The GNU General Public License (English: abbreviated GNU GPL or GPL ) is a widely used free software license that gives end users the freedom to run, learn, share and modify software. The licensing terms were originally written by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation for the GNU project, and granted users of computer programs rights to the Free Software Definition . The GPL is a copyleft license, which means that as long as a certain part of the project (such as a dynamic link library ) is released under the GPL , the entire project and derivative works can only be distributed under the same license terms. This is distinguished from permissive free software licenses , of which the BSD License and the MIT License are widely used examples. The GPL was the first commonly used copyleft license.
| GNU General Public License |
|
| GNU GPLv3 Logo |
|
| author |
free software foundation |
| Version |
3rd edition |
| announcer |
free software foundation |
| release date |
February 25, 1989 |
| DFSG |
yes |
| free software |
yes |
| OSI certification |
yes |
| Copyleft |
yes |
| with different codes |
Can only be linked with GNU AGPLv3 code |
| website |
|
Historically, the GPL family of licensing terms has been one of the most popular software licenses in the field of free and open source software. Examples of excellent free software programs licensed under the GPL are the Linux kernel and the GNU Compiler Collection ( GCC ). David A. Wheeler believes that the copyleft provided by the GPL is crucial to the success of Linux -based systems, giving programmers who contribute to the core the assurance that their work will benefit the world at large and remain free without being exploited. Exploited by unscrupulous software companies that provide something back to the community.
In 2007 , the third version of the license terms ( GNU GPLv3 ) was released to resolve some of the frustrations discovered during long-term use of the second version ( GNU GPLv2 ). To keep the licensing terms current, the GPL licensing terms contain an optional " and extend to future versions " clause that allows the user to choose between the original terms as updated by the FSF or a new version. Some developers choose to omit it when licensing their software; for example, the Linux core is already licensed under GPLv2 and does not need to include the " and extends to future versions " statement.
The GPL grants the program recipient the following rights, or " freedom " , or "copyleft" :
- The freedom to run the software as you wish for any purpose (freedom zero).
- The freedom to learn how the software works, and the freedom to modify it as you wish to fit your calculations (one of the freedoms). Access to source code is a prerequisite for this freedom.
- The freedom to distribute copies of the software so you can help your friends (Freedom 2).
- The freedom to redistribute your modified versions of the software to others (Freedom 3). This gives the entire community a chance to share your changes to the software. Access to source code is a prerequisite for this freedom.
In contrast, end-user license contracts accompanying copyrighted software almost never grant the user any rights (other than the right to use) and may even restrict some legally permissible actions, e.g.
The main difference between the GPL and some other more " permissive " free software licenses (such as the BSD license ) is that the GPL seeks to ensure that the above freedoms are protected in copies of the software and derivative works. It is implemented through a legal mechanism called Copyleft invented by Stallman , which requires derivative works of GPL programs to be under the GPL . In contrast, BSD -style licensing terms do not prohibit derivative works from becoming proprietary software .
The GPL is the most popular licensing terms for free software and open source software. By April 2004 , the GPL accounted for about 75% of the free software listed on Freshmeat and about 68% on SourceForge . Similarly, a 2001 survey of Red Hat Linux 7.1 showed that most code was released under the GPL . Famous GPL free software includes EMACS , Linux core (not all Linux distributions ' cores are open source), and GCC .
history
The GPL was written by Richard Stallman in 1989 and is used by some software programs included in the GNU project . The original GPL was based on the unification of similar licensing terms used in early versions of GNU Emacs ( 1985 ), the GNU Debugger , and the GNU C compiler. These license terms contained similar provisions to the modern GPL , but were specific to each program, making them incompatible despite being under the same license terms. Stallman 's goal is to provide a license that can be used for any project, thereby allowing many projects to share code. GPL version 1 was born in January 1989 .
By 1990 , certain factors dictated that there should be a need for a less restrictive license than the GPL . So when GPL version 2 was released in June 1991 , another licensing term - Library General Public License ( LGPL ) was also born, and was recorded as " Version 2" to supplement the GPL . . The version number was no longer the same when LGPL version 2.1 was released, and the LGPL was renamed the GNU Lesser General Public License to reflect the GNU philosophy.
The second version of the License Terms, Version 2 , was released in 1991 . Over the next 15 years, members of the free software community were concerned about issues in the GPLv2 licensing terms, which might allow some people to exploit loopholes and violate the licensing terms, thus violating the original intent of the GPL licensed software. These issues include Tivoization (software restrictions from hardware, which means installing GPL licensed software on the hardware and refusing to run modified versions of the related software), compatibility issues similar to the terms of the Affero General Public License , and Microsoft and free and open source software, some of which are believed to be trying to use patent applications as weapons against the free software community.
Version 3 was designed to address these issues and was officially released on June 29 , 2007 .
term
According to the official website of Creative Commons , the Taiwanese legal translation of the GNU General Public License is "", and the same is true for the Hong Kong legal translation.
GPLv1
Version 1 of the GNU GPL , released on February 25 , 1989 , prevented two major ways in which software resellers could restrict the definition of free software . The first problem is that the reseller may only release binary files - executable, but not readable or modified by humans. To prevent this, GPLv1 says that any vendor distributing binary code must also provide readable source code under the same license terms (sections 3a and 3b of the License Terms).
The second issue is that resellers may increase the restrictions of the licensing terms and may combine the software with other software that has other distribution restrictions. The union of the two sets of restrictions will apply to the combined work, thereby adding unacceptable restrictions. To prevent this, GPLv1 states that the modified version, as a whole, must be distributed under the terms of GPLv1 (Section 2b and 4 of the License ). Therefore, software distributed under the terms of GPLv1 can be combined with the software on looser terms, since this does not change the terms under which the overall distribution can be made. However, software distributed under GPLv1 cannot be combined with software distributed under the stricter terms of the license, because this conflicts with the requirement that it can be distributed under the terms of GPLv1 .
GPLv2
According to Richard Stallman , the main change in GPLv2 is the " Liberty or Death " clause . As the name suggests, "licensees may distribute software licensed under the GPL only if they meet all obligations under the terms of the license, notwithstanding any other legal obligations they may have." In other words, even if there are conflicting obligations, the obligations of the grant clause may not be severed. This provision is intended to prevent any party from using patent infringement claims or other litigation to undermine the user's freedom under the terms of the license. The meaning of this chapter is that in order to protect and respect the freedom and rights of other people to a certain extent, whenever anyone wants to release software derived from the GPL, he must also abide by the mandatory terms and share the source code, otherwise he will There is no right to distribute this software at all.
By 1990 , it was becoming increasingly apparent that, for C libraries, which were essentially functionally equivalent to patent-protected software libraries, there was a strategy for free software development with less restrictive licensing terms. Said to be more practical; therefore, when version 2 of the GPL ( GPLv2 ) was released in June 1991 , the second category of licensing terms: the Library General Public License Terms (English: ) was also introduced at the same time, and from The numbering of the second edition begins, indicating that the two are complementary. The version number was released in 1999 , when version 2.1 of the LGPL was released, renamed the GNU Lesser General Public License (English: ) to reflect its place in the philosophy.
The most common is the statement "GPLv2 and extends to future versions " , which lets users understand the licensing terms and allows upgrades to GPLv3 .
GPLv3
GPLv3 logo
Richard Stallman drafted the first GNU GPLv3 draft at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge , Massachusetts, USA. To his right is Columbia law professor Ibn Moglin , president of the Software Freedom Law Center
By 2005 , GPL version 3 was being drafted by Stallman, with legal advice from Ibn Moglin and the Software Freedom Law Center . At the end of 2005 , the Free Software Foundation ( FSF ) announced work on version 3 of the GPL ( GPLv3 ) . On January 16 , 2006 , the first " discussion draft " of GPLv3 was announced , and public consultation began. The public consultation was originally planned to last between nine and 15 months, but was eventually extended to 18 months, during which four drafts were published. On June 29 , 2007 , the official version of GPLv3 was released by FSF .
Later, Richard Stallman talked about the four most important things in his speech at the Free and Open Source Software Developers Europe Conference on February 25 , 2006 :
- Solve software patent issues;
- Compatibility issues between free software licensing terms and other commercial licenses;
- Definition of source code segmentation and composition;
- Solve the problem of digital rights management , which means anti-hardware limitations of software modification.
There are other changes involving internationalization, how licensing terms violations are handled, and how copyright holders grant additional permissions. It also adds a provision that " strips " Digital Rights Management ( DRM ) of its legal value , so people can reasonably crack open GPL software when it is deemed to infringe DRM in court. anything without violating laws such as the DMCA .
The public consultation process is coordinated by the Free Software Foundation, with assistance from the Software Freedom Law Center, the European Free Software Foundation, and other free software organizations. Comments are collected from the public through the FSF ( page archive ) website. The portal runs specialized software called stet . During the public consultation process, 962 comments on the first draft were submitted. In the end, a total of 2,636 comments were submitted .
The third draft was released on March 28 , 2007 . The draft includes language aimed at preventing patent-related agreements, such as the controversial Microsoft-Novell patent agreement , and limits anti-dumping provisions to " user " or " consumer products . " It also explicitly removes the " geographical restrictions " section, confirming that it was mentioned at the start of the public consultation that this section might be removed.
The final fourth discussion draft was released on May 31 , 2007 . It introduces Apache License Terms version 2.0 compatibility (previous versions were not compatible), clarifies the role of outside contractors, and proposes an exception to avoid a recurrence of the contentious Microsoft-Novell patent agreement , in Section 11 Paragraph 6 says:
| You may not convey a software work covered by the terms of the GNU License if you are a party to an arrangement with a marketing software business (hereinafter referred to as a third party) under which you make payments to the third party to the extent of your activity in conveying the work, and Under this agreement, third parties receive discriminatory patents against other parties who may receive covered work related to yours. |
This is intended to invalidate future transactions like this. The licensing terms also mean that Microsoft extends the patent licensing terms it grants to Novell customers to all users of GPLv3 software, using the GPLv3 software; this is only possible when Microsoft is legally the " conveyor " of the GPLv3 software.
In addition, an early draft of GPLv3 allowed licensors to add a requirement for the Affero class, which would fill the ASP loophole in the GPL . The decision was made to separate the GPL and Affero licensing terms due to concerns about the additional administrative costs of code checking for this additional requirement .
It is worth noting that several high-profile developers of the Linux core , such as Linus Torvalds , Greg Krohaman , and Andrew Morton , commented to the popular press and discussed drafts 1 and 2 . made a public statement on part of the content. Core developers mention draft GPLv3 provisions regarding DRM /Tivoization , patents and " additional restrictions " and warn of a Balkan-style fragmentation of the " Open Source Universe " . Linus Torvalds decided not to adopt GPLv3 for the Linux core, still using the GPLv2 license, and even reiterated his criticisms a few years later. This incident caused Richard Stallman dissatisfaction.
GPLv3 improves compatibility with many open source software licenses (such as the Apache License version 2.0 ) and the GNU Affero General Public License ( which cannot be combined with GPLv2 ). However, if the GPLv2 license terms used have the optional " or later " clause, and the software is upgraded to GPLv3 , the GPLv3 software can only be combined and share code with the GPLv2 software. Although the FSF considers the "GPLv2 and extension to future versions " clause to be the most common form of licensing GPLv2 software, Toybox developer Rob Landley describes it as a "lifeboat clause . " Software projects licensed with the optional " or later " clause include the GNU project, while the most obvious case without this clause is the Linux kernel。
The final version of the licensing terms text was officially released by the Free Software Foundation on June 29 , 2007 .
terms and Conditions
The terms and conditions of the GPL must be made available to anyone who accepts a copy of a work to which the GPL applies ( a " licensee " ). Any Licensee who complies with the Terms and Conditions is entitled to modify the work, and to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative versions thereof. Licensee is permitted to charge a fee for this service, or it may be provided free of charge. The latter point distinguishes the GPL from software licenses that prohibit commercial redistribution. The FSF believes that free software should not restrict commercial use, and the GPL clearly stipulates that GPL works may be sold at any price.
The GPL also provides that resellers may not impose " further restrictions " on the rights granted by the GPL . Activities such as distributing software under non-disclosure agreements or contracts are prohibited.
Section 4 of Version 2 and Section 7 of Version 3 of the License Terms require that programs distributed as precompiled binaries be accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code through the same mechanism as the previous version, and compilation binaries or a written offer to obtain the source code that users receive when they receive precompiled binaries under the GPL . Part II of Version 2 and Part V of Version 3 also require " all recipients of a copy of the License Terms accompanying the Program . " Version 3 of the License allows source code to be provided in other ways to implement Part 7. These include downloading the source code from a neighboring network server or via peer-to-peer transmission, as long as the compiled code is available, and there is " clear direction " where the source code can be found .
The FSF has no copyright in works released under the GPL unless the author explicitly grants copyright to the FSF (except infrequently for programs that are part of the GNU project) . Only the individual copyright holder has the right to sue if a license provision occurs.
Use licensed software
Software under the GPL can be used for all purposes, including commercial purposes and even as a tool for creating proprietary software, such as when using a GPL- licensed compiler. Users or companies that distribute GPL- licensed works (such as software) may charge a fee for copies or provide them free of charge. This distinguishes the GPL from shareware licenses that permit copying for personal use but prohibit commercial distribution, or proprietary licenses that prohibit copying under copyright law. The FSF believes that free software should not restrict commercial use and distribution (including redistribution). The GPL makes it clear that GPLed work may be sold at any price.
For purely private (or internal) use - no sale and no distribution - software code may be modified and parts reused without releasing the source code. For sale or distribution, the entire source code needs to be made available to the end user, including any code changes and additions - in this case, copyleft is applied to ensure that the end user retains the freedoms defined above.
However, software that runs as an application under a GPL- licensed operating system (such as Linux ) does not need to be licensed under the GPL or distributed with source code availability - the license depends only on the libraries and software components used, not on the underlying platform. For example, if a program consists only of its own original custom software ( software component ), or is combined with the source code of other software components, its own custom software component does not need to be licensed under the GPL and does not need to make its code available; even if The underlying operating system used is licensed under the GPL , and applications running on it are not considered derivative works. Only if GPLed parts are used in the program (the program has been distributed), all other source code of the program can be made available under the same license terms. The GNU Lesser Public License ( LGPL ) was created to have a weaker copyleft than the GPL because it does not require you to provide your own customized source code under the same license terms (unlike LGPLed parts).
Copyleft
Entry: Copyleft
The right to distribute a modified work from a GPL- licensed version is not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPLed work and adds their own modifications, the requirements for distributing the entire work cannot be greater than those in the GPL . This requirement is called copyleft . It obtains legal power through the use of copyrights in software programs. Since works under the GPL are protected by copyright, licensees have no right to redistribute them, even in modified form (except for fair use ). In addition to the terms of the license, if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution, one need only Comply with the terms of the GPL . Conversely, if copies of a work are distributed without complying with the terms of the GPL (such as keeping the source code secret), the original author may bring proceedings under copyright law. Therefore, " copyleft is accomplished using copyright law" contrary to the purpose of common law, which is not to impose restrictions but "to give others rights in a way that ensures that rights cannot subsequently be taken away." If you find any in the copyleft statement Legal flaws, it also ensures that unlimited redistribution rights are not given.
Many resellers of GPL programs bundle source code with executable files . An alternative to satisfying copyleft is to provide a written offer to make the source code available on a physical medium (such as a CD ). In fact, many GPL programs are distributed through the Internet , and the source code is provided through FTP or HTTP . For Internet distribution, this is in accordance with the terms of the License. Copyleft only applies if a person attempts to redistribute the program . As long as the modified software is not distributed to anyone, developers can make private modified versions without revealing the modifications. Note that copyleft only applies to software, not its output (unless that output itself is a derivative work of the program </ref> ).
For example, a public portal running a derivative of a modified version of the GPL Content Management System ( CMS ) would not need to distribute its changes to the underlying software, since its output is not a derivative.
There is debate over whether it is a violation of the GPL to release source code in obfuscated form , for example if the author is reluctant to provide the source code. It is generally accepted that while this is unethical, it cannot be considered illegal. This issue has been clarified: when the license terms are changed to v2 , a "preferred" version of the source code needs to be provided.
The difference between authorization terms and contracts
The GPL was designed as a licensing clause , not a contract. In some common law jurisdictions, the legal distinction between a license and a contract is important: a contract is enforceable under contract law, whereas a license is enforceable under copyright law. However, this distinction does not apply in many jurisdictions (such as civil law systems) where there is no distinction between deeds and grant clauses.
The principle of the GPL is simple: under copyright law, if you do not comply with the terms and conditions of the GPL , you have no corresponding rights. When a work does not have a GPL , copyright law takes effect as a default clause, rather than the work entering the public domain. Those who do not accept the terms and conditions of the GPL have no license under copyright law to copy or distribute the GPL- licensed software or derivative works. However, if they do not redistribute the GPL'ed program, they can still use the software within their organization as they see fit, and projects (including programs) built using the program do not need to be covered by the terms of the license.
Allison Randall believes that GPLv3 as a license is unnecessarily confusing to readers and could be simplified while retaining the same conditions and legal effect .
Derivative or extensible
The text of the GPL itself is protected by copyright , which is held by the Free Software Foundation. The copywriting of the GPL itself is not under the GPL . Licensed copyrights do not allow modification of the terms of the license. Copying and distribution of the License Terms is permitted because the GPL requires that recipients obtain a copy " of these License Terms together with the Plan . " [62] According to the GPL FAQ, anyone can use a modified version of the GPL as long as he or she uses a different name for the license terms, does not mention "GNU" , and removes the preface, although if using the Free Software Foundation ( FSF ) With permission, the preamble may be used under modified terms of the License.
The FSF allows people to create new license terms under the GPL , as long as the derived license terms do not use the GPL prefix without permission. However, this is discouraged because such license terms may be incompatible with the GPL and lead to infected license proliferation (license proliferation ) .
Other licenses created by the GNU project include the GNU General Public License, the GNU Free Documentation License, and the Affero General Public License.
Links and Derivative Works
Controversy: Whether non- GPL software can legally link or dynamically link to a GPL library
According to the FSF , "The GPL does not require you to release a modified version, or any part thereof, and you are free to make modifications and keep them for private use without publishing them." However, in the case of an entity releasing a GPL license to the public, there is a linking issue : In other words, "Does a patented program using a GPL library violate the GPL ?"
The key issue at issue is whether non- GPL software can legally link or dynamically link to GPL libraries. There are different views on this issue. The GPL makes it clear that all code from derivative works under the GPL must be under the GPL . Ambiguities arise regarding the use of GPL libraries and bundling GPL software into larger packages (perhaps mixed into binaries via static linking). This is ultimately not a problem with the GPL itself, but with how copyright law defines derivative works. The following views exist:
Opinion: Dynamic and static links violate the GPL
The Free Software Foundation (which owns the copyrights to several well-known GPL software products and the licensed text itself) claims that executable files that use dynamically linked libraries are indeed derivative works. However, this does not apply to separate programs communicating with each other. The Free Software Foundation also created the LGPL , which is very similar to the GPL , but additionally allows links for the purpose of " using libraries " . Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation specifically encourage library authors to license their libraries under the GPL so that proprietary programs cannot use GPL libraries, by providing the free software world with more tools than the proprietary world. to protect the free software world.
Opinion: Static links violate GPL , but dynamic links need to be clarified
Some argue that when static linking results in derivative works, it is unclear whether an executable file dynamically linked to GPL code should be considered a derivative work (see Weak Copyleft ). Linux author Linus Torvalds agrees that dynamic linking can create derivative works, but is inconsistent in this case. A Novell lawyer wrote that the argument that dynamic links are not derivative works is reasonable but not clear-cut, and that the proprietary Linux kernel driver is a clear example of good-faith dynamic links. In Galoob v. Nintendo, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit defined a derivative work as having " form " or " permanence " and stated that " the infringing work must contain in some form a portion of the copyrighted work , " but did not specify court ruling to resolve this particular conflict.
Opinion: Links are irrelevant
According to an article in Linux Journal , Lawrence Rosen (general counsel for one-time open source projects) believes that the method of linking is largely irrelevant to the question of whether a software is a derivative work; it is more about whether the software is intended to be interoperable with client software and / Or library connection problem. He states: " The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is whether the source code of the original program is used in a [ copy-and-paste manner ] , modified, translated, or otherwise altered in any way, and if not, then I would considers this not derivative work " and lists many other views on intent, bundling and linkage mechanisms. He further argues on his company's website that this " market-based " factor is more important than the linking technology.
There is also the specific question of whether a plug-in or module (such as an NVidia or ATI graphics card core module) must also be GPL if it can reasonably be considered work in its own right. This argument suggests that if the work is GPLv2 , then software designed to use plug-ins can be reasonably provided with separate plug-ins or plug-ins under arbitrary licensing terms. Of particular interest is the GPLv2 paragraph:
| You may modify copies or copies of the Program, or any part of it, to form a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:… b）您必須將您分發或發布的任何作品全部或部分包含或衍生自本計劃或其任何部分，根據本授權條款的條款无偿授予所有第三方。 ...這些要求適用於整體修改後的工作。 如果該作品的可識別部分不是源自該程序，並且可以被合理地視為獨立和獨立的作品，則本授權條款及其條款在將其作為單獨作品分發時不適用於這些部分。 但是，當您分發相同的部分作為基於程序的工作的整體的一部分時，整體的分佈必須符合本授權條款的條款，其授權條款持有人的權限將擴展到整個，和每個部分，無論誰寫的。 |
GPLv3有一個不同的條款：
| 您可以根據第4節的條款，以原始碼的形式傳達基於本程序的工作，或從程序生成的工作，只要您也符合以下所有條件：…… c）您必需根據本許可將整個作品整體授權給任何擁有副本的人。 因此，本授權條款連同任何適用的第7條附加條款適用於整個工作及其所有部分，無論其包裝方式如何。 本授權條款不允許以任何其他方式許可該作品，但如果您已單獨收到，則不會使該許可無效。……與其他單獨和獨立的作品的彙編，而不是其涵蓋的作品的性質延伸，而不是與其組合，以形成更大的程序，在一個或多個如果彙編及其產生的版權不被用於限制編輯用戶的存取權限或合法權限超出個人作品允許的範圍，則稱為“匯總”。 合併中的被覆蓋的工作不會導致本授權條款適用於合併的其他部分。 |
作為一個案例研究，一些據稱為GPLv2 CMS軟件（如Drupal和WordPress）的專有插件和主題/外觀已經受到打擊，雙方均被採納
FSF區分插件如何被呼叫。如果透過動態連結呼叫插件，並且它對GPL程序執行函數呼叫，那麼它很有可能是衍生工作。
與非GPL程序的通訊和綁妥
與其他程序通訊的行為本身並不要求所有軟件都是GPL；也不用GPL軟件分發GPL軟件。但是，必須遵循較小的條件，確保GPL軟件的權利不受限制。 以下是gnu.org的 GPL FAQ，該常見問題解答介紹了允許軟件與GPL程序進行通訊和綁妥的程度：
| Q：“合輯”（Aggregate）與其他類型的“修改版本”有什麼區別？ A：“合輯”由多個單獨的程序組成，分佈在同一個CD-ROM或其他媒體上。 GPL允許您創建和分發合輯，即使其他軟件的授權條款是非自由的或GPL不兼容的。 唯一的條件是，您不能根據禁止用戶行使每個計劃的個人授權條款授予他們的權利的授權條款發布合併。 Q：兩個單獨的程序之間的區別在哪裡，一個程序有兩個部分？ A：這是一個法律問題，最終法官會決定。 我們認為適當的標準取決於通信機制（exec，pipes，rpc，共享地址空間中的函數呼叫等）和通信的語義（哪些信息被互換）。如果模組包含在相同的執行檔中，則它們在一個程序中被明確地組合。 如果模組設計為在共享地址空間中連接在一起運行，那麼幾乎肯定意味著將它們組合成一個程序。相比之下，（pipe）、接口（socket）和命令行參數是通常在兩個獨立程序之間使用的通訊機制。 所以當它們用於通信時，模組通常是單獨的程序。 但是，如果通信的語義足夠親密，交換複雜的內部數據結構，那麼也可以將這兩個部分合併成一個更大的程序。 |
因此，FSF想在“函式庫”和“其他程序”之間透過以下兩種方式劃清界線： 1）信息交換的“複雜性（complexity）”和“親密程度（intamacy）”；2）信息交換的“機構（mechanics）“，而不是“語義（semantic）”。但讓問題不明確，而又複雜的情況下，交由判例法來決定。
版權所有人
GPL文本是版權所有的，且著作權人是自由軟件基金會。但是，自由軟件基金會沒有在GPL下發行作品的著作權（除非作者指定自由軟件基金會是著作權人）。通常認為，只有著作權人才有權對授權條款的違反進行起訴，但是那並不准確。法國的一個教育組織AFPA於2000年從Edu4購買課堂使用的電腦裝置發現其使用GPL軟件但並未附帶原始碼。
自由軟件基金會允許人們使用以GPL為基礎的其他授權條款，但不允許演繹的授權條款未經授權地使用GPL的前言。不過像這樣的授權條款通常與GPL不兼容。
GNU計劃創立的其他授權條款包括：GNU宽通用公共许可证和GNU自由文件授權條款。
爭議
一個關於GPL重要的爭議是，非GPL軟件是否可以動態連結到GPL庫。 GPL對GPL作品的演繹作品在GPL下發布規定很明確。但是對於動態連結到GPL庫的作品是否是演繹作品就規定得不清楚了。自由和開放原始碼社群為此分成兩派，自由軟件基金會認為這種作品就是演繹作品，但其他專家並不同意。這個問題根本的並不關乎GPL本身，而是一個版權法如何定義演繹作品。美國聯邦上訴法院第九巡迴審判庭在Galoob v. Nintendo案對演繹作品嘗試定義，但最終沒有明確的結果。
不幸的是，許多開發人員覺得這是個技術問題。但實際上這完全是法律問題。不過由於迄今為止沒有案例表明有人以動態連結的方式來繞過GPL的條款并因此被起訴，動態連結的限制已經是事實上地（de facto）有效，不論它是否是法律上地（de jure）有效。
2002年，MySQL AB公司起訴Progress NuSphere侵犯版權和商標。 NuSphere被指以連結代碼的形式侵犯了著作權。最終此案以調解結束。在聽證期間，法官“認為沒有什麼原因”（不管是否是動態連結）會使得GPL失去法律效力。
2003年8月，SCO Group稱他們認為GPL沒有法律效力，且準備就在Linux核心中使用的SCO Unix代碼進行訴訟。參見SCO訴IBM。
2004年4月，在SiteCom拒絕停止發行Netfilter專案的GPL軟件後，慕尼黑地區法庭據對GPL條款的侵犯判定對SiteCom進行臨時性禁令（訴前停止侵犯專利權行為的措施）。同年7月，法庭確認此勒令為對SiteCom最終判決。此判決明顯的印證了自由軟件基金會的法律顧問伊本·莫格林的預言：
“被告侵犯了原告的著作權：提供了軟件netfilter/iptables的廣告及下載，但沒有遵守GPL的條款。可以說，如果被告有授權條款許可，這些行為是完全合法的……原被告就GPL是否達成協議這是一個獨立的問題。如果當事人沒有同意，被告將沒有複製、發行、公開'netfilter/iptables'的權利。”
此判決十分重要，因為它是全球首次法庭確認GPL是有法律效力的。
2005年5月，Daniel Wallace於美國聯邦印第安納南區地方法院起訴自由軟件基金會，因為二者對GPL是否非法意見不一。後訴訟於3月結束，因為Wallace沒有有效的反托拉斯陳述。法庭注意到“GPL鼓勵，而不是反對電腦操作系统的自由競爭和發行，這直接使消費者受益。”Wallace被拒絕改變訴由，並被要求支付訴訟費用。
兼容性
大多數自由軟件授權條款，比如MIT/X授權條款、BSD授權條款、LGPL，都是“ GPL兼容的”，即它們的代碼與GPL代碼混用無衝突（但新代碼則是GPL下的）。但是有某些開源軟件授權條款不是GPL兼容的。通常意見是開發人員僅只使用GPL兼容的授權條款，以免法律問題。
參見軟體授權條款列表以查證兼容性。
批評
2001年微軟的首席執行官史蒂夫·巴爾默稱Linux為“癌症”，因為GPL的影響。微軟批評者指出，微軟憎惡GPL的真正原因是因為GPL對微軟的“包圍、擴展、消滅”策略起了反作用。注意微軟已以GPL為授權條款發行了SFU（Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX）中所包含的部分組件，例如GCC。
GPL的批評者常常認為GPL是有“傳染性”的“病毒”，因為GPL條款規定演繹作品也必須是GPL的。由於“演繹作品”通常被解釋為包含GPL代碼或動態連結到GPL庫（如上）的軟件，“病毒說”來源於GPL對於授權條款的強制繼承的要求。這正是GPL與BSD式授權條款的哲學思想上的差異。 GPL的支持者確信自由軟件世界應具有自我保護能力和可持續發展性——確保自由軟件的演繹作品同樣“自由”，但其他人認為自由軟件應給予“所有人”最大的自由。
不同版本之間的GPL並不相容。例如，當原始的作品以GPLv2發布，而補丁以GPLv3發佈時，因為這樣的原因，其編譯之後產生的二進位版本不可以再行傳播。因此，FSF通常會推薦以“GPLv2 or later”這樣的形式來標示授權授權條款，或GPLv2 + GPLv3雙授權條款以規避這一問題。
注释
參見
- GNU Affero通用公眾授權條款
- GNU较寬鬆公共授權條款
- GNU通用公共授權條款版本3討論草稿1（英文）
- BSD授權條款
- Mozilla公共授權條款
- 軟件授權條款列表
- GNU自由文件授權條款
- MIT授權條款
- Apache授權條款
- 寬鬆開放版權授權條款
参考文献
-
- ^ . Software in the Public Interest, Inc. [2009-12-10]. （原始内容存档于2016-04-22）.
- ^ . Free Software Foundation. [2009-12-10]. （原始内容存档于2008-12-16）.
- ^ . Open Source Initiative. [2009-12-10]. （原始内容存档于2016-06-06）.
- ^ . Free Software Foundation. [2009-12-10]. （原始内容存档于2009-07-01）.
- ^ . Free Software Foundation. [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2016-12-29）.
- ^ . Black Duck Software. 2015-11-19 [2015-11-19]. （原始内容存档于2016-07-19）. 1. MIT license 24%, 2. GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 23%, 3. Apache License 16%, 4. GNU General Public License (GPL) 3.0 9%, 5. BSD License 2.0 (3-clause, New or Revised) License 6%, 6. GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1 5%, 7. Artistic License (Perl) 4%, 8. GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 3.0 2%, 9. Microsoft Public License 2%, 10. Eclipse Public License (EPL) 2%
- ^ GPL FAQ: Does using the GPL for a program make it GNU Software? （页面存档备份，存于）
- ^ . [2021-08-30]. （原始内容存档于2021-08-30）.
- ^ . [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2021-01-26）.
- ^ . www.dwheeler.com. [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2021-01-25）.
- ^ . [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2020-08-22）.
- ^ . [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2020-10-08）. License proliferation: a naive quantitative analysis] on lwn.net "Walter van Holst is a legal consultant at the Dutch IT consulting company mitopics. ... Walter instead chose to use data from a software index, namely Freecode ... Walter's 2009 data set consisted of 38,674 projects ... The final column in the table shows the number of projects licensed under "any version of the GPL". In addition, Walter presented pie charts that showed the proportion of projects under various common licenses. Notable in those data sets was that, whereas in 2009 the proportion of projects licensed GPLv2-only and GPLv3 was respectively 3% and 2%, by 2013, those numbers had risen to 7% and 5%."
- ^ . Black Duck Software. 2013-08-23 [2013-08-23]. （原始内容存档于2016-07-19）. 1. GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 33%, 2. Apache License 13%, 3. GNU General Public License (GPL) 3.0 12%
- ^ . [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-25）. So while the BSDs have lost energy every time a company gets involved, the GPL'ed programs gain every time a company gets involved.
- ^ Torvalds, Linus. . kernel.org. [2013-08-13]. （原始内容存档于2015-12-17）. Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
- ^ Linus Torvalds. . lkml.iu.edu. 2000-09-08 [2015-11-21]. （原始内容存档于2020-05-15）. The only one of any note that I'd like to point out directly is the clarification in the COPYING file, making it clear that it's only _that_particular version of the GPL that is valid for the kernel. This should not come as any surprise, as that's the same license that has been there since 0.12 or so, but I thought I'd make that explicit
- ^ . [2018-05-20]. （原始内容存档于2020-08-22）.
- ^ Ball, Patrick. Holbrook, J. , 编. . Ethics, Science, Technology, and Engineering: A Global Resource (Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA). 2015, 2 (2): 291–295 [2016-11-26]. （原始内容存档于2019-10-16）. Thus free software may be used and shared by anyone who accepts the terms of the license. The most common free software license is the general public license (GPL). A GPL offers the following:
- ^ . [2015-11-08]. （原始内容存档于2020-08-22）.
- ^ . [2011-11-24]. （原始内容存档于2020-11-11）.
- ^ Stallman, Richard. . 2006-04-21 [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2009-03-31）.
- ^ . Fsf.org. [2011-03-17]. （原始内容存档于2021-01-03）.
- ^ . [2019-04-16]. （原始内容存档于2021-01-12）.
- ^ . Fsf.org. [2011-01-15]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-25）.
- ^ . [2010-07-20]. （原始内容存档于2010-09-25）.
- ^ . [2010-07-20]. （原始内容存档于2010-09-10）.
- ^ Stallman, Richard. . 2006-02-25 [2006-04-27]. （原始内容存档于2017-08-25）.
- ^ . [2012-06-15]. （原始内容存档于2017-07-29）.
- ^ Interview with Richard Stallman （页面存档备份，存于）, Free Software Magazine, 23 January 2008.
- ^ . Free Software Foundation. [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2016-12-29）.
- ^ . Free Software Foundation Europe. [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2009-04-13）.
- ^ . [2012-11-23]. （原始内容存档于2008-10-02）.
- ^ . [2012-11-23]. （原始内容存档于2008-06-26）. Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-1' ... found 962
- ^ . [2012-11-23]. （原始内容存档于2008-07-24）. Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-1' ... found 727
- ^ . [2012-11-23]. （原始内容存档于2008-07-03）. Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-3' ... found 649
- ^ . [2012-11-23]. （原始内容存档于2008-10-02）. Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-4' ... found 298
- ^ . [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2017-06-05）.
- ^ . [2007-06-04]. （原始内容存档于2018-03-05）.
- ^ . [2007-06-04]. （原始内容存档于2017-09-17）.
- ^ (PDF). [2007-06-04]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2017-03-01）.
- ^ Tiemann, Michael. . OSI. 2007-06-07 [2013-08-19]. （原始内容存档于2020-08-14）.
- ^ List of free-software licences on the FSF website （页面存档备份，存于）: “We recommend that developers consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be run over a network”.
- ^ Why did you decide to write the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a separate license? （页面存档备份，存于） on gnu.org
- ^ James E.J. Bottomley; Mauro Carvalho Chehab; Thomas Gleixner; Christoph Hellwig; Dave Jones; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Tony Luck; Andrew Morton; Trond Myklebust; David Woodhouse. . LWN.net. 2006-09-15 [2015-03-11]. （原始内容存档于2021-01-18）. The current version (Discussion Draft 2) of GPLv3 on first reading fails the necessity test of section 1 on the grounds that there's no substantial and identified problem with GPLv2 that it is trying to solve. However, a deeper reading reveals several other problems with the current FSF draft: 5.1 DRM Clauses ... 5.2 Additional Restrictions Clause ... 5.3 Patents Provisions ... since the FSF is proposing to shift all of its projects to GPLv3 and apply pressure to every other GPL licensed project to move, we foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire Open Source Universe upon which we rely.
- ^ Petreley, Nicholas. . linuxjournal.com. 2006-09-27 [2015-03-11]. （原始内容存档于2018-03-02）. Second, the war between Linus Torvalds and other Kernel developers and the Free Software Foundation over GPLv3 is continuing, with Torvalds saying he's fed up with the FSF.
- ^ Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for （页面存档备份，存于） Debconf 2014, Portland, Oregon (accessed 11 March 2015)
- ^ Kerner, Sean Michael. . internetnews.com. 2008-01-08 [2015-02-12]. （原始内容存档于2015-02-12）. "In some ways, Linux was the project that really made the split clear between what the FSF is pushing which is very different from what open source and Linux has always been about, which is more of a technical superiority instead of a -- this religious belief in freedom," Torvalds told Zemlin. So, the GPL Version 3 reflects the FSF's goals and the GPL Version 2 pretty closely matches what I think a license should do and so right now, Version 2 is where the kernel is."
- ^ . Tech LawForum. 2007-06-29 [2013-09-02]. （原始内容存档于2016-01-09）.
- ^ . Free Software Foundation. [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2016-12-29）.
- ^ Landley, Rob. . The Linux Foundation. [2016-06-24]. （原始内容 (video)存档于2020-08-16）. GPLv3 broke "the" GPL into incompatible forks that can't share code. ... FSF expected universal compliance, but hijacked lifeboat clause when boat wasn't sinking. ...
- ^ Landley, Rob. . landley.net. [2013-08-21]. （原始内容存档于2020-08-07）. GPLv3 broke "the" GPL into incompatible forks that can't share code. ... FSF expected universal compliance, but hijacked lifeboat clause when boat wasn't sinking. ...
- ^ . [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2017-08-25）.
- ^ . Free Software Foundation. [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2018-02-07）.
- ^ GPL FAQ: Use GPL Tools to develop non-free programs （页面存档备份，存于）
- ^ GPL FAQ: GPL require source posted to public （页面存档备份，存于）, Unreleased modifications （页面存档备份，存于）, Internal Distribution （页面存档备份，存于）
- ^ GPL FAQ: Port program to GNU/Linux （页面存档备份，存于）
- ^ . LWN.net. 2011-03-07 [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2013-12-02）.
- ^ . [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2020-11-12）.
- ^ . [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2008-11-20）.
- ^ Guadamuz-Gonzalez, Andres. . European Intellectual Property Review. 2004, 26 (8): 331–339. SSRN 569101 .
- ^ Allison Randal. . 2007-05-14 [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2008-10-15）.
- ^ . [2017-05-03]. （原始内容存档于2010-02-03）.
- ^ . Webmaster-source.com. 2009-01-29 [2011-01-15]. （原始内容存档于2020-09-15）.
- ^ . Drupal.org. [2011-01-15]. （原始内容存档于2015-09-05）.
- ^ . Gnu.org. [2011-01-15]. （原始内容存档于2016-12-29）.
- ^ . 2009-09-25 [2009-09-25]. （原始内容存档于2020-08-07） （中文（中国大陆））.
- ^ .
- ^ . www.fsf.org. [2006-04-27]. （原始内容存档于2008-09-08）.
- ^ (PDF). [2006-04-27]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2020-01-16）.
外部連結
- （英文）GNU通用公共许可证版本1.0官方文本 （页面存档备份，存于）
- （英文）GNU宽通用公共许可证版本2.1官方文本（页面存档备份，存于）
- （英文）GNU通用公共许可证版本3官方文本（页面存档备份，存于）
- （英文）GPL FAQ（页面存档备份，存于）
- （英文）践行GNU GPL （页面存档备份，存于），Eben Moglen，2001年9月10日
- （英文）GPL-Violations.org－监视侵犯GPL的网站
- （英文）GPL 2.0（CC版） （页面存档备份，存于）
- （简体中文）GPLv2非正式简体中译本（含多种文件类型） （页面存档备份，存于）
- （简体中文）GPLv3的非官方简体中文译本 （页面存档备份，存于）
- （繁體中文）GPLv3非官方正體中文譯本 （页面存档备份，存于）
）
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.