Summary for readings on May 17th

Reading set on May 17th is about GNU Licenses. [1] introduces the new features in latest GPLv3. GPLv3 supports the original 4 freedoms of free software is stated as following:
* the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
* the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
* the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
* the freedom to share the changes you make.

[1]’s main purpose is to introduce new features in GPLv3. Besides the four freedoms for free software, GPLv3 also provides other mechnism to protect the software's copyleft from tivoization, laws prohibiting free software, and discriminatory patent deals. GPLv3 is shown to be compatible with other licenses to enable free software sharing between commuity using GPLv3 and other communities using other free software licenses. GPLv3 provides users both the object codes and the coorsponding source codes:

"...when you host object code on a web or FTP server, you can simply provide instructions that tell visitors how to get the source from a third-party server. Thanks to this new option, fulfilling this requirement should be easier for many small distributors who only make a few changes to large bodies of source."

One interesting change which has been mentioned in GPLv3 is that the term "convey" is used to replace and imply the term "distribution" from previous GPL verions. The change is made due to:

"...copyright laws in other countries use the same word, but give it different meanings. Because of this, a judge in such a country might analyze GPLv2 differently than a judge in the United States."
[2] is FAQ on GPL, and it inclouds basic user rights and caution of what not to do.
The following are a few pints which I found them interesting.
Individual or organization can use the modified GPLed codes internal without releasiing it to the public. When the modified code is released to the public, the following action should be taken:

"...if 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."

Therefore, upon releasing a modefied GPLed software, both object code and source code should be made available to the public. GPL urges authors not to use non-free libraries/softwares in their new softwares:

"If it depends on a non-free library to run at all, it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU; it is entirely off limits to the Free World. "

If the software is already coded with non-free libraries/softwares, it is suggested that:

"please mention in the README that the need for the non-free library is a drawback, and suggest the task of changing the program so that it does the same job without the non-free library."

A number of points are mentioned in [2]. There is a clear boundary between free software and proprietary software/non-free software. Proprietary software/non-free software cannot be applied within the free software. GPL also requires the source code to be released to public upon releasing of a GPL'ed software, and this gives the software user the freedome to modify the software.
[3] expresses the FSF’s concern regarding the use LGPL for it permits library to be applied in proprietary programs. LGPL is another version of GPL. However, this document provides a case when it is appropreate to use LGPL:

"when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, soit is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library."

Basicaly, it is okay when a new library whom has simiular functions as other libraries to be copyrighted under LGPL. This document also provides the case to copyright a software under GPL to benefit the free software community as whole:

"However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. ... Releasing it (Readline) under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community (free software community) a real boost."

Personally, I think [3] is not really suggesting software developers should abandon LGPL. Instead, it is suggesting a strategy to benetit free software developers more and still help proprietary software developers at minimum cost from the free software community.

REFERENCE
[1] A Quick Guide to the GPLv3 (FSF)
[2] GPL FAQ (FSF)
[3] Why shouldn't use LPGL (FSF)