www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www fun/jokes/echo-msg.zh-cn.html fun/jokes/po/...

From: GNUN
Subject: www fun/jokes/echo-msg.zh-cn.html fun/jokes/po/...
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 12:02:51 -0400 (EDT) 
CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     19/06/08 12:02:51

Modified files:
        fun/jokes      : echo-msg.zh-cn.html 
        fun/jokes/po   : echo-msg.zh-cn-en.html echo-msg.zh-cn.po 
        licenses/po    : gpl-faq.translist 
Added files:
        licenses       : gpl-faq.zh-cn.html 
        licenses/po    : gpl-faq.zh-cn-en.html 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/fun/jokes/echo-msg.zh-cn.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/fun/jokes/po/echo-msg.zh-cn-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/fun/jokes/po/echo-msg.zh-cn.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gpl-faq.zh-cn.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/gpl-faq.translist?cvsroot=www&r1=1.19&r2=1.20
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/gpl-faq.zh-cn-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1

Patches:
Index: fun/jokes/echo-msg.zh-cn.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/fun/jokes/echo-msg.zh-cn.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- fun/jokes/echo-msg.zh-cn.html       25 May 2018 20:28:51 -0000      1.2
+++ fun/jokes/echo-msg.zh-cn.html       8 Jun 2019 16:02:50 -0000       1.3
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
 
      <p><b>-i</b> 模拟IBM OS/VU（不支持递归系统）</p>
 
-     <p><b>-I</b> 模拟IBM VTOS 3.7.6（依照IBM 
VTOS文档有限支持异度离散空间<sup><a
+     <p><b>-I</b> 模拟IBM VTOS 3.7.6（依照IBM 
VTOS文档里的限制说明支持异度离散空间<sup><a
 href="#TransNote1">1</a></sup>）</p>
 
      <p><b>-J</b> 产生垃圾邮件</p>
@@ -140,8 +140,7 @@
 <p>本页的笑话来自FSF的GNU工程的<a 
href="http://lists.gnu.org/";>电子邮件存档</a>。</p>
 <p>自由软件基金会不对该笑话主张版权。</p>
 
-
-<div style="font-size: small;">
+<div class="translators-notes">
 
 <!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
 <h3>译注</h3>
@@ -173,13 +172,12 @@
 <!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
 <b>翻译</b>：彭武兴，2013。<br></br>
 <b>翻译团队</b>：<a rel="team"
-href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-zh-cn/";>&lt;CTT&gt;</a>，2018。</div>
-
+href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-zh-cn/";>&lt;CTT&gt;</a>，2018-2019。</div>
 
- <p><!-- timestamp start -->
+<p><!-- timestamp start -->
 最后更新：
 
-$Date: 2018/05/25 20:28:51 $
+$Date: 2019/06/08 16:02:50 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: fun/jokes/po/echo-msg.zh-cn-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/fun/jokes/po/echo-msg.zh-cn-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- fun/jokes/po/echo-msg.zh-cn-en.html 25 May 2018 20:28:51 -0000      1.1
+++ fun/jokes/po/echo-msg.zh-cn-en.html 8 Jun 2019 16:02:50 -0000       1.2
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
      <p><b>-i</b> emulate IBM OS/VU (recursive universes not supported)</p>
 
      <p><b>-I</b> emulate IBM VTOS 3.7.6 (chronosynclastic infundibula
-     supported with restrictions documented in IBM VTOS</p>
+     supported with restrictions documented in IBM VTOS)</p>
 
      <p><b>-J</b> generate junk        mail</p>
 
@@ -175,7 +175,7 @@
 
 <p>Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2018/05/25 20:28:51 $
+$Date: 2019/06/08 16:02:50 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>

Index: fun/jokes/po/echo-msg.zh-cn.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/fun/jokes/po/echo-msg.zh-cn.po,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- fun/jokes/po/echo-msg.zh-cn.po      8 Jun 2019 15:36:40 -0000       1.5
+++ fun/jokes/po/echo-msg.zh-cn.po      8 Jun 2019 16:02:50 -0000       1.6
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
 "MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
 "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
 "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"X-Outdated-Since: 2019-06-04 07:56+0000\n"
 
 #. type: Content of: <title>
 msgid "GNU Echo - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)"

Index: licenses/po/gpl-faq.translist
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/po/gpl-faq.translist,v
retrieving revision 1.19
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -b -r1.19 -r1.20
--- licenses/po/gpl-faq.translist       22 Jun 2017 06:44:58 -0000      1.19
+++ licenses/po/gpl-faq.translist       8 Jun 2019 16:02:51 -0000       1.20
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
 <span dir="ltr"><a lang="ko" hreflang="ko" 
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.ko.html">한국어</a>&nbsp;[ko]</span> &nbsp;
 <span dir="ltr"><a lang="pl" hreflang="pl" 
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.pl.html">polski</a>&nbsp;[pl]</span> &nbsp;
 <span dir="ltr"><a lang="ru" hreflang="ru" 
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.ru.html">русский</a>&nbsp;[ru]</span> &nbsp;
+<span dir="ltr"><a lang="zh-cn" hreflang="zh-cn" 
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.zh-cn.html">简体中文</a>&nbsp;[zh-cn]</span> &nbsp;
 </p>
 </div>' -->
 <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="/licenses/gpl-faq.html" 
hreflang="x-default" />
@@ -23,4 +24,5 @@
 <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="ko" hreflang="ko" 
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.ko.html" title="한국어" />
 <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="pl" hreflang="pl" 
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.pl.html" title="polski" />
 <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="ru" hreflang="ru" 
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.ru.html" title="русский" />
+<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="zh-cn" hreflang="zh-cn" 
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.zh-cn.html" title="简体中文" />
 <!-- end translist file -->

Index: licenses/gpl-faq.zh-cn.html
===================================================================
RCS file: licenses/gpl-faq.zh-cn.html
diff -N licenses/gpl-faq.zh-cn.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ licenses/gpl-faq.zh-cn.html 8 Jun 2019 16:02:50 -0000       1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2304 @@
+<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html" -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.zh-cn.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
+
+<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
+<title>GNU许可证常见问题 - GNU工程 - 自由软件基金会</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 td, table#gpl-compat-matrix th {
+   border: 1px solid black;
+}
+table#gpl-compat-matrix {
+   display: block;
+   width: 100%;
+   overflow: auto;
+   padding: .1em;
+   margin: auto;
+   border-collapse: collapse;
+   border: 2px solid black;
+}
+table#gpl-compat-matrix td, th.gpl-matrix-border {
+   text-align: center;
+   padding: .3em;
+   margin: 0;
+}
+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.zh-cn.html" -->
+<h2>GNU许可证常见问题</h2>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.zh-cn.html" -->
+<h3>目录</h3>
+
+  <h4>关于GNU工程、自由软件基金会及å…
¶è®¸å¯è¯çš„基本问题</h4>
+
+  <ul>
+    <li><a 
href="#WhatDoesGPLStandFor">&ldquo;GPL&rdquo;代表什么？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL">自由软件是不是就意味着要用GPL？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#WhyUseGPL">为什么我应该使用GNU GPL，而不是å…
¶ä»–软件许可证？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense">所有GNU软件都使用GNU
+GPL许可证吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware">使用GPL的软件就会变成GNU软件吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware">GPL可以不用于软件吗？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#WhyNotGPLForManuals">为什么手册不用GPL？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#GPLTranslations">GPL有å…
¶ä»–语言的翻译版吗？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">为什么有些GNU库是按ç…
§æ™®é€šçš„GPL发布，而不是按照LGPL发布？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#WhoHasThePower">谁可以进行GPL执法？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#AssignCopyright">为什么FSF要求对FSF有版权软件的贡献者
把版权赋予FSF？如果我有GPL软件的版权，我也需要这æ 
·åšå—？如果需要，我应该怎么做？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a 
href="#ModifyGPL">我是否可以修改GPL并制作一个修改版的许可证？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#SeparateAffero">为什么要专门写一个GNU Affero 
GPLv3作为单独的许可证？</a></li>
+  </ul>
+
+  <h4>关于理解GNU许可证的一般性问题</h4>
+
+  <ul>
+    <li><a
+href="#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions">为什么GPLå…
è®¸ç”¨æˆ·å…¬å¼€ä»–们的修改版？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a 
href="#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">GPL是否要求修改版的源代码å…
¬å¼€ï¼Ÿ</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a 
href="#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">我是否可以在同一个电脑上使用一个GPL程序和另一个æ—
 å…³çš„非自由程序？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a 
href="#CanIDemandACopy">如果我知道有人有一份GPL软件的拷贝，我是否可以要求他们给我一份？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid">GPLv2中的&ldquo;对任何第三方都有效的书面承诺&rdquo;怎么理解？它是否意味着任何人都可以得到任何GPL程序的源代ç
 ï¼Ÿ</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">GPL说如果发布修改版，它就必
须对所有第三方进行&ldquo;许可证授权&hellip;。谁是第三方？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney">GPL是否å…
è®¸é”€å”®è½¯ä»¶çš„拷贝来赚钱？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee">GPL是否å…
è®¸æˆ‘对从我的发行网站下载软件进行收费？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee">GPL是否å…
è®¸æˆ‘要求任何收到软件的人必
须向我付费和/或通知我？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic">如果我收费发行GPL软件，那么我是否被要求同时也要å
…è´¹å…¬å¸ƒè¯¥è½¯ä»¶ï¼Ÿ</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA">GPL是否å…
è®¸ä½¿ç”¨ä¿å¯†åè®®å‘行软件？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA">GPL是否å…
è®¸ä½¿ç”¨ä¿å¯†åè®®å‘行修改版或beta版软件？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#DevelopChangesUnderNDA">GPL是否å…
è®¸ä½¿ç”¨ä¿å¯†åè®®å¼€å‘修改版软件？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#WhyMustIInclude">为什么GPL要求在每个软件拷贝里都要包
含一份GPL拷贝？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort">如果软件作品不是很长会怎么æ 
·ï¼Ÿ</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#RequiredToClaimCopyright">我是否要对我的修改版声明版权？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#TranslateCode">GPL对把程序改写成另外的编程语言怎么说？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL">如果一个程序合并了å…
±æœ‰é¢†åŸŸçš„代码和GPL的代码，我是否可以抽出其中的å…
±æœ‰é¢†åŸŸä»£ç å¹¶æŒ‰ç…§å…±æœ‰é¢†åŸŸçš„方式使用？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#IWantCredit">我想从我的工作中获得荣誉。我想让人们知道我写的代ç
 ã€‚如果使用GPL，我还能这样做吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#RequireCitation">GPL是否允许添加
一些条款从而要求使用这些GPL软件或å…
¶è¾“出的论文说明引用或致谢？</a></li>
+    
+    <li><a 
href="#GPLOmitPreamble">为了节省空间，我是否可以不要GPL的前言或è€
…如何在程序中使用GPL的部分？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#WhatIsCompatible">怎么理解两个许可证是&ldquo;å…
¼å®¹çš„&rdquo;？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#WhatDoesCompatMean">许可证和&ldquo;GPLå…
¼å®¹&rdquo;是什么意思？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#OrigBSD">为什么原始的BSD许可证和GPL不å…
¼å®¹ï¼Ÿ</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#MereAggregation">&ldquo;聚合版&rdquo;和å…
¶ä»–&ldquo;修改版&rdquo;有什么不同？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#AggregateContainers">当判别两个软件是否构成单一的作品时，代ç
 æ˜¯åœ¨ä¸€ä¸ªå®¹å™¨é‡Œè¿˜æ˜¯åœ¨å¤šä¸ªå®¹å™¨é‡Œæœ‰æ²¡æœ‰å½±å“ï¼Ÿ</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#AssignCopyright">为什么FSF要求对FSF有版权软件的贡献者
把版权赋予FSF？如果我有GPL软件的版权，我也需要这æ 
·åšå—？如果需要，我应该怎么做？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#GPLCommercially">如果我通过GNU
+GPL获得了一个软件，那么我是否可以修改该软件的代ç 
ï¼ŒæŠŠå®ƒå˜æˆä¸€ä¸ªæ–°çš„程序，然后再按ç…
§å•†ä¸šç¨‹åºå‘行和销售？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware">GPL可以不用于软件吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#NoMilitary">我愿意按照GPL发布我的代ç 
ï¼Œä½†æ˜¯æˆ‘还想清
楚地说明我的程序不能用于军事和/或商业。我能这æ 
·åšå—？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#GPLHardware">能否用GPL作为硬件许可证？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a 
href="#Prelinking">为了优化系统性能，把二进制的GPL软件和各种系统库预å
…ˆè¿žæŽ¥èµ·æ¥ï¼Œè¿™ç®—不算修改？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#LGPLJava">LGPL和Java如何在一起运作？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#WhyPropagateAndConvey">ä½ 
为什么在GPLv3中发明了新的术语——&ldquo;传
播&rdquo;和&ldquo;输送&rdquo;？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#ConveyVsDistribute">GPLv3中的&ldquo;输送&rdquo;和GPLv2中的&ldquo;分发&rdquo;是一回事吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#NoDistributionRequirements">如果我只是复制并运行GPL程序，并不向他人分发或输送，那么该许可证对我有什么要求？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#v3MakingAvailable">GPLv3把&ldquo;使之公开可得&rdquo;作为是传
播的一个例子。这是什么意思？使之可得是不是一种输送？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#PropagationNotConveying">由于分发和使之å…
¬å¼€å¯å¾—在GPLv3中既是传播也是输送，那么有没有只是传
播而不是输送的例子？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#BitTorrent">GPLv3是怎æ 
·è®©BitTorrent发行变得更容易的？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#Tivoization">tivoization指的是什么？GPLv3如何禁止它？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#DRMProhibited">GPLv3禁止DRM吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#v3VotingMachine">GPLv3是否要求投票人可以修改投票机运行的软件？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#v3PatentRetaliation">GPLv3有没有一个&ldquo;专利报复条款&rdquo;？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#v3Notwithstanding">在GPLv3和AGPLv3中，&ldquo;不承担
本许可证的任何其他条款&rdquo;是什么意思？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely">在AGPLv3中，什么应该算作是&ldquo;通过计算机网络和[该软件]远程交互？&rdquo;</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#ApacheLegalEntity">GPLv3中&ldquo;你
&rdquo;的概念和Apache许可证2.0中&ldquo;法律主体&rdquo;有何异同？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#v3TheProgram">在GPLv3中，&ldquo;程序&rdquo;指的是什么？是不是指所有按ç
…§GPLv3发布的程序？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#AGPLv3ServerAsUser">如果一个网络客户端程序按ç…
§AGPLv3发布，那么它是否必须能够向å…
¶äº¤äº’的服务器提供源代码？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#AGPLProxy">对于运行代理服务器的AGPL软件，我们怎æ 
·æ‰èƒ½ä¸ºå’Œè¿™äº›ç¨‹åºäº¤äº’的用户提供源代码？</a></li>
+
+  </ul>
+
+  <h4>为你的程序选择GNU许可证</h4>
+
+  <ul>
+    <li><a 
href="#v3HowToUpgrade">如何从(L)GPLv2升级到(L)GPLv3？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#CouldYouHelpApplyGPL">能否提供一个手把手的GPL应用指导？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#WhyUseGPL">为什么我应该使用GNU GPL，而不是å…
¶ä»–软件许可证？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#WhyMustIInclude">为什么GPL要求在每个软件拷贝里都要包
含一份GPL拷贝？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#LicenseCopyOnly">把GNU GPL的拷贝放在我的代ç 
åº“里是不是就算应用了GPL？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#NoticeInSourceFile">为什么我应该在每个源代ç 
æ–‡ä»¶é‡Œéƒ½åŠ ä¸Šè®¸å¯è¯å£°æ˜Žï¼Ÿ</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort">如果软件作品不是很长会怎么æ 
·ï¼Ÿ</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a 
href="#GPLOmitPreamble">为了节省空间，我是否可以不要GPL的前言或è€
…如何在程序中使用GPL的部分？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#HowIGetCopyright">我如何才拥有我的程序的版权从而可以把它按GPL发布？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#WhatIfSchool">如果我的学æ 
¡æƒ³æŠŠæˆ‘的程序变成它的专有软件，那么我应该怎么办？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF">我愿意把我写的程序按照GNU
+GPL发布，但是我也想在非自由软件里使用同样的代ç 
ã€‚</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#CanDeveloperThirdParty">开发并按照GPL发布了程序的开发者
以后是否可以把该程序按照排他协议授权给第三方？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#GPLUSGov">美国政府是否可以使用GNU 
GPL发布软件？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#GPLUSGovAdd">美国政府是否可以发布GPL程序的改进版？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#VersionThreeOrLater">为什么程序应该写上GPL&ldquo;版本&nbsp;3或任何以后的版本&rdquo;？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#OnlyLatestVersion">使用“该程序只允许在GNU 
GPL的最新版下使用“是不是一个好主意？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#GPLOutput">我有没有办法让我的程序的输出也使用GPL许可证？例如，如果我的程序用来开发硬件设计，我可否要求这些设计å¿
…须是自由的？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#WhyNotGPLForManuals">为什么手册不用GPL？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#FontException">GPL如何应用于字体？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#WMS">维护网站系统的模板该使用什么许可证？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#NonFreeTools">我能否把用专有工具开发的软件按ç…
§GPL授权？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#GiveUpKeys">我使用公钥签署我的代码以保证å…
¶çœŸå®žæ€§ã€‚GPLv3会强制我公开私钥，是这样吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#v3VotingMachine">GPLv3是否要求投票人可以修改投票机运行的软件？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#v3InternationalDisclaimers">GPLv3的å…
è´£å£°æ˜Žå¥½åƒä¸“门针对美国法律。我的代码可否添加
我自己的免责声明？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#NonvisualLegalNotices">我的程序带有天然不可见的用户交互界面。我该如何遵守GPLv3要求的适当的法律声明？</a></li>
+  </ul>
+
+  <h4>发布按照GNU许可证授权的程序</h4>
+
+  <ul>
+    <li><a 
href="#ModifiedJustBinary">我可否只发布GPL程序修改版的二进制形式？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#UnchangedJustBinary">我只下载了二进制形式的程序。如果我要发布拷贝，我是否å¿
…须获得并同时发布源代码？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet">我希望使用物理媒介发布二进制而不带源代ç
 ã€‚我可否使用FTP提供源代码而不是使用邮购的形式？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#RedistributedBinariesGetSource">我从朋友那里获得了GPL软件的二进制和提供源代ç
 çš„承诺。我可否使用该承诺获得源代码？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites">我可否把二进制放在我的网络服务器上并把源代ç
 æ”¾åœ¨å¦å¤–的网络服务器上？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a 
href="#DistributeExtendedBinary">我想发布一个GPL程序扩展版的二进制。源代ç
 åªå‘布该程序的原始版可以吗？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient">我想发布二进制，但是发布完整的源代ç
 å¤ªä¸æ–¹ä¾¿äº†ã€‚只发布我的代码和&ldquo;标准&rdquo;版的差异加
上二进制可以吗？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a 
href="#AnonFTPAndSendSources">我可否把二进制放在网络服务器上，但是只为订购了源代ç
 çš„人提供源代码？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource">我如何保证每个下载了二进制文件的用户也得到了源代ç
 ï¼Ÿ</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#MustSourceBuildToMatchExactHashOfBinary">GPL是否要求我提供的源代ç
 ç¼–译后得到和我发布的二进制一样的哈希值？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#ReleaseNotOriginal">我是否可以发布一款软件，它的许可证是ä½
 å¯ä»¥æŒ‰GPL发布此软件的修改版，但是你
不能按GPL发布此软件的原始版？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#CompanyGPLCostsMoney">我发现有个å…
¬å¸æœ‰ä¸€ä¸ªGPL软件的拷贝，但是要花钱才能拿到该软件。这个å
…¬å¸æ˜¯å¦å› æ­¤è¿åäº†GPL?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#UnreleasedMods">某å…
¬å¸åœ¨ç½‘站上运行一个GPL软件的修改版。按照GPL，该å…
¬å¸æ˜¯å¦å¿…须发布其修改版的源代码？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#UnreleasedModsAGPL">某å…
¬å¸åœ¨ç½‘站上运行一个许可证为GNU Affero GPL
+(AGPL)的程序的修改版。按照AGPL，该公司是否必须发布å…
¶ä¿®æ”¹ç‰ˆçš„源代码？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#InternalDistribution">在组织或公司内
部使用是不是&ldquo;发布&rdquo;？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#StolenCopy">如果某人盗取了一张
含有GPL软件的CD，那么GPL是否授权此人再发布该软件？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#TradeSecretRelease">如果公司按ç…
§å•†ä¸šç§˜å¯†æ¥å‘布软件拷贝会怎么样？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#GPLFairUse">我是否有&ldquo;合理使用&rdquo;GPL软件的源代ç 
çš„权利？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#DistributeSubsidiary">把软件拷贝移送到一个由多数人拥有并控制的机构是否构成发布？</a></li>
+    
+    <li><a href="#ClickThrough">软件安装
程序是否可以要求人们通过点击同意GPL？如果我得到一份GPL软件，那么我å¿
…须同意什么吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#GPLCompatInstaller">我想把GPL软件和一些安装
程序合在一起。这些安装程序也必须是GPL软件吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#ExportWarranties">如果发布者
要求我&ldquo;表明并保证&rdquo;我住在美国或者我有意遵循相å…
³å‡ºå£ç®¡åˆ¶æ³•å¾‹æ¥å‘行该软件，那么该发布者
是否违反了GPL？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#v3Under4and5">GPLv3的第6节说我可以&ldquo;按ç…
§ç¬¬4节和第5节的条款&rdquo;输送GPL协议程序的目标代ç 
ï¼Œå‰ææ˜¯æˆ‘同时也满足了第6节的要求。这究竟是什么意思？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#v2OrLaterPatentLicense">我的å…
¬å¸æ‹¥æœ‰å¾ˆå¤šä¸“利。多年以来，我们按ç…
§&ldquo;GPL版本2或以后版&rdquo;贡献了许多代码，而这些代ç 
æ‰€å±žçš„项目也是按照同样的条款发布的。如果用户决定按ç…
§GPLv3采纳这些项目（包含我们的贡献）的代ç 
ï¼Œè¿™æ˜¯å¦æ„å‘³ç€æˆ‘自动地明确把专利权授予了该用户？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#v3ConditionalWarranty">如果我发布GPLv3程序，我是否可以说如果用户修改该程序，那么售后保障就失效。</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#v3CoworkerConveying">如果我把一份GPLv3软件拷贝给了我的同事，我是否就是&ldquo;输送&rdquo;给同事一份拷贝？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#SourceInCVS">如果我在FTP服务器上发布二进制而同时提供了源代ç
 
çš„版本控制库链接，比如是CVS或Subversion，那么我是否也是遵守了GPLv3？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#RemoteAttestation">在用户产品中输送GPLv3软件的人是否可以使用远程认证来防止用户修改软件？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#RulesProtocols">GPLv3中的&ldquo;网络通信协议和规则&rdquo;是什么意思？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#SupportService">按照GPLv3提供安装
信息的人不需要为产品提供&ldquo;技术支持服务&rdquo;。你
是指什么样的&ldquo;技术支持服务&rdquo;？</a></li>
+  </ul>
+
+  <h4>在编写其他程序时，使用GNU许可证的软件</h4>
+
+  <ul>
+    <li><a 
href="#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">我是否可以在同一个电脑上使用一个GPL程序和另一个æ—
 å…³çš„非自由程序？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF">我可否使用GPL下的编辑器，比如GNU
+Emacs，开发非自由软件？我可否使用GPL下的工å…
·ï¼Œæ¯”如GCC，编译非自由软件？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#GPLOutput">我有没有办法让我的程序的输出也使用GPL许可证？例如，如果我的程序用来开发硬件设计，我可否要求这些设计å¿
…须是自由的？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL">什么情
况下GPL软件的输出部分也要遵循GPL？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#PortProgramToGPL">如果我把我的程序移植到GNU/Linux，那么这是否意味着我å¿
…须按照GPL或其他自由软件许可证发布我的软件？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#GPLInProprietarySystem">我想在我的专有系统中合并GPL软件。我只按ç
…§GPL授予的方式使用该软件。我可以这样做吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#LGPLv3ContributorVersion">如果我发布一个专有软件，该专有软件和我修改过的一个LGPLv3库连接在一起，作为判断我获得的专利许可证的范围，我应该使用什么&ldquo;贡献è€
…版本&rdquo;&mdash;仅仅是该库，还是整个组合？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#AGPLv3CorrespondingSource">æ 
¹æ®AGPLv3，当我修改一个符合第13节的软件时，该软件必
须提供哪些相关的源代码？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#LibGCCException">哪里可以了解更多å…
³äºŽGCC运行库例外的详情？</a></li>
+  </ul>
+
+  <h4>作品中结合有按照GNU许可证发布的源代码</h4>
+
+  <ul>
+    <li><a href="#v2v3Compatibility">GPLv3和GPLv2兼容吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#InstInfo">GPLv2是否有关于提供安装
信息的要求？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#AllCompatibility">各种GNU许可证如何彼此å…
¼å®¹ï¼Ÿ</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#MereAggregation">&ldquo;聚合版&rdquo;和å…
¶ä»–&ldquo;修改版&rdquo;有什么不同？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a 
href="#GPLFairUse">我是否有&ldquo;合理使用&rdquo;GPL软件的源代ç 
çš„权利？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#GPLUSGovAdd">美国政府是否可以发布GPL程序的改进版？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#GPLStaticVsDynamic">GPL对相å…
³è½¯ä»¶çš„静态连接和动态连接模块有不同的要求吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#LGPLStaticVsDynamic">LGPL对相å…
³è½¯ä»¶çš„静态连接和动态连接模块有不同的要求吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#IfLibraryIsGPL">如果一个库按ç…
§GPL（不是LGPL）发布，是否意味着所有使用该库的软件都要使用GPL或GPLå
…¼å®¹çš„许可证？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#LinkingWithGPL">你有一个GPL程序，我想把该程序和我的代ç 
è¿žæŽ¥èµ·æ¥å¹¶æž„造一个专有软件。该连接是否意味着我必
须要把我的程序按照GPL授权？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#SwitchToLGPL">如果是这样，我有没有办法按ç…
§LGPL得到一份你的软件？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#WillYouMakeAnException">使用按ç…
§GPL发布的GNU程序不适合我们的专有软件项目。你
们会对我们例外吗？这样会使更多人使用你
们的程序。</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#IfInterpreterIsGPL">如果一个编程语言解释程序是按ç…
§GPL授权的，那么用该解释器编写的程序都要按照GPLå…
¼å®¹çš„许可证授权吗？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#InterpreterIncompat">如果一个编程语言解释程序使用了GPLå…
¼å®¹çš„许可证，那么我是否可以用它来运行使用GPL程序？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#GPLModuleLicense">如果我在一个GPL程序里添加
了一个模块，那么我的模块必须使用GPL许可证吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#GPLPlugins">什么时候一个程序和它的插件会被认为是一个单一的结合在一起的程序？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a 
href="#GPLAndPlugins">我写了一个GPL程序的插件，我要发布我的插件的话，我要使用的许可证有什么强制要求？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a 
href="#GPLPluginsInNF">我为非自由软件写的插件可以使用GPL许可证吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#NFUseGPLPlugins">一个非自由软件是否可以加
载GPL插件？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#GPLInProprietarySystem">我想在我的专有系统中合并GPL软件。我只按ç
…§GPL授予的方式使用该软件。我可以这样做吗？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#GPLWrapper">我想在我的专有系统中结合GPL软件？我是否可以在GPL软件和专有系统之间制作一个使用松散的GPLå
…¼å®¹è®¸å¯è¯ï¼ˆæ¯”如X11许可证）的&ldquo;封装&rdquo;模块？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a 
href="#FSWithNFLibs">我是否可以用非自由的库编写自由软件？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#SystemLibraryException">我是否可以用专有系统库连接一个GPL程序？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">GPL软件使用非GPLå…
¼å®¹åº“会有什么法律问题？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL">我使用Microsoft Visual
+C++编写一个Windows应用，我要把它以GPL发布。GPL是否å…
è®¸æˆ‘的程序动态连接Visual C++运行库？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#MoneyGuzzlerInc">我想修改GPL程序并把它们和Money 
Guzzler
+Inc的可移植库连接在一起。我不能发布这些库的源代ç 
ï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥æ¯ä¸ªæƒ³ä¿®æ”¹çš„用户都要单独获得这些库。为什么GPL不å
…è®¸è¿™æ ·åšï¼Ÿ</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#GPLIncompatibleAlone">如果模块Q的许可证要求和GPL不å…
¼å®¹ï¼Œä¸è¿‡è¯¥è¦æ±‚只适用于单独发布Q的情况，而不是当Q被包
含在一个大型程序中，那么该许可证和GPLå…
¼å®¹å—？我是否可以把Q和GPL程序联合或连接起来？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#OOPLang">在一个面向对象的语言，比如Java下，如果我不åŠ
 
修改地使用了一个GPL类，并做成了子类，那么GPL会对更大范围的程序有什么影响？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#NonfreeDriverKernelLinux">发布和要Linux内æ 
¸è¿žæŽ¥èµ·æ¥çš„非自由驱动是否违反GPL？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#LinkingOverControlledInterface">我如何才能å…
è®¸åªåœ¨å¯æŽ§çš„接口下连接专有模块和GPL库？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#Consider">考虑这个情况：1) X按照GPL发布了V1。2) 
Y在V1的基础上贡献了修改和新代码，开发了V2。3)
+X想要把V2变成非GPL许可证。X需要Y的许可吗？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#ManyDifferentLicenses">我写的应用连接了许多不同的部件，这些部件有多种许可证。我对自己的应用该使用什么许可证很迷惑。ä½
 æ˜¯å¦èƒ½å¤Ÿå‘Šè¯‰æˆ‘可以使用什么许可证？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#SourceCodeInDocumentation">我是否可以在和GPL不å…
¼å®¹çš„文档里使用GPL软件源代码的片段？</a></li>
+  </ul>
+
+  <h4>违反GNU许可证的相关问题</h4>
+
+  <ul>
+    <li><a href="#ReportingViolation">如果发现可能违反GPL的情
况，我应该怎么做？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#WhoHasThePower">谁可以进行GPL执法？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#HeardOtherLicense">我听说有人获得了一份按照å…
¶ä»–许可证发布的GPL程序。这可能吗？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#DeveloperViolate">GPL程序的开发者
和GPL绑定了吗？该开发者的活动会是违反GPL的吗？</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a
+href="#CompanyGPLCostsMoney">我发现有个å…
¬å¸æœ‰ä¸€ä¸ªGPL软件的拷贝，但是要花钱才能拿到该软件。这个å
…¬å¸æ˜¯å¦å› æ­¤è¿åäº†GPL?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#SubscriptionFee">我是否可以在一个用户不继续付费就不再工作的设备上使用GPL软件？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a 
href="#Cure">&ldquo;修正&rdquo;对GPLv3的违反是什么意思？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a
+href="#LaptopLoan">如果有人在电脑上安装
了GPL软件，然后把电脑借给了朋友，但是没有提供该软件的源代ç
 ï¼Œä»–们违反了GPL吗？</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#TwoPartyTivoization"
+>假定两个公司企图规避安装信息的要求，一个å…
¬å¸å‘布签名软件，另一个å…
¬å¸å‘布用户产品，该产品只能运行第一个å…
¬å¸çš„签名软件。这个是否违反GPLv3？</a></li>
+  </ul>
+
+<hr />
+
+<dl>
+
+<dt id="WhatDoesGPLStandFor">&ldquo;GPL&rdquo;代表什么？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#WhatDoesGPLStandFor" >#WhatDoesGPLStandFor</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+&ldquo;GPL&rdquo;代表&ldquo;通用公共许可证&rdquo;。å…
¶ä¸­æœ€å¹¿æ³›ä½¿ç”¨çš„许可证是GNU通用公共许可证，简写为GNU
+GPL。它可以进一步简写为&ldquo;GPL&rdquo;，前提是大家明白这是指向GNU
 GPL。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL">自由软件是不是就意味着要用GPL？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL"
+>#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+绝不是那样&mdash;还有许多å…
¶ä»–的自由软件许可证。我们有一个<a
+href="/licenses/license-list.html">不完全的列表</a>。为用户提供<a
+href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">某些å…
·ä½“自由</a>的许可证就是一个自由软件。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhyUseGPL">为什么我应该使用GNU GPL，而不是å…
¶ä»–软件许可证？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#WhyUseGPL" >#WhyUseGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+使用GNU GPL要求所有<a
+href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">发布的改进版本都必
须是自由软件</a>。这意味着你可以避免和一个你
自己的作品的专有修改版竞争。不过，在某些特殊的情
况下，使用<a
+href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">更宽泛的许可证</a>会更好。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense">所有GNU软件都使用GNU 
GPL许可证吗？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense"
+>#DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+大多数GNU软件包使用GNU 
GPL，但是也有一些GNU程序（或部分程序）使用更宽泛的许可证，比如LGPL。我们这æ
 ·åšæ˜¯<a
+href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">战略性的</a>。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware">使用GPL的软件就会变成GNU软件吗？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware"
+>#DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+任何人都可以按照GNU 
GPL发布软件，但是这并不会使发布的软件变成GNU软件包。</p>
+
+<p>把一个软件变成GNU软件包
意味着明确地把它贡献给GNU工程。这在软件的开发者
和GNU工程达成共识才行。如果你
想为GNU工程贡献软件，请写信给<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ReportingViolation">如果发现可能违反GPL的情
况，我应该怎么做？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#ReportingViolation" >#ReportingViolation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+你应该<a
+href="/licenses/gpl-violation.html">报告这个情况</a>。首å…
ˆï¼Œå°½é‡æŸ¥çœ‹äº‹å®žæƒ…况。然后，告知出版者或版权持有者å…
·ä½“çš„GPL软件。如果他们是自由软件基金会，请写信给<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>。如果不是，软件的维护è€
…可能就是版权持有者、或者她能够告诉你谁是版权持有者
，所以请报告给软件维护者。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions">为什么GPLå…
è®¸ç”¨æˆ·å…¬å¼€ä»–们的修改版？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions"
+>#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+自由软件的一个关键特点是用户有自由合作。å…
è®¸æ„¿æ„äº’相帮助的用户分享问题修复和软件改进是绝对必
要的。</p>
+
+<p>有些人建议不同于GPL的方法，就是要求改进版由原始作者
通过。只要原始作者
跟得上维护的需求，这个建议可能在实践上很不错，但是如果原作è€
…（或多或少）停下来去干别的事或者
没能顾及所有用户的需求，这个建议就没办法了。除了实际
操作的问题，该建议也没有允许用户互相帮助。</p>
+
+<p>有时，为了防止各种用户修改版的混淆，人们还建议对修改版进行控制。就我们的经验来说，混淆不是大问题。Emacs在GNU工程之外有很多版本，但是用户还是可以区分。GPL要求版本制作è€
…署名，这样就可以区分版本并保护版本维护者
的声誉。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">GPL是否要求修改版的源代码å…
¬å¼€ï¼Ÿ<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic"
+>#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+GPL不要求你发布你的修改版或者任何一部分修改版。你
有自由修改并自用，而不必
发布。这个规则也适用于机构（包括å…
¬å¸ï¼‰ï¼›æœºæž„可以做出修改版并在内部使用而不向å…
¶ä»–外部组织发布。</p>
+
+<p>但是<em>如果</em>你以某种方式把修改版向å…
¬ä¼—发布，GPL就要求你向用户提供修改版的源代码。</p>
+
+<p>因此，GPL允许程序按某些方式发布，而不允许用å…
¶ä»–的方式发布；但是，是不是发布由你来决定。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">我是否可以在同一个电脑上使用一个GPL程序和另一个æ—
 å…³çš„非自由程序？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine" 
>#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>可以。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="CanIDemandACopy">如果我知道有人有一份GPL软件的拷贝，我是否可以要求他们给我一份？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#CanIDemandACopy" >#CanIDemandACopy</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不。GPLå…
è®¸ä¸€ä¸ªäººåˆ¶ä½œå’Œå‘行软件的拷贝，<em>只是当这个人选择这æ 
·åšçš„时候</em>。这个人也有权利选择不发行该软件。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid">GPLv2中的&ldquo;对任何第三方都有效的书面承诺&rdquo;怎么理解？它是否意味着任何人都可以得到任何GPL程序的源代ç
 ï¼Ÿ<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid"
+>#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+如果你书面承诺提供源代码，那么提出源代ç 
éœ€æ±‚的人应该有资格得到源代码。</p>
+
+<p>如果你商业发布二进制却不带源代码，那么GPL说你必
须提供书面的在晚些时候发布源代ç 
çš„承诺。当用户非商业性的再发布你的二进制时，他们必
须附带这个书面承诺的拷贝。这意味着没有从你
处获得二进制的用户仍然可以从你处获得源代ç 
çš„拷贝，只要提供了此书面承诺。</p>
+
+<p>我们要求此书面承诺对第三方有效的理由在于，间接获得二进制的用户也能够从ä½
 å¤„获得源代码。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">GPL说如果发布修改版，它就必
须对所有第三方进行&ldquo;许可证授权&hellip;。谁是第三方？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions"
+>#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+第2节说你发布的修改版必
须对所有第三方使用GPL授权。&ldquo;所有第三方&rdquo;是指任何人&mdash;但是这并不要求ä½
 äº²è‡ªä¸ºä»–们<em>做</em>事。这只是说他们对你
的版本拥有来自你的许可证，是GPL。 </p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="RequiredToClaimCopyright">我是否要对我的修改版声明版权？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#RequiredToClaimCopyright" >#RequiredToClaimCopyright</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+我们并不要求你对你
的修改声明版权。不过，在大多数国家，版权是默认就有的，所以如果ä½
 ä¸æƒ³ä½ çš„修改被版权限制，那么你需要明确地把它置于å…
¬å¼€é¢†åŸŸã€‚</p>
+
+<p>无论你是否对你的修改声明版权，你都必须作为整体按ç…
§GPL发布你的修改（<a
+href="#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">如果你要发布你
的修改版的话</a>）。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="TranslateCode">GPL对把程序改写成另外的编程语言怎么说？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#TranslateCode" >#TranslateCode</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p> 按照版权法，作品的翻译也是一种修改。因
此，GPL对修改版的规定也适用于翻译版。翻译版处在原版的版权范围之å†
…。</p>
+
+<p>如果原来的程序是自由许可证，那么这个许可证许可了程序的翻译。ä½
 
如何使用翻译版和如何为翻译版选择许可证由原来的许可证决定。如果原来的程序使用了某个GNU
+GPL版本，那么翻译版也必须包含在这个GNU 
GPL许可证版本之下。
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="CombinePublicDomainWithGPL">如果一个程序合并了å…
±æœ‰é¢†åŸŸçš„代码和GPL的代码，我是否可以抽出其中的å…
±æœ‰é¢†åŸŸä»£ç å¹¶æŒ‰ç…§å…±æœ‰é¢†åŸŸçš„方式使用？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL"
+>#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+如果你能够区别哪些是共有领域部分和哪些不是，那么你
可以这样做。如果该代码是被其开发者放到å…
±æœ‰é¢†åŸŸçš„，那么无论它在哪里，它都是共有领域的。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowMoney">GPL是否å…
è®¸é”€å”®è½¯ä»¶çš„拷贝来赚钱？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney" >#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+是的，GPL允许任何人这样做。<a
+href="/philosophy/selling.html">销售拷贝的权利</a>是包
含在自由软件的定义中。除了一个特殊的情况，你
的收费没有限制。（这个例外就是对于仅
有二进制发布的软件，你必须提供书面的源代ç 
å¯èŽ·å–承诺。）</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee">GPL是否å…
è®¸æˆ‘对从我的发行网站下载软件进行收费？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee" 
>#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+是。你可以对你发行的拷贝按你所需报价。如果你
提供的是二进制发布，那么你还必
须提供&ldquo;对等的&rdquo;源代码下载&mdash;因此，下载源代ç 
çš„费用不能高过下载二进制的费用。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee">GPL是否å…
è®¸æˆ‘要求任何收到软件的人必须向我付费和/或通知我？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee" >#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不。事实上，这种要求会让程序变成非自由的。如果人们不得不付费才能得到一份程序拷贝，或è€
…他们必须通知某个å…
·ä½“的人，那么这个程序是非自由的。参看<a
+href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">自由软件的定义</a>。</p>
+
+<p>GPL是一份自由软件许可证，因此它å…
è®¸äººä»¬ä½¿ç”¨ä¹ƒè‡³å†å‘布软件而不要求必须付费才能这æ 
·åšã€‚</p>
+
+<p>你<em>可以</em>向人们收费<a
+href="#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney">来给出<em>你
的</em>软件拷贝</a>。但是当人们从<em>å…
¶ä»–人</em>那里获得拷贝时，你不能要求人们向你
付费。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic">如果我收费发行GPL软件，那么我是否被要求同时也要å
…è´¹å…¬å¸ƒè¯¥è½¯ä»¶ï¼Ÿ<span class="anchor-reference-id"> (<a
+href="#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic"
+>#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不。但是如果有人付费获得拷贝，GPL给予她向å…
¬ä¼—发布的自由，收不收费都可以。例如，有人付费给你
，然后将拷贝发布到一个公开的网站上。
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowNDA">GPL是否å…
è®¸ä½¿ç”¨ä¿å¯†åè®®å‘行软件？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA" >#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不。GPL说的是，如果有人从你
处获得软件拷贝，她就有权发布该拷贝，无论是否修改。你
不能使用有更多限制的条款来发布该作品。</p>
+
+<p>如果你在获取FSF有版权的GPL软件时，有人要求你
签署NDA，那么请立刻写信到<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>通知我们。</p>
+
+<p>如果违反事件涉及到其他的GPL代ç 
æŒæœ‰äººï¼Œè¯·é€šçŸ¥è¯¥ç‰ˆæƒæŒæœ‰è€…，就和你对付å…
¶ä»–形式的GPL违反案例一样。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA">GPL是否å…
è®¸ä½¿ç”¨ä¿å¯†åè®®å‘行修改版或beta版软件？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA" >#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不。GPL说的是，修改版必须使用GPL所述的全部自由。因
此，从你处获得修改版的人有权重新发布该软件（无
论是否修改）。你
不能使用带有更多限制的条款发布该软件的任何版本。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DevelopChangesUnderNDA">GPL是否å…
è®¸ä½¿ç”¨ä¿å¯†åè®®å¼€å‘修改版软件？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#DevelopChangesUnderNDA" >#DevelopChangesUnderNDA</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+是的。例如，你
可以签署一个开发修改版的合同，并同意只有在客户同意时才能发布<em>ä½
 çš„修改</em>。我们允许这样做是因为此时GPL的代码并没有按ç…
§NDA发布。</p>
+
+<p>你也可以将你的修改按照GPL发布给你
的客户，但是只有在客户同意时才能把它们发布给å…
¶ä»–人。此时，GPL代码也没有按照NDA发布，或者说也没有按ç…
§ä»»ä½•é™„加条款发布。</p>
+
+<p>GPL会赋予该客户再发布此版本的权利。此时，该客户可能会选择不执行该权利，但是她<em>拥有</em>该权利。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="IWantCredit">我想从我的工作中获得荣誉。我想让人们知道我写的代ç
 ã€‚如果使用GPL，我还能这样做吗？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#IWantCredit"
+>#IWantCredit</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+你当然可以从你的工作中获得荣誉。按ç…
§GPL发布程序的一个要求就是在版权声明处写上你
的名字（假设你是版权拥有者
）。GPL要求所有的拷贝都带有适当的版权声明。</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="RequireCitation">GPL是否允许添加
一些条款从而要求使用这些GPL软件或å…
¶è¾“出的论文说明引用或致谢？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#RequireCitation">#RequireCitation</a>)</span>
+</dt>
+<dd><p> 不，GPL不允许这æ 
·åšã€‚虽然我们承认合理的引用是学术发表的一个重要部分，但是引用不能作为GPL的附åŠ
 è¦æ±‚。根据GPLv3的第7(b)节，要求使用GPL软件的ç 
”究论文说明引用了GPL软件不在GPL的范围之内，因
此这被认为是对GPL的额外限制。并且版权法也不允许添加
这种<a
+href="#GPLOutput">对软件输出的要求</a>，无
论该软件是GPL授权，还是其他许可证授权。</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="WhyMustIInclude">为什么GPL要求在每个软件拷贝里都要包
含一份GPL拷贝？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#WhyMustIInclude" >#WhyMustIInclude</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+在每个拷贝里都包含许可证是关键性的，这æ 
·æ¯ä¸ªèŽ·å¾—拷贝的人都知道他们的权利是什么。</p>
+
+<p>包
含一个指向许可证的URL而非许可证本身也许看起来很不错。但是ä½
 æ— 
法保证该URL五年或十年之后的有效性。20年后，今天我们所用的URL可能不再存在了。</p>
+
+<p>无
论网络发生什么变化，唯一能够确保拥有拷贝的人们还能看到许可证的方法就是在程序中åŒ
…含许可证的拷贝。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="LicenseCopyOnly">把GNU GPL的拷贝放在我的代ç 
åº“里是不是就算应用了GPL？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#LicenseCopyOnly" >#LicenseCopyOnly</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>只是在软件库里放一份带有GNU 
GPL许可证拷贝的文件并不算明确声明在该软件库里的所有代ç 
éƒ½å¯ä»¥æŒ‰ç…§GNU
+GPL来使用。而缺少明确的声明，意味着并不能完全清
楚地界定GPL许可证是否真的适用于各个具体的源代ç 
æ–‡ä»¶ã€‚一份明确的声明会使这一切清清楚楚。</p>
+
+<p>一个只包含许可证的文件，其中没有明确说明具体å…
¶ä»–文件遵循该许可证，就像是一个带有一个子程序的文件，而该子程序从来不被å
…¶ä»–程序调用。这个比喻也不完美：律师和法庭可能会æ 
¹æ®å¸¸è¯†åˆ¤å®šå› ä¸ºä½ æƒ³è®©ä»£ç ä½¿ç”¨è¯¥è®¸å¯è¯æ‰æŠŠGNU
+GPL的拷贝放在代码库里。他们也有可能不这æ 
·åˆ¤æ–­ã€‚但是，你为什么留下这样的问题呢？</p>
+
+<p>你应该在每个源文件里包含这æ 
·çš„声明。在程序的README文件里明确说明也是充
分有效的，<em>只要该声明和源代ç 
æ˜¯åœ¨ä¸€èµ·å‘布的</em>，但是它们很容易被分别处置。为什么要冒<a
+href="#NoticeInSourceFile">让你的代ç 
çš„许可证不能确定的风险呢</a>？</p>
+
+<p>这个问题并不是专门针对GNU 
GPL许可证的。任何自由许可证都有这个问题。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="NoticeInSourceFile">为什么GPL要求在每个软件拷贝里都要包
含一份GPL拷贝？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#NoticeInSourceFile" >#NoticeInSourceFile</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>你的每个源代ç 
æ–‡ä»¶éƒ½åº”该以一个声明开始，明确陈述该文件的许可证以避å
…ä½ çš„代码和许可证分离。如果只是你的代ç 
åº“çš„README文件说明了源代码遵循GNU
+GPL许可证，那么有人只把源代码文件复制到其他程序时你
该怎么办？其他内容可能并不能说明该源代ç 
æ–‡ä»¶çš„许可证究竟是什么。它可能会有了å…
¶ä»–的许可证，也许<a
+href="/licenses/license-list.html#NoLicense">什么许可证也没有</a>（此时它可能会变成非自由代ç
 ï¼‰ã€‚</p>
+
+<p>在每个代码文件的起始部分添加
版权声明和许可证声明会让事情变得容易和清
楚，以上的不确定性就很难立足。</p>
+
+<p>这个问题并不是专门针对GNU 
GPL许可证的。任何自由许可证都有这个问题。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhatIfWorkIsShort">如果软件作品不是很长会怎么样？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort" >#WhatIfWorkIsShort</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>如果整个软件包仅包含很少的代码&mdash;我们使用的æ 
‡å‡†æ˜¯å°‘于300行代码&mdash;那么你
可以使用一个宽泛授权的许可证，而无需使用GNU
+GPL这样的Copyleft许可证。（除非，该代ç 
éžå¸¸é‡è¦ã€‚）此时，我们<a
+href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html#software">建议使用Apache许可证2.0</a>。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="GPLOmitPreamble">为了节省空间，我是否可以不要GPL的前言或è€
…如何在程序中使用GPL的部分？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#GPLOmitPreamble" >#GPLOmitPreamble</a>)</span></dt>     
+<dd><p>
+前言和指导是构成完整GNU 
GPL许可证的组成部分，它们不应该被省略。事实上，GPL受版权保护，它只å
…è®¸å…¨æ–‡é€å­—复制。（你可以使用其法律术语制作<a
+href="#ModifyGPL">另一个许可证</a>，但是那就不是GNU 
GPL了。）</p>
+
+<p>前言和指导加起来不过1000多字，不到GPLå…
¨æ–‡çš„1/5。除非软件包本身特别小，这点篇幅不会造
成软件大小的显著变化。如果软件包本身很小，那么你
可以使用一个简单全权许可证而不用GNU
+GPL。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhatIsCompatible">怎么理解两个许可证是&ldquo;å…
¼å®¹çš„&rdquo;？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#WhatIsCompatible" >#WhatIsCompatible</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+为了把两个程序（或者å…
¶ä¸»è¦éƒ¨åˆ†ï¼‰åˆæˆä¸€ä¸ªè¾ƒå¤§çš„程序，你
需要某种许可才能做得到。如果这两个程序的许可证å…
è®¸è¿™ä¹ˆåšï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆå®ƒä»¬å°±æ˜¯å…¼å®¹çš„。如果无
论如何都不能同时满足两个许可证，那么它们就是不å…
¼å®¹çš„。</p>
+
+<p>对有些许可证来说，程序合成的方式也会影响许可证是否å
…¼å®¹&mdash;例如，它们可能å…
è®¸æŠŠä¸¤ä¸ªæ¨¡å—连接在一起，但是不允许把两个代ç 
åˆæˆä¸€ä¸ªæ¨¡å—。</p>
+
+<p>如果你只是想把两个程序安装
到同一个系统中，那么它们的许可证没有必要是兼容的，因
为安装并不是把它们合成一个大的程序。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhatDoesCompatMean">许可证和&ldquo;GPLå…
¼å®¹&rdquo;是什么意思？&rdquo; <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#WhatDoesCompatMean" >#WhatDoesCompatMean</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+这就是说该许可证和GNU GPL兼容；你可以把按ç…
§è¯¥è®¸å¯è¯å‘布的代码和按照GNU GPL发布的代ç 
åˆæˆä¸€ä¸ªå¤§çš„程序。</p>
+
+<p>GNU GPL的所有版本本身都允许这么做；这些版本还å…
è®¸è¿™äº›ç»„合的发布，前提是该组合是按照同版本的GNU
+GPL发布的。如果一个许可证也å…
è®¸è¿™ä¹ˆåšï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆå®ƒå°±æ˜¯å’ŒGPL兼容的。</p>
+
+<p>GPLv3比GPLv2兼容更多的许可证：GPLv3允许你组合某些代ç 
ï¼Œè¿™äº›ä»£ç å¯ä»¥å¸¦æœ‰GPLv3本身没有的额外条款。第7节中有å…
³äºŽæ­¤æƒ…况的更多信息，包括被允许的额外条款的清
单。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="FSWithNFLibs">我是否可以用非自由的库编写自由软件？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#FSWithNFLibs"
+>#FSWithNFLibs</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+如果你这样做，那么你的程序将不能在自由的环境下å…
¨åŠŸèƒ½è¿è¡Œã€‚如果你的程序依靠
非自由库来完成某些工作，那么它就不能在自由的环境下做这些工作。如果它依é
 éžè‡ªç”±åº“才能工作，那么它就不能作为像GNU这æ 
·çš„自由操作系统的一部分；它超出了自由世界的极限。</p>
+
+<p>所以，请你再考虑一下：你
是否可以不使用非自由库来完成同样的工作？你
是否可以写一个自由的库来代替那个非自由库？</p>
+
+<p>如果你
的软件已经使用了非自由库，那么改变这个可能有点晚了。ä½
 è¿˜æ˜¯å¯ä»¥æŒ‰ç…
§ç¨‹åºçš„现状来发布它，这比不发布要好一些。但是，请在README中说明该程序的一个不足是使用了非自由库，并把避å
…ä½¿ç”¨éžè‡ªç”±åº“而完成同样的事情
作为一个任务推荐给大家。请建议那些想继续为该程序工作的伙伴首å
…ˆè¦åšçš„就是摆脱那个非自由的库。</p>
+
+<p>请注意，把某些非自由库和GPL自由软件合并起来可能还有法律问题。请参看<a
+href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">关于GPL软件和GPL不å…
¼å®¹åº“的问题</a>来了解更多信息。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="SystemLibraryException">我是否可以用专有系统库连接一个GPL程序？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#SystemLibraryException">#SystemLibraryException</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+两版GPL都有å…
³äºŽcopyleft的例外，通常成为系统库例外。如果你用的GPL不å…
¼å®¹åº“满足了系统库的条件，那么你
就不用对这些库做任何处理而直接使用；整个程序的源代ç 
å‘布要求也不包含这些系统库，即使你
发布的是连接了这些库之后的可执行文件也是一样。</p>
+
+<p>关于&quot;系统库&quot;的æ 
‡å‡†ï¼Œå„版GPL有所不同。GPLv3在第1节明确定义了&quot;系统库&quot;，以将之和&quot;相å
…³æºä»£ç 
&quot;区别开来。GPLv2的处理略微不同，放在在第3节。</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="GPLIncompatibleLibs">GPL软件使用非GPLå…
¼å®¹åº“会有什么法律问题？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs" >#GPLIncompatibleLibs</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>如果你的程序要用到不属于系统库例外的库，那么你
需要获得授权。下面是你
可以使用的两个许可证声明的例子；一个是GPLv3用的，另一个是GPLv2用的。在两个例子中，ä½
 éƒ½åº”当在每一个需要授权的文件里添加这个声明。</p>
+
+<p>只有程序的版权持有者
能够合法地依据此条款发布他们的软件。如果你
是自己编写了整个程序，那么假定你的雇主或学æ 
¡æ²¡æœ‰å¯¹æ­¤å£°ç§°ç‰ˆæƒï¼Œä½ æ˜¯ç‰ˆæƒæŒæœ‰è€…&mdash;那么你
有权批准这个例外。但是如果你的程序要使用其他作者
的GPL程序部分，那么你没有权利批准和其他作者有å…
³çš„例外。你必须获得其他程序的版权持有者的授权。</p>
+
+<p>当其他人修改此程序时，他们不必对自己的代码做同æ 
·çš„例外声明&mdash;他们有权选择。</p>
+
+<p>如果你要连接的库是非自由库，请同时参看<a 
href="#FSWithNFLibs">使用非自由库撰写自由软件的部分</a>。</p>
+
+<p>如果你使用的是GPLv3，那么你可以按ç…
§ç¬¬7节的描述做出额外授权来达到这个目的。以下的许可证声明就是一个例子。ä½
 å¿…须把括号里的内容换成适合你的程序的内
容。如果不是所有的人都能发布你想要连接的库的源代ç 
ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆä½ åº”当删去括号内的文字；否则，你
只需去掉括号就行。</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>Copyright (C) <var>[年份]</var> <var>[版权持有者的名字]</var></p>
+
+<p>本软件是自由软件；你可以按ç…
§ç”±è‡ªç”±è½¯ä»¶åŸºé‡‘会发布的GNU通用公å…
±è®¸å¯è¯æ¥å†å‘布该软件或者修改该软件；你
可以使用该许可证的第3版，或者
（作为可选项）使用该许可证的任何更新版本。</p>
+
+<p>本程序的发布是希望它能发挥作用，但是并无担
保；甚至也不担保å…
¶å¯é”€å”®æ€§æˆ–适用于某个特殊的目的。请参看GNU通用公å…
±è®¸å¯è¯æ¥äº†è§£è¯¦æƒ…。</p>
+
+<p>该程序应该同时附有一份GNU通用公å…
±è®¸å¯è¯çš„拷贝；如果没有，请参看&lt;https://www.gnu.org/licenses&gt;。</p>
+
+<p>GNU GPL版本3第7节的额外授权</p>
+
+<p>如果你通过连接或合并<var>[库名称]</var>（或者
是该库的修改版）修改该程序或者å…
¶ä»»ä½•éƒ¨åˆ†ï¼Œè€Œå—到该库许可证<var>[库的许可证名称]</var>条款的制约，本程序的许可证授权ä½
 è¾“送修改结果的额外权利。{修改结果的非源代码形式的相å…
³æºä»£ç åº”当包含所用<var>[库名称]</var>的源代ç 
éƒ¨åˆ†å’Œæœ¬è½¯ä»¶çš„源代码部分。}</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>如果你使用的是GPLv2，那么你可以提供你
自己的许可证例外。以下的许可证声明就是一个例子。同æ 
·åœ°ï¼Œä½ å¿…须把括号里的内容换成适合你的程序的内
容。如果不是所有的人都能发布你想要连接的库的源代ç 
ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆä½ åº”当删去括号内的文字；否则，你
只需去掉括号就行。</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>Copyright (C) <var>[年份]</var> <var>[版权持有者的名字]</var></p>
+
+<p>本软件是自由软件；你可以按ç…
§ç”±è‡ªç”±è½¯ä»¶åŸºé‡‘会发布的GNU通用公å…
±è®¸å¯è¯æ¥å†å‘布该软件或者修改该软件；你
可以使用该许可证的第2版，或者
（作为可选项）使用该许可证的任何更新版本。</p>
+
+<p>本程序的发布是希望它能发挥作用，但是并无担
保；甚至也不担保å…
¶å¯é”€å”®æ€§æˆ–适用于某个特殊的目的。请参看GNU通用公å…
±è®¸å¯è¯æ¥äº†è§£è¯¦æƒ…。</p>
+
+<p>该程序应该同时附有一份GNU通用公å…
±è®¸å¯è¯çš„拷贝；如果没有，请参看&lt;https://www.gnu.org/licenses&gt;。</p>
+ 
+<p>静态或动态把<var>[你的程序名称]</var>和å…
¶ä»–模块连接在一起就是在<var>[ä½ 
的程序名称]</var>的基础上做工作。因此，GNU通用公å…
±è®¸å¯è¯çš„条款会覆盖到整个合并的工作。</p>
+
+<p>另外，作为一个特例，<var>[你
程序的名称]</var>的版权持有者赋予你把<var>[你
程序的名称]</var>和自由软件或按照GNU
+LGPL发布的库合并的权利，其中<var>[库的名称]</var>æ 
‡å‡†å‘布代码使用<var>[库的许可证]</var>（或者该代ç 
çš„修改版，许可证不变）。你可以复制和发布该系统，å…
¶è®¸å¯è¯æ¡æ¬¾æ˜¯<var>[你程序的名称]</var>使用的GNU
+GPL许可证和其他代码{, 假定你按照GNU GPL的发布要求包含了å…
¶ä»–程序的源代码}使用的相关许可证。</p>
+
+<p>请注意，修改<var>[你
程序的名称]</var>的人没有义务为他们的修改版赋予该特例；这是他们的选择。GNU通用å
…¬å…±è®¸å¯è¯å…è®¸æ— 
特例发布修改版；该特例也使发布的修改版继续带有此特例成为可能。</p>
+</blockquote></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="HowIGetCopyright">我如何才拥有我的程序的版权从而可以把它按GPL发布？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#HowIGetCopyright" >#HowIGetCopyright</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+按照伯尔尼公约，任何写出来的东西在å…
¶å½¢å¼å›ºå®šæ—¶å°±è‡ªåŠ¨èŽ·å¾—版权。所以，你对自己写的东西不必
做任何事就&ldquo;获得&rdquo;其版权&mdash;只要没有å…
¶ä»–人声称拥有你的作品。</p>
+
+<p>不过，注册版权在美国是一个好主意。这对你
处理在美国的侵权更有利。</p>
+
+<p>其他人可能声称对你的作品拥有版权的情况是你
是一个雇员或学生；此时，雇主或学校可能会主张你
是为他们工作的，所以他们拥有版权。他们的主张
是否有效取决于当地的法律、雇佣合同和工作性质等。如果有疑问，最好是咨询律师。</p>
+
+<p>如果你觉得雇主或学校可能会有所主张，那么你
可以通过让公司或学校的授权人签署版权å…
é™¤å£°æ˜Žæ¥è§£å†³æ­¤é—®é¢˜ã€‚（你
的上司或教授通常没有权利签署这样的免除声明。）</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhatIfSchool">如果我的学æ 
¡æƒ³æŠŠæˆ‘的程序变成它的专有软件，那么我应该怎么办？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#WhatIfSchool" >#WhatIfSchool</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+当下，许多大学会通过限制使用它们开发的知识和信息来获取资金，这种行为和商业å
…
¬å¸æ²¡ä»€ä¹ˆåˆ†åˆ«ã€‚（请同时参看&ldquo;被收买的大学&rdquo;，Atlantic月刊，2000å¹´3月号，来了解å
…³äºŽæ­¤é—®é¢˜åŠå…¶å½±å“çš„一般性讨论。）</p>
+
+<p>如果你看出你的学校可能会拒绝你把你
的程序发布为自由软件，那么你
越早提出这个问题越好。程序越接近正常工作的水平，学æ 
¡ç®¡ç†æ–¹è¶Šå€¾å‘于剥夺你
的程序并自己完成该程序。越在早期，你越有发言权。</p>
+
+<p>所以，我们建议你在程序早期时就和æ 
¡æ–¹è®¨è®ºè¿™ä¸ªé—®é¢˜ï¼Œæ¯”如，&ldquo;如果你
让我将程序按自由软件发布，那么我就完成它。&rdquo;不要认为这是一种虚å¼
 å£°åŠ¿ã€‚要想站到上风，你必
须有勇气说出，&ldquo;我的程序要么拥有自由，要么就不存在。&rdquo;</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="CouldYouHelpApplyGPL">能否提供一个手把手的GPL应用指导？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#CouldYouHelpApplyGPL" >#CouldYouHelpApplyGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+参看<a href="/licenses/gpl-howto.html">GPL指南</a>页面。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="HeardOtherLicense">我听说有人获得了一份按照å…
¶ä»–许可证发布的GPL程序。这可能吗？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#HeardOtherLicense" >#HeardOtherLicense</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+GNU GPL没有赋予用户为程序附加å…
¶ä»–许可证的权利。但是，程序的版权持有者可以同时按ç…
§å¤šä¸ªè®¸å¯è¯å‘布自己的程序。其中一个可以是GNU GPL。</p>
+
+<p>假设程序的版权持有者添加了许可证并且你
从合法途径获得该程序的拷贝，那么你
得到的程序拷贝带有的许可证就是你
的拷贝适用的许可证。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF">我愿意把我写的程序按照GNU 
GPL发布，但是我也想在非自由软件里使用同样的代码。<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF"
+>#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+虽然把程序发布为非自由软件总是一个道德污点，但是法律并没有阻碍ä½
 è¿™ä¹ˆåšã€‚如果你是自己代码的版权持有者，那么你
可以在不同时间按照不同的非互斥许可证发布。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DeveloperViolate">GPL程序的开发者
和GPL绑定了吗？该开发者的活动会是违反GPL的吗？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#DeveloperViolate" >#DeveloperViolate</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+严格来说，GPL是由开发者对å…
¶ä»–人发布的的许可证，用于这些人使用、发布和改变该程序。开发è€
…本人并不受到许可证的限制，所以无论开发者
做什么，这都不是&ldquo;违反&rdquo;GPL。</p>
+
+<p>不过，如果开发者
做了某些若是用户做的话就会违反GPL的事，那么该开发者
就必然会在社区就会失去道德上的立足之地。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="CanDeveloperThirdParty">开发并按照GPL发布了程序的开发者
以后是否可以把该程序按照排他协议授权给第三方？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CanDeveloperThirdParty"
+>#CanDeveloperThirdParty</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不行，因为公众已经有了按ç…
§GPL使用该程序的权利，并且该权利不可撤回。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="CanIUseGPLToolsForNF">我可否使用GPL下的编辑器，比如GNU 
Emacs，开发非自由软件？我可否使用GPL下的工å…
·ï¼Œæ¯”如GCC，编译非自由软件？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF"
+>#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+是的，因为编辑器和工具的版权并不包括你编写的代ç 
ã€‚从法律上说，使用这些工具并不对你代ç 
çš„许可证带来任何限制。</p>
+
+<p>有些程序由于技术的原因
会在输出时复制它自身的一部分&mdash;比如，Bison会输出一个æ 
‡å‡†çš„解析程序拷贝。在这种情
况下，输出的文本拷贝拥有和其源代码一æ 
·çš„许可证。同时，从程序的输å…
¥å¯¼è‡´çš„输出部分继承程序输入的版权。</p>
+
+<p>实际
使用时，Bison也可以用来开发非自由软件。这是由于我们明确决定å
…è®¸ä¸å—限制地使用Bison输出的标准解析程序。因为有å…
¶ä»–一些和Bison类似的工具已经å…
è®¸ç”¨æ¥å¼€å‘非自由软件，所以我们也决定这样做。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLFairUse">我是否有&ldquo;合理使用&rdquo;GPL软件的源代ç 
çš„权利？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#GPLFairUse" >#GPLFairUse</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+是的，你有。&ldquo;合理使用&rdquo;就是无
需任何特别许可的使用。因为你不需要开发者
的许可来合理使用，所以你可以无视开发者
对合理使用的说辞&mdash;无论是在许可证里还是在å…
¶ä»–地方，无论是GNU
+GPL还是其他自由软件许可证。</p>
+
+<p>不过，请注意，合理使用并没有一个放之四海而皆准的原则；什么是&ldquo;合理&rdquo;，在每个国家都有所不同。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLUSGov">美国政府是否可以使用GNU GPL发布软件？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLUSGov"
+>#GPLUSGov</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+
+如果程序是美国联邦雇员在雇佣期间写的，那么它是å…
±æœ‰é¢†åŸŸè½¯ä»¶ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è¯´å®ƒæ²¡æœ‰ç‰ˆæƒã€‚由于GNU 
GPL是基于版权的许可证，所以该程序不能使用GNU
+GPL发布。（不过，它仍可以是<a 
href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">自由软件</a>；å…
±æœ‰é¢†åŸŸçš„软件是自由的。）</p>
+
+<p>但是，当美国政府机构使用合同商来开发软件时，情
况就不同了。合同里可以要求合同商按照GNU 
GPL发布软件。（GNU
+Ada就是这样开发的。）或者
合同把版权赋予政府机构，那么政府机构就可以按照GNU 
GPL来发布该软件。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="GPLUSGovAdd">美国政府是否可以发布GPL程序的改进版？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#GPLUSGovAdd" >#GPLUSGovAdd</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+是的。如果这些改进是政府雇员在å…
¶é›‡ä½£æœŸé—´åšå‡ºçš„，那么这些改进是å…
±æœ‰é¢†åŸŸçš„。不过，改进的软件，作为整体仍然是GNU 
GPL软件。这个没有问题。</p>
+
+<p>如果美国政府使用合同商做出的改进，那么这些改进本身也可以使用GPL许可证。</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="GPLStaticVsDynamic">GPL对相å…
³è½¯ä»¶çš„静态连接和动态连接模块有不同的要求吗？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#GPLStaticVsDynamic" >#GPLStaticVsDynamic</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>不。把GPL作品和å…
¶ä»–模块静态或动态连接在一起就是在基于GPL作品合成一个作品。å›
 æ­¤ï¼ŒGNU通用公å…
±è®¸å¯è¯çš„条款和条件涵盖整个合成的作品。请同时参看<a
+href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">GPL软件使用非GPLå…
¼å®¹åº“会有什么法律问题？</a></p></dd>
+
+<dt id="LGPLStaticVsDynamic">LGPL对相å…
³è½¯ä»¶çš„静态连接和动态连接模块有不同的要求吗？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#LGPLStaticVsDynamic" >#LGPLStaticVsDynamic</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>关于遵守LGPL（任何现存版：v2、v2.1或v3）的目的： </p>
+
+<blockquote>
+  <p>(1)如果你是静态连接一个LGPL库，那么你也必须提供你
的应用的目标（不必是源代码）格式，这æ 
·ç”¨æˆ·å°±æœ‰æœºä¼šä¿®æ”¹è¯¥åº“并重新连接成应用。</p>
+
+<p>(2)
+如果你
是动态连接一个<em>已在用户电脑上</em>的LGPL库，那么你不必
输送该库的源代码。另一方面，如果你自己和你
的应用一起输送了该LGPL库的可执行形式，无
论是静态还是动态连接，那么你也必
须输送该库的源文件，按照LGPL要求的一种方式。</p>
+</blockquote></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="GPLOutput">我有没有办法让我的程序的输出也使用GPL许可证？例如，如果我的程序用来开发硬件设计，我可否要求这些设计å¿
…须是自由的？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLOutput" >#GPLOutput</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+一般来说，这在法律上是做不到的；版权法没有赋予你
任何权利来对别人用他们自己的数据和你
的程序做出来的输出做出限制。如果用户使用你的程序输å…
¥æˆ–转化自己的数据，输出的版权属于用户，而不是你
。从更广泛的意义上说，当一个程序把其输入转化成å…
¶ä»–的形式，那么输出继承的版权是输入的版权。</p>
+
+<p>因此，只有输出大量复制（或多或少）来自你
的程序的文本，你
才对输出有发言权。例如，Bison（参看上面的问答）的输出就属于GNU
+GPL的范畴，如果我们没有对此做出例外的话。</p>
+
+<p>你可以人工地制造复制文本的输出，即使这没什么技术必
要。但是如果复制的文本没有实际用处，用户可以简单删
除它们而只用剩下的部分。这样，她就没有必
要非得遵守和这些复制文本相关的发布条件了。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhatCaseIsOutputGPL">什么情
况下GPL软件的输出部分也要遵循GPL？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL" >#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+
+程序的输出一般来说不在程序的版权范围内
。所以，程序代码的许可证不会用于程序的输出，无
论输出是文件、截图、录屏或视频。</p>
+
+<p>例外的情况是，程序å…
¨å±æ˜¾ç¤ºæ¥è‡ªç¨‹åºè‡ªèº«çš„文本/艺术。此时，这些文本/艺术版权的版权涵盖程序的输出。输出的声音，比如视频游戏的输出，也适用于这个例外。</p>
+
+<p>如果这些艺术/音乐是GPL的，那么无论你
如何复制，GPL都适用。不过，<a 
href="#GPLFairUse">合理使用</a>可能仍然适用。</p>
+
+<p>请记住，有些程序，特别是视频游戏，å…
¶è‰ºæœ¯/音乐的许可证可能和游戏本身使用的GPL许可证不同。在这种æƒ
…
况下，艺术/音乐的许可证就会主导有音视频的游戏场景。请同时参看：<a
+href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware">GPL可以不用于软件吗？</a></p></dd>
+
+<dt id="GPLModuleLicense">如果我在一个GPL程序里添加
了一个模块，那么我的模块必须使用GPL许可证吗？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#GPLModuleLicense" >#GPLModuleLicense</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+GPL表述的是整个合成的程序必须按照GPL发布。所以，你
的模块必须使用GPL。</p>
+
+<p>但是，你还可以为你的代ç 
æä¾›é¢å¤–的许可。如果愿意，你可以按ç…
§æ›´ä¸ºå®½æ¾çš„许可证发布你的模块，只要它和GPL兼容就行。<a
+href="/licenses/license-list.html">许可证列表页面</a>列举了一部分GPLå
…¼å®¹çš„许可证。 </p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="IfLibraryIsGPL">如果一个库按ç…
§GPL（不是LGPL）发布，是否意味着所有使用该库的软件都要使用GPL或GPLå
…¼å®¹çš„许可证？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#IfLibraryIsGPL"
+>#IfLibraryIsGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+是的，因为该程序实际上连接了该库。因
此，GPL条款适用于整个组合。和该库连接的各个软件模块可能遵循各种GPLå
…¼å®¹çš„许可证，但是整个组合必须按ç…
§GPL许可证发布。请同时参看：<a
+href="#WhatDoesCompatMean">许可证和&ldquo;GPLå…
¼å®¹&rdquo;是什么意思？</a>
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="IfInterpreterIsGPL">如果一个编程语言解释程序是按ç…
§GPL授权的，那么用该解释器编写的程序都要按照GPLå…
¼å®¹çš„许可证授权吗？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#IfInterpreterIsGPL"
+>#IfInterpreterIsGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+如果解释器只是解释一种语言，那么回答是否。被解释的程序对解释器来说，只是数据；像GPL这æ
 ·çš„自由软件许可证，æ 
¹æ®ç‰ˆæƒæ³•ï¼Œä¸èƒ½é™åˆ¶è¯¥è§£é‡Šå™¨çš„数据。你
可以用它来运行任何数据（被解释的程序）、以任何方式、而且没å¿
…要把数据按照某种许可证授权给任何人。</p>
+
+<p>然而，当该解释器提供了对å…
¶ä»–设施（通常是，但也不一定，库）的&ldquo;绑定&rdquo;，被解释的程序实é™
…上就是使用这些绑定连接到了这些设施。因
此，如果这些设施是按照GPL发布的，那么被解释的程序也必
须按照和GPL兼容的方式发布。JNI或Java
+Native
+Interface就是这种机制的一个例子；当Java程序是和它调用的库动态地连接在一起的。这些库也和解释器连接在一起。如果解释器和这些库是静态连接，或è€
…是<a
+href="#GPLPluginsInNF">动态连接到这些å…
·ä½“的库</a>，那么它也应该按照和GPL兼容的方式发布。</p>
+
+<p>另一个类似和常见的例子是解释器带有的库本身也是被解释的。比如，Perl带有很多Perl模块，Java带有很多Java类。这些库和调用它们的程序总是动态连接在一起的。</p>
+
+<p>结果就是，如果你
选择使用遵循GPL的Perl模块或Java类，那么你的程序必须按ç…
§GPL兼容方式发布，无论程序运行的Perl或Java解释器是按ç…
§ä»€ä¹ˆè®¸å¯è¯å‘布的。
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WindowsRuntimeAndGPL">我使用Microsoft Visual 
C++编写一个Windows应用，我要把它以GPL发布。GPL是否å…
è®¸æˆ‘的程序动态连接Visual
+C++运行库？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a 
href="#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL"
+>#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>你可以把你
的程序连接到这些库，并将编译好的程序发布给å…
¶ä»–人。当你这样做时，按ç…
§GPLv3的定义，这些运行库就是&ldquo;系统库&rdquo;。这表示你
不必担心在你的程序中要包含这些库的源代ç 
ã€‚GPLv2在第3节也提供了类似的例外。</p>
+
+<p>你不能把这些库按照DLL的形式和你
的程序一起发布。为了防止有人利用系统库例外而不择手段地发布程序，GPL指出只有库不和程序一起发布才能作为系统库。如果ä½
 
的库是和程序一起发布的DLL，那么它们不再适用于该例外；此时，ä½
 åªæœ‰æä¾›è¿™äº›åº“的源代码才能遵守GPL，但这是你实际上无
法提供的。</p>
+
+<p>ä½ 
可以写一个只在Windows下运行的自由软件，但这并不是一个好主意。这些程序可能会&ldquo;<a
+href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">落入</a>&rdquo;Windows的圈套，因
而对自由世界毫无贡献。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="OrigBSD">为什么原始的BSD许可证和GPL不兼容？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#OrigBSD"
+>#OrigBSD</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+因为它强加
了一个GPL没有的条款；就是，要求对程序做广告的条款。GPLv2第6节的陈述是：</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>你不能对被授权者获得的权利强加
任何额外的限制。</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>GPLv3在第10节也有类似的表述。广告条款正是这种额外的限制，å›
 æ­¤å®ƒå’ŒGPL不兼容。</p>
+
+<p>修正的BSD许可证没有这个广告条款，它就没有这个问题。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="GPLPlugins">什么时候一个程序和它的插件会被认为是一个单一的结合在一起的程序？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#GPLPlugins" >#GPLPlugins</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+    
这依赖于主程序如何调用插件。如果主程序使用fork和exec调用插件，那么它们之间通过å
…±äº«æˆ–交换复杂数据结构而建立了密切的通信，这æ 
·å®ƒä»¬å°±æ˜¯ä¸€ä¸ªå•ä¸€çš„结合在一起的程序。如果主程序使用的是简单的fork和exec调用插件，并没有建立密切的通信，那么插件就是一个单独的程序。</p>
+       
+<p> 
如果主程序动态连接了插件，而且它们之间互相调用函数并å…
±äº«æ•°æ®ç»“构，那么我们认为它们构成了一个单一的组合程序，主程序和插件å¿
…须被当作一个扩展来对待
。如果主程序动态连接了插件，但是它们之间的通信限于调用插件的&lsquo;主&rsquo;函数及å
…¶å‚数并等待å…
¶è¿”回，那么这就是个可以算单一组合程序也可以算两个独立程序的临界æƒ
…况。</p>
+
+<p>使用共享内存来交换复杂数据结构的情
况和动态连接基本类似。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="GPLAndPlugins">我写了一个GPL程序的插件，我要发布我的插件的话，我要使用的许可证有什么强制要求？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLAndPlugins"
+>#GPLAndPlugins</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+请参考这个问题<a 
href="#GPLPlugins">来确定什么时候插件和主程序是一个单一的组合程序以及什么时候他们是独立的两个程序</a>。</p>
+
+<p> 
如果主程序和插件是一个单一的组合程序，那么就意味着插件å¿
…须按照GPL或GPL兼容的自由软件许可证发布，包括其源代ç 
ã€‚如果主程序和插件是独立的两个程序，那么主程序的许可证对插件没有要求。
 </p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="GPLPluginsInNF">我为非自由软件写的插件可以使用GPL许可证吗？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#GPLPluginsInNF" >#GPLPluginsInNF</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+ 请参考这个问题<a 
href="#GPLPlugins">来确定什么时候插件和主程序是一个单一的组合程序以及什么时候他们是独立的两个程序</a>。</p>
+<p> 
如果它们构成了一个单一的组合程序，那么组合GPL的插件和非自由主程序是违反GPL的。不过，ä½
 å¯ä»¥é€šè¿‡ç»™æ’件的许可证添加
一个例外来解决这个法律问题，例外就是å…
è®¸æŠŠå®ƒå’Œéžè‡ªç”±çš„主程序连接在一起。</p>
+
+<p>请同时参考这个问题<a 
href="#FSWithNFLibs">我在使用一个非自由的库来编写自由软件。</a></p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="NFUseGPLPlugins">一个非自由软件是否可以加
载GPL插件？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#NFUseGPLPlugins" >#NFUseGPLPlugins</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>
+ 请参考这个问题<a 
href="#GPLPlugins">来确定什么时候插件和主程序是一个单一的组合程序以及什么时候他们是独立的两个程序</a>。</p>
+<p>
+如果它们构成一个一个单一的组合程序，那么主程序就必
须按照GPL或GPLå…
¼å®¹çš„自由软件许可证发布，这时发布的主程序如果要使用这些插件，那么GPL的条款å¿
…须被遵循。</p>
+    
+<p>不过，如果它们是独立的作品，那么插件的许可证对主程序没有要求。</p>
+
+<p>请同时参考这个问题<a 
href="#FSWithNFLibs">我在使用一个非自由的库来编写自由软件。</a></p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="LinkingWithGPL">ä½ 
有一个GPL程序，我想把该程序和我的代码连接起来并构造
一个专有软件。该连接是否意味着我必须要把我的程序按ç…
§GPL授权？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LinkingWithGPL"
+>#LinkingWithGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不准确。这意味着你必须按照和GPL兼容的许可证发布你
的程序（更准确地说，是和一个或多个被程序的其他部分代ç 
æ‰€æŽ¥å—çš„GPL版本的GPLå…
¼å®¹ï¼‰ã€‚然后，该组合程序就要遵守这些GPL的版本。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="SwitchToLGPL">如果是这样，那么我还有没有机会按ç…
§LGPL获得你的程序？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#SwitchToLGPL" >#SwitchToLGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+你可以这样问，但是大多数作者
都会坚定地回答不。GPL的思想就是如果你想在程序中包
含我们的代码，那么你的程序也必
须是自由软件。它就是要让你的程序成为社区的一部分。</p>
+
+<p>你当然总是可以合法地不用我们的代码。</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="NonfreeDriverKernelLinux">发布和要Linux内æ 
¸è¿žæŽ¥èµ·æ¥çš„非自由驱动是否违反GPL？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#NonfreeDriverKernelLinux">#NonfreeDriverKernelLinux</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Linux（GNU/Linux操作系统的内核）是按照GNU 
GPLv2发布的。发布一个要和Linux连接的非自由驱动是不是违反GPL？</p>
+<p>是的，这是一个违反GPL的场景，因为这实际
上是在制作一个较大的组合作品。期待
用户把不同的东西组合在一起并不改变这个场景。</p>
+<p>每个拥有一定量代码的Linux贡献者
都可以要求对此执行GPL，而我们也鼓励他们对发布非自由Linux驱动的行为采取行动。</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="LinkingOverControlledInterface">我如何才能å…
è®¸åªåœ¨å¯æŽ§çš„接口下连接专有模块和GPL库？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#LinkingOverControlledInterface"
+>#LinkingOverControlledInterface</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+请把以下文字添加到你
发布的每个文件的许可证声明里，文字的最后说此文件以GNU 
GPL发布：</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>把å…
¶ä»–模块静态或动态地和ABC连接都构成基于ABC的组合作品。因
此，整个组合都遵循GNU通用公共许可证的条款。</p>
+
+<p>作为一个特例，ABC的版权持有者允许你
将ABC和自由软件或以GNU
+LGPL发布的库组合，而且这些库只通过ABCDEF接口和ABC通信。你
可以对ABC按照GNU
+GPL发布、对其他相关代码按照其相关许可证发布，前提是你
按照GNU GPL的发布要求提供了相关的源代码并且你
没有更改ABCDEF接口。</p>
+
+<p>请注意，修改了ABC的人并没有被要求获得对修改版的例外；他们有权选择是否这æ
 ·åšã€‚GNU通用公共许可证å…
è®¸æ²¡æœ‰ä¾‹å¤–地发布修改版；该例外也使按ç…
§ä¾‹å¤–来发布后续的修改版成为可能。如果你
修改了ABCDEF接口，那么该例外就不适用于你
修改过的ABC，而你则必
须在发布修改版时将此例从许可证声明中移除。</p>
+
+<p>此例外是GNU通用公共许可证第3版第7节的附加
许可。（&ldquo;GPLv3&rdquo;）</p>
+
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>此例外å…
è®¸ä½¿ç”¨ç‰¹å®šæŽ¥å£ï¼ˆ&ldquo;ABCDEF&rdquo;）连接带有不同许可证的模块，同时确保用户仍然像使用GPL一æ
 ·æ”¶åˆ°æºä»£ç ã€‚</p>
+
+<p>只有程序的版权持有者
才能在法律上有效地授权该例外。如果你
自己写了整个程序，并假定你的雇主或学æ 
¡æ²¡æœ‰å£°ç§°å¯¹æ­¤æ‹¥æœ‰ç‰ˆæƒï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆä½ å°±æ˜¯ç‰ˆæƒæŒæœ‰è€…&mdash;因此你
就可以做出此例外的授权。但是如果你想在你的程序中使用å…
¶ä»–人的GPL程序，那么你不能代表å…
¶ä»–人做出此例外的授权。你必须获得其他版权持有者
的批准。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="ManyDifferentLicenses">我写的应用连接了许多不同的部件，这些部件有多种许可证。我对自己的应用该使用什么许可证很迷惑。ä½
 æ˜¯å¦èƒ½å¤Ÿå‘Šè¯‰æˆ‘可以使用什么许可证？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ManyDifferentLicenses"
+>#ManyDifferentLicenses</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+要回答这个问题，我们需要看看程序使用的部件的列表、这些部件的许可证以及ä½
 çš„程序如何使用这些部件的简述（几
句话就行）。两个例子如下：</p>
+<ul>
+<li>要正常使用我的软件，必
须把它和FOO库连接在一起，该库使用LGPL许可证。</li>
+<li>我们的程序需要通过系统调用（使用我的命令行）来运行BAR程序，该程序使用的许可证是&ldquo;GPL，并带有å
…è®¸è¿žæŽ¥QUUX的例外&rdquo;。</li>
+</ul></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="MereAggregation">&ldquo;聚合版&rdquo;和å…
¶ä»–&ldquo;修改版&rdquo;有什么不同？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#MereAggregation"
+>#MereAggregation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+&ldquo;聚合版&rdquo;包
含有多个独立的程序，并在同一个CD-ROM或å…
¶ä»–媒体上发行。GPL允许你制作并发布一个聚合版，即使å…
¶ä»–软件的许可证不是自由许可证或不是GPLå…
¼å®¹çš„许可证也可以。唯一的条件是你
的聚合版的许可证不能禁止用户行使每个独立程序的许可证å…
è®¸çš„权利。</p>
+
+<p>究竟怎么区分是两个独立的程序，还是一个程序的两个部分呢？这是一个法律命题，最终会由法官来决定。我们相信合理的æ
 ‡å‡†æ—¢ä¾èµ–于通信的机制（exec、pipes、rpc、å…
±äº«åœ°å€ç©ºé—´çš„函数调用，等等），也依赖于通信的语义（交换了什么æ
 ·çš„信息）。</p>
+
+<p>如果两个模块都包
含在同一个可执行文件里，那么它们一定是一个程序的组件。如果两个模块运行时是在å
…±äº«åœ°å€ç©ºé—´è¿žæŽ¥åœ¨ä¸€èµ·çš„，那么它们几
乎也构成一个组合软件。</p>
+
+<p>反过来，pipes、sockets和命令行参数通常都是两个不同程序通信的机制。å›
 
此，如果使用它们来通信，这些模块正常应该是独立的程序。但是如果通信的语义非常密切，交换复杂的å†
…
部数据结构，那么它们也被会认为是一个大程序的两个组合部分。</p></dd>
+
+<dt 
id="AggregateContainers">当判别两个软件是否构成单一的作品时，代ç
 æ˜¯åœ¨ä¸€ä¸ªå®¹å™¨é‡Œè¿˜æ˜¯åœ¨å¤šä¸ªå®¹å™¨é‡Œæœ‰æ²¡æœ‰å½±å“ï¼Ÿ<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AggregateContainers"
+>#AggregateContainers</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>不，容器的引入并不改变他们是<a 
href="#MereAggregation">单一作品还是聚合版本</a>的分析。</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="AssignCopyright">为什么FSF要求对FSF有版权软件的贡献者
把版权赋予FSF？如果我有GPL软件的版权，我也需要这æ 
·åšå—？如果需要，我应该怎么做？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AssignCopyright"
+>#AssignCopyright</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p> 我们的律师告诉我们，如果要在法庭上面对违反者
处于<a
+href="/licenses/why-assign.html">最有利于GPL的执法位置</a>，我们就应当是程序的版权状态越简单越好。我们的方式是，请每位贡献è€
…或者把版权赋予FSF，或者对版权做出免责声明。</p>
+
+<p>我们还请个人贡献者从其雇主（如果有的话）获得版权å…
è´£å£°æ˜Žï¼Œè¿™æ ·æˆ‘们就可以确保雇主们不再对此主张版权。</p>
+
+<p>当然，如果所有的贡献者都把代码放到å…
±æœ‰é¢†åŸŸï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆå°±æ²¡æœ‰å¿…要对无版权的代ç 
è¿›è¡ŒGPL执法了。所以，我们鼓励人们对大型代码贡献主张
版权，而把小型的代码置于公共领域。</p>
+
+<p>如果你想对你的程序进行GPL执法，那么你
最好也使用类似的政策。请联系<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>来了解更多信息。
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="ModifyGPL">我是否可以修改GPL并制作一个修改版的许可证？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#ModifyGPL" >#ModifyGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+你可以做一个修改版的GPL，但是这实际上会有一些后果。</p>
+
+<p>
+ä½ 
可以合法地在另一个许可证里使用GPL的术语（可能是改过的术语），假定ä½
 çš„许可证叫另一个名字并且不带有GPL的前言，而且你
修改过的操作指导也和GPL有足够明显的区别，你
也没有提及GNU（虽然实际的操作流程和GPL是类似的）。</p>
+
+<p> 如果你
想在修改版的许可证中使用我们的前言，请写信到<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>获得许可。为此，我们会希望检查实é™
…的许可证要求来决定是否批准。</p>
+
+<p>虽然我们对这æ 
·çš„修改版不会提起法律上的反对，但是我们还是希望你
再考虑一下，最好不要这样做。这种修改版的许可证几
乎可以肯定<a
+href="#WhatIsCompatible">和GNU
+GPL不兼容</a>，而这种不å…
¼å®¹ä¼šé˜»æ­¢è½¯ä»¶æ¨¡å—的合理组合。不同自由软件许可证的数目增åŠ
 æœ¬èº«åªæ˜¯ä¸€ç§è´Ÿæ‹…。</p>
+
+<p>请不要修改GPL，请使用GPLv3提供的例外机制。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLCommercially">如果我通过GNU 
GPL获得了一个软件，那么我是否可以修改该软件的代ç 
ï¼ŒæŠŠå®ƒå˜æˆä¸€ä¸ªæ–°çš„程序，然后再按ç…
§å•†ä¸šç¨‹åºå‘行和销售？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLCommercially"
+>#GPLCommercially</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+我们允许你商业化销售修改版的软件，但是只有在遵循 GNU 
GPL 条款的情况下。因此，举个例子，你必须按照 GPL
+的要求使用户可以拿到源代码，并且用户也必
须能够再发布和修改该程序。</p>
+
+<p>这些要求是在你的程序里包含 GPL 代码所必须的。
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLOtherThanSoftware">GPL可以不用于软件吗？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware" >#GPLOtherThanSoftware</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>
+你可以将 GPL 用于任何作品，只要能说清
楚什么是该作品的&ldquo;源代码&rdquo;就行。GPL 将源代ç 
å®šä¹‰ä¸ºä¿®æ”¹ä½œå“çš„首选形式。</p>
+
+<p>然而，对于手册和教材，或者
任何用于教育的一般性作品，我们推荐使用 GFDL 而不是 
GPL。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="LGPLJava">LGPL和Java如何在一起运作？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LGPLJava"
+>#LGPLJava</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+<a href="/licenses/lgpl-java.html">请参看此文了解详情。</a>LGPL 
可以按照既定的、期望的和预想的方式运作。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="Consider">考虑这个情况：1) X按照GPL发布了V1。2) 
Y在V1的基础上贡献了修改和新代码，开发了V2。3)
+X想要把V2变成非GPL许可证。X需要Y的许可吗？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#Consider" >#Consider</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+是的。由于 Y 是基于 X 的 V1 版本做出的，所以 Y 要按照 GNU 
GPL 发布。Y 不必就其代码同意使用任何å…
¶ä»–的许可证。所以，X
+要想按照其他协议发布 V2，必须要获得 Y 的许可。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="GPLInProprietarySystem">我想在我的专有系统中合并GPL软件。我只按ç
…§GPL授予的方式使用该软件。我可以这样做吗？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLInProprietarySystem"
+>#GPLInProprietarySystem</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+你不能把 GPL 软件结合到专有系统中去。GPL 的目æ 
‡æ˜¯èµ‹äºˆæ‰€æœ‰äººå¤åˆ¶ã€å‘布、理解和修改程序的自由。如果你
把 GPL
+软件结合进一个非自由的系统，那么它的效果就和把 GPL 
软件变成非自由软件一样。</p>
+
+<p>一个结合了 GPL 程序的程序就是该 GPL 软件的扩展版。GPL 
指出任何扩展版如果要发布都必须按照 GPL
+来发布。这有两个理由：确保得到软件的用户得到他们应得的自由，鼓励人们回馈他们做出的改进。</p>
+
+<p>不过，在许多情况下，你可以和 GPL
+软件一起发布你的专有软件。你的所作要合法，你
要确保自由和非自由的软件之间的隔离，它们之间的通信不应该看起来是一个组合在一起的程序的行为。</p>
+
+<p>这样做和&ldquo;结合&rdquo; GPL
+软件的不同有内容的因素也有形式的因素。内容的因素
在于：如果两个程序组合在一起实际
上变成了一个程序的两个部分，那么你
就不能再把它们当成两个程序来看待。因此
+GPL 必须涵盖到整个系统。</p>
+
+<p>如果两个程序隔离地很好，正如编译器和内æ 
¸ï¼Œä¹Ÿå¦‚编辑器和
+shell，那么你可以把他们当成两个独立的程序&mdash;但是你
的做法必须合理。这个问题就是简单的形式：你如何描述你
在做什么？为什么我们要关心这个？因为我们要确保用户清
晰地理解整个集合中
+GPL 软件的自由状态。</p>
+
+<p>如果要发布 GPL 
软件的人称之为专有系统的&ldquo;一部分&nbsp;&rdquo;，那么用户也许不确定他们对å
…¶ä¸­ GPL
+软件的权利。但是如果用户知道他们得到一个自由的程序加
上另一个程序，那么他们的权利就是清晰的。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="GPLWrapper">我想在我的专有系统中结合GPL软件？我是否可以在GPL软件和专有系统之间制作一个使用松散的GPLå
…¼å®¹è®¸å¯è¯ï¼ˆæ¯”如X11许可证）的&ldquo;封装&rdquo;模块？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLWrapper" 
>#GPLWrapper</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不行。X11 许可证和 GPL 是兼容的，因此你可以在 GPL 
软件中添加一个遵循 X11
+许可证的模块。但是，如果你
想把这两个都合进一个更大的程序，包括这个 GPL 
软件，那么<em>整个</em>程序就必须遵循 GNU GPL 许可证。</p>
+
+<p>专有模块 A 和 GPL 许可证模块 C 通过 X11 许可证模块 B 
通讯这件事在法律上并不相关；重要的是模块 C 被包
含在整个软件中。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="LibGCCException">哪里可以了解更多å…
³äºŽGCC运行库例外的详情？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#LibGCCException" >#LibGCCException</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+GCC运行库例外涵盖了 
libgcc、libstdc++、libfortran、libgomp、libdecnumber 以及其他和 GCC
+一起发布的库。该例外意在å…
è®¸äººä»¬åœ¨å‘布使用GCC编译的程序时能够使用自己选择的条款，即使该程序经过编译形成的可执行文件åŒ
…含了这些库的成分。如需更多信息，请参阅
+<a href="/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html">关于 GCC 
运行库例外的常见问答</a>。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="MoneyGuzzlerInc">我想修改GPL程序并把它们和Money Guzzler
+Inc的可移植库连接在一起。我不能发布这些库的源代ç 
ï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥æ¯ä¸ªæƒ³ä¿®æ”¹çš„用户都要单独获得这些库。为什么GPL不å
…è®¸è¿™æ ·åšï¼Ÿ<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#MoneyGuzzlerInc"
+>#MoneyGuzzlerInc</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+有两个原因。第一，常规的原因。如果我们允许甲å…
¬å¸åˆ¶ä½œä¸€ä¸ªä¸“有文件，而乙å…
¬å¸å‘布一款连接着此文件的GPL软件，那么这个漏洞就会使整个GPL许可证陷å
…
¥æ³¥æ½­ã€‚这将成为人们拒不发布对GPL软件的修改和扩展的护身符。</p>
+
+<p>让所有用户都有权获得源代码是我们的主要目标之一，因
此我们绝对要避免上述情况的出现。</p>
+
+<p>更具体地来说，和 Money Guzzler
+的库连接在一起的程序不是我们所定义的真正意义上的自由软件&mdash;&mdash;它们没有å
…¨éƒ¨çš„源代码，因而用户也无
法修改和再编译整个程序。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLIncompatibleAlone">如果模块Q的许可证要求和GPL不å…
¼å®¹ï¼Œä¸è¿‡è¯¥è¦æ±‚只适用于单独发布Q的情况，而不是当Q被包
含在一个大型程序中，那么该许可证和GPLå…
¼å®¹å—？我是否可以把Q和GPL程序联合或连接起来？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLIncompatibleAlone"
+>#GPLIncompatibleAlone</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+一个程序 P 按照 GPL 发布就意味着“其任意部分”都可以按ç…
§ GPL 来使用。如果你集成了模块 Q，并且将组合程序 P+Q 按照 
GPL 发布，那么
+P+Q 的任意部分都可以按照 GPL 来使用。P+Q 的一个部分就是 
Q，所以 Q 的任意部分也是可以按照 GPL 
来使用的。换句话说，一个得到组合程序
+P+Q 的用户可以删除 P，只留下 Q，而剩下的程序仍然是遵循 
GPL的。</p>
+
+<p>如果模块 Q 允许你这么做，那么它的许可证就是和 GPL å…
¼å®¹çš„。否则就和 GPL 不兼容。</p>
+
+<p>如果 Q 的许可证清楚地说你重新发布 Q 时必
须做某些事（和 GPL 不兼容），那么它就不允许你按照 GPL 
发布 Q。这样，你也就不能按照 GPL
+发布 P+Q。因此，你不能将 P 和 Q 连接或组合。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="ModifiedJustBinary">我可否只发布GPL程序修改版的二进制形式？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#ModifiedJustBinary" >#ModifiedJustBinary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不，那样不行。GPL 的重点就在于所有的修改版都必须是<a
+href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">自由软件</a>&mdash;å…
·ä½“来说，这意味着用户可以获得修改版的源代码。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="UnchangedJustBinary">我只下载了二进制形式的程序。如果我要发布拷贝，我是否å¿
…须获得并同时发布源代码？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#UnchangedJustBinary" >#UnchangedJustBinary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+是的。常规的准则是，如果你要发布二进制，那么你必
须也发布所有相关的源代码。例外的情况是你
获得了一份书面的源代码获取许可，不过这种情
况并不常见。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="DistributeWithSourceOnInternet">我希望使用物理媒介发布二进制而不带源代ç
 ã€‚我可否使用FTP提供源代码而不是使用邮购的形式？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet"
+>#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+GPL v3 允许这样做；请参考选项 6(b) 来了解详情。在GPL v2 
中，你当然可以通过 FTP
+提供源代码，而且大多数用户正是这样获得源代ç 
çš„。不过，如果有人希望获得邮寄的源代码介质，那么你
也需要提供。</p>
+
+<p>如果你通过 FTP 发布二进制，<a 
href="#AnonFTPAndSendSources">那么你也应该通过 FTP 发布源代ç 
ã€‚</a></p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="RedistributedBinariesGetSource">我从朋友那里获得了GPL软件的二进制和提供源代ç
 çš„承诺。我可否使用该承诺获得源代码？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#RedistributedBinariesGetSource"
+>#RedistributedBinariesGetSource</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+是的，你可以这æ 
·åšã€‚此承诺对所有拥有与之一起发布的二进制软件的用户都是有效的。这正是
 GPL
+指明你的朋友在提供二进制软件时必
须提供该承诺的理由&mdash;&mdash;这样你
就可以利用该承诺获得源代码了。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites">我可否把二进制放在我的网络服务器上并把源代ç
 æ”¾åœ¨å¦å¤–的网络服务器上？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites"
+>#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+可以。第 6(d) 允许这样做。然而，你必
须提供人们获取源代码的清晰指南，而且你也必
须保证只要目标代码还在，源代码就在。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="DistributeExtendedBinary">我想发布一个GPL程序扩展版的二进制。源代ç
 åªå‘布该程序的原始版可以吗？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#DistributeExtendedBinary" >#DistributeExtendedBinary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不行，你必须提供和二进制代码对应的源代码。用户必
须能够使用源代码构造出同样的二进制。</p>
+
+<p>自由软件的意义包
含用户可以获得<em>他们使用的程序</em>的源代码。使用你
发布版本软件的用户应该获得该版本的源代码。</p>
+
+<p>GPL 的一个主要目的就是构建一个自由社会，其中就包
含确保修改后的软件也是自由的。如果你要发布一个 GPL 
软件的改进版本，那么你就必须按照 GPL
+来发布。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="DistributingSourceIsInconvenient">我想发布二进制，但是发布完整的源代ç
 å¤ªä¸æ–¹ä¾¿äº†ã€‚只发布我的代码和&ldquo;标准&rdquo;版的差异加
上二进制可以吗？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient"
+>#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+这是一个善意的请求，但是用这种方法提供源代ç 
æ˜¯è¡Œä¸é€šçš„。</p>
+
+<p>如果一个用户想要获取一年前的源代ç 
ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆä»–很有可能无法从那个网站取得合适的版本。æ 
‡å‡†å‘布可能有了较新的版本，但是同æ 
·çš„差异文件可能已经没法用了。</p>
+
+<p>因此，在发布二进制时，你必须提供相应的完整源代ç 
ï¼Œè€Œä¸æ˜¯å·®å¼‚文件。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="AnonFTPAndSendSources">我可否把二进制放在网络服务器上，但是只为订购了源代ç
 çš„人提供源代码？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#AnonFTPAndSendSources" >#AnonFTPAndSendSources</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+如果你在网络上发布了目标代码，那么你也必
须提供相应的源代ç 
ã€‚最简单的办法就是在同一个服务器上发布源代ç 
ï¼Œä½†æ˜¯å¦‚果你喜欢，你也可以提供从其他服务器获取源代ç 
çš„指南，或者提供一个<a
+href="#SourceInCVS">版本控制系统</a>。无论如何，获取源代ç 
åº”该和获取目标代码一样简单。这些都写在 GPLv3 的第 6(d)
+节。</p>
+
+<p>源代码一定要和二进制对应。å…
·ä½“来说，它们对应该程序的同一个版本&mdash;既不是老一点的版本，也不是新一点的版本。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource">我如何保证每个下载了二进制文件的用户也得到了源代ç
 ï¼Ÿ<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource"
+>#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+这个你不必担心。只要你提供了源代ç 
å’ŒäºŒè¿›åˆ¶ï¼Œè€Œç”¨æˆ·å¯ä»¥çœ‹åˆ°å¹¶å–得他们想要的，你
就已经做了该做的事。下不下载源代码是用户自己的事。</p>
+
+<p>我们的发布要求是确保用户可以获得源代ç 
ï¼Œå¹¶ä¸æ˜¯å¼ºè¿«ä¸éœ€è¦æºä»£ç çš„用户也去下载源代码。</p></dd>
+
+<dt 
id="MustSourceBuildToMatchExactHashOfBinary">GPL是否要求我提供的源代ç 
ç¼–译后得到和我发布的二进制一样的哈希值？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#MustSourceBuildToMatchExactHashOfBinary"
+>#MustSourceBuildToMatchExactHashOfBinary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>完整的相关源代码的意思就是你
用来制作二进制的源代码，但是这并不是说你的工具必
须能够制作出和你发布的二进制一æ 
·çš„哈希值。有时，新制作的二进制和你
发布的二进制很难有相同的哈希值&mdash;&mdash;比如考虑这æ 
·ä¸€ä¸ªä¾‹å­ï¼šç³»ç»Ÿå°†åœ¨äºŒè¿›åˆ¶ä¸­åŠ å…¥æ—¶é—´æˆ³ï¼›æˆ–者编译工å…
·çš„版本发生了变化。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="UnreleasedMods">某å…
¬å¸åœ¨ç½‘站上运行一个GPL软件的修改版。按照GPL，该å…
¬å¸æ˜¯å¦å¿…须发布其修改版的源代码？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#UnreleasedMods"
+>#UnreleasedMods</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+GPL 允许任何人做一个修改版自己用而不发布。你所说的å…
¬å¸çš„做法就是一个这样的特例。因此，该公司不必发布å…
¶ä¿®æ”¹ç‰ˆã€‚当该修改版使用的许可证是<a
+href="#UnreleasedModsAGPL">GNU Affero GPL</a>时，情况有所不同。</p>
+
+<p>把这个情况和网站包含或链接到独立的 GPL 
程序做个比较，这些 GPL 
程序在用户访问网站时分发给了用户（经常是<a
+href="/philosophy/javascript-trap.html">JavaScript</a>程序，但是也可以使用å
…¶ä»–语言）。此时，这些发布给用户的程序的源代码必须按照
+GPL 的条款来发布。</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="UnreleasedModsAGPL">某公司在网站上运行一个许可证为GNU 
Affero GPL (AGPL)的程序的修改版。按照AGPL，该公司是否必
须发布其修改版的源代码？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#UnreleasedModsAGPL"
+>#UnreleasedModsAGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p><a href="/licenses/agpl.html">GNU Affero GPL</a>
+要求该修改版软件为å…
¶ç”¨æˆ·æä¾›ä¸€ä¸ªé€šè¿‡è®¡ç®—机网络获取源代码的方法。你
所说的公司正处在这样一个状态下，所以它必
须发布修改版软件的源代码。</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="InternalDistribution">在组织或公司内
部使用是不是&ldquo;发布&rdquo;？ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#InternalDistribution" >#InternalDistribution</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不是，在公司内部使用只是公司为自己制作拷贝。因此，å…
¬å¸æˆ–组织可以开发自己的修改版并在内部部署，其员工也无
权对外发布。</p>
+
+<p>然而，当公司把拷贝发送给å…
¶ä»–组织或个人时，就是发布。å…
·ä½“来说，为合同商提供拷贝来离岸使用就是发布。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="StolenCopy">如果某人盗取了一张
含有GPL软件的CD，那么GPL是否授权此人再发布该软件？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#StolenCopy" >#StolenCopy</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+如果该版本已经发布了，那么窃贼或许有权制作拷贝并按照 
GPL 再发布，但是如果窃贼因为盗窃 CD å…
¥ç‹±äº†ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆå¯èƒ½åªå¥½ç­‰ä»–出来再发布了。</p>
+
+<p>如果被盗的版本没有公开，并且有å…
¬å¸è®¤ä¸ºå®ƒæ˜¯å•†ä¸šæœºå¯†ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆå‘布该版本可能在此情
况下就是违反了商业机密法。GPL
+并不改变这一点。如果该å…
¬å¸è¦å‘布该版本并且仍然把它看作是商业机密，那么该å…
¬å¸å°±è¿åäº† GPL；但是如果该å…
¬å¸æ²¡æœ‰å‘布该版本，那么它就没有违反 GPL。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="TradeSecretRelease">如果公司按ç…
§å•†ä¸šç§˜å¯†æ¥å‘布软件拷贝会怎么样？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#TradeSecretRelease" >#TradeSecretRelease</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+如果一个公司发布拷贝并声称这是商业机密，那么该å…
¬å¸è¿åäº† GPL
+并且必
须停止发布。请注意这和上面的盗窃问题不同；软件拷贝遭到盗窃时，å
…¬å¸å¹¶æœªæœ‰æ„å‘布该软件，因此公司没有违反 GPL。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">为什么有些GNU库是按ç…
§æ™®é€šçš„GPL发布，而不是按照LGPL发布？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL" >#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+对具体的库采用宽 GPL 许可证实际
上自由软件的倒退。这意味着我们部分放弃了对用户自由的保护，也部分放弃了一些
 GPL
+软件应有的要求。就事论事，这些放弃都是坏事。</p>
+
+<p>有时，局部的倒退是一个不错的策略。在适当的情
况下，对库采用 LGPL
+会让这些库被更广泛地使用，因
此就更多地改善了这些库、更多地支持了自由软件等等。如果范围很大，那么这就是对自由软件有益的事。但是它究竟会怎么发展呢？我们拭目以å¾
…。</p>
+
+<p>如果能够对每个库都试行一段时间的 LGPL 
来看看效果如何，若是没有什么帮助再改回 GPL 
是最好的。但是这个做不到。一旦我们对一个å…
·ä½“的库使用了
+LGPL，那么我们就很难再改回来。</p>
+
+<p>因此，我们对哪个库使用什么许可证采用的是具体情况å…
·ä½“分析的原则。请参看我们关于如何判断的<a
+href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">详细解释</a>。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WillYouMakeAnException">使用按ç…
§GPL发布的GNU程序不适合我们的专有软件项目。你
们会对我们例外吗？这样会使更多人使用你们的程序。<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WillYouMakeAnException"
+>#WillYouMakeAnException</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+对不起。我们不会对此提供例外。这样的例外是错误的。</p>
+
+<p>使用户数量最大化并不是我们的目æ 
‡ã€‚更准确地说，我们是要给予尽可能多的用户å…
³é”®çš„自由。一般来说，专有软件会妨碍而不是助力自由。</p>
+
+<p>我们偶尔也会允许许可证例外，并以此来帮助使用不同于 
GPL 许可证的自由软件项目。然而，我们这样做时必
须要看它对推进自由的充分理由。</p>
+
+<p>我们有时也会更改软件包发行的条款，只要它是一条清
晰的为自由软件服务的正确道路；但是，我们对此也分外小心，å›
 æ­¤ä½ çš„理由必须令人信服。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="VersionThreeOrLater">为什么程序应该写上GPL&ldquo;版本&nbsp;3或任何以后的版本&rdquo;？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#VersionThreeOrLater"
+>#VersionThreeOrLater</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不定期的，每隔几年，我们会修改一下
+GPL&mdash;&mdash;有时是使之更清晰，有时是放开一些以前不å…
è®¸çš„用例，还有时是收紧一些要求。（最近的两次修订是在2007年和1991年。）在程序中使用这æ
 ·çš„&ldquo;间接说明&rdquo;可以让我们能够在更新
+GPL 后随着就更新了整个 GNU 软件集的发布条款。</p>
+
+<p>如果没有这个间接说明，那么我们将不得不和众多版权持有è€
…就更改进行冗长的讨论，实际
上这是个不可能完成的任务。这样的话，GNU
+软件就不能有一个统一的发布条款了。</p>
+
+<p>假定一个程序说得是&ldquo;GPL 版本 3 
或任何以后的版本&rdquo;而 GPL 
现在发布了一个新的版本。如果新的 GPL
+版本放开了额外的许可，这些许可立即就可以被使用该程序的用户所使用。但是如果新的
 GPL
+版本收紧了要求，那么它也不会限制该程序当前版本的使用，å›
 ä¸ºè¯¥ç¨‹åºè¿˜é€‚用于 GPL 
版本&nbsp;3。当一个程序说得是&ldquo;GPL 版本 3
+或任何以后的版本&rdquo;时，用户总是有权按照 GPL 
版本&nbsp;3 来使用它乃至修改它，即使随后又有了新的 GPL 
版本。</p>
+
+<p>如果新版 GPL 
里收紧的需求不能被现有的程序遵守，那么它还有什么用呢？一旦
 GPL 版本&nbsp;4 发布后，大多数 GPL
+程序都将发布相应的后续版本，它们会说&ldquo;GPL 版本&nbsp;4 
或任何以后的版本&rdquo;。那么，用户就不得不对这些后续程序遵守
+GPL 版本&nbsp;4 更严格的要求了。</p>
+
+<p>不过，开发者并不是必须这æ 
·åšçš„；如果她们愿意，开发者有权继续使用以前的 GPL 
版本。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="OnlyLatestVersion">使用“该程序只允许在GNU 
GPL的最新版下使用“是不是一个好主意？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#OnlyLatestVersion" >#OnlyLatestVersion</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+我们不这么做是有原因
的。这会导致将来某一天用户以前有的一些许可被自动收回了。</p>
+
+<p>假设某个程序在2000年按照 &ldquo;最新的 GPL 版本&rdquo; 
发布。当时，用户可以在 GPLv2 
下使用该程序。我们在2007年发布了
+GPLv3，所有人突然就必须在 GPLv3 下使用了。</p>
+
+<p>有些用户可能根本就不知道 GPL 版本 
3&mdash;&mdash;但是他们还是被要求按照版本 3
+来使用软件。这些用户可能无
意中已经违反了许可证条款，只是因
为他们不知道有新的许可证版本。这对他们不公正。</p>
+
+<p>除非是因为有违反许可证的情
况，我们认为收回已经授予的许可是错误的。如果自由可以撤销，那么它就不是真正的自由。å›
 æ­¤ï¼Œå¦‚果你在某个许可证版本下得到了软件，那么你就应该
+<em>一直</em> 拥有在该许可证版本下被授予的权利。按照 
&ldquo;GPL 版本&nbsp;N 或者任何以后的版本&rdquo;
+发布维持了这个原则。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="WhyNotGPLForManuals">WhyNotGPLForManuals">为什么手册不用GPL？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#WhyNotGPLForManuals" >#WhyNotGPLForManuals</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+GPL 可以用于手册，但是 GNU 
自由文档许可证（GFDL）更适合手册。</p>
+
+<p>GPL
+本来就是为程序设计的；它的很多复杂条款对程序来说是å…
³é”®çš„，但是它们对手册或书籍来说就太累赘而没有必
要了。例如，任何出版纸质书的人如果没有随书提供该书的机器可读&ldquo;源代ç
 &rdquo;，就必须提供随后会寄送该&ldquo;源代ç 
&rdquo;的书面承诺。</p>
+
+<p>同时，GFDL 
的条款有助于自由手册的出版商通过销售拷贝赚钱&mdash;&mdash;比如，使用封面文字。GFDL
+的背书部分特有的条款使之有可能成为一个正式的æ 
‡å‡†ã€‚它允许修改版，但是修改版不能带有&ldquo;标准&rdquo;字æ 
·çš„标签。</p>
+
+<p>使用 GFDL，我们允许修改手册中有关技术的内
容。修改技术部分非常重要，因
为修改软件的人应该有权修改相应的文档。这个自由是一个道德底线。</p>
+
+<p>我们的手册还有一个阐述我们对自由软件的政治立场的章
节。我们将此标记为&ldquo;不变章节&rdquo;，因
此它们不能够被改变，也不能被删除。GFDL
+为这些&ldquo;不变部分&rdquo;准备了条款。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="FontException">GPL如何应用于字体？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#FontException"
+>#FontException</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+字体的许可证是一个需要认真考虑的复杂问题。以下许可证例外是实验性的，但是已经获准常规性的使用。我们欢迎对此问题的建议&mdash;&mdash;请参看<a
+href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050425novalis";>此文的解释</a>并写信给<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>。</p>
+
+<p>要使用该例外，请在软件包（最大的范围内
）的每个文件的许可证声明前添加
以下文字，在文字的最后说明此文件使用 GNU GPL 
授权发布：</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+作为例外，如果你
的文档使用了这个字体，并且将字体或部分字体没有改变地嵌å
…¥åˆ°æ–‡æ¡£ä¸­ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆï¼Œè¯¥å­—体本身并不导致此文档就是要遵循 
GNU GPL
+许可证。不过，此例外并不排除该文档可能需要遵循 GNU GPL
+的其他理由。如果你修改了该字体，那么你
也可以此例外推广到心版本的字体，但是这并不是强制的。如果ä½
 ä¸æƒ³è¿™ä¹ˆåšï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆä½ å¯ä»¥æŠŠè¿™ä¸ªä¾‹å¤–在你的版本里删掉。
+</p></blockquote></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WMS">我在编写一个网站维护系统（有人称之为&ldquo;<a
+href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content">内
容管理系统</a>&rdquo;），或者是å…
¶ä»–通过模板创建网页的应用。这些模板应该使用什么æ 
·çš„许可证呢？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WMS" >#WMS</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+模板太轻量级了，还不足以动用 copyleft 
来保护。一般来说，对轻量级的作品使用 copyleft
+并没有害处，但是模板有点例外，因
为它们和用户数据结合在一起，而且一起发布。所以，我们建议对模板使用简单许可性条款。</p>
+
+<p>有些模板会调用 JavaScript 函数。由于 Javascript 
通常不是微不足道的功能，它值得使用
+copyleft。因
为模板会和用户数据结合在一起，所以模板+用户数据+JavaScript可以考虑做成一个作品并受版权保护。JavaScript（copyleft）和用户代ç
 ï¼ˆé€šå¸¸ä½¿ç”¨å’Œcopyleft不兼容的条款）应该有明确的界限。</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="以上内容的图解"/></a></p>
+
+<p>以下是针对此类 JavaScript 代码做的例外示范：</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>作为 GPL 的一个特定例外，任何 HTML
+文件，如果仅仅是调用了该代码，并因此作为引用包
含了该代码，那么该文件就应该按ç…
§ç‰ˆæƒæ³•çš„考虑作为一个独立的作品。另外，此代ç 
çš„版权持有者授权你可以将该代码和按照
+GNU GPL 许可证发布的自由软件库组合在一起。你可以按照 GNU 
GPL 条款复制和发布此代码，可以按照 LGPL
+条款复制和发布自由软件库。如果你修改了该代码，那么你
可以将此例外扩展到你的修改版，但是这不是必
须的。如果你
不想这么做，那么请在修改版中将此例外声明删除。
+</p></blockquote></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="NonFreeTools">我能否把用专有工具开发的软件按ç…
§GPL授权？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#NonFreeTools" >#NonFreeTools</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+你使用的源代ç 
ç¼–辑程序、编译程序、记录程序，通常对源代ç 
çš„许可证没有影响。</p>
+
+<p>然而，如果你连接了非自由的库，那么你就要认真对待
了。非自由库并不妨碍源代码按照 GPL 
发布，但是如果该库不符合 &ldquo;系统库&rdquo;
+例外，那么你就应该附加一个明确的声明来允许把库和你
的程序连接起来。<a href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">使用非 GPL
+兼容库问答</a>提供了更多的信息以及如何处理。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLTranslations">GPL有其他语言的翻译版吗？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLTranslations"
+>#GPLTranslations</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+把 GPL
+翻译成英语以外的语言很有用处。甚至有人把翻译稿发给我们。但是我们并没有批准这些翻译稿而使之成为正式有效的文件。å
…¶ä¸­çš„风险太高，我们还不太敢接受。</p>
+
+<p>一份法律文件和程序有些类似。对法律文件的翻译就像是把一个程序从一种语言翻译到另一种语言和操作系统。只有æ“
…长两种语言的律师可以做到&mdash;&mdash;即使这样，å…
¶ä¸­è¿˜å¯èƒ½å¼•å…¥é—®é¢˜æˆ–缺陷。</p>
+
+<p>如果我们要批准一份正式的 GPL
+翻译文件，那么我们就是在授权每个人可以做翻译文件里å…
è®¸å¥¹ä»¬åšçš„事。如果翻译完å…
¨å‡†ç¡®ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆè¿˜å¥½ã€‚但是如果翻译有误，那么后果会是灾难性的，而且æ—
 æ³•å¼¥è¡¥ã€‚</p>
+
+<p>如果程序有一个缺陷，我们可以发布一个新版本，而后老的版本就会æ
…¢æ…¢å‡å°‘乃至最终消失。但是一旦我们允许任何人按ç…
§ä¸€ä»½ç‰¹å®šçš„翻译文件去做事，那么我们就没法收回我们的许可，即使我们后来发现这里有一个翻译错误。</p>
+
+<p>热心人有时要为我们提供翻译服务。如果问题只是找人翻译，那么它容易解决。但是真正的问题是出错的风险，提供翻译并不能避å
…
è¿™ä¸ªé£Žé™©ã€‚我们不可能批准一份不是由律师翻译的文件。</p>
+
+<p>因此，目前为止，我们不会批准 GPL 的å…
¨çƒæœ‰æ•ˆå’Œæœ‰çº¦æŸåŠ›çš„翻译。反过来，我们在做两件事：</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li><p>人们可以参考非正式的翻译文档。这就是说我们å…
è®¸äººä»¬ç¿»è¯‘ 
GPL，但是我们不把它们批准为法律上有效和有约束力的文件。</p>
+
+  <p>未被批准的翻译没有法律效力，而且它必
须明确陈述这一点。它可以这样说：</p>
+
+  <blockquote><p>
+    本 GPL 
翻译文档是非正式的，而且也没有被自由软件基金会正式批准为有效文件。要完å
…¨ç¡®å®šæŽˆæƒå†…容，请参考 GPL （英文）原稿。
+  </p></blockquote>
+
+  <p>但是未被批准的翻译文档可以当作是理解英文版 GPL 
的参考。对很多用户来说，这就足够了。</p>
+
+  <p>不过，在商业活动中使用 GNU 软件的企业以及对å…
¬ä¼—进行 ftp 发布的人，应该查看真正的英文 GPL 
原稿以确保了解该许可证。</p></li>
+
+<li><p>仅对单个国家发布有效翻译。</p>
+
+  
<p>我们正在考虑为单个国家发布正式有效翻译文件的想法。这æ
 ·çš„话，如果翻译有错误，那么也只是在该发布的国家之内
，其破坏性还不是太大。</p>
+
+  
<p>这仍然需要一个认同而有能力的律师花费相当多的精力和专业知识来完成一个翻译，所以我们还不能承诺这个翻译会很快出来。</p></li>
+</ul></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="InterpreterIncompat">如果一个编程语言解释程序使用了GPLå…
¼å®¹çš„许可证，那么我是否可以用它来运行使用GPL程序？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#InterpreterIncompat"
+>#InterpreterIncompat</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+当该解释器只是解释语言，回答是肯定的。此时，被解释的程序只是解释器的数据；而
 GPL 并不限制处理程序的工具。</p>
+
+<p>不过，如果解释器扩展到提供&ldquo;绑定的&rdquo;å·¥å…
·ï¼ˆç»å¸¸ï¼Œä½†ä¸é™äºŽï¼Œåº“），那么被解释的程序实际
上是和这些绑定工具连接在一起的。JNI 或
+Java Native Interface 就是这类工具；此时 Java 
程序和它调用的库是动态连接在一起的。</p>
+
+<p>因此，如果这些工具是按照和 GPL 不å…
¼å®¹çš„许可证发布的，那么这就和其他连接 GPL 不兼容库的情
况一样。这就意味着：</p>
+
+<ol>
+  <li>如果你写代码并以 GPL 发布，那么你
可以给予明确的例外来允许连接到 GPL 不兼容的工具。</li>
+
+  <li>如果你写了代码并将程序按照 GPL
+发布，而且你的程序就是特地设计成要和这些工å…
·ä¸€èµ·å·¥ä½œï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆäººä»¬å¯ä»¥è®¤ä¸ºè¿™é‡Œæœ‰éšå«çš„例外å…
è®¸ä»–们连接到这些工具。但是如果这确实是你想要的，你
最好明确陈述出来。</li>
+
+  <li>你不能拿来别人的 GPL 代码并象上面那样使用，或者
添加类似的例外条款。只有代码的版权持有者才能添加
这个例外。</li>
+</ol></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhoHasThePower">谁可以进行GPL执法？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhoHasThePower"
+>#WhoHasThePower</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+由于 GPL 是一个版权许可证，所以软件的版权持有者是 GPL 
的权益维护者。如果你发现有人违反了 GPL，那么你
应该通知该 GPL
+软件的开发者。他们要不就是版权持有者
，要不就是和版权持有者有关系。<a 
href="#ReportingViolation">请了解更多关于违反 GPL
+的信息。</a>
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="OOPLang">在一个面向对象的语言，比如Java下，如果我不加
修改地使用了一个GPL类，并做成了子类，那么GPL会对更大范围的程序有什么影响？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#OOPLang" >#OOPLang</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+创建子类也是在创建衍生作品。因此，GPL 的条款会影响包
含了被创建的 GPL 子类的父类的软件。
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="PortProgramToGPL">如果我把我的程序移植到GNU/Linux，那么这是否意味着我å¿
…须按照GPL或其他自由软件许可证发布我的软件？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#PortProgramToGPL"
+>#PortProgramToGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+一般来说，回答是否定的&mdash;这不是法律上的要求。å…
·ä½“来说，回答依赖于你
要用的库以及这些库的许可证。大多数系统库不是使用 <a
+href="/licenses/lgpl.html">GNU LGPL</a>，就是使用 GNU GPL
+加上一个å…
è®¸è¯¥åº“连接任何程序的例外条款。这些库可以用于非自由的程序；但是就
 LGPL 许可证来说，它还是有一些你必须遵守的要求的。</p>
+
+<p>有些库是只以 GNU GPL 发布的；你必须使用和 GPL
+兼容的许可证才能使用这些库。但是这些通常是更加
专用的库，并且在其他平台上你
也很难找到类似的库，所以对于简单的程序移植你
可能不太会涉及这些库。</p>
+
+<p>当然，如果你
的软件是非自由的，那么它并没有对我们的社区做贡献，而看重自由的人是不会用这种软件的。只有要放弃自由的人才会使用ä½
 çš„软件，这意味着该软件实际上是在诱使人们失去自由。</p>
+
+<p>如果你希望将来回首往事的时候，你
的软件曾经为建设美好和自由的社会做出了贡献，那么你
需要让它成为自由软件。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="CompanyGPLCostsMoney">我发现有个å…
¬å¸æœ‰ä¸€ä¸ªGPL软件的拷贝，但是要花钱才能拿到该软件。这个å
…¬å¸æ˜¯å¦å› æ­¤è¿åäº†GPL?<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CompanyGPLCostsMoney"
+>#CompanyGPLCostsMoney</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不。GPL 
并不要求人们使用互联网来发布程序。它也没有要求某个特定的人来再发布程序。而且（除了一个特定的场景），如果有人决定要再发布一个程序，GPL
+也没有说他必须把程序发布给你或这任何特定的人。</p>
+
+<p>GPL
+要求的是<em>如果他愿意</em>，他有自由为你
发布一份该程序的拷贝。一旦版权持有者
发布了程序的拷贝给某个人，那么这个人就可以再发布拷贝给ä½
 æˆ–其他人，只要他觉得合适。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="ReleaseNotOriginal">我是否可以发布一款软件，它的许可证是ä½
 å¯ä»¥æŒ‰GPL发布此软件的修改版，但是你
不能按GPL发布此软件的原始版？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ReleaseNotOriginal"
+>#ReleaseNotOriginal</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不行。这æ 
·çš„许可证自相矛盾。让我们看看它对作为用户的我意味着什么吧。</p>
+
+<p>假定我从原始版本（版本甲）开始，并添加了一些代ç 
ï¼ˆæ¯”如 1000 行），而后按照 GPL 
发布了该修改版（版本乙）。GPL
+说任何人可以再修改版本乙并按照 GPL 发布。所以我（或å…
¶ä»–人）可以删掉这 1000 行代码，制作版本丙。版本丙的代ç 
å…¶å®žå’Œç‰ˆæœ¬ç”²ä¸€æ ·ï¼Œä½†æ˜¯ç‰ˆæœ¬ä¸™æ˜¯éµå¾ª
+GPL 的。</p>
+
+<p>如果你想拦住这条去路，在许可证中明确说我不能通过删
除版本乙的代码制作和版本甲一样的程序，不过是遵循 GPL
+许可证的，那么你的许可证实际上是在说我不能完全按照 
GPL 许可证使用版本乙。换句话说，你的许可证实际上不å…
è®¸ç”¨æˆ·æŒ‰ç…§ GPL
+发布一个修改版，比如版本乙。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="DistributeSubsidiary">把软件拷贝移送到一个由多数人拥有并控制的机构是否构成发布？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#DistributeSubsidiary" >#DistributeSubsidiary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+把软件拷贝移送到或者从该机构拿出来是否构成 
&ldquo;发布&rdquo; 是一件按照版权法在法庭里决定的事。GPL
+不会也不能超越适用地的法律。美国法律对此也没有清
晰的界定，但是倾向于认为这不是发布。</p>
+
+<p>如果在某些国家，这个被认为是发布，那么该机构就必
须获得再发布该软件的权利，实际上也是这æ 
·åšçš„。如果该机构由一个母å…
¬å¸æŽ§åˆ¶ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆæœ‰æ²¡æœ‰å†æƒå‘布就由母公司说了算。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ClickThrough">软件安装
程序是否可以要求人们通过点击同意GPL？如果我得到一份GPL软件，那么我å¿
…须同意什么吗？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ClickThrough"
+>#ClickThrough</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+有些软件的安装系统有一个要求你点击同意 GPL 
的地方，否则就意味着同意了 GPL 
的条款。这不是要求，也不被禁止。点不点击同意，GPL
+的条款并不会改变。</p>
+
+<p>单是同意 GPL 并没有对你强加什么义务。你
没有被要求同意任何事才能使用 GPL 软件。只有你
修改或分发该软件时，你才有义务。如果你觉得点击同意 GPL
+有问题，那么没有人可以阻止你改写该 GPL 
软件并跳过点击同意。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLCompatInstaller">我想把GPL软件和一些安装
程序合在一起。这些安装程序也必须是GPL软件吗？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#GPLCompatInstaller" >#GPLCompatInstaller</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不。安装程序和被安装的文件是分别的作品。因此，GPL 
条款不应用于该安装程序。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ExportWarranties">如果发布者
要求我&ldquo;表明并保证&rdquo;我住在美国或者我有意遵循相å…
³å‡ºå£ç®¡åˆ¶æ³•å¾‹æ¥å‘行该软件，那么该发布者
是否违反了GPL？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ExportWarranties"
+>#ExportWarranties</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+这并不是违反
+GPL。这些分发商（几
乎所有此类分发商都从事着销售自由软件和相å…
³æœåŠ¡çš„商业活动）是在降低他们自己的法律风险，而不是在控制ä½
 çš„行为。美国的出口管制法<em>可能</em>会使承担
责任，如果他们明知故犯地把软件出口到某些国家或者
把软件交给可能会这æ 
·åšçš„第三方。通过获取他们客户或伙伴的此类声明，他们就能够在以后被监管机构盘查分发软件的去向之时保护自己。他们并不是在限制ä½
 å¯¹è½¯ä»¶çš„做法，他们只想避免因你
的所作所为而受到牵连。因为他们没有对软件添加
额外的限制，所以他们没有违反
+GPLv3 的第 10 节或 GPLv2 的第 6 节。</p>
+
+<p>FSF
+抵制把美国出口管制法律应用于自由软件。这些法律不但和自由软件的总目æ
 ‡ä¸å…¼å®¹ï¼Œè€Œä¸”这些法律也没有实现任何有意义的政府目æ 
‡ã€‚因为自由软件现在已经被几
乎所有国家所用而且将来也应该这样，包
括那些没有出口管制法的国家和没有参加
美国主导的贸易禁运活动的国家。因此，实际
上没有政府被美国的出口管制法剥夺了自由软件，反之，对我们而言，任何国家的å
…¬æ°‘都不<em>应该</em>被剥夺自由软件，无
论他们的政府政策是什么样的。不管你住在哪里，也不管你
要干什么，你都可以从我们这里获得由
+FSF 发布的所有 GPL 软件的拷贝。与此同时，FSF
+理解美国的商业分销商遵守美国法律的诉求。他们有权选择他们分发å
…·ä½“自由软件的对象；使用该权利并不违反 
GPL，除非他们添加了 GPL 许可之外契约式限制。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="SubscriptionFee">我是否可以在一个用户不继续付费就不再工作的设备上使用GPL软件？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#SubscriptionFee" >#SubscriptionFee</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不行。在这种场景下，要求付费就是限制用户用户运行该程序。这是在
 GPL 之上的额外要求，而 GPL 恰恰禁止这样做。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3HowToUpgrade">如何从(L)GPLv2升级到(L)GPLv3？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#v3HowToUpgrade" >#v3HowToUpgrade</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+首先，请在你的软件包里加入新版的 GPL 许可证。如果你
计划使用 LGPLv3，那么确保你加入了 GPLv3 和 LGPLv3 
这两个许可证的拷贝，因为
+LGPLv3 现在是作为 GPLv3 的额外许可撰写的。</p>
+
+<p>其次，把你现有的 v2 许可证声明（通常在文件头部）å…
¨éƒ¨ç”¨ä½äºŽ <a href="/licenses/gpl-howto.html">GNU
+许可证须知</a> 
的新推荐文字替换。新的推荐文字更能适应将来的变化，因
为它不再带有 FSF 的邮寄地址。</p>
+
+<p>当然，其他讲述软件许可证的描述性文字（比如 
README）也应该做适当的更新。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="BitTorrent">GPLv3是怎æ 
·è®©BitTorrent发行变得更容易的？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#BitTorrent" >#BitTorrent</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+由于 GPLv2 
是在点对点软件发布成为通用模式之前写成的，所以用这种方式分享代ç
 æ—¶å¾ˆéš¾æ»¡è¶³å®ƒçš„要求。在 BitTorrent 发布符合 GPLv2
+的目标代码的最佳方式是在同一个 torrent 上包含所有的相å…
³æºä»£ç ï¼Œè¿™ä¸ªå°±è´µçš„离谱了。</p>
+
+<p>GPLv3 有两个方法解决此问题。第一，下载此 torrent 
并在此过程中将数据发送给第三方的人不会被要求做任何事。这是å›
 ä¸ºç¬¬ 9 节说
+&ldquo;只是因为点对点传输而接收软件拷贝等辅助的软件传
播活动不必接受 [本许可证]。&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>第二，GPLv3 的第 6(e) 节为&mdash;&mdash;torrent
+的原始种子发起者&mdash;&mdash;设计了一个清
晰而直接的方法来提供源代码，这就是告诉接受方源代码在å…
¬å…
±ç½‘络服务器的哪个地方可以得到。这就让所有想得到源代ç 
çš„人可以得到，而对分发者几乎没有麻烦。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="Tivoization">tivoization指的是什么？GPLv3如何禁止它？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#Tivoization" >#Tivoization</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+有些设备使用可以升级的自由软件，但是它们采用了一种不å
…
è®¸ç”¨æˆ·ä¿®æ”¹è½¯ä»¶çš„设计。有很多方法可以做的这一点；比如，有时硬件会检查已安è£
…软件的校验和，并在匹配错误时关机。这些制造商遵循
+GPLv2 给了你源代码，但是你
还是没有修改这个软件的自由。我们称之为 tivoization。</p>
+
+<p>当人们分发包含遵循 GPLv3 软件的最终用户产品时，GPLv3 
的第 6
+节要求他们提供修改此软件的信息。最终用户产品是该许可证定义的一个专门术语；最终用户产品åŒ
…括便携式音乐播放器、数字式录像机以及家用安å…
¨ç³»ç»Ÿç­‰ã€‚</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="DRMProhibited">GPLv3禁止DRM吗？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DRMProhibited"
+>#DRMProhibited</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不；你可以使用按照 GPLv3 发布的软件来开发 DRM 
技术。不过，如果你这么做，那么按照第 3 节所述，你
的系统不再被当作是一个有效的技术
+&ldquo;保护&rdquo; 手段，这意味着如果有人破解了 
DRM，那么她也有权利分发她的软件，而不受 DMCA 和å…
¶ä»–类似法律的妨碍。</p>
+
+<p>和往常一样，GNU GPL 
并不限制人们用软件做事，它只是阻止人们限制å…
¶ä»–人。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLHardware">能否用GPL作为硬件许可证？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLHardware"
+>#GPLHardware</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+任何有版权的素材都能够使用 GPL 来授权。GPLv3 
还能够为涉及其他版权法律的素材授权，比如半导体å…
‰æŽ©æ¨¡ã€‚因此，你可以按照 GPL
+条款来发布一款物品的构图或线路板。</p>
+
+<p>很多时候，版权并不覆盖到从构图制作物理硬件。此时，ä½
 å…³äºŽæž„图的许可证就是不能发挥对制造
或销售物理硬件的控制，无论你
使用什么许可证。当版权覆盖到硬件制造时，比如集成电路å…
‰æŽ©æ¨¡ï¼ŒGPL
+就能够发挥作用。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GiveUpKeys">我使用公钥签署我的代码以保证å…
¶çœŸå®žæ€§ã€‚GPLv3会强制我公开私钥，是这样吗？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#GiveUpKeys" >#GiveUpKeys</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不。只有一种情况你需要发布签名密钥，这就是如果你把 GPL
+软件传
输到一个用户最终产品，而该产品的硬件在正常工作之前会验证签名密钥。这是一个特殊的æƒ
…况，你
需要为每个拥有此设备的人按需提供签名密钥来验证和安装
修改版软件，这æ 
·è¯¥è®¾å¤‡æ‰èƒ½è¿è¡Œä¿®æ”¹ç‰ˆè½¯ä»¶ã€‚如果每个设备使用不同的密钥，那么ä½
 åªéœ€ä¸ºæ¯ä¸ªè®¾å¤‡è´­ä¹°è€…提供一个密钥。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="v3VotingMachine">GPLv3是否要求投票人可以修改投票机运行的软件？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#v3VotingMachine" >#v3VotingMachine</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不。发布包含着 GPLv3
+软件的设备的公司最多是被要求向拥有目标代ç 
çš„人提供源代码和安装
信息。投票人并不拥有投票机（就像å…
¶ä»–售卖机），连临时拥有都不算，所以投票人没有机器上二进制软件的所有权。</p>
+
+<p>不过，请注意，投票是一个非常特殊的例子。仅仅是因
为计算机运行着自由软件并不意味着你
就应该相信此投票计算机。我们认为不能相信投票机。投票应该使用纸质系统。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="v3PatentRetaliation">GPLv3有没有一个&ldquo;专利报复条款&rdquo;？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#v3PatentRetaliation" >#v3PatentRetaliation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+实际上是有的。其第 10 节禁止传输软件的人发起针对å…
¶ä»–许可证的专利诉讼。如果有人这么做了，那么第 8
+节解释了他们这样做会失去许可证以及任何相å…
³ä¸“利的许可证。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="SourceCodeInDocumentation">我是否可以在和GPL不å…
¼å®¹çš„文档里使用GPL软件源代码的片段？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#SourceCodeInDocumentation" >#SourceCodeInDocumentation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+如果所用的代码片段很小，那么你可以按照å…
¬å¹³ä½¿ç”¨æˆ–相似的法律来使用。否则，你不能使用。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3Under4and5">GPLv3的第6节说我可以&ldquo;按ç…
§ç¬¬4节和第5节的条款&rdquo;输送GPL协议程序的目标代ç 
ï¼Œå‰ææ˜¯æˆ‘同时也满足了第6节的要求。这究竟是什么意思？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3Under4and5"
+>#v3Under4and5</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+这是说你输送源代码的所有授权和条件同样适用于输送目æ 
‡ä»£ç ï¼šä½ å¯ä»¥æ”¶è´¹ï¼Œä½ ä¸èƒ½æ”¹å˜ç‰ˆæƒå£°æ˜Žï¼Œç­‰ç­‰ã€‚</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v2OrLaterPatentLicense">我的å…
¬å¸æ‹¥æœ‰å¾ˆå¤šä¸“利。多年以来，我们按ç…
§&ldquo;GPL版本2或以后版&rdquo;贡献了许多代码，而这些代ç 
æ‰€å±žçš„项目也是按照同样的条款发布的。如果用户决定按ç…
§GPLv3采纳这些项目（包含我们的贡献）的代ç 
ï¼Œè¿™æ˜¯å¦æ„å‘³ç€æˆ‘自动地明确把专利权授予了该用户？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v2OrLaterPatentLicense"
+>#v2OrLaterPatentLicense</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不。当你传输 GPL 软件时，你必
须遵循该许可证特定版本的条款。此时，该许可证版本定义了ä½
 çš„义务。如果用户选择使用以后的 GPL
+许可证版本，那么只是他们有了额外的授权&mdash;&mdash;这并不要求ä½
 éµå¾ªåŽæ¥çš„ GPL 版本的条款。</p>
+
+<p>请不要以此作为向社区做出专利胁迫的手段。在很多国家，按ç
…§ GPLv2 发布软件就已经隐含着对接收者的专利授权，这æ 
·ä»–们就能够在 GPL
+下实践自己的权利。即使不是这æ 
·ï¼Œå¼ºåˆ¶å®žè¡Œä¸“利法的人也会成为社区的敌人，而我们会奋起反击这æ
 ·çš„行为。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="LGPLv3ContributorVersion">如果我发布一个专有软件，该专有软件和我修改过的一个LGPLv3库连接在一起，作为判断我获得的专利许可证的范围，我应该使用什么&ldquo;贡献è€
…版本&rdquo;&mdash;仅仅是该库，还是整个组合？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LGPLv3ContributorVersion"
+>#LGPLv3ContributorVersion</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+&ldquo;贡献者版本&rdquo;只是你的库版本。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v2v3Compatibility">GPLv3和GPLv2兼容吗？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#v2v3Compatibility" >#v2v3Compatibility</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不。从 GPLv2 到 GPLv3，很多要求都变了，就是说 GPLv2 
里的一些确切需求在 GPLv3 没有，反过来也一样。比如，GPLv3
+的终止条款比 GPLv2 要更为宽松，因此它们和 GPLv2 
的终止条款不同。</p>
+
+<p>
+由于这些变化，这两个许可证不兼容：如果你试图组合按照 
GPLv2 发布的代码和按照 GPLv3 发布的代码，那么你就违反了 
GPLv2 的第 6 节。</p>
+
+<p>不过，如果代码是按照 GPL &ldquo;版本 2 
或以后版本&rdquo;发布的，那么它就和 GPLv3 兼容，因为 GPLv3 
就是一个以后版本。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="InstInfo">GPLv2是否有关于提供安装信息的要求？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#InstInfo"
+>#InstInfo</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>
+GPLv3 明确要求再发布要包含完整的 &ldquo;安装
信息&rdquo;。GPLv2 没有使用这个条款，但是它也要求再发布包
含与
+<q>控制编译和安装可执行文件的脚本</q> 有关的完整源代ç 
ã€‚这个没有 GPLv3 的 &ldquo;安装信息&rdquo; 全面。因此，GPLv3
+关于安装信息的要求更严格。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="Cure">&ldquo;修正&rdquo;对GPLv3的违反是什么意思？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#Cure" >#Cure</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+修正违反意味着你通过调整遵循了许可证的要求。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3InternationalDisclaimers">GPLv3 的å…
è´£å£°æ˜Žå¥½åƒä¸“门针对美国法律。我的代码可否添加
我自己的免责声明？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#v3InternationalDisclaimers" 
>#v3InternationalDisclaimers</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+可以。第 7 节具体地赋予你添加自己的å…
è´£å£°æ˜Žçš„权利。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="NonvisualLegalNotices">我的程序带有天然不可见的用户交互界面。我该如何遵守GPLv3要求的适当的法律声明？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NonvisualLegalNotices"
+>#NonvisualLegalNotices</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+你需要保证用户在你的界面上可以访问到 GPLv3 
所要求的适当法律声明。例如，如果你
写的是有声界面，那么你
可以设计一个朗读声明的命令。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="v3CoworkerConveying">如果我把一份GPLv3软件拷贝给了我的同事，我是否就是&ldquo;输送&rdquo;给同事一份拷贝？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3CoworkerConveying"
+>#v3CoworkerConveying</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+只要你们俩不是私下使用该软件，而只是在å…
¬å¸ä½¿ç”¨è¯¥è½¯ä»¶ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆå›žç­”是否定的。因为软件拷贝是å…
¬å¸çš„，不是你们自己的。拷贝只是传播，而非输送，原因
是公司并没有为第三方提供拷贝。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="v3ConditionalWarranty">如果我发布GPLv3程序，我是否可以说如果用户修改该程序，那么售后保障就失效。<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#v3ConditionalWarranty" >#v3ConditionalWarranty</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+是的，你
可以这么说。正如如果用户修改了设备里的软件，用户就失去售后保障一æ
 ·ï¼Œä½ æ²¡æœ‰ä¹‰åŠ¡æ‰¿æ‹…其他人对 GPLv3 
软件的所作所为带来的质保问题。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="SeparateAffero">为什么要专门写一个GNU Affero 
GPLv3作为单独的许可证？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#SeparateAffero" >#SeparateAffero</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+GPLv3 的早期草拟版本中允许许可证的授权方在第 7 节中加å…
¥ä¸€ä¸ªç±»ä¼¼ Affero
+的要求来发布源代ç 
ã€‚不过，有些开发和依赖于左右软件的å…
¬å¸è®¤ä¸ºè¿™ä¸ªè¦æ±‚难以承担。他们想避免带有此条款的代ç 
ï¼Œå¹¶ä¸”表达了对于审核此类代码的管理成本的担忧。通过把
+GNU Affero GPLv3 作为一个单独的许可证发布，添加
相应的条款，加上允许 GPLv3
+让使用这些许可证的代ç 
äº’相连接，我们就实现了初期定下的全部目æ 
‡ï¼ŒåŒæ—¶ä¹Ÿè®©å†³å®šå“ªéƒ¨åˆ†ä»£ç åº”该公开发布变得更加
容易了。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="WhyPropagateAndConvey">ä½ 
为什么在GPLv3中发明了新的术语——&ldquo;传
播&rdquo;和&ldquo;输送&rdquo;？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyPropagateAndConvey"
+>#WhyPropagateAndConvey</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+GPLv2 的术语 &ldquo;发布&rdquo;
+是从美国版权法借用的。经年累月，我们了解到一些法律体系在å
…¶ç‰ˆæƒæ³•ä¸­ä¹Ÿä½¿ç”¨åŒæ 
·çš„术语，但是意义并不相同。为了让我们要表达的意思无
论在什么地方都尽可能的清
晰，我们发明了这些新的术语。这些术语在任何国家的版权法里都没有使用，而我们直接在许可证中定义了它们。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="NoMilitary">我愿意按照GPL发布我的代码，但是我还想清
楚地说明我的程序不能用于军事和/或商业。我能这æ 
·åšå—？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NoMilitary" 
>#NoMilitary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不行，因为你的两个目标互相矛盾。GNU GPL 
专门设计成禁止添加额外的限制。GPLv3 在第 7
+节允许非常小的例外，但是用户可以去除任何其他后添加
的限制。</p>
+
+<p>更普遍地说，一个限制用户范围，或者
限制用户使用目的的许可证，<a
+href="/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html">不是左右软件许可证</a>。</p>
+</dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="ConveyVsDistribute">GPLv3中的&ldquo;输送&rdquo;和GPLv2中的&ldquo;分发&rdquo;是一回事吗？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ConveyVsDistribute"
+>#ConveyVsDistribute</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+是的，差不多是一回事。在我们针对 GPLv2 
的执法过程中，我们了解到一些法律体系在其版权法中使用 
&ldquo;发布&rdquo;
+一词，但是涵义和我们的不同。我们创造
了新的术语，用来避免这些不同造成的混淆和问题。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3MakingAvailable">GPLv3把&ldquo;使之公开可得&rdquo;作为是传
播的一个例子。这是什么意思？使之可得是不是一种输送？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3MakingAvailable"
+>#v3MakingAvailable</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+&ldquo;使之公开可得&rdquo; 的一个例子就是把软件放在公å…
±çš„网站或 FTP
+服务器上。这æ 
·åšäº†ä¹‹åŽï¼Œäººä»¬å¯èƒ½è¿˜è¦èŠ±ä¸€æ®µæ—¶é—´æ‰èƒ½èŽ·å¾—该软件&mdash;&mdash;但是也有可能有人马上就下载了软件，ä½
 ä¹Ÿæ»¡è¶³äº† GPL
+对马上的义务。因此，输送包含了使之å…
¬å¼€å¯å¾—这一活动。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="PropagationNotConveying">由于分发和使之å…
¬å¼€å¯å¾—在GPLv3中既是传播也是输送，那么有没有只是传
播而不是输送的例子？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#PropagationNotConveying"
+>#PropagationNotConveying</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+为你自己制作软件拷贝就是传
播的主要形式，但是它不是输送。你这æ 
·åšå¯èƒ½æ˜¯åœ¨å¤šä¸ªç”µè„‘上安装该软件，也可能是在做备份。 
</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="Prelinking">为了优化系统性能，把二进制的GPL软件和各种系统库预å
…ˆè¿žæŽ¥èµ·æ¥ï¼Œè¿™ç®—不算修改？<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#Prelinking" >#Prelinking</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不算。预连接是编译过程的一部分；它并没有牵扯到超
出编译之外或之上的许可证要求。如果你被å…
è®¸æŠŠç¨‹åºå’Œåº“连接起来，那么预连接也就没有问题。如果你
要发布预连接的目标代码，那么你就需要遵守第&nbsp;6
+节的条款。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="LaptopLoan">如果有人在电脑上安装
了GPL软件，然后把电脑借给了朋友，但是没有提供该软件的源代ç
 ï¼Œä»–们违反了GPL吗？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LaptopLoan" 
>#LaptopLoan</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+没有。就我们所调查的此类问题所处的法律体系来讲，这种出借不算是输送。出借电脑的所有è€
…不承担 GPL 的任何义务。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="TwoPartyTivoization">假定两个公司企图规避安装
信息的要求，一个公司发布签名软件，另一个å…
¬å¸å‘布用户产品，该产品只能运行第一个å…
¬å¸çš„签名软件。这个是否违反GPLv3？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#TwoPartyTivoization"
+>#TwoPartyTivoization</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+是的。如果两方企图互相合作来规避 GPL
+的要求，那么他们两个都会受到侵权的追讨。由于输送的定义æ¸
…楚地包
含了构成次要侵权的活动，这种互相串通的案例就是尤å…
¶æ˜Žæ˜¾çš„侵权。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="SourceInCVS">如果我在FTP服务器上发布二进制而同时提供了源代ç
 
çš„版本控制库链接，比如是CVS或Subversion，那么我是否也是遵守了GPLv3？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SourceInCVS"
+>#SourceInCVS</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+只要获取源代码的过程不是极å…
¶ç¹é‡ä»¥è‡´éš¾ä»¥æ“ä½œï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆè¿™ä¸ªæ–¹æ³•ä¹Ÿæ˜¯å¯ä»¥æŽ¥å—的。通过使用å
…¬å¼€å¯å¾—的自由软件客户端，能够下载目标代ç 
çš„人也能够通过你的版本控制系统获取源代码。你
应该为用户提供清晰和方便的指南，以便他们能够获取和目æ 
‡ä»£ç å¯¹åº”的源代ç 
&mdash;&mdash;毕竟他们也许并不想要最新的开发版。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="RemoteAttestation">在用户产品中输送GPLv3软件的人是否可以使用远程认证来防止用户修改软件？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#RemoteAttestation" >#RemoteAttestation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+不行。当软件通过用户产品来输送源代码时，你必
须提供安装信息，其定义明确说：&ldquo;安装信息必
须足以保证修改后的代码不能是单单因
为被修改而导致设备禁止或干扰å…
¶è¿è¡Œã€‚&rdquo;如果设备采取了某种远程验证，那么安装
信息就必须提供使修改后的软件上报å…
¶åˆæ³•æ€§çš„方法。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="RulesProtocols">GPLv3中的&ldquo;网络通信协议和规则&rdquo;是什么意思？<span
 class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#RulesProtocols" >#RulesProtocols</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+这个是指你
通过网络发送数据时遵守的交通规则。例如，服务器是否有每日接受发送请求的总数限制、或è€
…上传文件的大小是否受限等，如果你
不遵守这些规则，那么你的访问可能会被拒绝。</p>
+
+<p>这些规则和发送的数据没有直接的å…
³ç³»ã€‚例如，如果网络服务器向你
的设备发送消息，那么它不能因为你
修改了软件——比如不显示这些消息——就拒绝你
的网络访问。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="SupportService">按照GPLv3提供安装
信息的人不需要为产品提供&ldquo;技术支持服务&rdquo;。你
是指什么样的&ldquo;技术支持服务&rdquo;？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SupportService"
+>#SupportService</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+这包括许多设备制造商提供的产品安装、使用和故
障排除服务。如果你
的设备依赖网络服务等设施来正常工作，那么根据第 6
+节的条款，无
论是否使用网络，修改版的设备通常仍然享有这些服务。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="v3Notwithstanding">在GPLv3和AGPLv3中，&ldquo;不承担
本许可证的任何其他条款&rdquo;是什么意思？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3Notwithstanding"
+>#v3Notwithstanding</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+很简单，这就是说这些许可证条款超
越任何与之冲突的条款。例如，如果没有此条款，有些人可能会说ä½
 ä¸èƒ½æŠŠ GPLv3 代码和 AGPLv3
+代码组合在一起，因为根据 GPLv3 的第 7 节，AGPL 
的额外要求应该被界定为是
+&ldquo;额外的限制&rdquo;。这段文字就澄清
了我们的解释，而你可以把以上两种许可证的代ç 
ç»„合在一起。</p>
+
+<p>这段文字仅
用来解决许可证的矛盾之处。当两个条款没有矛盾之时，两个条款å¿
…须同时满足。该文字没有授予你忽略许可证å…
¶ä»–部分的权利&mdash;&mdash;反之，它只是隔离出了很有限的例外æƒ
…况。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="AGPLv3CorrespondingSource">æ 
¹æ®AGPLv3，当我修改一个符合第13节的软件时，该软件必
须提供哪些相关的源代码？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AGPLv3CorrespondingSource"
+>#AGPLv3CorrespondingSource</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+许可证的第 1 节定义了&ldquo;相关的源代码&rdquo;，你应该按ç…
§æ‰€åˆ—的要求提供源代码。因此，如果你
的修改版的依赖库使用了其他的许可证，比如
+Expat 或 GPLv3，那么相关的源代码应当包
含这些依赖库（除非它们是系统库）。如果你
修改了这些库，那么你必须提供修改后的源代码。</p>
+
+<p>第 13 
节第一段的最后一句话只是用来强调大多数人本来就接受的假定：即使组合
 GPLv3 代码是由第 13
+节的特殊例外来处理的，组合程序也仍然要按照要求包
含相关源代码。这句话不是说你 <em>只</em> 需提供 GPLv3 代ç 
ï¼›åä¹‹ï¼Œå®ƒæ˜¯è¯´ GPLv3
+代码 <em>没有</em> 被排除在相关代码的定义之外。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="AGPLv3InteractingRemotely">在AGPLv3中，什么应该算作是&ldquo;通过计算机网络和[该软件]远程交互？&rdquo;<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely"
+>#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+如果程序的设计明显是通过网络接受用户请求和发送回复，那么该程序就符合远程交互的判定条件。符合此类条件的常见程序åŒ
…
括网络服务器和邮件服务器、交互式网络应用程序以及在线游戏的服务器。</p>
+
+<p>如果程序的设计不是明显地通过网络来和用户交互，但是该程序碰巧运行在一个需要网络交互的环境下，那么它不算是远程交互程序。例如，用户使用
 SSH 或远程 X
+会话运行了某个应用。</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="ApacheLegalEntity">GPLv3中&ldquo;你
&rdquo;的概念和Apache许可证2.0中&ldquo;法律主体&rdquo;有何异同？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ApacheLegalEntity"
+>#ApacheLegalEntity</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+它们实际上是等效的。Apache 许可证 2.0
+版的&ldquo;法律主体&rdquo;的定义在各种法律协议中是非常æ 
‡å‡†çš„&mdash;&mdash;如果有法庭做出了不同的解释，那就非常地意外了。我们完å
…¨ç›¸ä¿¡æ³•åº­çœ‹åˆ°
+GPLv3 和判断谁是许可证被授权者
时会做出一致的解释。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="v3TheProgram">在GPLv3中，&ldquo;程序&rdquo;指的是什么？是不是指所有按ç
…§GPLv3发布的程序？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3TheProgram"
+>#v3TheProgram</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+&ldquo;程序&rdquo; 是指使用 GPLv3
+许可证授权的具体作品，该作品由授权方或发布方发布给å…
·ä½“的许可证接收方。接收时，程序就是一个按照具体 GPLv3 
许可证发布的具体软件。</p>
+
+<p>&ldquo;程序&rdquo;不是指&ldquo;所有按照 GPLv3 
发布的作品&rdquo;;这种解读没有道理。为了更好地理解这个道理，我们发布了
+<a href="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html">关于 &ldquo;程序&rdquo; 
这一术语的分析</a>。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt 
id="NoDistributionRequirements">如果我只是复制并运行GPL程序，并不向他人分发或输送，那么该许可证对我有什么要求？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NoDistributionRequirements"
+>#NoDistributionRequirements</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+什么也没有。GPL 对此没有任何约束。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="AGPLv3ServerAsUser">如果一个网络客户端程序按ç…
§AGPLv3发布，那么它是否必须能够向å…
¶äº¤äº’的服务器提供源代码？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AGPLv3ServerAsUser"
+>#AGPLv3ServerAsUser</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+    <p>AGPLv3 要求软件向 &ldquo;所有与å…
¶é€šè¿‡ç½‘络进行远程交互的用户&rdquo; 提供源代ç 
ã€‚该程序被叫做 &ldquo;客户端&rdquo;
+还是 &ldquo;服务器&rdquo; 并不重要，你需要问的问题是你
是否期待人们通过网络远程和该程序交互。 </p></dd>
+
+<dt id="AGPLProxy">对于运行代理服务器的AGPL软件，我们怎æ 
·æ‰èƒ½ä¸ºå’Œè¿™äº›ç¨‹åºäº¤äº’的用户提供源代码？<span
+class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AGPLProxy">#AGPLProxy</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>对于代理服务器上的软件，你
可以通过向代理服务器用户正常发送消息的方法为他们提供源代ç
 
ã€‚例如，网络代理可以使用起始页面。当用户开始使用代理时，ä½
 å¯ä»¥æŠŠä»–们引导到提供源代码等信息的页面。</p>
+<p>AGPL 规定你必须为 &ldquo;所有用户&rdquo;
+提供源代码。如果你
知道某些用户已经获得了目前版本的源代码，那么你就无
需为这些用户再重复此事。</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="AllCompatibility">各种GNU许可证如何彼此兼容？<span 
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+href="#AllCompatibility" >#AllCompatibility</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+各种 GNU 许可证互相之间友好兼容。你唯一可能碰到的无
法组合源代码的情况是一个程序 <em>只</em>
+使用了老的许可证而另一个程序使用了新的许可证。</p>
+
+<p>下面是各种 GNU
+许可证组合的兼容性的详细列表，它可以作为一个å…
·ä½“案例的快速参考。假定有一个软件使用了å…
¶ä¸­ä¸€ä¸ªè®¸å¯è¯ï¼Œè€Œä½ æƒ³æŠŠå®ƒçš„代码组合到你
要发布的项目中（无论是你自己的原创，还是你对å…
¶ä»–软件的修改版）。在表格的第一行找到你
的项目要用的许可证，然后在左边第一列找到你
要组合的软件的许可证。这一行一列的交叉表格就是你
是否可以组合两个软件的答案。</p>
+
+<p>当我们说 &ldquo;复制代码,&rdquo;
+时，我们是指：你从一个软件取了一部分代ç 
ï¼Œæ”¹æˆ–不改都行，然后把它添加到你
的程序中构成一个作品。&ldquo;使用库&rdquo;
+是指：你没有直接复制源代ç 
ï¼Œè€Œæ˜¯åœ¨ç¼–译或运行时通过连接、导入或其他å…
¸åž‹çš„机制把软件绑定在一起。</p>
+
+<p>表格中有 GPLv3 的地方, 其兼容性的陈述对 AGPLv3 
也适用。</p>
+
+<p><a href="#matrix-skip-target">跳过兼容性表格</a></p>
+
+<table id="gpl-compat-matrix">
+<tbody><tr>
+<th rowspan="2" colspan="2"><br /></th>
+<th colspan="6">我要使用许可证：</th>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 或者其以后版</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-border">GPLv3 或者其以后版</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 或者其以后版</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv3 或者其以后版</th>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th rowspan="6">我要复制的代码使用许可证：</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2</th>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以&nbsp;<a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="nok">不行</td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合只遵循 GPLv2&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合只遵循 GPLv2&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
+href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="nok">不行</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 或者其以后版</th>
+<td class="ok">可以&nbsp;<a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv2 或者其以后版&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv2 或者其以后版&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv3</th>
+<td class="nok">不行</td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1</th>
+<td class="mok">可以：按照 GPLv2 输送复制的代码&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：按照 GPLv2 或者其以后版输送复制的代ç 
&nbsp;<a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：按照 GPLv3 或者其以后版输送复制的代ç 
&nbsp;<a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以&nbsp;<a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-6">[6]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：按照 GPLv3 输送复制的代码&nbsp;<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 或者å…
¶ä»¥åŽç‰ˆ</th>
+<td class="mok">可以：按照 GPLv2 输送复制的代码&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
+href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：按照 GPLv2 或者其以后版输送复制的代ç 
&nbsp;<a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：按照 GPLv3 或者其以后版输送复制的代ç 
&nbsp;<a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">可以&nbsp;<a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-5">[5]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv3</th>
+<td class="nok">不行</td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a><a
+href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
+href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 LGPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-4">[4]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr class="gpl-matrix-use-type">
+<th rowspan="6">我使用的库遵循：</th>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2</th>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以&nbsp;<a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="nok">不行</td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合只遵循 GPLv2&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合只遵循 GPLv2&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a><a
+href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="nok">不行</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv2 或者其以后版</th>
+<td class="ok">可以&nbsp;<a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-1">[1]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv2 或者其以后版&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv2 或者其以后版&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">GPLv3</th>
+<td class="nok">不行</td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1</th>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv2.1 或者å…
¶ä»¥åŽç‰ˆ</th>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<th class="gpl-matrix-license gpl-matrix-border">LGPLv3</th>
+<td class="nok">不行</td>
+<td class="mok">可以：组合遵循 GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-9">[9]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+<td class="ok">可以</td>
+</tr>
+
+</tbody></table>
+
+<p><a href="#matrix-skip-target">跳过脚注</a></p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-1">1: 在这种情况下合并代码时，你必
须遵循 GPLv2 的条款。你不能利用 GPL 以后版的优势。</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-2">2: 在这种情况下，你可以按照 GPLv2 
或者其以后版发布你的项目（无
论是原创还是改进），但是要注意你使用的其他代码必
须继续只使用 GPLv2
+许可证。只要你的项目还依赖于其他代码，你就不能把你
的项目许可证升级为 GPLv3 或者其以后版本，而整个作品（你
的项目和其他代码的组合）只能使用
+GPLv2 来输送。</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-3">3: 如果你能够按照 GPLv2 或者å…
¶ä»¥åŽç‰ˆæœ¬å‘布你的项目，那么你就可以选择使用 GPLv3
+或者其以后版本来发布&mdash;&mdash;一旦你这样做了，你
就可以组合其他按照 GPLv3 发布的代码。</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-4">4: 如果你能够按照 GPLv2.1 或者å…
¶ä»¥åŽç‰ˆæœ¬å‘布你的项目，那么你就可以选择使用 GPLv3
+或者其以后版本来发布&mdash;&mdash;一旦你这样做了，你
就可以组合其他按照 GPLv3 发布的代码。</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-5">5: 在这种情况下合并代码时，你必
须遵循 GPLv2.1 的条款。你不能利用 GPL 以后版的优势。</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-6">6: 如果你这æ 
·åšäº†ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆåªè¦é¡¹ç›®çš„代码包含只遵循 LGPLv2.1 的代码，你
就不能把该项目的许可证升级到 LGPLv3 或者其以后版本。</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-7">7: LGPLv2.1 允许你把代码重新按照 
GPLv2 以后的 GPL 许可证发布。此时，如果你可以把 LGPL 代ç 
æŒ‰ç…§åˆé€‚çš„ GPL
+发布（如表格所示），那么你就可以进行该组合。</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-8">8: LGPLv3 是 GPLv3 加
上一些额外的许可，在这种情况下，你
不用考虑这些额外的许可。</p>
+
+<p id="compat-matrix-footnote-9">9: 由于 GPLv2 不允许和 LGPLv3 
组合，所以此时你必须按照 GPLv3 的条款输送项目的代ç 
ï¼ŒGPLv3 允许该组合。</p>
+
+<div id="matrix-skip-target"></div></dd>
+
+</dl>
+
+<div class="translators-notes">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
+ </div>
+</div>
+
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.zh-cn.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>请将有å…
³è‡ªç”±è½¯ä»¶åŸºé‡‘会（FSF）&amp;GNU的一般性问题发送到<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>。也可以通过<a
+href="/contact/">å…
¶ä»–联系方法</a>联系自由软件基金会(FSF)。请将无效链接，å…
¶ä»–错误或建议发送给<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</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";>
+
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;</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>. -->
+若您想翻译本文，请参看<a 
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">翻译须知</a>。</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 &copy; 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>本页面使用<a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative Commons
+Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>授权。</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.zh-cn.html" -->
+<div class="translators-credits">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
+<b>翻译团队</b>：<a rel="team"
+href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-zh-cn/";>&lt;CTT&gt;</a>，2019。</div>
+
+<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
+最后更新：
+
+$Date: 2019/06/08 16:02:50 $
+
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+<!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
+</body>
+</html>

Index: licenses/po/gpl-faq.zh-cn-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: licenses/po/gpl-faq.zh-cn-en.html
diff -N licenses/po/gpl-faq.zh-cn-en.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ licenses/po/gpl-faq.zh-cn-en.html   8 Jun 2019 16:02:51 -0000       1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,3953 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
+<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 td, table#gpl-compat-matrix th {
+   border: 1px solid black;
+}
+table#gpl-compat-matrix {
+   display: block;
+   width: 100%;
+   overflow: auto;
+   padding: .1em;
+   margin: auto;
+   border-collapse: collapse;
+   border: 2px solid black;
+}
+table#gpl-compat-matrix td, th.gpl-matrix-border {
+   text-align: center;
+   padding: .3em;
+   margin: 0;
+}
+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 &ldquo;GPL&rdquo;
+    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 GPLed 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 nonfree 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 &ldquo;written offer
+    valid for any third party&rdquo; mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone
+    in the world can get the source to any GPLed program no matter
+    what?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">The GPL says that modified
+    versions, if released, must be &ldquo;licensed &hellip; to all third
+    parties.&rdquo; 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
+    GPLed 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 &ldquo;compatible&rdquo;?</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#WhatDoesCompatMean">What does it mean to say a license
+    is &ldquo;compatible with the GPL&rdquo;?</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
+    &ldquo;aggregate&rdquo; and other kinds of &ldquo;modified
+    versions&rdquo;?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#AggregateContainers">When it comes to determining
+    whether two pieces of software form a single work, does the fact
+    that the code is in one or more containers have any effect?</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 GPLed 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 &ldquo;propagate&rdquo; and &ldquo;convey&rdquo; in
+    GPLv3?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#ConveyVsDistribute">Is &ldquo;convey&rdquo; in GPLv3
+    the same thing as what GPLv2 means by
+    &ldquo;distribute&rdquo;?</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 &ldquo;making available
+    to the public&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;patent
+    retaliation clause&rdquo;?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#v3Notwithstanding">In GPLv3 and AGPLv3, what does it mean
+    when it says &ldquo;notwithstanding any other provision of this
+    License&rdquo;?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely">In AGPLv3, what counts as
+    &ldquo; interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer
+    network?&rdquo;</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#ApacheLegalEntity">How does GPLv3's concept of
+    &ldquo;you&rdquo; compare to the definition of &ldquo;Legal
+    Entity&rdquo; in the Apache License 2.0?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#v3TheProgram">In GPLv3, what does &ldquo;the
+    Program&rdquo; 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 nonfree 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
+    &ldquo;Version&nbsp;3 of the GPL or any later
+    version&rdquo;?</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 nonfree 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 &ldquo;standard&rdquo; 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 GPLed 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 GPLed program on a web site.  Does the GPL say they
+    must release their modified sources?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#UnreleasedModsAGPL">A company is running a modified
+    version of a program licensed under the GNU Affero GPL (AGPL) on a
+    web site. Does the AGPL say they must release their modified
+    sources?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#InternalDistribution">Is use within one organization
+    or company &ldquo;distribution&rdquo;?</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 &ldquo;fair use&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;represent and warrant&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;under
+    the terms of sections 4 and 5&rdquo; 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
+    &ldquo;GPL version 2 or any later version&rdquo;, 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
+    &ldquo;conveyed&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;rules and protocols
+    for communication across the network&rdquo; mean in GPLv3?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#SupportService">Distributors that provide Installation
+    Information under GPLv3 are not required to provide &ldquo;support
+    service&rdquo; for the product. What kind of &ldquo;support
+    service&rdquo; 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 nonfree program on the same
+    computer?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF">Can I use GPL-covered editors
+    such as GNU Emacs to develop nonfree 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="#PortProgramToGPL">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 &ldquo;contributor version&rdquo;
+    for purposes of determining the scope of the explicit patent license
+    grant I'm making&mdash;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
+    &ldquo;aggregate&rdquo; and other kinds of &ldquo;modified
+    versions&rdquo;?</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#GPLFairUse">Do I have &ldquo;fair use&rdquo; 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 GPLed program that I'd
+    like to link with my code to build a proprietary program.  Does the
+    fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my
+    program?</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#SwitchToLGPL">If so, is there any chance I could get a
+    license of your program under the Lesser GPL?</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#WillYouMakeAnException">Using a certain GNU program
+    under the GPL does not fit our project to make proprietary software.
+    Will you make an exception for us?  It would mean more users of that
+    program.</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#IfInterpreterIsGPL">If a programming language
+    interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs
+    written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible
+    licenses?</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#InterpreterIncompat">If a programming language
+    interpreter has a license that is incompatible with the GPL, can I
+    run GPL-covered programs on it?</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a href="#GPLModuleLicense">If I add a module to a GPL-covered
+    program, do I have to use the GPL as the license for my
+    module?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#GPLPlugins">When is a program and its plug-ins
+    considered a single combined program?</a></li>
+  
+    <li><a 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 nonfree program?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#NFUseGPLPlugins">Can I release a nonfree 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
+    &ldquo;wrapper&rdquo; 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
+    nonfree 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 GPLed 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 GPLed 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 GPLed 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 &ldquo;cure&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GPL&rdquo; stand for?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatDoesGPLStandFor"
+ >#WhatDoesGPLStandFor</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+&ldquo;GPL&rdquo; stands for &ldquo;General Public License&rdquo;.
+The most widespread such license is the GNU General Public License, or GNU
+GPL for short.  This can be further shortened to &ldquo;GPL&rdquo;, 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&mdash;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";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</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";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</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 nonfree 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 &ldquo;written offer
+    valid for any third party&rdquo; mean in GPLv2?  Does that mean
+    everyone in the world can get the source to any GPLed 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 &ldquo;licensed &hellip; to all third
+    parties.&rdquo; 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.  &ldquo;All third
+parties&rdquo; means absolutely everyone&mdash;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.  The translation is
+covered by the copyright on the original program.</p>
+
+<p>If the original program carries a free license, that license gives
+permission to translate it.  How you can use and license the
+translated program is determined by that license.  If the original
+program is licensed under certain versions of the GNU GPL, the
+translated program must be covered by the same versions of the GNU
+GPL.
+</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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee"
+ >#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee</a>)</span></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
+&ldquo;equivalent access&rdquo; to download the source&mdash;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 nonfree.
+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 GPLed 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 GPLed
+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&mdash;less than 300 lines is the benchmark we use&mdash;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 &ldquo;compatible&rdquo;?
+ <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&mdash;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
+    &ldquo;compatible with the GPL?&rdquo;
+ <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 nonfree 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 nonfree library to do a
+certain job, it cannot do that job in the Free World. If it depends on a
+nonfree 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 nonfree 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 nonfree library is a drawback, and suggest
+the task of changing the program so that it does the same job without
+the nonfree library.  Please suggest that anyone who thinks of doing
+substantial further work on the program first free it from dependence
+on the nonfree library.</p>
+
+<p>Note that there may also be legal issues with combining certain nonfree
+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 &quot;system library&quot; vary
+between different versions of the GPL.  GPLv3 explicitly defines
+&quot;System Libraries&quot; in section 1, to exclude it from the
+definition of &quot;Corresponding Source.&quot; 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&mdash;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&mdash;it is their choice whether to do so.</p>
+
+<p>If the libraries you intend to link with are nonfree, please also see
+<a href="#FSWithNFLibs">the section on writing Free Software which uses
+nonfree 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 &lt;https://www.gnu.org/licenses&gt;.</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 &lt;https://www.gnu.org/licenses&gt;.</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 &ldquo;get&rdquo; the copyright on what you write&mdash;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 &ldquo;The Kept
+University&rdquo;, 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, &ldquo;If you will agree to releasing this as free
+software, I will finish it.&rdquo;  Don't think of this as a bluff.  To
+prevail, you must have the courage to say, &ldquo;My program will have
+liberty, or never be born.&rdquo;</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 GPLed 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 nonfree programs.
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF"
+ >#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+To release a nonfree 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 &ldquo;violation&rdquo; 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 nonfree 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&mdash;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 nonfree 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 nonfree programs.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLFairUse">Do I have &ldquo;fair use&rdquo;
+    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.  &ldquo;Fair use&rdquo; 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&mdash;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 &ldquo;fair&rdquo; 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 LGPLed 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 LGPLed 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
+LGPLed 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 module 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 program 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 as a whole must be licensed under the GPL. See also:
+<a href="#WhatDoesCompatMean">What does it mean to say a license is
+&ldquo;compatible with the GPL&rdquo;?</a>
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="IfInterpreterIsGPL">If a programming language interpreter
+    is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be
+    interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#IfInterpreterIsGPL"
+ >#IfInterpreterIsGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no.  The
+interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software
+license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you
+use the interpreter on.  You can run it on any data (interpreted program),
+any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data
+to anyone.</p>
+
+<p>However, when the interpreter is extended to provide
+&ldquo;bindings&rdquo; 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 GPLed 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 &ldquo;System Libraries&rdquo; 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
+&ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">trapped</a>&rdquo; 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 id="GPLPlugins">When is a program and its plug-ins considered a single 
combined program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLPlugins"
+ >#GPLPlugins</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+    It depends on how the main program invokes its plug-ins. If the
+main program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, 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 the plug-ins being a separate program.</p>
+       
+<p> If the main program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make
+function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe
+they form a single combined program, which must be treated as an
+extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. If the main
+program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them
+is limited to invoking the &lsquo;main&rsquo; function of the plug-in
+with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline
+case.</p>
+
+<p>Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is
+pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="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?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLAndPlugins"
+ >#GPLAndPlugins</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+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> 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. </p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="GPLPluginsInNF">Can I apply the
+    GPL when writing a plug-in for a 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 and a main program are considered a single combined program
+and when they are considered separate programs</a>.</p>
+<p> If they form a
+single combined program this means that combination of the GPL-covered
+plug-in with the nonfree 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 nonfree main
+program.</p>
+
+<p>See also the question <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">I am
+writing free software that uses a nonfree library.</a></p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="NFUseGPLPlugins">Can I release a nonfree 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>
+ 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 programs</a>.</p>
+<p>
+If they form a single combined program then the
+main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free
+software license, and the terms of the GPL must be followed when
+the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.</p>
+    
+<p>However, if they are separate works then the license of the plug-in
+makes no requirements about the main program.</p>
+
+<p>See also the question <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">I am
+writing free software that uses a nonfree library.</a></p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="LinkingWithGPL">You have a GPLed 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 (&ldquo;GPLv3&rdquo;)</p>
+
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>This exception enables linking with differently licensed modules
+over the specified interface (&ldquo;ABCDEF&rdquo;), 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&mdash;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 &ldquo;the GPL, with a
+    special exception allowing for linking with QUUX&rdquo;.</li>
+</ul></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="MereAggregation">What is the difference between an
+    &ldquo;aggregate&rdquo; and other kinds of &ldquo;modified versions&rdquo;?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#MereAggregation"
+ >#MereAggregation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+An &ldquo;aggregate&rdquo; 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 nonfree 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="AggregateContainers">When it comes to determining
+    whether two pieces of software form a single work, does the fact
+    that the code is in one or more containers have any effect?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AggregateContainers"
+ >#AggregateContainers</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>No, the analysis of whether they are a <a
+href="#MereAggregation">single work or an
+aggregate</a> is unchanged by the involvement of containers.</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 GPLed 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";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</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";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</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 &ldquo;source code&rdquo; 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&nbsp;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 nonfree system, it would have
+the effect of making the GPL-covered software nonfree 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 nonfree 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 &ldquo;incorporating&rdquo; 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&mdash;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
+&ldquo;part&nbsp;of&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;wrapper&rdquo;
+    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&mdash;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>&mdash;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&mdash;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 &ldquo;standard&rdquo; 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&mdash;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
+&mdash; 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 GPLed 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. The situation is different when the modified program
+is licensed under the terms of the <a
+href="#UnreleasedModsAGPL">GNU Affero GPL</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Compare this to a situation where the web site contains or links to
+separate GPLed programs that are distributed to the user when they
+visit the web site (often written in <a
+href="/philosophy/javascript-trap.html">JavaScript</a>, but other
+languages are used as well). In this situation the source code for the
+programs being distributed must be released to the user under the
+terms of the GPL.</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="UnreleasedModsAGPL">A company is running a modified
+    version of a program licensed under the GNU Affero GPL (AGPL) on a
+    web site. Does the AGPL say they must release their modified
+    sources?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#UnreleasedModsAGPL"
+ >#UnreleasedModsAGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>The <a href="/licenses/agpl.html">GNU Affero GPL</a>
+requires that modified versions of the software offer all users
+interacting with it over a computer network an opportunity to receive
+the source. What the company is doing falls under that meaning, so the
+company must release the modified source code.</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="InternalDistribution">Is making and using multiple copies
+    within one organization or company &ldquo;distribution&rdquo;?
+ <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
+    &ldquo;Version&nbsp;3 of the GPL or any later version&rdquo;?
+ <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&mdash;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 &ldquo;indirect
+pointer&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Version 3 of the GPL or any later
+version&rdquo; 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&nbsp;3.  When a
+program says &ldquo;Version 3 of the GPL or any later version&rdquo;, users
+will always be permitted to use it, and even change it, according to the
+terms of GPL version&nbsp;3&mdash;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&nbsp;4 is available,
+the developers of most GPL-covered programs will release subsequent
+versions of their programs specifying &ldquo;Version&nbsp;4 of the GPL or any
+later version&rdquo;.  Then users will have to follow the tighter
+requirements in GPL version&nbsp;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 &ldquo;the latest GPL
+version&rdquo;.  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&mdash;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
+&ldquo;GPL version&nbsp;N or any later version&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;source
+code&rdquo; of the book along with each printed copy, or provide a written
+offer to send the &ldquo;source code&rdquo; later.</p>
+
+<p>Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals
+make a profit from selling copies&mdash;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 &ldquo;the standard&rdquo;.</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 &ldquo;invariant&rdquo;, so that
+they cannot be changed or removed.  The GFDL makes provisions for these
+&ldquo;invariant sections&rdquo;.</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&mdash;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 &ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content">content
+    management system</a>&rdquo; 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 nonfree 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 nonfree 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 &ldquo;system library&rdquo; 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&mdash;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
+&ldquo;bindings&rdquo; 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 GPLed 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 GPLed
+class.
+</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="PortProgramToGPL">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="#PortProgramToGPL"
+ >#PortProgramToGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+In general, the answer is no&mdash;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 nonfree 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 GPLed 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
+&ldquo;distribution&rdquo; 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 GPLed software
+    require me in their umbrella EULAs or as part of their downloading
+    process to &ldquo;represent and warrant&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;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].&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>Second, section 6(e) of GPLv3 is designed to give
+distributors&mdash;people who initially seed torrents&mdash;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
+&ldquo;protection&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;patent retaliation
+    clause&rdquo;?
+ <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 &ldquo;under the terms of
+    sections 4 and 5&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GPL
+    version&nbsp;2 or any later version&rdquo;, 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&mdash;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 &ldquo;contributor version&rdquo; for purposes of
+    determining the scope of the explicit patent license grant I'm
+    making&mdash;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 &ldquo;contributor version&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;version 2 or
+later,&rdquo; 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
+&ldquo;Installation Information.&rdquo;  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 &ldquo;Installation Information.&rdquo;
+Thus, GPLv3's requirement about installation information is
+stronger.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="Cure">What does it mean to &ldquo;cure&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;conveyed&rdquo; 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
+    &ldquo;propagate&rdquo; and &ldquo;convey&rdquo; in GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyPropagateAndConvey"
+ >#WhyPropagateAndConvey</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The term &ldquo;distribute&rdquo; 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>
+
+<p>More generally, a license that limits who can use a program, or for
+what,
+is <a href="/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html">not
+a free software license</a>.</p>
+</dd>
+
+
+<dt id="ConveyVsDistribute">Is &ldquo;convey&rdquo; in GPLv3 the same
+    thing as what GPLv2 means by &ldquo;distribute&rdquo;?
+ <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 &ldquo;distribute&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;making available to the
+    public&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;making available to the public&rdquo; 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&mdash;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&nbsp;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&mdash;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: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;  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 &ldquo;rules and protocols for
+    communication across the network&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;support service&rdquo;
+    for the product. What kind of &ldquo;support service&rdquo;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 &ldquo;notwithstanding any other provision of this License&rdquo;?
+ <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 &ldquo;further restrictions&rdquo; 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&mdash;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>
+&ldquo;Corresponding Source&rdquo; 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
+    &ldquo;interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer
+    network?&rdquo;
+ <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
+    &ldquo;you&rdquo; compare to the definition of &ldquo;Legal Entity&rdquo;
+    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 &ldquo;Legal
+Entity&rdquo; in the Apache License 2.0 is very standard in various kinds
+of legal agreements&mdash;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 &ldquo;the Program&rdquo;
+    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 &ldquo;the Program&rdquo; 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>&ldquo;The Program&rdquo; cannot mean &ldquo;all the works ever licensed
+under GPLv3&rdquo;; 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
+&ldquo;the Program&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;all
+users interacting with it remotely through a computer network.&rdquo;
+It doesn't matter if you call the program a &ldquo;client&rdquo;
+or a &ldquo;server,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;copy code,&rdquo; 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.  &ldquo;Use a library&rdquo; 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&nbsp;<a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv2 only&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv2 only&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv2 or later&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey copied code under GPLv2 or later&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey copied code under GPLv3 or later&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="ok">OK&nbsp;<a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-6">[6]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey copied code under GPLv3&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Convey code under GPLv3 or later&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-8">[8]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<a href="#compat-matrix-footnote-2">[2]</a></td>
+<td class="nok">NO</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv2 only&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv2 only&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv2 or later&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-3">[3]</a></td>
+<td class="ok">OK</td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3&nbsp;<a 
href="#compat-matrix-footnote-7">[7]</a></td>
+<td class="mok">OK: Combination is under GPLv3&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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 &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</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";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</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";>
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;</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 &copy; 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 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: 2019/06/08 16:02:51 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
+</body>
+</html>
reply via email to
[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]