As a publisher, when using a Creative Commons license you can choose the version that better fits your needs. Finding a photo or image licensed under Creative Commons does not necessarily mean you have the right to use the photo in your creations, on your website or publication.
Yet, to fully understand the conditions of the different Creative Commons licenses can be more time-consuming than many online publishers would hope for. Unfortunately, the same applies to any other free photo resource. Its popularity is in great part due to being the most permissive of all versions. Publishers wanting to use the content are able to do so without being required to credit the author or supplier, and are allowed to alter and edit the image as much as they want.
Creative Commons does recommend using the Public Domain Mark for works that are already in the public domain worldwide, instead of using CC0, though.
However, the challenge for any online publisher is that he or she never knows if the person that uploaded and image or photo with the CC0 o Public Domain license is aware of its limitations. The photo itself is one thing, but photos often depict people and private properties. What happens with them?
Model release for people used in photos and images While the creative process and the final work belongs to the authors and might be released by them, each person is the owner of their own personal image. Any recognisable person depicted in an image needs to give express consent to have their likeness shown and released for public use. They do this by signing a model release: a document specifying the use cases allowed for the image, and legally stating their permission given. Property release for buildings and landmarks used in photos and images The same principle applies for buildings, but specifically for famous landmarks.
Again: the author is entitled to release the creative process and resulting image or photo, but when it depicts private property that is protected by copyright, the copyright owner of those subjects must give permission for their property to be used.
They do this by signing a document: the property release. Property release for brands and designs used in photos and images Finally, any recognisable brand or design also has property rights, and including any of these elements in a photo or image that will be released to public requires a signed property release by the owner. Apple, for example, is quite vigilant about notifying content creators that the Apple brand is privately owned, and kindly asks them to take down these images.
Again, as a content creator you might be releasing a photography as a public domain or CC0, but you also need to take into account property rights of the brands and designs included in your pictures.
A line needs to be drawn between the JavaScript copylefted , and the user code usually under incompatible terms. 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. If you modify this code, you may extend this exception to your version of the code, but you are not obligated to do so.
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. However, if you link nonfree libraries with the source code, that would be an issue you need to deal with.
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. A legal document is in some ways like a program. Translating it is like translating a program from one language and operating system to another. Only a lawyer skilled in both languages can do it—and even then, there is a risk of introducing a bug.
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. 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. 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. Therefore, for the time being, we are not approving translations of the GPL as globally valid and binding. Instead, we are doing two things:. 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.
An unapproved translation has no legal force, and it should say so explicitly. It should be marked as follows:. To be completely sure of what is permitted, refer to the original GPL in English. But the unapproved translation can serve as a hint for how to understand the English GPL. For many users, that is sufficient.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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:. Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders. Learn more about reporting GPL violations. Subclassing is creating a derivative work. In general, the answer is no—this is not a legal requirement.
In specific, the answer depends on which libraries you want to use and what their licenses are. These libraries can be used in nonfree programs; but in the case of the Lesser GPL, it does have some requirements you must follow. 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.
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.
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. 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.
What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to. 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. Such a license would be self-contradictory. Let's look at its implications for me as a user. Suppose I start with the original version call it version A , add some code let's imagine it is lines , and release that modified version call it B under the GPL.
So I or someone else can delete those lines, producing version C which has the same code as version A but is under the GPL. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
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 might 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. 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 should 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.
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.
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. First, include the new version of the license in your package. Second, replace all your existing v2 license notices usually at the top of each file with the new recommended text available on the GNU licenses howto.
It's more future-proof because it no longer includes the FSF's postal mailing address. Of course, any descriptive text such as in a README which talks about the package's license should also be updated appropriately. 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.
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. Second, section 6 e of GPLv3 is designed to give distributors—people who initially seed torrents—a clear and straightforward way to provide the source, by telling recipients where it is available on a public network server. This ensures that everyone who wants to get the source can do so, and it's almost no hassle for the distributor.
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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
If the snippets are small enough that you can incorporate them under fair use or similar laws, then yes. Otherwise, no. 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.
When you convey GPLed software, you must follow the terms and conditions of one particular version of the license. When you do so, that version defines the obligations you have. If users may also elect to use later versions of the GPL, that's merely an additional permission they have—it does not require you to fulfill the terms of the later version of the GPL as well.
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. 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.
To cure a violation means to adjust your practices to comply with the requirements of the license. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. No, because those two goals contradict each other. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user. More generally, a license that limits who can use a program, or for what, is not a free software license. Yes, more or less. We invented a new term to make our intent clear and avoid any problems that could be caused by these differences.
After you do this, some time may pass before anybody actually obtains the software from you—but because it could happen right away, you need to fulfill the GPL's obligations right away as well.
Hence, we defined conveying to include this activity. 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. Prelinking is part of a compilation process; it doesn't introduce any license requirements above and beyond what other aspects of compilation would. If you're allowed to link the program to the libraries at all, then it's fine to prelink with them as well.
If you distribute prelinked object code, you need to follow the terms of section 6. 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. 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. This is acceptable as long as the source checkout process does not become burdensome or otherwise restrictive.
Anybody who can download your object code should also be able to check out source from your version control system, using a publicly available free software client.
Users should be provided with clear and convenient instructions for how to get the source for the exact object code they downloaded—they may not necessarily want the latest development code, after all. 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.
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. 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.
This simply means that the following terms prevail over anything else in the license that may conflict with them. This text makes clear that our intended interpretation is the correct one, and you can make the combination. This text only resolves conflicts between different terms of the license.
When there is no conflict between two conditions, then you must meet them both. These paragraphs don't grant you carte blanche to ignore the rest of the license—instead they're carving out very limited exceptions. 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. 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 only have to provide the source that's covered under GPLv3; instead it means that such code is not excluded from the definition of Corresponding Source. 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.
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.
They're effectively identical. We fully expect them to do the same when they look at GPLv3 and consider who qualifies as a licensee. The Program is the particular work of software that you received in a given instance of GPLv3 licensing, as you received it. 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. 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 only under an older version of a license with code that's under a newer version.
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. You cannot take advantage of terms in later versions of the GPL. 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.
You cannot take advantage of terms in later versions of the LGPL. 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.
We defend the rights of all software users. There are also other ways to contact the FSF. Does free software mean using the GPL? Can I use the GPL for something other than software? Why don't you use the GPL for manuals? Are there translations of the GPL into other languages? Who has the power to enforce the GPL? If so, how? Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license? Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? Can I have a GPL-covered program and an unrelated nonfree program on the same computer?
Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPLed program no matter what? Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my distribution site? If I distribute GPLed software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? Does the GPL allow me to distribute a copy under a nondisclosure agreement? Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?
Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement? What if the work is not very long? Am I required to claim a copyright on my modifications to a GPL-covered program? What does the GPL say about translating some code to a different programming language?
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? I want to get credit for my work. I want people to know what I wrote. 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? Can I omit the preamble of the GPL, or the instructions for how to use it on your own programs, to save space?
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? 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? Can I do this? Can I use the GPL to license hardware? Does prelinking a GPLed binary to various libraries on the system, to optimize its performance, count as modification?
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? What does this mean? Is making available a form of conveying?
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? What is tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent it? Does GPLv3 require that voters be able to modify the software running in a voting machine?
Is it every program ever released under GPLv3? If some network client software is released under AGPLv3, does it have to be able to provide source to the servers it interacts with? 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?
Could you give me step by step instructions on how to apply the GPL to my program? Why should I put a license notice in each source file? How do I get a copyright on my program in order to release it under the GPL?
What if my school might want to make my program into its own proprietary software product? Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use? Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software and charge for them if you wish , that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others. For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received.
You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software.
For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.
Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable.
Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.
Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary.
To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free. Propagation includes copying, distribution with or without modification , making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.
For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work. The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met.
This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work.
This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law. You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.
You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary. No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December , or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.
When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures. You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee. You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:.
A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in conveying the object code work. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.
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.
0コメント