins"
+ >#GPLAndPlugins</a>)</span></dt></em></ins></span>
+<dd><p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Please see this question <a
href="#GPLPlugins">for determining when
+plug-ins and a main program are considered a single combined program
+and when they are considered separate works</a>.</p>
+
+<p></em></ins></span> If the <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>main</em></ins></span> program <span
class="removed"><del><strong>uses fork</strong></del></span> and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>exec to invoke plug-ins,
then</strong></del></span> the
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>plug-ins</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>plugins</em></ins></span> are <span
class="removed"><del><strong>separate programs, so the</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>a single combined program then this means
+you must</em></ins></span> license <span
class="removed"><del><strong>for</strong></del></span> the <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>plug-in under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free
+software license and distribute it with source code in a GPL-compliant
+way. A</em></ins></span> main program <span class="inserted"><ins><em>that is
separate from its plug-ins</em></ins></span> makes no
+requirements for <span class="removed"><del><strong>them. So you can
use</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>the plug-ins.
</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLPluginsInNF">Can I apply</em></ins></span> the
+ GPL <span class="inserted"><ins><em>when writing a
plug-in</em></ins></span> for a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>plug-in,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLPluginsInNF"
+ >#GPLPluginsInNF</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+ Please see this question <a href="#GPLPlugins">for determining when
+plug-ins</em></ins></span> and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>there</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>a main program</em></ins></span> are <span
class="removed"><del><strong>no special requirements.</p>
+
+<p>If the</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>considered a single combined</em></ins></span>
program <span class="removed"><del><strong>dynamically links
plug-ins,</strong></del></span>
+and <span class="inserted"><ins><em>when</em></ins></span> they <span
class="removed"><del><strong>make function
+calls to each other and share data structures, we
believe</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>are considered
separate programs</a>.</p>
+<p> If</em></ins></span> they form a
+single <span class="removed"><del><strong>program, which must be treated as an
extension of both the main</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>combined</em></ins></span> program <span
class="removed"><del><strong>and the plug-ins. This</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>this</em></ins></span> means that combination
of the GPL-covered
+plug-in with the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> main
+program.</p>
+
+<p>See also the question <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">I am
+writing free software that uses a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
library.</a></p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="NFUseGPLPlugins">Can I release a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> program
+ that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NFUseGPLPlugins"
+ >#NFUseGPLPlugins</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>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</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Please see this question <a
href="#GPLPlugins">for determining when</em></ins></span>
+plug-ins <span class="removed"><del><strong>are separate programs, so
+the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about
the</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>and
a</em></ins></span> main
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>program.</p>
+
+<p>If the</strong></del></span> program <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dynamically links plug-ins,</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>are considered a single combined
program</em></ins></span>
+and <span class="inserted"><ins><em>when</em></ins></span> they <span
class="removed"><del><strong>make function
+calls to each other and share data structures, we
believe</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>are considered
separate programs</a>.</p>
+<p>
+If</em></ins></span> they form a single <span
class="removed"><del><strong>program, which must be treated as an extension of
both the main</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>combined</em></ins></span> program <span
class="removed"><del><strong>and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered
plug-ins,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>then</em></ins></span> the
+main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free
+software license, and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>that</strong></del></span> the terms of the GPL
must be followed when
+the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>If the program dynamically links
plug-ins, but the communication
+between them is limited to invoking</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>However, if they are separate works
then</em></ins></span> the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>‘main’ function</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>license</em></ins></span> of the plug-in <span
class="removed"><del><strong>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></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>makes no requirements about the main
program.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>See also the question <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">I am
+writing free software that uses a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span>
library.</a></p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="LinkingWithGPL">You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like
+ to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact
+ that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LinkingWithGPL"
+ >#LinkingWithGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Not exactly. It means you must release your program under a license
+compatible with the GPL (more precisely, compatible with one or more GPL
+versions accepted by all the rest of the code in the combination that you
+link). The combination itself is then available under those GPL
+versions.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="SwitchToLGPL">If so, is there
+ any chance I could get a license of your program under the Lesser GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SwitchToLGPL"
+ >#SwitchToLGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+You can ask, but most authors will stand firm and say no.
+The idea of the GPL is that if you want to include our code in your
+program, your program must also be free software. It is supposed
+to put pressure on you to release your program in a way that makes
+it part of our community.</p>
+
+<p>You always have the legal alternative of not using our
code.</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="NonfreeDriverKernelLinux">Does distributing a nonfree driver
+ meant to link with the kernel Linux violate the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#NonfreeDriverKernelLinux">#NonfreeDriverKernelLinux</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Linux (the kernel in the GNU/Linux operating system) is distributed
+under GNU GPL version 2. Does distributing a nonfree driver meant to
+link with Linux violate the GPL?</p>
+<p>Yes, this is a violation, because effectively this makes a larger
+combined work. The fact that the user is expected to put the pieces
+together does not really change anything.</p>
+<p>Each contributor to Linux who holds copyright on a substantial part of
+the code can enforce the GPL and we encourage each of them to take
+action against those distributing nonfree Linux-drivers.</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="LinkingOverControlledInterface">How can I allow linking of
+ proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a controlled
+ interface only?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#LinkingOverControlledInterface"
+ >#LinkingOverControlledInterface</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Add this text to the license notice of each file in the package, at
+the end of the text that says the file is distributed under the GNU
+GPL:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>Linking ABC statically or dynamically with other modules is making a
+combined work based on ABC. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU
+General Public License cover the whole combination.</p>
+
+<p>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 and provided that you do not
modify the ABCDEF interface.</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. If you modify the ABCDEF interface,
+this exception does not apply to your modified version of ABC, and you
+must remove this exception when you distribute your modified
+version.</p>
+
+<p>This exception is an additional permission under section 7 of the
+GNU General Public License, version 3 (“GPLv3”)</p>
+
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>This exception enables linking with differently licensed modules
+over the specified interface (“ABCDEF”), while ensuring
+that users would still receive source code as they normally would
+under the GPL.</p>
+
+<p>Only the copyright holders for the program can legally authorize this
+exception. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then assuming your
+employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are the copyright
+holder—so you can authorize the exception. But if you want to use parts
+of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code, you cannot
+authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval of the
+copyright holders of those programs.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ManyDifferentLicenses">I have written an application that links
+ with many different components, that have different licenses. I am
+ very confused as to what licensing requirements are placed on my
+ program. Can you please tell me what licenses I may use?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ManyDifferentLicenses"
+ >#ManyDifferentLicenses</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+To answer this question, we would need to see a list of each component
+that your program uses, the license of that component, and a brief (a
+few sentences for each should suffice) describing how your library
+uses that component. Two examples would be:</p>
+<ul>
+<li>To make my software work, it must be linked to the FOO library,
+ which is available under the Lesser GPL.</li>
+<li>My software makes a system call (with a command line that I built) to
+ run the BAR program, which is licensed under “the GPL, with a
+ special exception allowing for linking with QUUX”.</li>
+</ul></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="MereAggregation">What is the difference between an
+ “aggregate” and other kinds of “modified versions”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#MereAggregation"
+ >#MereAggregation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs,
+distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits
+you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the
+other software are <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> or GPL-incompatible. The
only condition is
+that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users
+from exercising rights that each program's individual license would
+grant them.</p>
+
+<p>Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with
two
+parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We
+believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of
+communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address
+space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of
+information are interchanged).</p>
+
+<p>If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are
+definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run
+linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means
+combining them into one program.</p>
+
+<p>By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are
+communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs.
+So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are
+separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are
+intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too
+could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger
+program.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="AssignCopyright">Why does
+ the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign
+ copyright to the FSF? If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should
+ I do this, too? If so, how?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AssignCopyright"
+ >#AssignCopyright</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p> Our lawyers have told us that to be in the <a
+href="/licenses/why-assign.html">best position to enforce the GPL</a>
+in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the
+program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor
+to either assign the copyright on contributions to the FSF, or
+disclaim copyright on contributions.</p>
+
+<p>We also ask individual contributors to get copyright disclaimers from
+their employers (if any) so that we can be sure those employers won't
+claim to own the contributions.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, if all the contributors put their code in the public
+domain, there is no copyright with which to enforce the GPL. So we
+encourage people to assign copyright on large code contributions, and
+only put small changes in the public domain.</p>
+
+<p>If you want to make an effort to enforce the GPL on your program, it
+is probably a good idea for you to follow a similar policy. Please
+contact <a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>
if
+you want more information.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ModifyGPL">Can I modify the GPL
+ and make a modified license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ModifyGPL"
+ >#ModifyGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+It is possible to make modified versions of the GPL, but it
+tends to have practical consequences.</p>
+
+<p>
+You can legally use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
+provided that you call your license by another name and do not include
+the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at
+the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention
+GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).</p>
+
+<p> If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>
+for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual
+license requirements to see if we approve of them.</p>
+
+<p>Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified
+license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such
+a modified license is almost certainly <a href="#WhatIsCompatible">
+incompatible with the GNU GPL</a>, and that incompatibility blocks
+useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different
+free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.</p>
+
+<p>Rather than modifying the GPL, please use the exception mechanism
+offered by GPL version 3.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLCommercially">If I use a
+ piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I
+ allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then
+ distribute and sell that new program commercially?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLCommercially"
+ >#GPLCommercially</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially,
+but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must
+make the source code available to the users of the program as
+described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and
+modify it as described in the GPL.</p>
+
+<p>These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered
+code you received in a program of your own.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLOtherThanSoftware">Can I use the GPL for something other than
+ software?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware"
+ >#GPLOtherThanSoftware</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>
+You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear
+what constitutes the “source code” for the work. The GPL
+defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in
+it.</p>
+
+<p>However, for manuals and textbooks, or more generally any sort of work
+that is meant to teach a subject, we recommend using the GFDL rather
+than the GPL.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="LGPLJava">How does the LGPL work with Java?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LGPLJava"
+ >#LGPLJava</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+<a href="/licenses/lgpl-java.html">See this article for
details.</a>
+It works as designed, intended, and expected.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="Consider">Consider this situation:
+ 1) X releases V1 of a project under the GPL.
+ 2) Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code
+ based on V1.
+ 3) X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license.
+ Does X need Y's permission?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#Consider"
+ >#Consider</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes. Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a
+consequence of basing it on X's version V1. Nothing required Y to
+agree to any other license for its code. Therefore, X must get Y's
+permission before releasing that code under another
license.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLInProprietarySystem">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered
+ software in my proprietary system. I have no permission to use
+ that software except what the GPL gives me. Can I do this?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLInProprietarySystem"
+ >#GPLInProprietarySystem</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system.
+The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy,
+redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could
+incorporate GPL-covered software into a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> system, it would have
+the effect of making the GPL-covered software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> too.</p>
+
+<p>A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of
+that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program
+must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for
+two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the
+freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back
+improvements that they make.</p>
+
+<p>However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software
+alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make
+sure that the free and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> programs communicate at
arms length,
+that they are not combined in a way that would make them
+effectively a single program.</p>
+
+<p>The difference between this and “incorporating” the
GPL-covered
+software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive
+part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become
+effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two
+separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.</p>
+
+<p>If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the
+kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two
+separate programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is
+simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we
+care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly
+understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the
+collection.</p>
+
+<p>If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it
+“part of” a system that users know is partly
+proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the
+GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is
+a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be
+clear.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLWrapper">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in
+ my proprietary system. Can I do this by putting a “wrapper”
+ module, under a GPL-compatible lax permissive license (such as the X11
+ license) in between the GPL-covered part and the proprietary part?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLWrapper"
+ >#GPLWrapper</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. The X11 license is compatible with the GPL, so you can add
+a module to the GPL-covered program and put it under the X11 license.
+But if you were to incorporate them both in a larger program, that
+whole would include the GPL-covered part, so it would have to be
+licensed <em>as a whole</em> under the GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>The fact that proprietary module A communicates with GPL-covered
+module C only through X11-licensed module B is legally irrelevant;
+what matters is the fact that module C is included in the
whole.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="LibGCCException">Where can I learn more about the GCC
+ Runtime Library Exception?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LibGCCException"
+ >#LibGCCException</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The GCC Runtime Library Exception covers libgcc, libstdc++,
+libfortran, libgomp, libdecnumber, and other libraries distributed
+with GCC. The exception is meant to allow people to distribute
+programs compiled with GCC under terms of their choice, even when
+parts of these libraries are included in the executable as part of
+the compilation process. To learn more, please read our
+<a href="/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html">FAQ about the GCC
+Runtime Library Exception</a>.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="MoneyGuzzlerInc">I'd like to
+ modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability
+ libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code
+ for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions
+ would have to obtain those libraries separately. Why doesn't the
+ GPL permit this?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#MoneyGuzzlerInc"
+ >#MoneyGuzzlerInc</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+There are two reasons for this.
+First, a general one. If we permitted company A to make a proprietary
+file, and company B to distribute GPL-covered software linked with
+that file, the effect would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough to
+drive a truck through. This would be carte blanche for withholding
+the source code for all sorts of modifications and extensions to
+GPL-covered software.</p>
+
+<p>Giving all users access to the source code is one of our main goals,
+so this consequence is definitely something we want to avoid.</p>
+
+<p>More concretely, the versions of the programs linked with the Money
+Guzzler libraries would not really be free software as we understand
+the term—they would not come with full source code that enables users
+to change and recompile the program.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLIncompatibleAlone">If the license for a module Q has a
+ requirement that's incompatible with the GPL,
+ but the requirement applies only when Q is distributed by itself, not when
+ Q is included in a larger program, does that make the license
+ GPL-compatible? Can I combine or link Q with a GPL-covered program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLIncompatibleAlone"
+ >#GPLIncompatibleAlone</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If a program P is released under the GPL that means *any and every part of
+it* can be used under the GPL. If you integrate module Q, and release the
+combined program P+Q under the GPL, that means any part of P+Q can be used
+under the GPL. One part of P+Q is Q. So releasing P+Q under the GPL says
+that Q any part of it can be used under the GPL. Putting it in other
+words, a user who obtains P+Q under the GPL can delete P, so that just Q
+remains, still under the GPL.</p>
+
+<p>If the license of module Q permits you to give permission for that,
+then it is GPL-compatible. Otherwise, it is not GPL-compatible.</p>
+
+<p>If the license for Q says in no uncertain terms that you must do
certain
+things (not compatible with the GPL) when you redistribute Q on its own,
+then it does not permit you to distribute Q under the GPL. It follows that
+you can't release P+Q under the GPL either. So you cannot link or combine
+P with Q.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ModifiedJustBinary">Can I release a modified
+ version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ModifiedJustBinary"
+ >#ModifiedJustBinary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions
+must be <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free
software</a>—which
+means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is
+available to the users.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="UnchangedJustBinary">I
+ downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies,
+ do I have to get the source and distribute that too?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#UnchangedJustBinary"
+ >#UnchangedJustBinary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute
+the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case
+where you received a written offer for source code is quite
limited.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DistributeWithSourceOnInternet">I want to distribute
+ binaries via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide
+ source code by FTP?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet"
+ >#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Version 3 of the GPL allows this; see option 6(b) for the full details.
+Under version 2, you're certainly free to offer source via FTP, and most
+users will get it from there. However, if any of them would rather get the
+source on physical media by mail, you are required to provide that.</p>
+
+<p>If you distribute binaries via FTP, <a
+href="#AnonFTPAndSendSources">you should distribute source via
+FTP.</a></p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="RedistributedBinariesGetSource">My friend got a GPL-covered
+ binary with an offer to supply source, and made a copy for me.
+ Can I use the offer myself to obtain the source?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#RedistributedBinariesGetSource"
+ >#RedistributedBinariesGetSource</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes, you can. The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy
+of the binary that it accompanies. This is why the GPL says your
+friend must give you a copy of the offer along with a copy of the
+binary—so you can take advantage of it.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites">Can I put the binaries on my
+ Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites"
+ >#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes. Section 6(d) allows this. However, you must provide
+clear instructions people can follow to obtain the source, and you
+must take care to make sure that the source remains available for
+as long as you distribute the object code.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DistributeExtendedBinary">I want to distribute an extended
+ version of a GPL-covered program in binary form. Is it enough to
+ distribute the source for the original version?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#DistributeExtendedBinary"
+ >#DistributeExtendedBinary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No, you must supply the source code that corresponds to the binary.
+Corresponding source means the source from which users can rebuild the
+same binary.</p>
+
+<p>Part of the idea of free software is that users should have access to
+the source code for <em>the programs they use</em>. Those using
your version
+should have access to the source code for your version.</p>
+
+<p>A major goal of the GPL is to build up the Free World by making sure
+that improvement to a free program are themselves free. If you
+release an improved version of a GPL-covered program, you must release
+the improved source code under the GPL.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DistributingSourceIsInconvenient">I want to distribute
+ binaries, but distributing complete source is inconvenient. Is it ok if
+ I give users the diffs from the “standard” version along with
+ the binaries?
+<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient"
+ >#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the
+source doesn't really do the job.</p>
+
+<p>A user that wants the source a year from now may be unable to get the
+proper version from another site at that time. The standard
+distribution site may have a newer version, but the same diffs
+probably won't work with that version.</p>
+
+<p>So you need to provide complete sources, not just diffs, with
+the binaries.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="AnonFTPAndSendSources">Can I make binaries available
+ on a network server, but send sources only to people who order them?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AnonFTPAndSendSources"
+ >#AnonFTPAndSendSources</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If you make object code available on a network server, you have
+to provide the Corresponding Source on a network server as well.
+The easiest way to do this would be to publish them on the same
+server, but if you'd like, you can alternatively provide
+instructions for getting the source from another server, or even a
+<a href="#SourceInCVS">version control system</a>. No matter what
+you do, the source should be just as easy to access as the object
+code, though. This is all specified in section 6(d) of GPLv3.</p>
+
+<p>The sources you provide must correspond exactly to the binaries.
+In particular, you must make sure they are for the same version of
+the program—not an older version and not a newer
version.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource">How can I make sure each
+ user who downloads the binaries also gets the source?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource"
+ >#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+You don't have to make sure of this. As long as you make the source
+and binaries available so that the users can see what's available and take
+what they want, you have done what is required of you. It is up to the
+user whether to download the source.</p>
+
+<p>Our requirements for redistributors are intended to make sure the
+users can get the source code, not to force users to download the
+source code even if they don't want it.</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="MustSourceBuildToMatchExactHashOfBinary">Does the GPL require
+ me to provide source code that can be built to match the exact
+ hash of the binary I am distributing?
+<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#MustSourceBuildToMatchExactHashOfBinary"
+>#MustSourceBuildToMatchExactHashOfBinary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>Complete corresponding source means the source that the
+binaries were made from, but that does not imply your tools must be
+able to make a binary that is an exact hash of the binary you are
+distributing. In some cases it could be (nearly) impossible to build a
+binary from source with an exact hash of the binary being distributed
+— consider the following examples: a system might put timestamps
+in binaries; or the program might have been built against a different
+(even unreleased) compiler version.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="UnreleasedMods">A company
+ is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site.
+ Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#UnreleasedMods"
+ >#UnreleasedMods</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without
+ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a
+special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release
+the modified sources.</p>
+
+<p>It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications
and
+use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However,
+putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly
+“private” use, so it would be legitimate to require release of
+the source code in that special case. Developers who wish to address this
+might want to use the
+<a href="/licenses/agpl.html">GNU Affero GPL</a> for
programs
+designed for network server use.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="InternalDistribution">Is making and using multiple copies
+ within one organization or company “distribution”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#InternalDistribution"
+ >#InternalDistribution</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for
+itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop
+a modified version and install that version through its own
+facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that
+modified version to outsiders.</p>
+
+<p>However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations
+or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies
+to contractors for use off-site is distribution.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="StolenCopy">If someone steals
+ a CD containing a version of a GPL-covered program, does the GPL
+ give the thief the right to redistribute that version?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#StolenCopy"
+ >#StolenCopy</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief
+probably does have the right to make copies and redistribute them
+under the GPL, but if the thief is imprisoned for stealing the CD,
+they may have to wait until their release before doing so.</p>
+
+<p>If the version in question is unpublished and considered by a company
+to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade
+secret law, depending on other circumstances. The GPL does not change
+that. If the company tried to release its version and still treat it
+as a trade secret, that would violate the GPL, but if the company
+hasn't released this version, no such violation has
occurred.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="TradeSecretRelease">What if a company distributes a copy as
+ a trade secret?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#TradeSecretRelease"
+ >#TradeSecretRelease</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If a company distributes a copy to you and claims it is a trade
+secret, the company has violated the GPL and will have to cease
+distribution. Note how this differs from the theft case above; the
+company does not intentionally distribute a copy when a copy is
+stolen, so in that case the company has not violated the
GPL.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">Why are some GNU libraries released under
+ the ordinary GPL rather than the Lesser GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL"
+ >#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Using the Lesser GPL for any particular library constitutes a retreat
+for free software. It means we partially abandon the attempt to
+defend the users' freedom, and some of the requirements to share what
+is built on top of GPL-covered software. In themselves, those are
+changes for the worse.</p>
+
+<p>Sometimes a localized retreat is a good strategy. Sometimes, using
+the LGPL for a library might lead to wider use of that library, and
+thus to more improvement for it, wider support for free software, and
+so on. This could be good for free software if it happens to a large
+extent. But how much will this happen? We can only speculate.</p>
+
+<p>It would be nice to try out the LGPL on each library for a while, see
+whether it helps, and change back to the GPL if the LGPL didn't help.
+But this is not feasible. Once we use the LGPL for a particular
+library, changing back would be difficult.</p>
+
+<p>So we decide which license to use for each library on a case-by-case
+basis. There is a <a href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">long
+explanation</a> of how we judge the question.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WillYouMakeAnException">Using a certain GNU program under the
+ GPL does not fit our project to make proprietary software. Will you
+ make an exception for us? It would mean more users of that program.
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WillYouMakeAnException"
+ >#WillYouMakeAnException</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Sorry, we don't make such exceptions. It would not be right.</p>
+
+<p>Maximizing the number of users is not our aim. Rather, we are trying
+to give the crucial freedoms to as many users as possible. In
+general, proprietary software projects hinder rather than help the
+cause of freedom.</p>
+
+<p>We do occasionally make license exceptions to assist a project which
+is producing free software under a license other than the GPL.
+However, we have to see a good reason why this will advance the cause
+of free software.</p>
+
+<p>We also do sometimes change the distribution terms of a package, when
+that seems clearly the right way to serve the cause of free software;
+but we are very cautious about this, so you will have to show us very
+convincing reasons.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="VersionThreeOrLater">Why should programs say
+ “Version 3 of the GPL or any later version”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#VersionThreeOrLater"
+ >#VersionThreeOrLater</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+From time to time, at intervals of years, we change the
+GPL—sometimes to clarify it, sometimes to permit certain kinds of use
+not previously permitted, and sometimes to tighten up a requirement. (The
+last two changes were in 2007 and 1991.) Using this “indirect
+pointer” in each program makes it possible for us to change the
+distribution terms on the entire collection of GNU software, when we update
+the GPL.</p>
+
+<p>If each program lacked the indirect pointer, we would be forced to
+discuss the change at length with numerous copyright holders, which would
+be a virtual impossibility. In practice, the chance of having uniform
+distribution terms for GNU software would be nil.</p>
+
+<p>Suppose a program says “Version 3 of the GPL or any later
+version” and a new version of the GPL is released. If the new GPL
+version gives additional permission, that permission will be available
+immediately to all the users of the program. But if the new GPL version
+has a tighter requirement, it will not restrict use of the current version
+of the program, because it can still be used under GPL version 3. When a
+program says “Version 3 of the GPL or any later version”, users
+will always be permitted to use it, and even change it, according to the
+terms of GPL version 3—even after later versions of the GPL are
+available.</p>
+
+<p>If a tighter requirement in a new version of the GPL need not be
obeyed
+for existing software, how is it useful? Once GPL version 4 is available,
+the developers of most GPL-covered programs will release subsequent
+versions of their programs specifying “Version 4 of the GPL or any
+later version”. Then users will have to follow the tighter
+requirements in GPL version 4, for subsequent versions of the
program.</p>
+
+<p>However, developers are not obligated to do this; developers can
+continue allowing use of the previous version of the GPL, if that is their
+preference.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="OnlyLatestVersion">Is it a good idea to use a license saying
+ that a certain program can be used only under the latest version
+ of the GNU GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#OnlyLatestVersion"
+ >#OnlyLatestVersion</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The reason you shouldn't do that is that it could result some
+day in withdrawing automatically some permissions that the users
+previously had.</p>
+
+<p>Suppose a program was released in 2000 under “the latest GPL
+version”. At that time, people could have used it under GPLv2.
+The day we published GPLv3 in 2007, everyone would have been suddenly
+compelled to use it under GPLv3 instead.</p>
+
+<p>Some users may not even have known about GPL version 3—but
+they would have been required to use it. They could have violated the
+program's license unintentionally just because they did not get the
+news. That's a bad way to treat people.</p>
+
+<p>We think it is wrong to take back permissions already granted,
+except due to a violation. If your freedom could be revoked, then it
+isn't really freedom. Thus, if you get a copy of a program version
+under one version of a license, you should <em>always</em> have the
+rights granted by that version of the license. Releasing under
+“GPL version N or any later version” upholds that
+principle.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why don't you use the GPL for manuals?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyNotGPLForManuals"
+ >#WhyNotGPLForManuals</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+It is possible to use the GPL for a manual, but the GNU Free
+Documentation License (GFDL) is much better for manuals.</p>
+
+<p>The GPL was designed for programs; it contains lots of complex clauses
+that are crucial for programs, but that would be cumbersome and
+unnecessary for a book or manual. For instance, anyone publishing the
+book on paper would have to either include machine-readable “source
+code” of the book along with each printed copy, or provide a written
+offer to send the “source code” later.</p>
+
+<p>Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals
+make a profit from selling copies—cover texts, for instance. The
+special rules for Endorsements sections make it possible to use the
+GFDL for an official standard. This would permit modified versions,
+but they could not be labeled as “the standard”.</p>
+
+<p>Using the GFDL, we permit changes in the text of a manual that covers
+its technical topic. It is important to be able to change the
+technical parts, because people who change a program ought to change
+the documentation to correspond. The freedom to do this is an
+ethical imperative.</p>
+
+<p>Our manuals also include sections that state our political position
+about free software. We mark these as “invariant”, so that
+they cannot be changed or removed. The GFDL makes provisions for these
+“invariant sections”.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="FontException">How does the GPL apply to fonts?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#FontException"
+ >#FontException</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Font licensing is a complex issue which needs serious
+consideration. The following license exception is experimental but
+approved for general use. We welcome suggestions on this
+subject—please see this this <a
+href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050425novalis">explanatory
+essay</a> and write to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden">address@hidden</a>.</p>
+
+<p>To use this exception, add this text to the license notice of each
+file in the package (to the extent possible), at the end of the text
+that says the file is distributed under the GNU GPL:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+As a special exception, if you create a document which uses
+this font, and embed this font or unaltered portions of this font into
+the document, this font does not by itself cause the resulting
+document to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This
+exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the
+document might be covered by the GNU General Public License. If you
+modify this font, you may extend this exception to your version of the
+font, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so,
+delete this exception statement from your version.
+</p></blockquote></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WMS">I am writing a website maintenance system
+ (called a “<a
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content">content
+ management system</a>” by some), or some other application
which
+ generates web pages from templates. What license should I use for
+ those templates?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WMS"
+ >#WMS</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Templates are minor enough that it is not worth using copyleft to
+protect them. It is normally harmless to use copyleft on minor works,
+but templates are a special case, because they are combined with data
+provided by users of the application and the combination is
+distributed. So, we recommend that you license your templates under
+simple permissive terms.</p>
+
+<p>Some templates make calls into JavaScript functions. Since
+Javascript is often non-trivial, it is worth copylefting. Because the
+templates will be combined with user data, it's possible that
+template+user data+JavaScript would be considered one work under
+copyright law. A line needs to be drawn between the JavaScript
+(copylefted), and the user code (usually under incompatible terms).</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN: localize URL /licenses/template-diagram.png -->
+<p id="template-diagram"><a href="/licenses/template-diagram.png">
+<img src="/licenses/template-diagram.png"
+ alt="A diagram of the above content"/></a></p>
+
+<p>Here's an exception for JavaScript code that does this:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>As a special exception to the GPL, any HTML file
which
+merely makes function calls to this code, and for that purpose includes
+it by reference shall be deemed a separate work for copyright law
+purposes. In addition, the copyright holders of this code give you
+permission to combine this code with free software libraries that are
+released under the GNU LGPL. You may copy and distribute such a system
+following the terms of the GNU GPL for this code and the LGPL for the
+libraries. If you modify this code, you may extend this exception to
+your version of the code, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do
+not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.
+</p></blockquote></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="NonFreeTools">Can I release
+ a program under the GPL which I developed using <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> tools?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NonFreeTools"
+ >#NonFreeTools</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Which programs you used to edit the source code, or to compile it, or
+study it, or record it, usually makes no difference for issues
+concerning the licensing of that source code.</p>
+
+<p>However, if you link <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> libraries with the source
code, that
+would be an issue you need to deal with. It does not preclude
+releasing the source code under the GPL, but if the libraries don't
+fit under the “system library” exception, you should affix
+an explicit notice giving permission to link your program with
+them. <a href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">The FAQ entry about using
+GPL-incompatible libraries</a> provides more information about
+how to do that.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLTranslations">Are there translations
+ of the GPL into other languages?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLTranslations"
+ >#GPLTranslations</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+It would be useful to have translations of the GPL into languages
+other than English. People have even written translations and sent
+them to us. But we have not dared to approve them as officially
+valid. That carries a risk so great we do not dare accept it.</p>
+
+<p>A legal document is in some ways like a program. Translating it is
+like translating a program from one language and operating system to
+another. Only a lawyer skilled in both languages can do it—and even
+then, there is a risk of introducing a bug.</p>
+
+<p>If we were to approve, officially, a translation of the GPL, we would
+be giving everyone permission to do whatever the translation says they
+can do. If it is a completely accurate translation, that is fine.
+But if there is an error in the translation, the results could be a
+disaster which we could not fix.</p>
+
+<p>If a program has a bug, we can release a new version, and eventually
+the old version will more or less disappear. But once we have given
+everyone permission to act according to a particular translation, we
+have no way of taking back that permission if we find, later on, that
+it had a bug.</p>
+
+<p>Helpful people sometimes offer to do the work of translation for us.
+If the problem were a matter of finding someone to do the work, this
+would solve it. But the actual problem is the risk of error, and
+offering to do the work does not avoid the risk. We could not
+possibly authorize a translation written by a non-lawyer.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, for the time being, we are not approving translations
+of the GPL as globally valid and binding. Instead, we are doing two
+things:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li><p>Referring people to unofficial translations.
+ This means that we permit people to write translations of the GPL, but
+ we don't approve them as legally valid and binding.</p>
+
+ <p>An unapproved translation has no legal force, and it should say so
+ explicitly. It should be marked as follows:</p>
+
+ <blockquote><p>
+ This translation of the GPL is informal, and not officially approved
+ by the Free Software Foundation as valid. To be completely sure of
+ what is permitted, refer to the original GPL (in English).
+ </p></blockquote>
+
+ <p>But the unapproved translation can serve as a hint for how to
+ understand the English GPL. For many users, that is sufficient.</p>
+
+ <p>However, businesses using GNU software in commercial activity, and
+ people doing public ftp distribution, should need to check the real
+ English GPL to make sure of what it permits.</p></li>
+
+<li><p>Publishing translations valid for a single country
only.</p>
+
+ <p>We are considering the idea of publishing translations which are
+ officially valid only for one country. This way, if there is a mistake, it
+ will be limited to that country, and the damage will not be too
great.</p>
+
+ <p>It will still take considerable expertise and effort from a
sympathetic
+ and capable lawyer to make a translation, so we cannot promise any
+ such translations soon.</p></li>
+</ul></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="InterpreterIncompat">If a programming language interpreter has a
+ license that is incompatible with the GPL, can I run GPL-covered
+ programs on it?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#InterpreterIncompat"
+ >#InterpreterIncompat</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is yes.
+The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; the GPL
+doesn't restrict what tools you process the program with.</p>
+
+<p>However, when the interpreter is extended to provide
+“bindings” to other facilities (often, but not necessarily,
+libraries), the interpreted program is effectively linked to the facilities
+it uses through these bindings. The JNI or Java Native Interface is an
+example of such a facility; libraries that are accessed in this way are
+linked dynamically with the Java programs that call them.</p>
+
+<p>So if these facilities are released under a GPL-incompatible license,
+the situation is like linking in any other way with a GPL-incompatible
+library. Which implies that:</p>
+
+<ol>
+ <li>If you are writing code and releasing it under the GPL, you can
+ state an explicit exception giving permission to link it with those
+ GPL-incompatible facilities.</li>
+
+ <li>If you wrote and released the program under the GPL, and you
+ designed it specifically to work with those facilities, people can
+ take that as an implicit exception permitting them to link it with
+ those facilities. But if that is what you intend, it is better
+ to say so explicitly.</li>
+
+ <li>You can't take someone else's GPL-covered code and use it that
+ way, or add such exceptions to it. Only the copyright holders of that
+ code can add the exception.</li>
+</ol></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhoHasThePower">Who has the power to enforce the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhoHasThePower"
+ >#WhoHasThePower</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of
+the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If
+you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of
+the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright
+holders, or are connected with the copyright
+holders. <a href="#ReportingViolation">Learn more about reporting GPL
+violations.</a>
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="OOPLang">In an object-oriented language such as Java,
+ if I use a class that is GPL'ed without modifying, and subclass it,
+ in what way does the GPL affect the larger program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#OOPLang"
+ >#OOPLang</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of
+the GPL affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed
+class.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="PortProgramToGL">If I port my program to GNU/Linux,
+ does that mean I have to release it as free software under the GPL
+ or some other Free Software license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#PortProgramToGL"
+ >#PortProgramToGL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+In general, the answer is no—this is not a legal requirement. In
+specific, the answer depends on which libraries you want to use and what
+their licenses are. Most system libraries either use the <a
+href="/licenses/lgpl.html">GNU Lesser GPL</a>, or use the GNU GPL
plus an
+exception permitting linking the library with anything. These libraries
+can be used in <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> programs; but in the case
of the Lesser GPL, it
+does have some requirements you must follow.</p>
+
+<p>Some libraries are released under the GNU GPL alone; you must use a
+GPL-compatible license to use those libraries. But these are normally
+the more specialized libraries, and you would not have had anything much
+like them on another platform, so you probably won't find yourself
+wanting to use these libraries for simple porting.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, your software is not a contribution to our community if it
is
+not free, and people who value their freedom will refuse to use it.
+Only people willing to give up their freedom will use your software,
+which means that it will effectively function as an inducement for people
+to lose their freedom.</p>
+
+<p>If you hope some day to look back on your career and feel that
+it has contributed to the growth of a good and free society, you
+need to make your software free.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="CompanyGPLCostsMoney">I just found out that a company has a
+ copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it. Aren't they
+ violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CompanyGPLCostsMoney"
+ >#CompanyGPLCostsMoney</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for
+distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to
+redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even if
+someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL
+doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any
+other person in particular.</p>
+
+<p>What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a
+copy to you <em>if he wishes to</em>. Once the copyright holder
does
+distribute a copy of the program to someone, that someone can then redistribute
+the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ReleaseNotOriginal">Can I release a program with a license which
+ says that you can distribute modified versions of it under the GPL
+ but you can't distribute the original itself under the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ReleaseNotOriginal"
+ >#ReleaseNotOriginal</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. Such a license would be self-contradictory. Let's look at its
+implications for me as a user.</p>
+
+<p>Suppose I start with the original version (call it version A), add
+some code (let's imagine it is 1000 lines), and release that modified
+version (call it B) under the GPL. The GPL says anyone can change
+version B again and release the result under the GPL. So I (or
+someone else) can delete those 1000 lines, producing version C which
+has the same code as version A but is under the GPL.</p>
+
+<p>If you try to block that path, by saying explicitly in the license
that
+I'm not allowed to reproduce something identical to version A under
+the GPL by deleting those lines from version B, in effect the license
+now says that I can't fully use version B in all the ways that the GPL
+permits. In other words, the license does not in fact allow a user to
+release a modified version such as B under the GPL.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DistributeSubsidiary">Does moving a copy to a majority-owned,
+ and controlled, subsidiary constitute distribution?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DistributeSubsidiary"
+ >#DistributeSubsidiary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Whether moving a copy to or from this subsidiary constitutes
+“distribution” is a matter to be decided in each case under the
+copyright law of the appropriate jurisdiction. The GPL does not and cannot
+override local laws. US copyright law is not entirely clear on the point,
+but appears not to consider this distribution.</p>
+
+<p>If, in some country, this is considered distribution, and the
+subsidiary must receive the right to redistribute the program,
+that will not make a practical difference. The subsidiary is
+controlled by the parent company; rights or no rights, it won't
+redistribute the program unless the parent company decides to do
so.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ClickThrough">Can software installers ask people
+ to click to agree to the GPL? If I get some software under the GPL,
+ do I have to agree to anything?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ClickThrough"
+ >#ClickThrough</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to
+click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL.
+This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click
+through, the GPL's rules remain the same.</p>
+
+<p>Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You
+are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is
+licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or
+distribute the software. If it really bothers you to click through
+the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the GPLed software to bypass
+this.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLCompatInstaller">I would
+ like to bundle GPLed software with some sort of installation software.
+ Does that installer need to have a GPL-compatible license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLCompatInstaller"
+ >#GPLCompatInstaller</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. The installer and the files it installs are separate works. As a
+result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation
+software.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ExportWarranties">Some distributors of GPL'd software
+ require me in their umbrella EULAs or as part of their downloading
+ process to “represent and warrant” that I am located in
+ the US or that I intend to distribute the software in compliance with
+ relevant export control laws. Why are they doing this and is it a
+ violation of those distributors' obligations under GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ExportWarranties"
+ >#ExportWarranties</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This is not a violation of the GPL. Those distributors (almost
+all of whom are commercial businesses selling free software
+distributions and related services) are trying to reduce their own
+legal risks, not to control your behavior. Export control law in the
+United States <em>might</em> make them liable if they knowingly
export
+software into certain countries, or if they give software to parties
+they know will make such exports. By asking for these statements from
+their customers and others to whom they distribute software, they
+protect themselves in the event they are later asked by regulatory
+authorities what they knew about where software they distributed was
+going to wind up. They are not restricting what you can do with the
+software, only preventing themselves from being blamed with respect to
+anything you do. Because they are not placing additional restrictions
+on the software, they do not violate section 10 of GPLv3 or section 6
+of GPLv2.</p>
+
+<p>The FSF opposes the application of US export control laws to free
+software. Not only are such laws incompatible with the general
+objective of software freedom, they achieve no reasonable governmental
+purpose, because free software is currently and should always be
+available from parties in almost every country, including countries
+that have no export control laws and which do not participate in
+US-led trade embargoes. Therefore, no country's government is
+actually deprived of free software by US export control laws, while no
+country's citizens <em>should</em> be deprived of free software,
+regardless of their governments' policies, as far as we are concerned.
+Copies of all GPL-licensed software published by the FSF can be
+obtained from us without making any representation about where you
+live or what you intend to do. At the same time, the FSF understands
+the desire of commercial distributors located in the US to comply with
+US laws. They have a right to choose to whom they distribute
+particular copies of free software; exercise of that right does not
+violate the GPL unless they add contractual restrictions beyond those
+permitted by the GPL.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="SubscriptionFee">Can I use
+ GPLed software on a device that will stop operating if customers do
+ not continue paying a subscription fee?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SubscriptionFee"
+ >#SubscriptionFee</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. In this scenario, the requirement to keep paying a fee limits
+the user's ability to run the program. This is an additional
+requirement on top of the GPL, and the license prohibits
it.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3HowToUpgrade">How do I upgrade from (L)GPLv2 to (L)GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3HowToUpgrade"
+ >#v3HowToUpgrade</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+First, include the new version of the license in your package.
+If you're using LGPLv3 in your project, be sure to include copies
+of both GPLv3 and LGPLv3, since LGPLv3 is now written as a set
+of additional permissions on top of GPLv3.</p>
+
+<p>Second, replace all your existing v2 license notices (usually at
+the top of each file) with the new recommended text available on
+<a href="/licenses/gpl-howto.html">the GNU licenses howto</a>.
It's
+more future-proof because it no longer includes the FSF's postal
+mailing address.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, any descriptive text (such as in a README) which talks
about
+the package's license should also be updated
appropriately.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="BitTorrent">How does GPLv3 make BitTorrent distribution easier?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#BitTorrent"
+ >#BitTorrent</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Because GPLv2 was written before peer-to-peer distribution of
+software was common, it is difficult to meet its requirements when you
+share code this way. The best way to make sure you are in compliance
+when distributing GPLv2 object code on BitTorrent would be to include
+all the corresponding source in the same torrent, which is
+prohibitively expensive.</p>
+
+<p>GPLv3 addresses this problem in two ways. First, people who
+download this torrent and send the data to others as part of that
+process are not required to do anything. That's because section 9
+says “Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a
+consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy
+likewise does not require acceptance [of the license].”</p>
+
+<p>Second, section 6(e) of GPLv3 is designed to give
+distributors—people who initially seed torrents—a clear and
+straightforward way to provide the source, by telling recipients where it
+is available on a public network server. This ensures that everyone who
+wants to get the source can do so, and it's almost no hassle for the
+distributor.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="Tivoization">What is tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent it?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#Tivoization"
+ >#Tivoization</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are
+designed so that users are not allowed to modify that software. There
+are lots of different ways to do this; for example, sometimes the
+hardware checksums the software that is installed, and shuts down if
+it doesn't match an expected signature. The manufacturers comply with
+GPLv2 by giving you the source code, but you still don't have the
+freedom to modify the software you're using. We call this practice
+tivoization.</p>
+
+<p>When people distribute User Products that include software under
+GPLv3, section 6 requires that they provide you with information
+necessary to modify that software. User Products is a term specially
+defined in the license; examples of User Products include portable
+music players, digital video recorders, and home security
systems.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DRMProhibited">Does GPLv3 prohibit DRM?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DRMProhibited"
+ >#DRMProhibited</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+It does not; you can use code released under GPLv3 to develop any
+kind of DRM technology you like. However, if you do this, section 3
+says that the system will not count as an effective technological
+“protection” measure, which means that if someone breaks the
+DRM, she will be free to distribute her software too, unhindered by the DMCA
+and similar laws.</p>
+
+<p>As usual, the GNU GPL does not restrict what people do in software,
+it just stops them from restricting others.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLHardware">Can I use the GPL to license hardware?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLHardware"
+ >#GPLHardware</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL.
+GPLv3 can also be used to license materials covered by other
+copyright-like laws, such as semiconductor masks. So, as an example,
+you can release a drawing of a physical object or circuit under the
+GPL.</p>
+
+<p>In many situations, copyright does not cover making physical
+hardware from a drawing. In these situations, your license for the
+drawing simply can't exert any control over making or selling physical
+hardware, regardless of the license you use. When copyright does
+cover making hardware, for instance with IC masks, the GPL handles
+that case in a useful way.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GiveUpKeys">I use public key cryptography to sign my code to
+ assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release
+ my private signing keys?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GiveUpKeys"
+ >#GiveUpKeys</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if
+you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware
+checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it
+would function. In that specific case, you would be required to
+provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign
+and install modified software on the device so that it will run. If
+each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only
+give each purchaser a key for that instance.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3VotingMachine">Does GPLv3 require that voters be able to
+ modify the software running in a voting machine?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3VotingMachine"
+ >#v3VotingMachine</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. Companies distributing devices that include software under
+GPLv3 are at most required to provide the source and Installation
+Information for the software to people who possess a copy of the
+object code. The voter who uses a voting machine (like any other
+kiosk) doesn't get possession of it, not even temporarily, so the
+voter also does not get possession of the binary software in it.</p>
+
+<p>Note, however, that voting is a very special case. Just because
+the software in a computer is free does not mean you can trust the
+computer for voting. We believe that computers cannot be trusted for
+voting. Voting should be done on paper.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3PatentRetaliation">Does GPLv3 have a “patent retaliation
+ clause”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3PatentRetaliation"
+ >#v3PatentRetaliation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the
+software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone
+did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license
+and any patent licenses that accompanied it.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="SourceCodeInDocumentation">Can I use snippets of GPL-covered
+ source code within documentation that is licensed under some license
+ that is incompatible with the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#SourceCodeInDocumentation"
+ >#SourceCodeInDocumentation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If the snippets are small enough that you can incorporate them
+under fair use or similar laws, then yes. Otherwise, no.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3Under4and5">The beginning of GPLv3 section 6 says that I can
+ convey a covered work in object code form “under the terms of
+ sections 4 and 5” provided I also meet the conditions of
+ section 6. What does that mean?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3Under4and5"
+ >#v3Under4and5</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This means that all the permissions and conditions you have to
+convey source code also apply when you convey object code: you may
+charge a fee, you must keep copyright notices intact, and so
on.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v2OrLaterPatentLicense">My company owns a lot of patents.
+ Over the years we've contributed code to projects under “GPL
+ version 2 or any later version”, and the project itself has
+ been distributed under the same terms. If a user decides to take the
+ project's code (incorporating my contributions) under GPLv3, does
+ that mean I've automatically granted GPLv3's explicit patent license
+ to that user?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v2OrLaterPatentLicense"
+ >#v2OrLaterPatentLicense</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. When you convey GPLed software, you must follow the terms and
+conditions of one particular version of the license. When you do so,
+that version defines the obligations you have. If users may also
+elect to use later versions of the GPL, that's merely an additional
+permission they have—it does not require you to fulfill the
+terms of the later version of the GPL as well.</p>
+
+<p>Do not take this to mean that you can threaten the community with
+your patents. In many countries, distributing software under GPLv2
+provides recipients with an implicit patent license to exercise their
+rights under the GPL. Even if it didn't, anyone considering enforcing
+their patents aggressively is an enemy of the community, and we will
+defend ourselves against such an attack.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="LGPLv3ContributorVersion">If I distribute a proprietary
+ program that links against an LGPLv3-covered library that I've
+ modified, what is the “contributor version” for purposes of
+ determining the scope of the explicit patent license grant I'm
+ making—is it just the library, or is it the whole
+ combination?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#LGPLv3ContributorVersion"
+ >#LGPLv3ContributorVersion</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The “contributor version” is only your version of the
+library.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v2v3Compatibility">Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v2v3Compatibility"
+ >#v2v3Compatibility</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. Many requirements have changed from GPLv2 to GPLv3, which
+means that the precise requirement of GPLv2 is not present in GPLv3,
+and vice versa. For instance, the Termination conditions of GPLv3 are
+considerably more permissive than those of GPLv2, and thus different
+from the Termination conditions of GPLv2.</p>
+
+<p>
+Due to these differences, the two licenses are not compatible: if you
+tried to combine code released under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3, you
+would violate section 6 of GPLv2.</p>
+
+<p>However, if code is released under GPL “version 2 or
+later,” that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the
+options it permits.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="InstInfo">Does GPLv2 have a requirement about delivering
installation
+information?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#InstInfo"
+ >#InstInfo</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>
+GPLv3 explicitly requires redistribution to include the full necessary
+“Installation Information.” GPLv2 doesn't use that term,
+but it does require redistribution to include <q>scripts used to
+control compilation and installation of the executable</q> with the
+complete and corresponding source code. This covers part, but not
+all, of what GPLv3 calls “Installation Information.”
+Thus, GPLv3's requirement about installation information is
+stronger.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="Cure">What does it mean to “cure” a violation of
GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#Cure"
+ >#Cure</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+To cure a violation means to adjust your practices to comply with
+the requirements of the license.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3InternationalDisclaimers">The warranty and liability
+ disclaimers in GPLv3 seem specific to U.S. law. Can I add my own
+ disclaimers to my own code?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#v3InternationalDisclaimers"
+ >#v3InternationalDisclaimers</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes. Section 7 gives you permission to add your own disclaimers,
+specifically 7(a).</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="NonvisualLegalNotices">My program has interactive user
+ interfaces that are non-visual in nature. How can I comply with the
+ Appropriate Legal Notices requirement in GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NonvisualLegalNotices"
+ >#NonvisualLegalNotices</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+All you need to do is ensure that the Appropriate Legal Notices are
+readily available to the user in your interface. For example, if you
+have written an audio interface, you could include a command that
+reads the notices aloud.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3CoworkerConveying">If I give a copy of a GPLv3-covered
+ program to a coworker at my company, have I “conveyed” the
+ copy to that coworker?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3CoworkerConveying"
+ >#v3CoworkerConveying</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+As long as you're both using the software in your work at the
+company, rather than personally, then the answer is no. The copies
+belong to the company, not to you or the coworker. This copying is
+propagation, not conveying, because the company is not making copies
+available to others.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3ConditionalWarranty">If I distribute a GPLv3-covered
+ program, can I provide a warranty that is voided if the user modifies
+ the program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3ConditionalWarranty"
+ >#v3ConditionalWarranty</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes. Just as devices do not need to be warranted if users modify
+the software inside them, you are not required to provide a warranty
+that covers all possible activities someone could undertake with
+GPLv3-covered software.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="SeparateAffero">Why did you decide to write the GNU Affero GPLv3
+ as a separate license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SeparateAffero"
+ >#SeparateAffero</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Early drafts of GPLv3 allowed licensors to add an Affero-like
+requirement to publish source in section 7. However, some companies
+that develop and rely upon free software consider this requirement to
+be too burdensome. They want to avoid code with this requirement, and
+expressed concern about the administrative costs of checking code for
+this additional requirement. By publishing the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a
+separate license, with provisions in it and GPLv3 to allow code under
+these licenses to link to each other, we accomplish all of our
+original goals while making it easier to determine which code has the
+source publication requirement.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhyPropagateAndConvey">Why did you invent the new terms
+ “propagate” and “convey” in GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyPropagateAndConvey"
+ >#WhyPropagateAndConvey</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The term “distribute” used in GPLv2 was borrowed from
+United States copyright law. Over the years, we learned that some
+jurisdictions used this same word in their own copyright laws, but gave
+it different meanings. We invented these new terms to make our intent as
+clear as possible no matter where the license is interpreted. They are
+not used in any copyright law in the world, and we provide their
+definitions directly in the license.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="NoMilitary">I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd
+ also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or
+ commercial uses. Can I do this?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NoMilitary"
+ >#NoMilitary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is
+designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions.
+GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other
+added restriction can be removed by the user.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ConveyVsDistribute">Is “convey” in GPLv3 the same
+ thing as what GPLv2 means by “distribute”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ConveyVsDistribute"
+ >#ConveyVsDistribute</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes, more or less. During the course of enforcing GPLv2, we
+learned that some jurisdictions used the word “distribute” in their
+own copyright laws, but gave it different meanings. We invented a new
+term to make our intent clear and avoid any problems that could be
+caused by these differences.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3MakingAvailable">GPLv3 gives “making available to the
+ public” as an example of propagation. What does this mean?
+ Is making available a form of conveying?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3MakingAvailable"
+ >#v3MakingAvailable</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+One example of “making available to the public” is putting the
+software on a public web or FTP server. After you do this, some time
+may pass before anybody actually obtains the software from
+you—but because it could happen right away, you need to fulfill
+the GPL's obligations right away as well. Hence, we defined conveying
+to include this activity.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="PropagationNotConveying">Since distribution and making
+ available to the public are forms of propagation that are also
+ conveying in GPLv3, what are some examples of propagation that do not
+ constitute conveying?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#PropagationNotConveying"
+ >#PropagationNotConveying</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Making copies of the software for yourself is the main form of
+propagation that is not conveying. You might do this to install the
+software on multiple computers, or to make backups.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="Prelinking">Does prelinking a
+ GPLed binary to various libraries on the system, to optimize its
+ performance, count as modification?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#Prelinking"
+ >#Prelinking</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. Prelinking is part of a compilation process; it doesn't
+introduce any license requirements above and beyond what other aspects
+of compilation would. If you're allowed to link the program to the
+libraries at all, then it's fine to prelink with them as well. If you
+distribute prelinked object code, you need to follow the terms of
+section 6.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="LaptopLoan">If someone installs GPLed software on a laptop, and
+ then lends that laptop to a friend without providing source code for
+ the software, have they violated the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LaptopLoan"
+ >#LaptopLoan</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. In the jurisdictions where we have investigated this issue,
+this sort of loan would not count as conveying. The laptop's owner
+would not have any obligations under the GPL.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="TwoPartyTivoization">Suppose that two companies try to
+ circumvent the requirement to provide Installation Information by
+ having one company release signed software, and the other release a
+ User Product that only runs signed software from the first company. Is
+ this a violation of GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#TwoPartyTivoization"
+ >#TwoPartyTivoization</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes. If two parties try to work together to get around the
+requirements of the GPL, they can both be pursued for copyright
+infringement. This is especially true since the definition of convey
+explicitly includes activities that would make someone responsible for
+secondary infringement.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="SourceInCVS">Am I complying with GPLv3 if I offer binaries on an
+ FTP server and sources by way of a link to a source code repository
+ in a version control system, like CVS or Subversion?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SourceInCVS"
+ >#SourceInCVS</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This is acceptable as long as the source checkout process does not
+become burdensome or otherwise restrictive. Anybody who can download
+your object code should also be able to check out source from your
+version control system, using a publicly available free software
+client. Users should be provided with clear and convenient
+instructions for how to get the source for the exact object code they
+downloaded—they may not necessarily want the latest development
+code, after all.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="RemoteAttestation">Can someone who conveys GPLv3-covered
+ software in a User Product use remote attestation to prevent a user
+ from modifying that software?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#RemoteAttestation"
+ >#RemoteAttestation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No. The definition of Installation Information, which must be
+provided with source when the software is conveyed inside a User
+Product, explicitly says: “The information must suffice to ensure that
+the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case
+prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been
+made.” If the device uses remote attestation in some way, the
+Installation Information must provide you some means for your modified
+software to report itself as legitimate.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="RulesProtocols">What does “rules and protocols for
+ communication across the network” mean in GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#RulesProtocols"
+ >#RulesProtocols</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This refers to rules about traffic you can send over the network. For
+example, if there is a limit on the number of requests you can send to a
+server per day, or the size of a file you can upload somewhere, your access
+to those resources may be denied if you do not respect those limits.</p>
+
+<p>These rules do not include anything that does not pertain directly to
+data traveling across the network. For instance, if a server on the
+network sent messages for users to your device, your access to the network
+could not be denied merely because you modified the software so that it did
+not display the messages.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="SupportService">Distributors that provide Installation
Information
+ under GPLv3 are not required to provide “support service”
+ for the product. What kind of “support service”do you mean?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SupportService"
+ >#SupportService</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This includes the kind of service many device manufacturers provide to
+help you install, use, or troubleshoot the product. If a device relies on
+access to web services or similar technology to function properly, those
+should normally still be available to modified versions, subject to the
+terms in section 6 regarding access to a network.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3Notwithstanding">In GPLv3 and AGPLv3, what does it mean when it
+ says “notwithstanding any other provision of this License”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3Notwithstanding"
+ >#v3Notwithstanding</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This simply means that the following terms prevail over anything
+else in the license that may conflict with them. For example, without this
+text, some people might have claimed that you could not combine code under
+GPLv3 with code under AGPLv3, because the AGPL's additional requirements
+would be classified as “further restrictions” under section 7
+of GPLv3. This text makes clear that our intended interpretation is the
+correct one, and you can make the combination.</p>
+
+<p>This text only resolves conflicts between different terms of the
license.
+When there is no conflict between two conditions, then you must meet them
+both. These paragraphs don't grant you carte blanche to ignore the rest of
+the license—instead they're carving out very limited
exceptions.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="AGPLv3CorrespondingSource">Under AGPLv3, when I modify the
Program
+ under section 13, what Corresponding Source does it have to offer?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#AGPLv3CorrespondingSource"
+ >#AGPLv3CorrespondingSource</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+“Corresponding Source” is defined in section 1 of the
+license, and you should provide what it lists. So, if your modified
+version depends on libraries under other licenses, such as the Expat
+license or GPLv3, the Corresponding Source should include those libraries
+(unless they are System Libraries). If you have modified those libraries,
+you must provide your modified source code for them.</p>
+
+<p>The last sentence of the first paragraph of section 13 is only meant
to
+reinforce what most people would have naturally assumed: even though
+combinations with code under GPLv3 are handled through a special exception
+in section 13, the Corresponding Source should still include the code that
+is combined with the Program this way. This sentence does not mean that
+you <em>only</em> have to provide the source that's covered under
GPLv3;
+instead it means that such code is <em>not</em> excluded from the
+definition of Corresponding Source.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="AGPLv3InteractingRemotely">In AGPLv3, what counts as
+ “interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer
+ network?”
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely"
+ >#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send
+responses over a network, then it meets these criteria. Common examples of
+programs that would fall into this category include web and mail servers,
+interactive web-based applications, and servers for games that are played
+online.</p>
+
+<p>If a program is not expressly designed to interact with a user
through a
+network, but is being run in an environment where it happens to do so, then
+it does not fall into this category. For example, an application is not
+required to provide source merely because the user is running it over SSH,
+or a remote X session.</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="ApacheLegalEntity">How does GPLv3's concept of
+ “you” compare to the definition of “Legal Entity”
+ in the Apache License 2.0?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ApacheLegalEntity"
+ >#ApacheLegalEntity</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+They're effectively identical. The definition of “Legal
+Entity” in the Apache License 2.0 is very standard in various kinds
+of legal agreements—so much so that it would be very surprising if a
+court did not interpret the term in the same way in the absence of an
+explicit definition. We fully expect them to do the same when they look at
+GPLv3 and consider who qualifies as a licensee.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3TheProgram">In GPLv3, what does “the Program”
+ refer to? Is it every program ever released under GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3TheProgram"
+ >#v3TheProgram</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The term “the Program” means one particular work that is
+licensed under GPLv3 and is received by a particular licensee from an
+upstream licensor or distributor. The Program is the particular work of
+software that you received in a given instance of GPLv3 licensing, as you
+received it.</p>
+
+<p>“The Program” cannot mean “all the works ever
licensed
+under GPLv3”; that interpretation makes no sense for a number of
+reasons. We've published
+an <a href="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html">analysis of the term
+“the Program”</a> for those who would like to learn more
about
+this.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="NoDistributionRequirements">If I only make copies of a
+ GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to
+ others, what does the license require of me?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#NoDistributionRequirements"
+ >#NoDistributionRequirements</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this
activity.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="AGPLv3ServerAsUser">If some network client software is
+ released under AGPLv3, does it have to be able to provide source to
+ the servers it interacts with?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AGPLv3ServerAsUser"
+ >#AGPLv3ServerAsUser</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+ <p>AGPLv3 requires a program to offer source code to “all
+users interacting with it remotely through a computer network.”
+It doesn't matter if you call the program a “client”
+or a “server,” the
+question you need to ask is whether or not there is a reasonable
+expectation that a person will be interacting with the program
+remotely over a network. </p></dd>
+
+<dt id="AGPLProxy">For software that runs a proxy server licensed
+ under the AGPL, how can I provide an offer of source to users
+ interacting with that code?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#AGPLProxy">#AGPLProxy</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>For software on a proxy server, you can provide an offer of
+source through a normal method of delivering messages to users of that
+kind of proxy. For example, a Web proxy could use a landing page. When
+users initially start using the proxy, you can direct them to a page
+with the offer of source along with any other information you choose
+to provide.</p>
+<p>The AGPL says you must make the offer to "all users". If you know
+that a certain user has already been shown the offer, for the current
+version of the software, you don't have to repeat it to that user
+again.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="AllCompatibility">How are the various GNU licenses
+ compatible with each other?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AllCompatibility"
+ >#AllCompatibility</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The various GNU licenses enjoy broad compatibility between each
+other. The only time you may not be able to combine code under two of
+these licenses is when you want to use code that's <em>only</em>
under
+an older version of a license with code that's under a newer
+version.</p>
+
+<p>Below is a detailed compatibility matrix for various combinations of
the
+GNU licenses, to provide an easy-to-use reference for specific cases. It
+assumes that someone else has written some software under one of these
+licenses, and you want to somehow incorporate code from that into a project
+that you're releasing (either your own original work, or a modified version
+of someone else's software). Find the license for your project in a
+column at the top of the table, and the license for the other code in a row
+on the left. The cell where they meet will tell you whether or not this
+combination is permitted.</p>
+
+<p>When we say “copy code,” we mean just that: you're taking
a
+section of code from one source, with or without modification, and
+inserting it into your own program, thus forming a work based on the first
+section of code. “Use a library” means that you're not copying
+any source directly, but instead interacting with it through linking,
+importing, or other typical mechanisms that bind the sources together when
+you compile or run the code.</p>
+
+<p>Each place that the matrix states GPLv3, the same statement about
+compatibility is true for AGPLv3 as well.</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 license my code 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: Combination is under GPLv2 only <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv2 only <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 or
later</th>
+<td class="ok">OK <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv2 or later <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv2 or later <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv3</th>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1
+only</th>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey copied code under GPLv2 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey copied code under GPLv2 or later <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey copied code under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-6">[6]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey copied code under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1
+or later</th>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey copied code under GPLv2 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey copied code under GPLv2 or later <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey code under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-5">[5]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv3</th>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under LGPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-4">[4]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr class="gpl-matrix-use-type">
+<th rowspan="6">I want to use a library under:</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 only</th>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv2 only <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv2 only <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 or
later</th>
+<td class="ok">OK <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv2 or later <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv2 or later <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv3</th>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 only</th>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 or
later</th>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv3</th>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3 <a
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-9">[9]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+</tr>
+
+</tbody></table>
+
+<p><a href="#matrix-skip-target">Skip footnotes</a></p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-1">1: You must follow the terms of GPLv2
+when incorporating the code in this case. You cannot take advantage of
+terms in later versions of the GPL.</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-2">2: While you may release your project
+(either your original work and/or work that you received and modified)
+under GPLv2-or-later in this case, note that the other code you're
+using must remain under GPLv2 only. As long as your project depends
+on that code, you won't be able to upgrade the license of your project
+to GPLv3-or-later, and the work as a whole (any combination of both
+your project and the other code) can only be conveyed under the terms
+of GPLv2.</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-3">3: If you have the ability to release
+the project under GPLv2 or any later version, you can choose to
+release it under GPLv3 or any later version—and once you do
+that, you'll be able to incorporate the code released under GPLv3.</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-4">4: If you have the ability to release
+the project under LGPLv2.1 or any later version, you can choose to
+release it under LGPLv3 or any later version—and once you do
+that, you'll be able to incorporate the code released under
+LGPLv3.</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-5">5: You must follow the terms of
+LGPLv2.1 when incorporating the code in this case. You cannot take
+advantage of terms in later versions of the LGPL.</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-6">6: If you do this, as long as the
+project contains the code released under LGPLv2.1 only, you will not
+be able to upgrade the project's license to LGPLv3 or later.</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-7">7: LGPLv2.1 gives you permission to
+relicense the code under any version of the GPL since GPLv2. If you
+can switch the LGPLed code in this case to using an appropriate
+version of the GPL instead (as noted in the table), you can make this
+combination.</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-8">8: LGPLv3 is GPLv3 plus extra
+permissions that you can ignore in this case.</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-9">9: Because GPLv2 does not permit
+combinations with LGPLv3, you must convey the project under GPLv3's
+terms in this case, since it will allow that combination.</p>
+
+<div id="matrix-skip-target"></div></dd>
+
+</dl>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+
+<p>Copyright © 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 Free Software Foundation,
Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2017/04/03 20:29:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/licenses gpl-faq.ja.html old-licenses/gpl-2...,
GNUN <=