initial commit

1 files changed, 62 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/public/fs-licensing-explanation.md b/public/fs-licensing-explanation.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ad170a3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/public/fs-licensing-explanation.md
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+An explanation of how "copyleft" licensing works
+================================================
+:copyright 2013 Luke Shumaker
+
+This is based on a post on [reddit][1], published on 2013-02-21.
+
+[1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/freesoftware/comments/18xplw/can_software_be_free_gnu_and_still_be_owned_by_an/c8ixwq2
+
+> While reading the man page for readline I noticed the copyright
+> section said "Readline is Copyright (C) 1989-2011 Free Software
+> Foundation Inc". How can software be both licensed under GNU and
+> copyrighted to a single group? It was my understanding that once
+> code became free it didn't belong to any particular group or
+> individual. 
+>
+> [LiveCode is GPLv3, but also sells non-free licenses] Can you really
+> have the same code under two conflicting licences? Once licensed
+> under GPL3 wouldn't they too be required to adhere to its rules?
+
+I believe that GNU/the FSF has an FAQ that addresses this, but I can't
+find it, so here we go.
+
+### Glossary:
+
+ * "*Copyright*" is the right to control how copies are made of
+   something.
+ * Something for which no one holds the copyright is in the "*public
+   domain*", because anyone ("the public") is allowed to do *anything*
+   with it.
+ * A "*license*" is basically a legal document that says "I promise
+   not to sue you if make copies in these specific ways."
+ * A "*non-free*" license basically says "There are no conditions
+   under which you can make copies that I won't sue you."
+ * A "*permissive*" (type of free) license basically says "You can do
+   whatever you want, BUT have to give me credit", and is very similar
+   to the public domain. If the copyright holder didn't have the
+   copyright, they couldn't sue you to make sure that you gave them
+   credit, and nobody would have to give them credit.
+ * A "*copyleft*" (type of free) license basically says, "You can do
+   whatever you want, BUT anyone who gets a copy from you has to be
+   able to do whatever they want too." If the copyright holder didn't
+   have the copyright, they couldn't sue you to make sure that you
+   gave the source to people go got it from you, and non-free versions
+   of these programs would start to exist.
+
+### Specific questions:
+
+Readline: The GNU GPL is a copyleft license. If you make a modified
+version of Readline, and don't let others have the source code, the
+FSF will sue you.  They can do this because they have the copyright on
+Readline, and in the GNU GPL (the license they used) it only says that
+they won't sue you if you distribute the source with the modified
+version.  If they didn't have the copyright, they couldn't sue you,
+and the GNU GPL would be worthless.
+
+LiveCode: The copyright holder for something is not required to obey
+the license—the license is only a promise not to sue you; of course
+they won't sue themselves. They can also offer different terms to
+different people. They can tell most people "I won't sue you as long
+as you share the source," but if someone gave them a little money,
+they might say, "I also promise not sue sue this guy, even if he
+doesn't give out the source."