GNU通用公共許可證
出自KMU Wiki
GNU通用公共許可證 （ 使用GNU GPL ，或只是GPL的 ）是一種廣泛使用的免費軟件許可 ，原本的書面由Richard Stallman等為GNU工程 。 It is the license used by the Linux kernel.這是許可使用的Linux內核。 The GPL is the most popular and well-known example of the type of strong copyleft license that requires derived works to be available under the same copyleft. GPL的是最受歡迎和最知名的例子，該類型的強烈的copyleft許可證，需要產生的工程可根據相同的copyleft 。 Under this philosophy, the GPL is said to grant the recipients of a computer program the rights of the free software definition and uses copyleft to ensure the freedoms are preserved, even when the work is changed or added to.根據這一理念上， GPL是說，給予受助人的一種計算機程序的權利的自由軟件的定義和用途的copyleft ，以確保自由得以保存，甚至當工作是更改或添加。 This is in distinction to permissive free software licenses , of which the BSD licenses are the standard examples.這是在區分，以寬容的免費軟件許可證 ，其中的BSD許可標準的例子。
The GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) is a modified, more permissive, version of the GPL, intended for some software libraries .在GNU較輕的通用公共許可證 （ LGPL （ ）是一種修飾，更寬容的，版本的GPL ，打算對一些軟件庫 。 There is also a GNU Free Documentation License , which was originally intended for use with documentation for GNU software, but has also been adopted for other uses, such as the Wikipedia project.也有在GNU自由文檔許可證 ，這是原本打算使用的文件為GNU軟件，但也採用了轉作其他用途，例如維基百科項目。
The Affero General Public License (GNU AGPL) is a similar licence with a focus on networking server software.該affero通用公共授權 （在GNU agpl ）是一個類似的牌照，並把重點放在網絡服務器軟件。 The GNU AGPL is similar to the GNU General Public License, except that it in additional it covers the use of the software over a computer network requiring that the complete source code be made available to any network user of the AGPLed work, for example a web application.在GNU agpl是類似的GNU通用公共許可證，除了它在額外的，它涵蓋使用該軟件的計算機網絡要求的完整的源代碼提供給任何網絡用戶的agpled的工作，例如一個Web應用程序。 The Free Software Foundation recommends that this license is considered for any software that will commonly be run over the network.自由軟件基金會的建議，這被認為是許可的任何軟件，將常見的運行超過網絡。
目錄 |
[編輯] 歷史
GPL的作者理查德斯托爾曼在1989年使用的程序發布的一部分， GNU工程 。 The original GPL was based on a unification of similar licenses used for early versions of GNU Emacs , the GNU Debugger and the GNU Compiler Collection .原來的GPL是基於對統一的類似許可用於早期版本的GNU Emacs的 ，在GNU調試器和GNU編譯器集 。 These licenses contained similar provisions to the modern GPL, but were specific to each program, rendering them incompatible, despite being the same license. [1] Stallman's goal was to produce one license that could be used for any project, thus making it possible for many projects to share code.這些許可證載有類似條文，以現代GPL的，但具體到每一個程式，使他們不相容的，儘管相同的許可證。 [ 1 ]斯托爾曼的目標是產生一個許可，可用於任何項目，從而使有可能許多項目共享代碼。
An important vote of confidence in the GPL came from Linus Torvalds ' adoption of the license for the Linux kernel in 1992, switching from an earlier license that prohibited commercial distribution.一個重要的信任投票，在GPL的來自林納斯托瓦茲 '通過許可證的Linux內核在1992年，開關從較早的許可，禁止以商業形式分發。
As of August 2007, the GPL accounted for nearly 65% of the 43,442 free software projects listed on Freshmeat , [2] and as of January 2006 , about 68% of the projects listed on SourceForge.net . [3] Similarly, a 2001 survey of Red Hat Linux 7.1 found that 50% of the source code was licensed under the GPL [4] and a 1997 survey of MetaLab , then the largest free software archive, showed that the GPL accounted for about half of the licenses used.截至2007年8月， GPL的佔近65 ％的43442免費軟件項目的上市， freshmeat ， [ 2 ] ，截至2006年1月 ，大約68 ％的項目列在sourceforge.net網站 。 [ 3 ]同樣， 2001年統計調查結果顯示， 在Red Hat Linux 7.1 ，發現50 ％的源代碼是領有牌照的GPL下[ 4 ]和1997年的調查metalab ，那麼最大的免費軟件，存檔，表明GPL的佔了大約一半的許可使用。 One survey of a large repository of open-source software reported that in July 1997, about half the software packages with explicit license terms used the GPL. [5] Prominent free software programs licensed under the GPL include the Linux kernel and the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC).一調查，一個大型倉庫，開放源代碼軟件報導說，在1997年7月，大約一半的軟體套件與明確的許可條款使用GPL的。 [ 5 ]突出的免費軟體程式持牌GPL下，包括Linux內核和GNU編譯器集 （海合會） 。 Some other free software programs are dual-licensed under multiple licenses, often with one of the licenses being the GPL.其他一些免費的軟件程序是雙下已領取牌照的多個許可證，往往是其中一個牌照被GPL的。
Some observers believe that the strong copyleft provided by the GPL was crucial to the success of Linux, giving the programmers who contributed to it the confidence that their work would benefit the whole world and remain free, rather than being exploited by software companies that would not have to give anything back to the community. [6]一些觀察家認為，強烈的copyleft所提供的GPL的成功至關重要的Linux ，使程序員誰貢獻給它的信心，他們的工作將造福於整個世界和維持自由，而不是被剝削，由軟件公司不會要給予什麼回到社會。 [ 6 ]
The second version of the license, version 2, was released in 1991.第二個版本的授權，第2版，發表在1991年。 Over the following 15 years, some members of the FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) community came to believe that some software and hardware vendors were finding loopholes in the GPL, allowing GPL-licensed software to be exploited in ways that were contrary to the intentions of the programmers.超過下列15年來，一些成員對自由和開放源碼軟件（自由和開放源碼軟件）社區來認為，一些軟件和硬件供應商發現的漏洞，在GPL的，讓GPL授權的軟件加以利用的方式，違背了該意圖的程序員。 These concerns included tivoization (the inclusion of GPL-licensed software in hardware that will refuse to run modified versions of it); the use of unpublished, modified versions of GPL software behind web interfaces; and patent deals between Microsoft and Linux and Unix distributors that may represent an attempt to use patents as a weapon against competition from Linux.這些關注的問題包括tivoization （列入GPL授權的軟件硬件，將拒絕執行的修改版本） ;使用未公佈，修改版本的GPL軟件背後的Web接口;和專利處理微軟與Linux和Unix分銷商可能代表企圖利用專利作為武器，對競爭的Linux 。
Version 3 was developed to attempt to address these concerns.第3版是發達國家試圖解決這些問題。 It was officially released on June 29 , 2007 .據正式公佈的 2007年 6月29日 。
[編輯] 版本
[編輯] 第一版
第1版使用GNU GPL ，發表在1989年1月，防止什麼，然後兩個主要方法，軟件分銷商，限制了自由的定義自由軟件。 The first problem was that distributors may publish binary files only – executable, but not readable or modifiable by humans.第一個問題是，分銷商可能發布的二進制文件 ，只有-可執行文件，但無法讀取或修改的人類。 To prevent this, GPLv1 said that any vendor distributing binaries must also make the human readable source code available under the same licensing terms.為了防止這種情況， gplv1說，任何供應商派發的二進制文件還必須使人類可讀的源代碼，可根據相同的發牌條件。
The second problem was the distributors might add additional restrictions, either by adding restrictions to the license, or by combining the software with other software which had other restrictions on its distribution.第二個問題是分銷商可能會新增額外的限制，無論是由加入的限制，以許可證，或相結合，軟件與其他軟件，其中有其他的限制及其分佈。 If this was done, then the union of the two sets of restrictions would apply to the combined work, thus unacceptable restrictions could be added.如果這樣做，那麼聯盟的兩套限制將適用於合併工作，因此是不能接受的限制，可以補充。 To prevent this, GPLv1 said that modified versions, as a whole, had to be distributed under the terms in GPLv1.為了防止這種情況， gplv1說，修改版本，作為一個整體，要分佈式的條款下，在gplv1 。 Therefore, software distributed under the terms of GPLv1 could be combined with software under more permissive terms, as this would not change the terms under which the whole could be distributed, but software distributed under GPLv1 could not be combined with software distributed under a more restrictive license, as this would conflict with the requirement that the whole be distributable under the terms of GPLv1.因此，軟件分佈式的條款下gplv1可以結合軟件下，更寬容的條款，因為這將不會改變的條款下，整個可分發，但軟件分佈式下gplv1不能結合軟件分佈式下更具限制性的許可，因為這將有衝突的規定，即對整個被分派的條款下gplv1 。
[編輯] 第二版
據理查德斯托爾曼，主要的改變在gplv2是“自由或死亡”的條款，他呼籲-第7條。 [ 7 ]本節說，如果有人施加的限制，防止他或她從分佈有G PL所涵蓋的軟件這樣一種方式，尊重其他用戶的自由（例如，如果一個國家的法律裁決，他或她只能分發軟件的二進制形式） ，他或她不能分發給所有。
By 1990, it was becoming apparent that a less restrictive license would be strategically useful for some software libraries; when version 2 of the GPL (GPLv2) was released in June 1991, therefore, a second license - the Library General Public License (LGPL) was introduced at the same time and numbered with version 2 to show that both were complementary.到1990年，這是顯現一個限制性較小的許可是否會包括在戰略上有用的一些軟件庫;時，第2版的GPL （ gplv2 ）被釋放在1991年6月，因此，第二次授權-圖書館通用公共許可證（ L GPL（ ）介紹了在同一時間，編號，與第2版，以證明雙方的互補性。 The version numbers diverged in 1999 when version 2.1 of the LGPL was released, which renamed it the GNU Lesser General Public License to reflect its place in the GNU philosophy.版本號碼分歧，在1999年時， 2.1版的LGPL （被釋放，後改名為民族團結較輕的通用公共許可證 ，以反映其在地方的GNU哲學。
[編輯] 第三版
在2005年年底， 自由軟件基金會 （金融穩定論壇）宣布，工作就第3版的GPL （ gplv3 ） 。 On January 16 , 2006 , the first "discussion draft" of GPLv3 was published, and the public consultation began.對2006年 1月16日 ，首屆“草案的討論” gplv3出版，並開始諮詢公眾意見。 The public consultation was originally planned for nine to fifteen months but finally stretched to eighteen months with four drafts being published.公眾諮詢原定為9至15個月，但最後到18個月與4草稿正在出版。 The official GPLv3 was released by FSF on June 29 , 2007 .官方gplv3被釋放，由自由軟件基金會對2007年 6月29日 。 GPLv3 was written by Richard Stallman , with legal counsel from Eben Moglen and Software Freedom Law Center . [8] gplv3寫由Richard Stallman的 ，具有法律的律師從Eben的埃和軟件自由法律中心 。 [ 8 ]
According to GPLv3 author, Richard Stallman, the most important changes are in relation to software patents , free software license compatibility, the definition of "source code", and hardware restrictions on software modification (" tivoisation "). [8] [9] Other changes relate to internationalisation, how license violations are handled, and how additional permissions can be granted by the copyright holder.據gplv3作者，理查德斯托爾曼，最重要的變化是在有關軟件專利 ， 免費軟件許可證的相容性，定義“源代碼” ，和硬件的限制，軟件的修改（ “ tivoisation ” ） 。 [ 8 ] [ 9 ]其他的變化，涉及到國際化，如何許可的行為的處理，以及如何額外的權限可以批出版權持有人。
Other notable changes include allowing authors to add certain additional conditions or requirements to their contributions.其他顯著的變化，包括容許作者添加某些附加條件，或要求他們的貢獻。 One of those new optional requirements, sometimes referred to as the Affero clause, is intended to fulfill a request regarding software as a service ; the permitting addition of this requirement makes GPLv3 compatible with the Affero General Public License .一，這些新的任擇的要求，有時稱為affero條款，用意是履行請求有關軟件作為一種服務 ;允許此外，這項規定使得gplv3兼容與affero通用公共許可證 。
The public consultation process was coordinated by the Free Software Foundation with assistance from Software Freedom Law Center , Free Software Foundation Europe , [10] and other free software groups.公眾諮詢的過程中協調由自由軟體基金會的協助下，從軟件自由法律中心 ， 歐洲自由軟件基金會 ， [ 10 ]和其他免費軟件團體。 Comments were collected from the public via the gplv3.fsf.org web portal. [11] That portal runs purpose-written software called stet .評論共收集市民通過gplv3.fsf.org的門戶網站。 [ 11 ]認為，門戶網站運行的目的-的書面軟件所謂stet 。 These comments were passed to four committees comprising approximately 130 people, including supporters and detractors of FSF's goals.這些意見被傳遞到四個委員會組成的大約130人，包括支持者和批評者的金融穩定論壇的目標。 Those committees researched the comments submitted by the public and passed their summaries to Stallman for a decision on what the license would do.這些委員會研究提出的評論，公眾，並通過他們的摘要，以Stallman的一個決定，對什麼許可做。
During the public consultation process, 962 comments were submitted for the first draft. [12] By the end, a total of 2,636 comments had been submitted. [13] [14] [15]在公眾諮詢過程中， 962的意見提交給第一稿。 [ 12 ]到去年底，共有2636意見已提交。 [ 13 ] [ 14 ] [ 15 ]
The third draft was released on March 28 , 2007 . [16] This draft included language intended to prevent patent cross-licenses like the controversial Microsoft-Novell patent agreement and restricts the anti-tivoization clauses to a legal definition of a "User" or "consumer product."第三稿發布於2007年 3月28日 。 [ 16 ]這項草案包括語文，意圖防止專利交叉許可一樣，備受爭議的微軟Novell的專利協議 ，並限制反tivoization條文，以法律定義的“用戶”或“消費產品” 。 It also explicitly removed the section on "Geographical Limitations", whose probable removal had been announced at the launch of the public consultation.它也明確地拆除一節“的地理限制” ，其可能的搬遷已宣布在推出的諮詢公眾意見。
The fourth discussion draft, [17] which was the last, was released on May 31 , 2007 .第四個草案的討論， [ 17 ] ，這是最後，被釋放於2007年 5月31日 。 It introduced Apache Software License compatibility, clarified the role of outside contractors, and made an exception to permit the Microsoft-Novell agreement, saying in section 11 paragraph 6 that它介紹了Apache軟件許可證的相容性，澄清的作用，外部承包商，並作出了一個例外，允許微軟Novell的協議說，在第11條第6款
You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license [...]您可能無法傳達一個涵蓋的工作，如果你是一個黨的安排，與第三黨是在業務的分發軟件，根據你付款給第三黨的基礎上的程度，您的活動傳達的工作，和根據其中第三黨的贈款，以任何一方將得到誰蓋的工作由你，歧視性專利許可[ … … ]
This aims to make future such deals ineffective.這是旨在使今後的此類交易無效。 The license is also meant to cause Microsoft to extend the patent licenses it grants to Novell customers for the use of GPLv3 software to all users of that GPLv3 software; this is possible only if Microsoft is legally a "conveyor" of the GPLv3 software. [18] [19]許可也意味著原因Microsoft延長專利授權的資訊科技津貼，以Novell用戶為使用gplv3軟件的所有用戶認為gplv3軟件;這是可能的唯一，如果微軟在法律上是一個“輸送”的gplv3軟件。 [ 18 ] [ 19 ]
Others, notably some high-profile developers of the Linux kernel , commented to the mass media and made public statements about their objections to parts of discussion drafts 1 and 2. [20]其他人，特別是一些高姿態的開發Linux內核 ，評論，以大眾傳播媒介和作出公開聲明他們反對的部分進行討論草稿1和2 。
[編輯] 條款和條件
條款和條件的GPL是提供給任何人收到的副本的工作有一個GPL的適用於它（ “持牌人” ） 。 Any licensee who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version.任何持牌誰堅持的條款和條件是允許修改工作，以及複製和重新分配的工作或任何衍生金融工具的版本。 The licensee is allowed to charge a fee for this service, or do this free of charge.持牌人不得收取費用，對這項服務的，或這樣做，費用全免。 This latter point distinguishes the GPL from software licenses that prohibit commercial redistribution.這一點區別，從GPL的軟件許可，禁止商業再分配。 The FSF argues that free software should not place restrictions on commercial use, [21] and the GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price.金融穩定論壇認為，免費軟件，不應該限制對商業用途， [ 21 ]和GPL的明確指出， GPL的工程可以出售不惜任何代價。
The GPL additionally states that a distributor may not impose "further restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL".此外， GPL的國家，一個分銷商可能會不施加“進一步限制，對賦予的權利， GPL的” 。 This forbids activities such as distributing of the software under a non-disclosure agreement or contract.這禁止的活動，如分發該軟件的下一個非披露協議或合同。 Distributors under the GPL also grant a license for any of their patents practiced by the software, to practice those patents in GPL software.分銷商GPL下，也給予許可其任何專利實行的軟件，這些專利的做法，在GPL軟件。
Section three of the license requires that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries are accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary or the written offer to obtain the source code that you got when you received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL.第三的授權規定，程序分發作為預編譯的二進制文件的陪同下副本的源代碼，書面提供分發的源代碼通過相同的機制，作為預編譯的二進制代碼或書面提供，以獲取來源代碼，你當你收到了預編譯的二進制GPL下。
[編輯] 合同問題
GPL的目的是作為一個許可 ，而不是一個合同 。 [ 22 ] [ 23 ]在一些共同的普通法司法管轄區，法律之間的區別執照和合同是一個重要的：合同是強制執行合同法 ，而許可證執行根據著作權法 。 However, this distinction is not useful in the many jurisdictions where there are no differences between contracts and licenses, such as Civil Law systems. [24]然而，這一區分是沒有用處，在許多司法管轄區的地方是沒有區別的合同和許可，如民法制度。 [ 24 ]
Those who do not agree to the GPL's terms and conditions do not have permission, under copyright law, to copy or distribute GPL licensed software or derivative works.這些誰不同意GPL的條款和條件沒有權限，根據著作權法，複製或分發的GPL授權的軟件或衍生作品。 However, they may still use the software however they like.然而，他們仍然可以使用該軟件，但他們喜歡的。
[編輯] 版權持有人
文本的GPL本身的版權，版權是由自由軟體基金會 （自由軟件基金會） 。 However, the FSF does not hold the copyright for a work released under the GPL, unless an author explicitly assigns copyrights to the FSF (which seldom happens except for programs that are part of the GNU project).然而，金融穩定論壇，並不擁有版權的一個工作發表GPL下，除非作者明確指派版權金融穩定論壇（即很少發生，除了程序的一部分， GNU工程） 。 Only the individual copyright holders have the authority to sue when a license violation takes place.只有個別版權持有人都有權提出控告時，授權侵犯的地方。
The FSF permits people to create new licenses based on the GPL, as long as the derived licenses do not use the GPL preamble without permission.金融穩定論壇許可證的人創造新的許可證的基礎上， GPL的，只要把所得的授權不使用GPL的序言中，未經允許。 This is discouraged, however, since such a license is generally incompatible with the GPL. [25] (See the GPL FAQ for more information.)這是氣餒，不過，由於這種許可一般是不符合GPL的。 [ 25 ] （見GPL的常見問題解答的更多信息） 。
Other licenses created by the GNU project include the GNU Lesser General Public License and the GNU Free Documentation License .其他授權所產生的GNU項目，包括在GNU較輕的通用公共許可證和GNU自由文檔許可證 。
[編輯] 關於官司
一個關鍵有關的爭端， GPL的是，是否或不非GPL軟件可以動態地鏈接到GPL的圖書館。 The GPL is clear in requiring that all derivative works of GPL'ed code must themselves be GPL'ed. GPL的是在明確要求所有的衍生作品 gpl'ed代碼必須本身有gpl'ed 。 However, it is not clear whether an executable that dynamically links to a GPL code should be considered a derivative work.不過，目前尚不清楚是否有一個可執行的動態鏈接到GPL源代碼應被視為演繹作品。 The free/open-source software community is split on this issue.自由/開放源代碼軟件社區是分裂這個問題上。 The FSF asserts that such an executable is indeed a derivative work if the executable and GPL code "make function calls to each other and share data structures," [26] with others agreeing, [27] while some (eg Linus Torvalds ) agree that dynamic linking can create derived works but disagree over the circumstances. [28] On the other hand, some experts have argued that the question is still open: one Novell lawyer has written that dynamic linking not being derivative "makes sense" but is not "clear-cut," [29] and Lawrence Rosen has claimed that a court of law would "probably" exclude dynamic linking from derivative works although "there are also good arguments" on the other side and "the outcome is not clear" [30] (on a later occasion, he argued that "market-based" factors are more important than the linking technique [31] ).金融穩定論壇聲稱，這樣的一個可執行的確是一個演繹作品，如果該可執行文件GPL源代碼“ ，使函數調用向對方和共享數據結構， ” [ 26 ]與他人同意， [ 27 ] ，而有些（如林納斯托瓦茲 ）同意動態鏈接可以創造衍生的作品，但不同意以上的情況而定。 [ 28 ]在另一方面，一些專家認為，這個問題仍然是開放的： 1 Novell的律師已致函表示，動態鏈接沒有衍生工具“是有道理的” ，但並不是“旗幟鮮明， “ [ 29 ]和勞倫斯羅森聲稱，法院的法律將”可能“排除動態鏈接從衍生作品，雖然”也有很好的論據， “在另一邊和”的結果並不清楚“ [ 30 ] （對稍後的場合，他認為， “以市場為基礎”的因素來得重要連接技術[ 31 ] ） 。 This is ultimately a question not of the GPL per se , but of how copyright law defines derivative works.這是最後一個問題，而不是GPL的本身 ，而是如何著作權法界定的衍生作品。 In Galoob v. Nintendo the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined a derivative work as having "'form' or permanence" and noted that "the infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form," but there have been no clear court decisions to resolve this particular conflict.在galoob訴任天堂 第九巡迴上訴法院確定了演繹作品具有“形式'或持久性” ，並指出“該侵權的工作，必須把一部分的版權作品以某種形式” ，但有沒有明確的法院的判決如果要解決這個特別的衝突。
Since there is no record of anyone circumventing the GPL by dynamic linking and contesting when threatened with lawsuits by the copyright holder, the restriction appears de facto enforceable even if not yet proven de jure .由於目前沒有記錄任何繞過GPL的動態連接和爭奪威脅時與訴訟，由版權持有人，限制出現事實上的強制執行，即使尚未證明， 在法律上 。
In 2002, MySQL AB sued Progress NuSphere for copyright and trademark infringement in United States district court .在2002年， MySQL的抗體起訴的進展nusphere版權和商標侵權在美國地區法院 。 NuSphere had allegedly violated MySQL's copyright by linking code for the Gemini table type into the MySQL server. nusphere據稱違反MySQL的版權掛鉤，代碼為雙子星座表型到MySQL服務器。 After a preliminary hearing before Judge Patti Saris on February 27 , 2002 , the parties entered settlement talks and eventually settled.經過初步聽證會之前，法官帕蒂saris於2002年 2月27日 ，有關各方進入和解談判，並最終解決。 At the hearing, Judge Saris "saw no reason" that the GPL would not be enforceable. [32]在聽證會上，法官saris “看不到有任何理由”認為， GPL的，將無法執行。 [ 32 ]
In August 2003, the SCO Group stated that they believed the GPL to have no legal validity, and that they intended to take up lawsuits over sections of code supposedly copied from SCO Unix into the Linux kernel .在2003年8月， 上海合作組織組指出，他們認為， GPL的有沒有法律效力，他們打算採取行動的訴訟，超過部分的代碼複製理應由SCO Unix的到Linux內核 。 This was a problematic stand for them, as they had distributed Linux and other GPL'ed code in their Caldera OpenLinux distribution, and there is little evidence that they had any legal right to do so except under the terms of the GPL.這是一個問題的立場，為他們，因為他們分發了Linux和其它gpl'ed代碼在其卡爾德拉openlinux分佈，並有很少有證據表明他們有任何的法律有權這樣做，除條款下的GPL 。 For more information, see SCO-Linux controversies and SCO v. IBM .如需詳細資訊，請參閱上海合作組織- Linux的爭議和SCO訴IBM的 。
In April 2004 the netfilter/iptables project was granted a preliminary injunction against Sitecom Germany by Munich District Court after Sitecom refused to desist from distributing Netfilter's GPL'ed software, allegedly in violation of the terms of the GPL.在2004年4月的netfilter / iptables項目獲得初步禁令，禁止不過Sitecom德國的慕尼黑地方法院後，不過Sitecom拒絕停止派發的netfilter的gpl'ed軟件，據稱是在違反該條款的GPL 。 On July 2004 , the German court confirmed this injunction as a final ruling against Sitecom. [33] The court's justification for its decision exactly mirrored the predictions given earlier by the FSF's Eben Moglen : 2004年7月，德國法院證實了這一點禁制令，作為一個最終裁決，對不過Sitecom 。 [ 33 ]法院的理由，供其作出決定，正是反映了預測，鑑於先前金融穩定論壇的Eben的埃 ：
Defendant has infringed on the copyright of plaintiff by offering the software 'netfilter/iptables' for download and by advertising its distribution, without adhering to the license conditions of the GPL. 被告已侵犯了版權，原告所提供的軟件'的netfilter / iptables '下載和廣告及其分佈，沒有堅持以許可的條件的GPL 。 Said actions would only be permissible if defendant had a license grant... 說的行動，只會容許，如果被告有許可證批... This is independent of the questions whether the licensing conditions of the GPL have been effectively agreed upon between plaintiff and defendant or not. 這是獨立的問題，是否發牌條件的GPL得到有效之間商定的原告和被告或沒有。 If the GPL were not agreed upon by the parties, defendant would notwithstanding lack the necessary rights to copy, distribute, and make the software 'netfilter/iptables' publicly available. 如果GPL的不是當事方商定，被告儘管缺乏必要的權利，以複製，分發，使軟件'的netfilter / iptables '公之於眾。
This ruling was important because it was the first time that a court had confirmed that violating terms of the GPL was an act of copyright violation.這項裁決是很重要的，因為它是第一次，法院已證實，違反條款的GPL是一種行為，侵犯版權。 However, the case was not as crucial a test for the GPL as some have concluded.然而，案件沒有作為的關鍵考驗GPL的一些結論。 In the case, the enforceability of GPL itself was not under attack.在此情況下，可執行的GPL本身並不受到攻擊。 Instead, the court was merely attempting to discern if the license itself was in effect.相反，法院只不過是企圖以看出，如果許可本身就是在的效果。
In May of 2005 , Daniel Wallace filed suit against the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in the Southern District of Indiana , contending that the GPL is an illegal attempt to fix prices at zero.在2005年 5月， 丹尼爾華萊士起訴自由軟件基金會 （金融穩定論壇）在南區的印地安那 ，認為GPL的是一個非法的企圖固定價格為零。 The suit was dismissed in March 2006, on the grounds that Wallace had failed to state a valid anti-trust claim; the court noted that "the GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers." [34] Wallace was denied the possibility of further amending his complaint, and was ordered to pay the FSF's legal expenses.該訴訟被駁回，在2006年3月，理由是華萊士沒有國家的一個有效的反托拉斯索賠;法院指出， “ GPL的鼓勵，而不是勸阻，自由競爭和分配的電腦操作系統，帶來的好處直接傳遞給消費者。 “ [ 34 ]華萊士被拒絕的可能性進一步修訂他的投訴，被飭令支付金融穩定論壇的法律費用。
On September 8, 2005, Seoul Central District Court ruled that GPL has no legal relevance concerning the case dealing with trade secret derived from GPL-licensed work. [35] Defendants argued that since it is impossible to maintain trade secret while being compliant with GPL and distributing the work, they aren't in breach of trade secret.對2005年9月8日，首爾中央地方法院裁定GPL的，沒有任何法律的相關性有關的案件處理與貿易的秘密來自GPL授權的工作。 [ 35 ]被告辯稱，因為它是不可能的，以維持商業秘密的同時，正符合GPL和分發工作，他們並沒有違反商業秘密。 This argument was considered without ground.這一論點被認為是無地面。
On September 6, 2006, the gpl-violations.org project prevailed in court litigation against D-Link Germany GmbH regarding D-Link's inappropriate and copyright infringing use of parts of the Linux Operating System Kernel. [36] The judgment finally provided the on-record, legal precedent that the GPL is valid and legally binding, and that it will stand up in German court. [37]對2006年9月6日上， GPL - violations.org項目普遍存在的法院訴訟對D - Link公司德國GmbH公司關於D - Link公司的不恰當和侵犯版權的使用部分Linux操作系統的內核。 [ 36 ]最後的判斷提供了對-紀錄，法律的先例， GPL的是有效的和具有法律約束力，而且它會站起來，在德國法院。 [ 37 ]
In late 2007, the developers of BusyBox and the Software Freedom Law Center embarked upon a program to gain GPL compliance from distributors of BusyBox in embedded systems , suing those who would not comply.在2007年底，發展商的busybox和軟件自由法律中心開始實施一項計劃，爭取從遵守GPL的分銷商busybox在嵌入式系統中，起訴那些誰也不會遵守。 These were claimed to be the first US uses of courts for enforcement of GPL obligations. See BusyBox#GPL lawsuits .這些人自稱是成為美國第一個利用法院強制執行GPL的義務。 見 busybox ＃ GPL的官司 。
[編輯] 兼容性和多發牌
許多最常見的免費軟體授權，如原來的麻省理工學院/ x許可證 ， BSD授權 （在其目前的3 -第形式） ，和LGPL （ ，是“ GPL的兼容 ” 。 That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict (the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole).這是，他們的代碼可以結合一個程序GPL下沒有衝突（新組合將有GPL的適用於整個） 。 However, some free/open source software licenses are not GPL-compatible.不過，有些自由/開放原始碼軟體授權的GPL不兼容。 Many GPL proponents have strongly advocated that free/open source software developers use only GPL-compatible licenses, because doing otherwise makes it difficult to reuse software in larger wholes.許多GPL的倡議者，都強烈主張自由/開放源代碼軟件開發商使用的唯一的GPL兼容的許可證，因為這樣做，否則就很難軟件重用，在較大的wholes 。 Note that this issue only arises in concurrent use of licenses which impose conditions on their manner of combination.請注意，這個問題只會出現在並行使用執照，其中施加條件，對他們的方式組合。 Some licenses, such as the BSD license, impose no conditions on the manner of their combination.一些許可證，如BSD授權，任何強加的條件，方式，他們的組合。
Also see the list of FSF approved software licenses for examples of compatible and incompatible licenses.也看到名單金融穩定論壇批准的軟件許可的例子兼容和不兼容的許可證。
A number of businesses use dual-licensing to distribute a GPL version and sell a proprietary license to companies wishing to combine the package with proprietary code, using dynamic linking or not.一些企業使用的雙發牌分發GPL的版本和銷售專有許可的公司，希望結合起來，封裝與專有代碼，使用動態鏈接或沒有。 Examples of such companies include MySQL AB , Trolltech ( Qt toolkit ), Namesys ( ReiserFS ) and Red Hat ( Cygwin ).的例子，這些公司包括MySQL的AB公司 奇趣科技 （ Qt的工具包 ） ， namesys （ reiserfs ）和Red Hat （ cygwin ） 。
[編輯] 批評
在2001年 微軟 首席執行官 史蒂夫鮑爾默所指的Linux作為“癌症的重視本身在一個知識產權意識，以一切它涉及” [ 38 ]的批評者聲稱，微軟的真正原因，微軟的好惡， GPL的是， GPL的抗拒專有供應商企圖以“ 擁抱，擴展和滅火 ” 。 [ 39 ] Microsoft已經發布了Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX的 ，其中包含有GPL授權的代碼。 In response to Microsoft's attacks on the GPL, several prominent Free Software developers and advocates released a joint statement supporting it. [40]在回應微軟的攻擊對GPL的，幾位著名自由軟件開發者和倡導者發表了一份聯合聲明，表示支持。 [ 40 ]
The GPL has been described as being "viral" by many of its critics [41] because the GPL only allows conveyance of whole programs, which means that programmers are not allowed to convey programs that link to libraries having GPL-incompatible licenses. GPL的已被描述為“病毒性心肌炎” ，它的許多批評[ 41 ] ，因為GPL許可證只允許運送的整個程序，這意味著程序員是不容許轉達程序鏈接到圖書館後，有GPL不兼容的許可證。 The so-called "viral" effect of this is that under such circumstances disparately licensed software cannot be combined unless one of the licenses is changed.這個所謂的“病毒”效應，這是因為在這種情況下，分散授權的軟件不能合併，除非其中一個牌照是改變。 Although theoretically either license could be changed, in the "viral" scenario the GPL cannot be practically changed (because the software has so many contributors, some of whom will likely refuse), whereas the license of the other software can be practically changed.雖然理論上任何許可證可以改變，在“病毒”的情況， GPL的不能切實改變（因為該軟件有這麼多貢獻者，其中一些人可能會拒絕） ，而授權的其他軟件，可以切實改變。
This is part of a philosophical difference between the GPL and permissive free software licenses such as the BSD-style licenses , which do not put such a requirement on modified versions.這是一個組成部分， 哲學之間的差異過GPL ，並且將允許免費軟件許可證如BSD風格的許可證 ，不付諸表決，這樣的要求就修改版本。 While proponents of the GPL believe that free software should ensure that its freedoms are preserved all the way from the developer to the user, others believe that intermediaries between the developer and the user should be free to redistribute the software as non-free software.而倡議者的GPL認為，自由軟件應確保其自由是保存所有的方式，從開發到用戶，其他人認為，中介機構之間的開發商和使用者應可自由分配的軟件作為非自由軟件。 More specifically, the GPL requires that redistribution occur subject to the GPL, whereas more "permissive" licenses allow redistribution to occur under licenses more restrictive than the original license.更具體地說， GPL要求再分配的發生受GPL的，而更多的“寬容”的許可證允許重新分配到下發生的執照更具限制性的比原來的許可證。
Whilst the GPL does allow commercial distribution of GPL software, the market price will settle near the price of distribution—near zero—since the purchasers may redistribute the software and its source code for their cost of redistribution.雖然GPL的是否允許商業分銷GPL軟件，市場價格將解決附近的價格分佈近零以來，買家可能會重新分配軟件和它的源代碼，為他們的成本再分配。 This could be seen to inhibit commercial use of GPL'ed code by others wishing to use that code for proprietary purposes—if they don't wish to avail themselves of GPL'ed code, they will have to re-implement it themselves.這可以看出，抑制商業用途gpl'ed代碼由他人欲使用該代碼的專有用途，如果他們不希望利用自己的gpl'ed代碼，他們將不得不重新執行它自己。 Microsoft has included anti-GPL terms in their open source software [42] . Microsoft已列入反GPL的條款在其開放源碼軟件的〔 42 〕 。
In addition, the FreeBSD project has stated that "a less publicized and unintended use of the GPL is that it is very favorable to large companies that want to undercut software companies. In other words, the GPL is well suited for use as a marketing weapon, potentially reducing overall economic benefit and contributing to monopolistic behavior". [43] It's not clear that there are any cases of this happening in practice, however.此外，該FreeBSD的項目已經表明， “少宣傳和無意使用的GPL是，這是非常有利的大公司想要削弱的軟件公司。換句話說， GPL的，是非常適合使用作為營銷武器，可能降低整體的經濟效益和貢獻的壟斷行為“ 。 [ 43 ]目前尚不清楚有任何案件發生然而在實踐中， 。
The GPL has no indemnification clause explicitly protecting maintainers and developers from litigation resulting from unscrupulous contribution. GPL的沒有賠償條明確保護的維護者和開發商從訴訟所造成的不良的貢獻。 (If a developer submits existing patented or copyright work to a GPL project claiming it as their own contribution, all the project maintainers and even other developers can be held legally responsible for damages to the copyright or patent holder.) Lack of indemnification is one criticism that lead Mozilla to create the Mozilla Public License rather than use the GPL or LGPL. [ citation needed ] （如果發展商提交現有的專利或版權作品的一個GPL的項目，聲稱它當作自己的貢獻，所有項目的維護者，甚至是其他開發商可以負上法律責任的損失給予賠償的版權或專利持有人。 ）缺乏賠償是一批評導致Mozilla的創造Mozilla公眾許可 ，而不是使用的GPL或LGPL （ [ 引文需要 ]
Some software developers have found the extensive scope of the GPL to be too restrictive.一些軟件開發商已經找到了範圍廣泛的GPL被限制過嚴。 For example, Bjørn Reese and Daniel Stenberg describe how the downstream effects of the GPL on later developers creates a "quodque pro quo" (Latin, "Everything in return for something").舉例來說，比約里斯和Daniel stenberg說明如何下游影響的GPL對後來發展創建一個“ quodque親現狀” （拉丁語， “一切都在返回的東西” ） 。 For that reason, in 2001 they abandoned the GPLv2 in favor of less restrictive copyleft licenses. [44]出於這個原因，在2001年，他們放棄了gplv2在贊成限制較少的copyleft許可證。 [ 44 ]
A more specific example of the downstream effects of the GPL can be observed through the frame of incompatible licenses.一個更具體的例子，下游的影響的GPL可以看出，通過幀不相容的營業執照。 Sun Microsystems' ZFS, because it is licensed under the GPL-incompatible CDDL and covered by several Sun patents, cannot link to the GPL-licensed linux kernel. [45] Sun Microsystems公司zfs ，因為它是領有牌照的GPL下交不親和CDDL協議所涵蓋的幾個太陽的專利，不能鏈接到GPL授權的Linux內核。 [ 45 ]
Some have also argued that the GPL could, and should, be shorter. [46]有些人還認為， GPL的可能，並應短。 [ 46 ]
資料來源:[1]
