Skip to content

HTTPS clone URL

Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with HTTPS or Subversion.

Download ZIP
Browse files

2013-02-16: closure of the first feedback slot

  • Loading branch information...
commit 714d798e24c947d9bc23457568849ea9686b809b 1 parent 1f9e3ef
@kreincke kreincke authored
Showing with 627 additions and 609 deletions.
  1. +1 −0  CHANGES
  2. +4 −4 Makefile
  3. +8 −8 btexmat/oscJbibCfgEnInc.tex
  4. +2 −2 btexmat/oscLicenseFootnoteInc.tex
  5. +13 −1 btexmat/oscNclAbbreviationsEnInc.tex
  6. +12 −12 oslic-en.tex
  7. +1 −0  rel-date.tex
  8. 0  release.tex → rel-number.tex
  9. +24 −24 snippets/en/01C-IntroductionInc.tex
  10. +115 −91 snippets/en/02C-SameIdeaDifferentLicenseModelsInc.tex
  11. +1 −1  snippets/en/03C-ImportantMinorPointsInc.tex
  12. +1 −1  snippets/en/03C-osImportantMinorPoints/0302-derivativeWorksInc.tex
  13. +5 −5 snippets/en/03C-osImportantMinorPoints/0303-licenseCompatibilityInc.tex
  14. +21 −21 snippets/en/04C-OsucConceptAndTaxonomyInc.tex
  15. +214 −217 snippets/en/05C-OsToDoListFinderInc.tex
  16. +1 −1  snippets/en/06C-OsFulfillmentByToDoListsInc.tex
  17. +61 −54 snippets/en/06C-osFulfillmentByToDoLists/0602-bsdFulfillToDoList.tex
  18. +16 −16 snippets/en/06C-osFulfillmentByToDoLists/0603-mitFulfillToDoList.tex
  19. +3 −3 snippets/en/09C-Appendices/0901-BiblioHintInc.tex
  20. +31 −26 snippets/en/09C-Appendices/0902-MythsOfOsInc.tex
  21. +65 −87 snippets/en/09C-Appendices/0903-ProlegomenaInc.tex
  22. +21 −28 snippets/en/20110928-Changes.tex
  23. +7 −7 snippets/en/20120222-DisclaimerInc.tex
View
1  CHANGES
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+2012-02-16: closure of the integration of the results of the first call for reviews
2012-02-11: integrated the received feedback
2013-02-10: collection of
- refactoring the structure
View
8 Makefile
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ dpdf: apdf
@ latex $<
@ latex $<
@ latex $<
- @ latex2rtf -o `basename $@ .rtf`-`cat release.tex`.rtf $<
+ @ latex2rtf -o `basename $@ .rtf`-`cat re-number.tex`.rtf $<
.dvi.ps:
@ echo "### `date +'%Y%m%dT%H%M%S'`"
@@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ dpdf: apdf
@ echo "### `date +'%Y%m%dT%H%M%S'`"
@ echo "### converting $< to $@"
@ ps2pdf $<
- @ mv $@ `basename $@ .pdf`-`cat release.tex`.pdf
+ @ mv $@ `basename $@ .pdf`-`cat rel-number.tex`.pdf
dist:
- tar -czvf ../${OSLICDIR}-`cat release.tex`.tar.gz --exclude=${OSLICDIR}/ecopies/* ../${OSLICDIR}
- zip -r ../${OSLICDIR}-`cat release.tex`.zip --exclude=../${OSLICDIR}/ecopies/* ../${OSLICDIR}
+ tar -czvf ../${OSLICDIR}-`cat rel-number.tex`.tar.gz --exclude=${OSLICDIR}/ecopies/* ../${OSLICDIR}
+ zip -r ../${OSLICDIR}-`cat rel-number.tex`.zip --exclude=../${OSLICDIR}/ecopies/* ../${OSLICDIR}
clearAuxFiles:
$(foreach EXT, ${AUX_EXTS}, if [ ! "x`ls *.${EXT} 2>/dev/null`" = "x" ]; then rm *.${EXT}; fi;)
View
16 btexmat/oscJbibCfgEnInc.tex
@@ -27,22 +27,22 @@
% an 'and before last author explicetly written conjunction
% for authors in citations
-\renewcommand*{\jbbtasep}{ a. } % bta = between two authors sep
+\renewcommand*{\jbbtasep}{ a.\ } % bta = between two authors sep
\renewcommand*{\jbbfsasep}{, } % bfsa = between first and second author sep
-\renewcommand*{\jbbstasep}{, a. }% bsta = between second and third author sep
+\renewcommand*{\jbbstasep}{, a.\ }% bsta = between second and third author sep
% for editors in citations
-\renewcommand*{\jbbtesep}{ a. } % bta = between two authors sep
+\renewcommand*{\jbbtesep}{ a.\ } % bta = between two authors sep
\renewcommand*{\jbbfsesep}{, } % bfsa = between first and second author sep
-\renewcommand*{\jbbstesep}{, a. }% bsta = between second and third author sep
+\renewcommand*{\jbbstesep}{, a.\ }% bsta = between second and third author sep
% for authors in literature list
-\renewcommand*{\bibbtasep}{ a. } % bta = between two authors sep
+\renewcommand*{\bibbtasep}{ a.\ } % bta = between two authors sep
\renewcommand*{\bibbfsasep}{, } % bfsa = between first and second author sep
-\renewcommand*{\bibbstasep}{, a. }% bsta = between second and third author sep
+\renewcommand*{\bibbstasep}{, a.\ }% bsta = between second and third author sep
% for editors in literature list
-\renewcommand*{\bibbtesep}{ a. } % bte = between two editors sep
+\renewcommand*{\bibbtesep}{ a.\ } % bte = between two editors sep
\renewcommand*{\bibbfsesep}{, } % bfse = between first and second editor sep
-\renewcommand*{\bibbstesep}{, a. }% bste = between second and third editor sep
+\renewcommand*{\bibbstesep}{, a.\ }% bste = between second and third editor sep
% use: name, forname, forname lastname u. forname lastname
\jurabibsetup{authorformat=firstnotreversed}
View
4 btexmat/oscLicenseFootnoteInc.tex
@@ -31,8 +31,8 @@
manner, name their sponsor \textit{Deutsche Telekom AG} and link it to
\texttt{http://www.telekom.com}. In a paper-like reuse please insert a short
hint to \texttt{http://www.telekom.com}, to the initial authors, and to their
-sponsor \textit{Deutsche Telekom AG} into your preface. For normal quotations
-please use the scientific standard to cite.
+sponsor \textit{Deutsche Telekom AG} into your preface. For normal citations
+please use the scientific standard.
\newline
{ \tiny \itshape [derived from myCsrf (= 'mind your Scholar Research Framework')
\copyright K. Reincke CC BY 3.0 http://mycsrf.fodina.de/)] }}
View
14 btexmat/oscNclAbbreviationsEnInc.tex
@@ -33,4 +33,16 @@
\abbr[njear]{n.y.}{year not stated / no year}
\abbr[nlocation]{n.l.}{location not stated / no location}
\abbr[ub]{UB}{'Universitätsbibliothek' = library of university X}
-\abbr[ulb]{ULB}{'Universitäts- \& Landesbibliothek' = library of university and state X}
+\abbr[ulb]{ULB}{'Universitäts- \& Landesbibliothek' = library of university and state X}
+\abbr[apl]{ApL}{Apache License}
+\abbr[bsd]{BSD}{Berkeley Software Distrobution (License)}
+\abbr[mit]{MIT}{Massachusetts Institute of Technology (License)}
+\abbr[mspl]{Ms-PL}{Microsoft Public License}
+\abbr[pgl]{PgL}{Postgres License}
+\abbr[php]{PHP}{PHP (License)}
+\abbr[epl]{EPL}{Eclipse Public License}
+\abbr[eupl]{EUPL}{European Public License}
+\abbr[lgpl]{LGPL}{GNU Lesser General Public License}
+\abbr[mpl]{MPL}{Mozilla Public License}
+\abbr[gpl]{GPL}{GNU General Public License}
+\abbr[agpl]{AGPL}{GNU Affero General Public License}
View
24 oslic-en.tex
@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@
\usepackage{nameref}
+
\counterwithout{footnote}{chapter}
\usepackage[intoc]{nomencl}
@@ -155,14 +156,21 @@
%% \nocite{*}
%%-- start(titlepage)
-\titlehead{Release \input{release}}
+\titlehead{Version \input{rel-number} % -- \input{rel-date}
+}
\subject{\small \itshape A Practical Guide for Developers, Managers, OS Experts,
and Companies}
\title{Open Source License Compendium}
-\subtitle{How to Achieve Open Source License Compliance}
-\author{K. Reincke, G. Sharpe \input{btexmat/oscLicenseFootnoteInc}}
+\subtitle{How to Achieve Open Source License Compliance\input{btexmat/oscLicenseFootnoteInc}}
+\author{
+Karsten Reincke\thanks{Deutsche Telekom AG, Products \& Innovation,
+T-Online-Allee 1, 64295 Darmstadt}
+\and
+Greg Sharpe\thanks{Deutsche Telekom AG, Telekom Deutschland GmbH,
+Landgrabenweg, Bonn}}
+
\maketitle
%%-- end(titlepage)
@@ -181,6 +189,7 @@
Eitan Adler,\\
John Dobson, \\
Steffen Härtlein, \\
+Ta'Id Holmes, \\
Michael Kern,\\
Michael Machado,\\
Thomas Quiehl,\\
@@ -258,15 +267,6 @@ \chapter{Appendices}
\input{snippets/en/09C-Appendices/0903-ProlegomenaInc}
-% \section{Prolegomena}
-% \input{snippets/en/09C-Appendices/0b03a-prolegomenaAbstractInc}
-% \input{snippets/en/09C-Appendices/0b03b-why01Inc}
-% \input{snippets/en/09C-Appendices/0b03c-APC-LicenseMissedInc}
-% \input{snippets/en/09C-Appendices/0b03d-ifrossWithoutGuideInc}
-% \input{snippets/en/09C-Appendices/0b03e-AnotherCompendiumTryInc}
-%
-% \input{snippets/en/09C-Appendices/0b03f-why02Inc}
-% \input{snippets/en/09C-Appendices/0b03g-whatInc}
\small
%\theendnotes
View
1  rel-date.tex
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+February, 2013
View
0  release.tex → rel-number.tex
File renamed without changes
View
48 snippets/en/01C-IntroductionInc.tex
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
% Abstract
\footnotesize \begin{quote}\itshape
This chapter briefly describes the idea behind the OSLiC, the way it should be
-used and the way it can be read - which is indeed not quite the same.
+used and the way it can be read -- which is indeed not quite the same.
\end{quote}
\normalsize{}
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
This book focuses on just one issue: \emph{What needs to be done in order to act
in accordance with the licenses of those \emph{open source software} we use?}
The \emph{Open Source License Compendium} aims at reliably answering this
-question - in a simple and easy to understand manner. However, it is not just
+question -- in a simple and easy to understand manner. However, it is not just
another book on \emph{open source} in ge\-ne\-ral\footnote{Meanwhile, there are
tons of literature dealing with open source. By expanding your knowledge by
means of books and articles you might get lost in literature: our list of
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
the background information we did not directly cite in the OSLiC. If we were
forced to indicate two books for attaining a good overview on the topic of
\emph{open source (licenses)} we would name (a) the 'Rebel Code' (\cite[for a
-German version cf.][\nopage passim]{Moody2001a} - \cite[for an English version
+German version cf.][\nopage passim]{Moody2001a} -- \cite[for an English version
cf.][passim]{Moody2002a}) and (b) the 'legal basic conditions'
(\cite[cf.][\nopage passim]{JaeMet2011a}). But fortunately, we are not forced to
do so.}. The intention is, rather, for it to be a tool for simplifying the
@@ -60,13 +60,13 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
precisely must be done in order to comply with the license of that piece of open
source being used.
-As some of these co-workers in Telekom projects, even we - the initial authors
-of the OSLiC - did not want to become open source license experts only for being
+As some of these co-workers in Telekom projects, even we -- the initial authors
+of the OSLiC -- did not want to become open source license experts only for being
able to use open source software in accordance with the respective licenses. We
did not want to become lawyers. We just wanted to do more efficiently, what
in those days claimed much time and many resources. We were searching for clear
guidance instead of having to determine a correct way through the jungle of open
-source licenses - over and over again, project for project. We loved using the
+source licenses -- over and over again, project for project. We loved using the
high-quality open source software to improve our performance. We liked using it
legally. But we did not like to laboriously discuss the legal constraints of the
many and different open source licenses.
@@ -88,16 +88,16 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
are acting according to the corresponding open source licenses. The idea behind
this decision was simple. It would save cost and increase quality if one had one
central group of experts instead of being obliged to select (and to train)
-developers - over and over again, for every new project. So, the \emph{OSRB} -
-the \emph{Telekom Open Source Review Board} - was founded as an internal expert
-group - as a self-organizing, bottom-up driven community.
+developers -- over and over again, for every new project. So, the \emph{OSRB} --
+the \emph{Telekom Open Source Review Board} -- was founded as an internal expert
+group -- as a self-organizing, bottom-up driven community.
The second decision our company took, was to allow this \emph{Telekom OSRB} to
-collect their results systematically . The idea behind this decision was also
+collect their results systematically. The idea behind this decision was also
simple: The more the internal service becomes known, the more the workload will
increase: the more work, the more recources, the more costs. So, the idea was to
save costs and enable the requestors to find answers by themselves without
-becoming license experts - but simply without becoming licenses experts: For all
+becoming license experts -- but simply without becoming licenses experts: For all
default cases, they should find an answer in the compendium instead of having to
request that their work be analyzed by the OSRB. Thus, the planned \emph{Telekom
Open Source License Compendium} prevents Telekom from having to increase the
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
The third decision our company reached, was to allow the \emph{Telekom OSRB} to
create the compendium in the same mode of cooperation, open source projects
usually use. Again, a simple reason evoked this ruling: If in the future
-- as a rule - not a reviewing OSRB, but a simple manual should assure the open
+-- as a rule -- not a reviewing OSRB, but a simple manual should assure the open
source license compliant behavior of projects, programmers and managers, this
book had of course to be particularily reliable. There is a known feature of the
open source working model: the ongoing review by the cooperating community
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
sponsor \textit{Deutsche Telekom AG} into your preface. For normal citations
please use the scientific standard.}.
-But to publish the \emph{OSLiC} as a free book has another important connotation -
+But to publish the \emph{OSLiC} as a free book has another important connotation --
at least for the \emph{Telekom OSRB}: It is also intended to be an appreciative
\emph{giving back} to the \emph{open source community} which has enriched and
simplified the life of so many employees and companies over so many years.
@@ -154,12 +154,12 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
and why\footnote{For that purpose, we are using an 'old-fashioned'
bibliographic style with footnotes, instead of endnotes or inline-hints.
We want to enable the users to review or to ignore our comments and hints just
- as they prefer - but on all accounts without being disturbed by large inline
+ as they prefer -- but on all accounts without being disturbed by large inline
comments or frequent page turnings. We know that modern writer guides prefer
less 'noisy' styles (\cite[pars pro toto cf.][\nopage passim]{Mla2009a}). But
- for a reliable usage - challenged by the often modified internet sources -
+ for a reliable usage -- challenged by the often modified internet sources --
these methods are still a little imprecise (for details $\rightarrow$
- \enquote{sec:QuotationAppendix}, pp. \pageref{sec:QuotationAppendix} . For a
+ \enquote{sec:QuotationAppendix}, pp.\ \pageref{sec:QuotationAppendix}. For a
short motivation of the style used in the OSLiC \cite[cf.][\nopage
passim]{Reincke2012a}. For a more elaborated legitimizing version
\cite[cf.][\nopage passim]{Reincke2012b}) }.
@@ -167,17 +167,17 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
\item[No clearing the forest, but cutting a swath]: The OSLiC
has to deal with licenses and their legal aspects, no doubt. But it shall not
discuss all details of every aspect. It shall focus on one possible way to act
- according to a license in a specific usecase - even it is known that there
+ according to a license in a specific usecase -- even it is known that there
might be alternatives\footnote{The OSLiC shall not counsel projects with
respect to their specific needs. This must remain the task for lawyers and
- legal experts. They can assess whether a project with its' specfic conditions
+ legal experts. They can assess whether a project with its specfic conditions
could also / better use another way to fulfill the open source license.}.
\item[Take the license text seriously]: The OSLiC shall not give general
lectures on legal discussions, much less shall it participate in them. It
shall only find one dependable way for each license and each usecase to comply
with the license. The main source for this analysis shall be the exact reading
- of the open source licenses themselves - based on and supported by the
+ of the open source licenses themselves -- based on and supported by the
interpretation of benevolent lawyers and rational argueing software
developers. The OSLiC shall respect that open source licenses are written for
software developers (and sometimes by developers).
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
First and foremost the readers expect to simply and quickly find those to-do
lists fitting their needs. Here is the respective process\footnote{For the well
-known 'quick and dirty hackers' - as we tend to be, too - we have integrated a
+known 'quick and dirty hackers' -- as we tend to be, too -- we have integrated a
shortcut: If you already know the license of the open source package you want to
use and if you are very familiar with the meaning of the open source use cases
we defined, then you might directly jump to the corresponding license specific
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
\textbf{O}pen \textbf{S}ource \textbf{U}se \textbf{C}ase page ($\rightarrow$
\pageref{OSUCList}ff.): Each of the open source license specficic chapters
starts with a license specific finder offering a set of license specific use
-cases - which according to the complexity of the license - in some cases could
+cases -- which according to the complexity of the license -- in some cases could
be stripped down. But the disdadvantage of this method is that you have to apply
your knowledge about the use cases and their side effects by yourself without
the systematic control of the full OSLiC process as presented here.}:
@@ -288,11 +288,11 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
behavior\footnote{$\rightarrow$ \enquote{\nameref{sec:LicenseTaxonomies}}, pp.
\pageref{sec:LicenseTaxonomies}}. We consider some side effects with
regard to act according to the open source licenses\footnote{$\rightarrow$
-\enquote{\nameref{sec:SideEffects}}, pp. \pageref{sec:SideEffects}}. And we
+\enquote{\nameref{sec:SideEffects}}, pp.\ \pageref{sec:SideEffects}}. And we
study the structure of open source use cases\footnote{$\rightarrow$
-\enquote{\nameref{sec:OSUCdeduction}}, pp. \pageref{sec:OSUCdeduction}}.
+\enquote{\nameref{sec:OSUCdeduction}}, pp.\ \pageref{sec:OSUCdeduction}}.
-So, let's close our introduction by using, modifying, and (re)distributing a well
+So, let us close our introduction by using, modifying, and (re)distributing a well
known wish of a well known man: Happy (Legally) Hacking.
%\bibliography{../../../bibfiles/oscResourcesEn}
View
206 snippets/en/02C-SameIdeaDifferentLicenseModelsInc.tex
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
%% use all entries of the bibliography
%\nocite{*}
\footnotesize \begin{quote}\itshape In this chapter we describe different
-license models which meet the common idea of being a piece of free open source
+license models which meet the common idea of being free open source
software. We want to discuss existing ways of grouping licenses to underline the
limits of building such clusters: These groups are often used as 'virtual
prototypic licenses' which shall deliver a simplified view onto the conditions
@@ -39,20 +39,20 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
\end{quote}
\normalsize{}
-Grouping open source licenses is often used. Even the set of \emph{open source
-li\-cen\-ses}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b} itself is already a cluster
-being established by a set of grouping criteria: The \enquote{distribution
-terms} of each software license that wants to be an open source license,
-\enquote{[\ldots] must comply with the [\ldots] criteria} of the \emph{Open
-Source Definition}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012a}, maintained by the
-\emph{Open Source Initiative}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012c} and often
+Grouping open source licenses is done often. Even the set of the \emph{open
+source li\-cen\-ses}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012b} itself is already a
+cluster being established by a set of grouping criteria: The
+\enquote{distribution terms} of each software license that wants to be an open
+source license, \enquote{[\ldots] must comply with the [\ldots] criteria} of the
+\emph{Open Source De\-fi\-ni\-tion}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012a}, maintained by
+the \emph{Open Source Initiative}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012c} and often
abbreviated as \emph{OSD}. So, this \emph{OSD} demarcates 'the group of
[potential] open source licenses' against 'the group of not open sources
licenses'\footnote{For stating it more precisely: to meet the OSD, is only a
necessary condition for being an \emph{open source license}. The sufficient
-condition for becoming an \emph{open source license}, is the approval by the
-OSI which offers a process for becoming an officially approved \emph{open
-source license} (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp.]{OSI2012d}).}.
+condition for becoming an \emph{open source license}, is the approval by the OSI
+which offers a process for becoming an officially approved \emph{open source
+license} (\cite[cf.][\nopage wp.]{OSI2012d}).}.
Another way to cluster the \emph{Free Software Licenses} is specified by the
\enquote{Free Software Definition}. This \emph{FSD} contains four conditions
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
and therefore \enquote{[\ldots] stick to the term 'free software'}
(\cite[][59]{Stallman1998a}).}: Although both definitions \enquote{[\ldots]
(cover) almost exactly the same range of software}, the \emph{Free Software
-Foundation} - as it is said - \enquote{prefers [\ldots] (to emphazise) the idea
+Foundation} -- as it is said -- \enquote{prefers [\ldots] (to emphazise) the idea
of freedom [\ldots]} while the \emph{OSI} wants to underline the philosophically
indifferent \enquote{development methodolgy}\footcite[pars pro toto:
cf.][232]{Fogel2006a}.
@@ -95,13 +95,13 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
A third method to collect a special group of free software and free software
licenses is specified by the \enquote{Debian Free Software Guideline} which is
embedded into the \enquote{Debian Social Contract}. This \enquote{DFSG} contains
-nine defining criteria which - as Debian itself says - have been
+nine defining criteria which -- as Debian itself says -- have been
\enquote{[\ldots] adopted by the free[sic!] software community as the basis of
the Open Source Definition}\footcite[cf.][wp]{DFSG2013a}.
A rough understanding of these methods might allow to conclude that these three
definitions are extensionally equal and only differ intensionally.
-But that's not true. To unveil the differences, let us compare the clusters
+But that is not true. To unveil the differences, let us compare the clusters
\emph{OSI approved licenses}, \emph{OSD compliant licenses}, \emph{DFSG
compliant licenses}, and \emph{FSD compliant licenses} extensionally, by asking
whether they \emph{could} establish different sets of licenses\footnote{Indeed,
@@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
passed the OSI process\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{OSI2012a} and therefore are
officially listed as \emph{open source licenses}\footcite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{OSI2012b}. Hence, on the one hand, \emph{OSI approved licenses} are
-\emph{open source licenses} and vice versa. On the other hand, both - the
-\emph{OSI approved licenses} and the \emph{open source licenses} - are \emph{OSD
+\emph{open source licenses} and vice versa. On the other hand, both -- the
+\emph{OSI approved licenses} and the \emph{open source licenses} -- are \emph{OSD
compliant licenses}, but not vice versa.
Second, a similar argumentation leeds to the differences between the
@@ -131,8 +131,8 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
that all \emph{OSI approved licenses} are also \emph{DFSG compliant licenses},
but not vice versa.
-Third, - by ignoring the \enquote{few exceptions} which have appeared
-\enquote{over the years}\footcite[cf.][233]{Fogel2006a} - one can say that,
+Third, -- by ignoring the \enquote{few exceptions} which have appeared
+\enquote{over the years}\footcite[cf.][233]{Fogel2006a} -- one can say that,
because of their 'kinsmanlike' relation, at least the \emph{OSD compliant
licenses} are also \emph{DFSG compliant licenses} and vice versa.
@@ -214,8 +214,8 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
to derive a correct compliant behaviour according to the \emph{open source
licenses}: On the one hand, all larger clusters do not talk about the \emph{open
source licenses}. On the other hand, the \emph{open source license cluster}
-itself only collects his elements on the base of the OSD which does not
-stipulates concrete license fulfilling actions of the licensee.
+itself only collects elements on the base of the OSD which does not stipulates
+concrete license fulfilling actions of the licensee.
The next level of clustering \emph{open source licenses} concerns the inner
structure of these \emph{OSI approved licenses}. Even the OSI itself has recently
@@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
Only the act of grouping into the \enquote{\emph{academic licenses}} and the
\enquote{\emph{reciprocal licenses}} touches the idea of license fulfilling
-doings, if one - as it has been done - expands the definition of the
+doings, if one -- as it has been done -- expands the definition of the
\enquote{\emph{academic licenses}} by the specification that these licenses
\enquote{[\ldots] allow the software to be used for any purpose whatsoever with
no obligation on the part of the licensee to distribute the source code of
@@ -288,8 +288,8 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
requirements}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{wpPermLic2013a}. Some other authors name
the set of \emph{academic licenses} the \enquote{permissive licenses} and
specify the \emph{reciprocal licenses} as \enquote{restrictive licenses},
-because in this case - as consequence of the embedded \enquote{copyleft} effect
-- the source code must be published in case of modifications. They
+because in this case -- as consequence of the embedded \enquote{copyleft} effect
+-- the source code must be published in case of modifications. They
additionally introduce the subset of \enquote{strong restrictive licenses} which
additionally require that an (overarching) derivative work must be published
under the same license\footcite[pars pro toto cf.][57]{Buchtala2007a}. The next
@@ -310,8 +310,8 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
works}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{wpCopyleft2013a}.nopage wp]{wpPermLic2013a}. Some other authors name
the set of \emph{academic licenses} the \enquote{permissive licenses} and
specify the \emph{reciprocal licenses} as \enquote{restrictive licenses},
-because in this case - as consequence of the embedded \enquote{copyleft} effect
-- the source code must be published in case of modifications. They additionally
+because in this case -- as consequence of the embedded \enquote{copyleft} effect
+-- the source code must be published in case of modifications. They additionally
introduce the subset of \enquote{strong restrictive licenses} which additionally
require that an (overarching) derivative work must be published under the same
license\footcite[pars pro toto cf.][57]{Buchtala2007a}. The next refinement of
@@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
\end{center}
This extensionally based clarification of a possible open source license
-taxonomy is probably well-known and often - more or less explicitly -
+taxonomy is probably well-known and often -- more or less explicitly --
referred\footnote{Even the FSF itself uses the term 'permissive non-copyleft
free software license' (\cite[pars pro toto: cf.][\nopage wp/section 'Original BSD
license']{FsfLicenseList2013a}) and contrasts it with the terms 'weak copyleft'
@@ -446,58 +446,64 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
that the \emph{permissive licenses} are in any meaning better, than the
\emph{copyleft licenses}. Naturally, this 'conclusion' is evoked by
confusing the extensionally definition and the intensional power of the labels.
-But that's the way we - the human beings - like to think.
+But that is the way we -- the human beings -- like to think.
Anyway, this underlying message is not necessarily 'wrong'. It might be
convenient for those people or companies who only want to use open source
software without being restricted by the \emph{giving back obligation} as it has
-been introduced by the 'copyleft'. But there might be other people and companies
-which emphasize the protecting effect of the copyleft licenses. And indeed, at
-least the open source license\footnote{Although RMS naturally prefers to specify
-it as a \emph{Free Software License} (s. p. \pageref{RmsFsPriority}) }
-\emph{GPL}\footnote{As the original source \cite[cf.][\nopage
+been introduced by the 'copyleft'\footnote{De facto, \emph{copyleft} is not
+\emph{copyleft}. Apart from the definition, its effect depends on the
+par\-ti\-cu\-ar licenses which determine the conditions for applying the
+copyleft 'method'. For example, in the GPL, the copyleft effect is bound to the
+criteria 'being distributed'. Later on, we will collect these conditions
+systematically (see chapter \emph{\nameref{sec:OSUCdeduction}}, pp.\
+\pageref{sec:OSUCdeduction}). Therefore, here we permit ourselves still to use a
+somewhat 'generalizing' mode of speaking.}. But there might be other people and
+companies which emphasize the protecting effect of the copyleft licenses. And
+indeed, at least the open source license\footnote{Although RMS naturally prefers
+to specify it as a \emph{Free Software License} (s. p.\ \pageref{RmsFsPriority})
+} \emph{GPL}\footnote{As the original source \cite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{Gpl20FsfLicense1991a}. Inside of the OSLiC, we constantly refer to the
license versions which are published by the OSI, because we are dealing with
officially approved open source licenses. For the 'OSI-GPL' \cite[cf.][\nopage
-wp]{Gpl20OsiLicense1991a}} has initially been generated to protect the freedom,
+wp]{Gpl20OsiLicense1991a}} has initially been developed to protect the freedom,
to enable the developers to help their \enquote{neighbours} and to get the
modifications back\footnote{The history of the GNU project is multiply told. For
-the GNU project and its' initiator \cite[cf. pars pro toto][\nopage
-passim]{Williams2002a}. For a broader survey \cite[cf. pars pro toto][\nopage
-passim]{Moody2001a}. A very short version is delivered by Richard M.
-Stallman himself where he states that - in the years while the early free
-community were destroyed - he saw the \enquote{nondisclosure agreement} which
-must be signed , \enquote{[\ldots] even to get an executable copy} as a clear
-\enquote{[\ldots] promise not to help your neighbour}: \enquote{A cooperating
-community was forbidden.} (\cite[cf.][16]{Stallman1999a}).}: So,
-\enquote{Copyleft} is defined as a \enquote{[\ldots] method for making a
-programm free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the
-program to be free software as well}\footcite[cf.][89]{Stallman1996c}. It is a
-method\footnote{Based on the American legal copyright system, this method uses
-two steps: firstly one states, \enquote{[\ldots] that it is copyrighted
-[\ldots]} and secondly one adds those \enquote{[\ldots] distribution terms,
-which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and
-redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the
-distribution terms are unchanged} (\cite[cf.][89]{Stallman1996c}).} by which
-\enquote{[\ldots] the code and the freedoms become legally
-inseparable}\footcite[cf.][89]{Stallman1996c}. Because of these disparate
-interests of hoping not to be restricted and hoping to be protected, it could be
-helpful to find a better label - an impartial name for the cluster of
-\emph{permissive licenses}. But up to that time, we should at least know that
-this taxonomy still contains an underlying declassing message.
-
-The other misleading interpretation is - counter-intuitively - evoked by using
+the GNU project and its initiator \cite[cf.\ pars pro toto][\nopage
+passim]{Williams2002a}. For a broader survey \cite[cf.\ pars pro toto][\nopage
+passim]{Moody2001a}. A very short version is delivered by Richard M. Stallman
+himself where he states that -- in the years while the early free community were
+destroyed -- he saw the \enquote{nondisclosure agreement} which must be signed ,
+\enquote{[\ldots] even to get an executable copy} as a clear \enquote{[\ldots]
+promise not to help your neighbour}: \enquote{A cooperating community was
+forbidden.} (\cite[cf.][16]{Stallman1999a}).}: So, \enquote{Copyleft} is defined
+as a \enquote{[\ldots] method for making a programm free software and requiring
+all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as
+well}\footcite[cf.][89]{Stallman1996c}. It is a method\footnote{Based on the
+American legal copyright system, this method uses two steps: firstly one states,
+\enquote{[\ldots] that it is copyrighted [\ldots]} and secondly one adds those
+\enquote{[\ldots] distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives
+everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any
+program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged}
+(\cite[cf.][89]{Stallman1996c}).} by which \enquote{[\ldots] the code and the
+freedoms become legally inseparable}\footcite[cf.][89]{Stallman1996c}. Because
+of these disparate interests of hoping not to be restricted and hoping to be
+protected, it could be helpful to find a better label -- an impartial name for
+the cluster of \emph{permissive licenses}. But up to that time, we should at
+least know that this taxonomy still contains an underlying declassing message.
+
+The other misleading interpretation is -- counter-intuitively -- evoked by using
the concept 'copyleft licenses'. If one refers to a cluster of \emph{copyleft
licenses} as the opposite of the \emph{permissive licenses}, one implicitly also
sends two messages: First, that republishing one's own modifications
is sufficient to fulfill the \emph{copyleft licenses}. And secondly that the
\emph{permissive licenses} do not require anything which has to be done for
getting the right to use the software. Even if one does not wish to evoke such
-an interpretation, we - the human beings - tend to take the things as simple as
-possible\footnote{And indeed, it's the experience of the authors that -
-sometimes - on the management level, such simplifications gain their independent
-existence and determine decisions. But that's not the fault of the managers.
-It's their task, to aggregate, generalize and simplify information. It's the
+an interpretation, we -- the human beings -- tend to take the things as simple as
+possible\footnote{And indeed, it is the experience of the authors that --
+sometimes -- on the management level, such simplifications gain their independent
+existence and determine decisions. But that is not the fault of the managers.
+It is their task, to aggregate, generalize and simplify information. It is the
task of the experts, to offer better viewpoints without overwhelming the others
with details.}. But because of several aspects, this understanding of the
antinomy of \emph{copyleft licenses} and \emph{permissive licenses} is too
@@ -521,9 +527,9 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
obtain a copy of such Source Code Form [\ldots] at a charge no more than the
cost of distribution to the recipient [\ldots]}\footcite[cf.][\nopage section
3.2.a]{Mpl20OsiLicense2013a}. And last but not least, also the \emph{permissive
-licenses} require tasks which must be fulfilled for a license compliant usage -
+licenses} require tasks which must be fulfilled for a license compliant usage --
moreover, they also require different things. For example, the BSD demands that
-\enquote{the (r)edistributions [\ldots] must (retain [and/or]) reproduce the
+\enquote{the (re)distributions [\ldots] must (retain [and/or]) reproduce the
above copyright notice [\ldots]}. Because of the structure of the
\enquote{copyright notice}, this required announcement implies that the authors
/ copyright holders of the software must be publicly named\footcite[cf.][\nopage
@@ -532,11 +538,11 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
distribution, then any (d)erivative (w)orks that (y)ou distribute must include a
readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file} what
often means that you have to present central parts of such file
-publicly\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp. section 4.4]{Apl20OsiLicense2004a} - parts
+publicly\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ section 4.4]{Apl20OsiLicense2004a} -- parts
which can contain many more information than only the names of the authors /
copyright holders.
-So, no doubt - and against the intuitive interpretation of this taxonomy - each
+So, no doubt -- and against the intuitive interpretation of this taxonomy -- each
\emph{open source license} must be fulfilled by some actions, even the most
permissive. And for ascertaining these tasks, one has to review these licenses
themselves, not the generalized concepts of licenses taxonomies. Hence again, we
@@ -551,7 +557,7 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
exist any shortcut.
Nevertheless, human beings need generalizing and structuring viewpoints for
-enabling themselves to talk about a domain - even if they finally have to regard
+enabling themselves to talk about a domain -- even if they finally have to regard
the single objects of the domain for specific purposes. We think that there is
a subtler method to regard and to structure the domain of \emph{open source
licenses}. So, we want to offer this other possibility to cluster the \emph{open
@@ -563,12 +569,29 @@ \chapter{Open Source: The Same Idea, Different Licenses}\label{sec:LicenseTaxono
the nature of the word 'protect' which is a 3 valent verb: it links someone or
something who protects, to someone or something who is protected and both
together to something against the protector protects and against the other one
-is protected. Licenses in general do so. Therefore, it's also the purpose of
+is protected. Licenses in general do so. Therefore, it is also the purpose of
open source licenses to protect: They can protect the user (receiver) of the
-software, its' contributor resp. developer and/or distributor, and the software
-itself. And they can protect them against different threats. With respect to
-this viewpoint, we should specify the \emph{open source licenses} in a specific,
-purpose orientied way:
+software, its contributor resp.\ developer and/or distributor, and the software
+itself. And they can protect them against different threats:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+ \item First, we assume, that - in the context of open source software - the
+ user can be protected against the loss of the right to use it, to modify it,
+ and to redistribute it. Additionally, he can be protected against patent
+ disputes.
+ \item Second, we assume, that open source contributors and distributors can be
+ protected against the loss of feedback in form of code improvements and
+ derivatives, against warranty claims, and against patent disputes.
+ \item Third, we assume, that the open source programs and their specific forms
+ -- may they be distributed or not, may they be modified or not, may they be
+ distributed as binaries or as sources -- can be protected against the
+ 're-closing of their further development.
+\end{itemize}
+
+With respect to these specific viewpoints, one gets a subtler picture of the
+protecting power of the existing opne source licenses\footnote{At the end of the
+following specifications we summarize them in a table ($\rightarrow$
+\pageref{PowerOfLicenseTable})}:
\section{The protecting power of the Apache License (ApL)}
\begin{itemize}
@@ -581,7 +604,7 @@ \section{The protecting power of the BSD licenses}
\item As approved \emph{open source licenses}\footcite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{OSI2012b}, the BSD Licenses\footnote{BSD has to be resolved as
\emph{Berkely Software Distribution}. For details of the BSD license release
- and namings \cite[cf.][\nopage wp. editorial]{BsdLicense3Clause}} protect the
+ and namings \cite[cf.][\nopage wp.\ editorial]{BsdLicense3Clause}} protect the
user against the loss of the right to use, to modify and/or to distribute the
received copy of the source code or the binary\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp
§1ff]{OSI2012a}. Additionally, they protect the contributors and/or
@@ -592,10 +615,10 @@ \section{The protecting power of the BSD licenses}
modification and \enquote{redistributions of [the] source code must retain the
[\ldots] copyright notice, this list of conditions and the [\ldots]
disclaimer}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{BsdLicense2Clause}: Therefore it is
- uncorrect to distribute a BSD licensed code under another license - regardless,
+ uncorrect to distribute a BSD licensed code under another license -- regardless,
whether it closes the sources or not\footnote{In common sense based discussions
you may have heard that BSD licenses allow to republish the work under
- another, an own license. Taking the words of the BSD License seriously that's
+ another, an own license. Taking the words of the BSD License seriously that is
not valid under all circumstances: Yes, it is true, you are not required to
redistribute the sourcecode of a modified (derivative) work. You are allowed
to modify a received version and to distribute the results only as binary code
@@ -621,7 +644,7 @@ \section{The protecting power of the BSD licenses}
\section{The protecting power of the MIT license}
\begin{itemize}
- \item As an approved \emph{open source licenses}\footcite[cf.][\nopage
+ \item As an approved \emph{open source license}\footcite[cf.][\nopage
wp]{OSI2012b}, the MIT License\footcite[MIT has to be resolved as
\enquote{Massachusetts Institute of Technology}
(cf.][\nopage wp).]{wpMitLic2011a} protects the user against the loss of the
@@ -678,6 +701,7 @@ \section{The protecting power of the PHP License}
All these specifications can also be covered by a table:
\begin{table}
+\label{PowerOfLicenseTable}
\footnotesize
\caption{Open Source Licenses as Protectors}
\begin{center}
@@ -739,7 +763,7 @@ \section{The protecting power of the PHP License}
\hline
\hline
ApL & 2.0 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{BSD} & 3-Cl & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
$\neg$ & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$ &
@@ -754,45 +778,45 @@ \section{The protecting power of the PHP License}
\checkmark & $\neg$ & \checkmark & $\neg$ \\
\hline
Ms-Pl & ~ & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\hline
PgL & ~ & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\hline
PHP & 3.0 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\hline
\hline
\textit{CDDL} & 1.0 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\hline
EPL & 1.0 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\hline
EUPL & 1.1 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{LGPL} & 2.1 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\cline{2-14}
& 3.0 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{MPL} & 1.1 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\cline{2-14}
& 2.0 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\hline
\hline
AGPL & 3.0 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{GPL} & 2.1 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\cline{2-14}
& 3.0 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
- - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
+ -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
\hline
\hline
View
2  snippets/en/03C-ImportantMinorPointsInc.tex
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ \chapter{Open Source: Some aspects with side effects}\label{sec:SideEffects}
\footnotesize
\begin{quote}\itshape
-This chapter we shortly discusses some minor but although important issues.
+This chapter bfiefly discusses some minor but although important issues.
\end{quote}
\normalsize{}
View
2  snippets/en/03C-osImportantMinorPoints/0302-derivativeWorksInc.tex
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ \section{Excursion: What is a 'Derivated Work' - the kernel of Open Source}
which statically(sic!) links all modules before executing the program. 3) The
criteria of pipe-communication is good, but not sufficient. 4) All these
attempts do not match the constituting features of script languages. Therefore we
-will follow Moglen(?) and will argue from the viewpoint of a developer: it's
+will follow Moglen(?) and will argue from the viewpoint of a developer: it is
only a question of a function, method or anything else which calls (jumps into)
a piece of code which has been licensed by a license protecting
on-top-developments and you have a derivated work.
View
10 snippets/en/03C-osImportantMinorPoints/0303-licenseCompatibilityInc.tex
@@ -28,15 +28,15 @@ \section{Excursion: The Problem of License Compatibility}
\begin{quote}\itshape
Here we discuss the often neglected or only loosely touched problem of combining
differently licensed software. We will hint to the Exclusion-List of the Free
-software foundation; we will hint to the eclipse / GPL-plugin problem; we will
+software foundation; we will hint to the Eclipse / GPL-plugin problem; we will
mention the recent discussion whether the kernel requires to license the
complete Android as GPL; and finally we will discuss the just now published, short
analysis of Jaeger and Metzger presenting a combining matrix which seems to fall
-into their lap. We ourselves will argue that question can simply be answered:
-only if you embed two libraries which both are licensed by an on
-on-top-development protecting license and if these both license require the
+into their lap. We ourselves will argue that the question can simply be answered:
+only if you embed two libraries which both are licensed by an
+on-top-development protecting license and if these both licenses require the
licensing of the derivated work by different licenses then you have a problem.
-In all other case which we will describe an list there is no problem.
+In all other cases which we will describe there is no problem.
\end{quote}
\normalsize
\ldots
View
42 snippets/en/04C-OsucConceptAndTaxonomyInc.tex
@@ -59,20 +59,20 @@ \chapter{Open Source Use Cases: Concept and Taxonomy}\label{sec:OSUCdeduction}
In practice, such circumstances are not linear and simple. They contain
combinations of (sometimes context sensitive) conditions which can be grouped
into classes of tokens. Such a class of tokens might denote a feature of the
-software itself - such as being an application or a library. Or it can refer to
+software itself -- such as being an application or a library. Or it can refer to
the circumstances of using the software, such as 'using the software only for
yourself' or 'distributing the software also to third parties'.
-At the end, we want to determine a set of specific OSUCs - the \emph{open source
+At the end, we want to determine a set of specific OSUCs -- the \emph{open source
use cases}. And we want to deliver for each of these OSUCs and for each of the
considered open source licenses one list of actions which fulfills the license
in that context\footnote{Fortunately, sometimes one task list fulfills the
-conditions of more than one use case - a welcome reduction of complexity}.
+conditions of more than one use case -- a welcome reduction of complexity}.
Such an \emph{open source use case} shall be considered as a set of tokens
describing the circumstances of a specific usage. Hence, to begin, we must
specify the relevant classes of tokens, before we can determine the valid
-combinations of these tokens - our \emph{open source use cases}. Finally, based
+combinations of these tokens -- our \emph{open source use cases}. Finally, based
on the tokens, we generate a taxonomy in form of a tree. This tree will become
the base of the \emph{Open Source Use Case Finder} which will be offered by the
next chapter, and which leads you to your specific OSUC by evaluating just a few
@@ -95,31 +95,31 @@ \chapter{Open Source Use Cases: Concept and Taxonomy}\label{sec:OSUCdeduction}
traditionally do. But we couldn't minimize the irritations of our
interlocutors. Too often we had to amend that we were not only talking about
applications and libraries in the strict sense of the words. Finally we
- decided to find our own words - and to stay open for better proposals ;-) }.
+ decided to find our own words -- and to stay open for better proposals ;-) }.
More specifically, we will ask you, whether the open source software, you
want to use, is an includable code snippet, a linkable module or library, or a
loadable plugin, or whether it is an autonomous application or server which
- can be executed or processed. In the first case, the answer should be 'it's a
- \underline{snimoli}', in the second 'it's a \underline{proapse}'.
+ can be executed or processed. In the first case, the answer should be 'it is a
+ \underline{snimoli}', in the second 'it is a \underline{proapse}'.
- \item The \textbf{\underline{state} of the of the open source software}: It
+ \item The \textbf{\underline{state} of the open source software}: It
might be used, as one has got it. Or it can be modified, before being used.
More specifically, we will ask you, whether you want to leave the open source
software as you have got it, or whether you want to modify it before using
and/or distributing it to 3rd parties. In the first case, the answer should be
'\underline{unmodified}', in the second '\underline{modified}'.
- \item The \textbf{usage \underline{context} of the of the open source
- software}: On the hand you might use the received open source software as a
+ \item The \textbf{usage \underline{context} of the open source
+ software}: On the one hand you might use the received open source software as a
readily prepared application. On the other hand you might embed the received
- open source into a larger application as one of its' components. More
- specifically, we will ask you, whether you are you using the open source
+ open source into a larger application as one of its components. More
+ specifically, we will ask you, whether you are using the open source
software as an autonomous piece of software, or whether you are using it as an
embedded part of a larger, more complex piece of software. In the first case,
the answer should be '\underline{independent}', in the second
'\underline{embedded}'.
- \item The \textbf{\underline{recipient} of the of the open source software}:
+ \item The \textbf{\underline{recipient} of the open source software}:
Sometimes you might wish to use the received open source software only for
yourself. In other cases you might intend to hand over the software (also) to
other people. More specifically, we will ask you, whether you are going to use
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ \chapter{Open Source Use Cases: Concept and Taxonomy}\label{sec:OSUCdeduction}
we simply combine all these tokens of all these classes with all the tokens of
the other classes\footnote{in the sense of the cross product TYPE $\times$ STATE
$\times$ CONTEXT $\times$ RECIPIENT $\times$ MODE}, we get 2*2*2*2*3 = 48 sets
-of tokens - or 48 \emph{open source use cases}. Fortunately, some of the
+of tokens -- or 48 \emph{open source use cases}. Fortunately, some of the
generated sets are invalid from an empirical or logical view, and some of these
sets are context sensitive:
\label{InvalidFinderTokenCombinations}
@@ -172,22 +172,22 @@ \chapter{Open Source Use Cases: Concept and Taxonomy}\label{sec:OSUCdeduction}
other units, simply because they are tokens of the same class.
\item If you already have specified that the used open source software is a
- \emph{proapse} - hence an autonomous program, an application, or a server -,
+ \emph{proapse} -- hence an autonomous program, an application, or a server --
then your answer includes that the software is used independently and is not
- embedded with other components into a larger unit - simply because of the
+ embedded with other components into a larger unit -- simply because of the
nature of all \emph{proapses}. But if you have specified that the used open
- source software is a \emph{snimoli} - hence a snippet of code, a module, a
+ source software is a \emph{snimoli} -- hence a snippet of code, a module, a
plugin, or a library -, then it can indeed be used as an embedded component of
a constructed larger application or server, or it can be used independently in
case you 'only' re-distribute it to 3rd. parties.
\item If you already have specified that the used open source software is a
- \emph{snimoli} - hence a snippet of code, a module, a plugin, or a library -,
+ \emph{snimoli} -- hence a snippet of code, a module, a plugin, or a library --
and that this \emph{snimoli} shall be used only by yourself (not distributed
- to other 3rd. parties), then your answer must also imply that this
+ to other 3rd.\ parties) then your answer must also imply that this
\emph{snimoli} is used in combination, as an embedded part of a larger unit.
It makes no sense to 'try' to use a library autonomously, without using it
- as component of another application. In this case, it would simply sit on the
+ as a component of another application. In this case, it would simply sit on the
disk and would do nothing more than occupying space.
\end{enumerate}
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ \section{The OS Use Case Taxonomy}
This is one tree, 'collecting' the tokens and offering the \emph{open source use
cases} as their leafs\footnote{ Each of the invalid use cases (= sets of tokens)
-[for details s. p. \pageref{InvalidFinderTokenCombinations}] is marked by an
+[for details s. p.\ \pageref{InvalidFinderTokenCombinations}] is marked by an
\lightning{} and leads to an empty set (= $\varnothing$): A proapse can not be
embedded with another software unit, also containing a main-function. Using
a software library only for yourself and independent (not in combination with larger
View
431 snippets/en/05C-OsToDoListFinderInc.tex
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ \section{A standard form for gathering the relevant information}
\hline
Recipient &
\parbox[c][1.6cm][c]{9.4cm}{
- \textit{Are you are going to use the received open source software only for
+ \textit{Are you going to use the received open source software only for
yourself [=4yourself], or do you plan to (re)distribute it (also) to third
parties [=4others]?}}
& \parbox{10em}{
@@ -109,26 +109,26 @@ \section{A standard form for gathering the relevant information}
application, or a server, if you can start its binary form with your normal
program launcher, or (in case of a text file which still must be interpreted by
an interpreter like php, perl, bash etc.) if you can start an interpreter taking
-the file as one of its' arguments. \item[State:] You modify open source software
+the file as one of its arguments. \item[State:] You modify open source software
if you expand, reduce or modify at least one of the received software files, and
-- in case of dealing with binary object code - if you (re)compile and (re)link
+-- in case of dealing with binary object code -- if you (re)compile and (re)link
the modified software to a new binary file. If you only modify configuration
files, you do not modify the open source software.
\item[Context:] You use open source software embedded into a larger unit, if one
-of your files of the larger unit contains a verbatim or modified copy (i.e. a
+of your files of the larger unit contains a verbatim or modified copy (i.e.\ a
snippet) of the received open source software, or if the larger unit contains an
include statement referring to a file of the received open source software, or
if your development environment contains a compiler or linker directive
referring to the received open source software.
\item[Recipient] You use the received open source software only for yourself, if
-you as person do not pass it to other persons, or if you - as a member of a
-specific development group - pass it only to the other members of your
+you as person do not pass it to other persons, or if you -- as a member of a
+specific development group -- pass it only to the other members of your
development group. But if you store open source software on any device such as a
-mobile phone, an USB stick, etc. or if you attach it to any transport
-medium like email etc. and if you then sell, give away, or simply send this
+mobile phone, an USB stick, etc.\ or if you attach it to any transport
+medium like email etc.\ and if you then sell, give away, or simply send this
device or transport medium to anyone (other than a direct member
of your development group) then you indeed handover the open source software to
-third parties\footnote{Please remember that - at least in Germany - there are
+third parties\footnote{Please remember that -- at least in Germany -- there are
opinions that even handing over software to another legal entity or department
of the same company is also a kind of distribution. It is always safest
to take the broadest possible meaning of distributing or handing over.}.
@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{6em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-01\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-01-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-01-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
\pstree{
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{6em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-02\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-02-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-02-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
}
}
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{6em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-03\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-03-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-03-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
\pstree{
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{6em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-04\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-04-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
}
}
@@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{6em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-05\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-05-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-05-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
}
@@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{7em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-06a\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-06-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
\pstree{
@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{7em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-06b\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-06-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
\pstree{
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{7em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-06c\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-06-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
}
@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{7em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-07a\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-07-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
\pstree{
@@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{7em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-07b\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-07-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
\pstree{
@@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{7em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-07c\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-07-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
}
}
@@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{6em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-08\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-08-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
}
\pstree{
@@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{7em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-09a\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-09-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
\pstree{
@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{7em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-09b\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-09-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
\pstree{
@@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{7em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-09c\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-09-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
}
\pstree{
@@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{7em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-10a\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-10-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
\pstree{
@@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{7em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-10b\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-10-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
\pstree{
@@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
}{
\Tr[edge=none]{\begin{minipage}[b][2em][c]{7em}
$\Rightarrow$ OSUC-10c\\
- \textit{(see p. \pageref{OSUC-10-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
+ \textit{(see p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-DEF})}\end{minipage} }
}
}
}
@@ -410,9 +410,7 @@ \section{The taxonomic Open Source Use Case Finder}
\end{footnotesize}
\label{OSLiCUseCaseFinder}
-
-
-\section{The Open Source Use Cases and their links to the to-do lists}
+\section{The open source use cases and their links to the to-do lists}
On the following pages, each \textbf{O}pen \textbf{S}ource \textbf{U}se
\textbf{C}ase is textually specified one more time and added by a list of page
@@ -425,35 +423,35 @@ \section{The Open Source Use Cases and their links to the to-do lists}
\label{OSUCList}
\item[OSUC-01:]\label{OSUC-01-DEF}
Only for yourself, you are using an unmodified open source program, application,
-or server - just as you received it. You are not going to combine it with other
+or server -- just as you received it. You are not going to combine it with other
components in the sense of software development (= \textit{proapse, unmodified,
independent, 4yourself}).
To see the \textit{specific, license fulfilling to-do lists} jump to the
following pages:
\begin{itemize}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-01-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
- \textit{(= Affero GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-01-Apache20} for the \textbf{APL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-01-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
+ \textit{(= Affero GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-01-Apache20} for the \textbf{ApL}
\textit{(= Apache License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-01-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-01-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
\textit{(= Berkeley Software Distribution)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-01-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
- \textit{(= Eclipse Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-01-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
- \textit{(= European Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-01-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
- \textit{(= GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-01-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
- \textit{(= Lesser GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-01-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-01-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
+ \textit{(= Eclipse Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-01-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
+ \textit{(= European Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-01-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
+ \textit{(= GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-01-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
+ \textit{(= Lesser GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-01-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
\textit{(= Massachusetts Institute of Technology)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-01-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
- \textit{(= Mozilla Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-01-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-01-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
+ \textit{(= Mozilla Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-01-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
\textit{(= Microsoft Public License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-01-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-01-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
\textit{(= Postgres License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-01-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-01-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
\end{itemize}
\item[OSUC-02:]\label{OSUC-02-DEF} Just as you received it, you are going to
@@ -464,29 +462,29 @@ \section{The Open Source Use Cases and their links to the to-do lists}
To see the \textit{specific, license fulfilling to-do lists} jump to the
following pages:
\begin{itemize}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-02-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
- \textit{(= Affero GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-02-Apache20} for the \textbf{APL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-02-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
+ \textit{(= Affero GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-02-Apache20} for the \textbf{ApL}
\textit{(= Apache License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-02-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-02-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
\textit{(= Berkeley Software Distribution)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-02-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
- \textit{(= Eclipse Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-02-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
- \textit{(= European Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-02-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
- \textit{(= GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-02-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
- \textit{(= Lesser GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-02-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-02-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
+ \textit{(= Eclipse Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-02-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
+ \textit{(= European Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-02-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
+ \textit{(= GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-02-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
+ \textit{(= Lesser GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-02-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
\textit{(= Massachusetts Institute of Technology)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-02-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
- \textit{(= Mozilla Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-02-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-02-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
+ \textit{(= Mozilla Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-02-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
\textit{(= Microsoft Public License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-02-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-02-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
\textit{(= Postgres License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-02-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-02-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
\end{itemize}
\item[OSUC-03:]\label{OSUC-03-DEF} Only for yourself, you are modifying a
@@ -496,29 +494,29 @@ \section{The Open Source Use Cases and their links to the to-do lists}
To see the \textit{specific, license fulfilling to-do lists} jump to the
following pages:
\begin{itemize}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-03-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
- \textit{(= Affero GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-03-Apache20} for the \textbf{APL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-03-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
+ \textit{(= Affero GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-03-Apache20} for the \textbf{ApL}
\textit{(= Apache License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-03-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-03-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
\textit{(= Berkeley Software Distribution)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-03-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
- \textit{(= Eclipse Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-03-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
- \textit{(= European Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-03-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
- \textit{(= GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-03-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
- \textit{(= Lesser GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-03-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-03-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
+ \textit{(= Eclipse Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-03-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
+ \textit{(= European Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-03-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
+ \textit{(= GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-03-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
+ \textit{(= Lesser GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-03-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
\textit{(= Massachusetts Institute of Technology)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-03-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
- \textit{(= Mozilla Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-03-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-03-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
+ \textit{(= Mozilla Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-03-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
\textit{(= Microsoft Public License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-03-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-03-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
\textit{(= Postgres License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-03-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-03-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
\end{itemize}
\item[OSUC-04:]\label{OSUC-04-DEF} You are going to modify a received open
@@ -529,29 +527,29 @@ \section{The Open Source Use Cases and their links to the to-do lists}
To see the \textit{specific, license fulfilling to-do lists} jump to the
following pages:
\begin{itemize}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-04-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
- \textit{(= Affero GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-04-Apache20} for the \textbf{APL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
+ \textit{(= Affero GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-Apache20} for the \textbf{ApL}
\textit{(= Apache License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-04-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
\textit{(= Berkeley Software Distribution)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-04-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
- \textit{(= Eclipse Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-04-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
- \textit{(= European Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-04-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
- \textit{(= GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-04-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
- \textit{(= Lesser GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-04-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
+ \textit{(= Eclipse Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
+ \textit{(= European Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
+ \textit{(= GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
+ \textit{(= Lesser GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
\textit{(= Massachusetts Institute of Technology)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-04-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
- \textit{(= Mozilla Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-04-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
+ \textit{(= Mozilla Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
\textit{(= Microsoft Public License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-04-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
\textit{(= Postgres License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-04-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
\end{itemize}
\item[OSUC-05:]\label{OSUC-05-DEF} Just as you received it, you are going to
@@ -562,29 +560,29 @@ \section{The Open Source Use Cases and their links to the to-do lists}
To see the \textit{specific, license fulfilling to-do lists} jump to the
following pages:
\begin{itemize}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-05-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
- \textit{(= Affero GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-05-Apache20} for the \textbf{APL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-05-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
+ \textit{(= Affero GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-05-Apache20} for the \textbf{ApL}
\textit{(= Apache License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-05-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-05-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
\textit{(= Berkeley Software Distribution)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-05-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
- \textit{(= Eclipse Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-05-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
- \textit{(= European Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-05-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
- \textit{(= GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-05-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
- \textit{(= Lesser GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-05-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-05-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
+ \textit{(= Eclipse Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-05-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
+ \textit{(= European Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-05-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
+ \textit{(= GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-05-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
+ \textit{(= Lesser GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-05-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
\textit{(= Massachusetts Institute of Technology)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-05-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
- \textit{(= Mozilla Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-05-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-05-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
+ \textit{(= Mozilla Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-05-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
\textit{(= Microsoft Public License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-05-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-05-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
\textit{(= Postgres License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-05-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-05-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
\end{itemize}
\item[OSUC-06:]\label{OSUC-06-DEF} Only for yourself and just as you received
@@ -594,29 +592,29 @@ \section{The Open Source Use Cases and their links to the to-do lists}
To see the \textit{specific, license fulfilling to-do lists} jump to the
following pages:
\begin{itemize}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-06-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
- \textit{(= Affero GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-06-Apache20} for the \textbf{APL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
+ \textit{(= Affero GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-Apache20} for the \textbf{ApL}
\textit{(= Apache License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-06-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
\textit{(= Berkeley Software Distribution)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-06-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
- \textit{(= Eclipse Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-06-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
- \textit{(= European Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-06-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
- \textit{(= GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-06-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
- \textit{(= Lesser GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-06-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
+ \textit{(= Eclipse Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
+ \textit{(= European Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
+ \textit{(= GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
+ \textit{(= Lesser GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
\textit{(= Massachusetts Institute of Technology)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-06-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
- \textit{(= Mozilla Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-06-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
+ \textit{(= Mozilla Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
\textit{(= Microsoft Public License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-06-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
\textit{(= Postgres License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-06-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-06-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
\end{itemize}
\item[OSUC-07:]\label{OSUC-07-DEF} Just as you received it and before you will
@@ -627,29 +625,29 @@ \section{The Open Source Use Cases and their links to the to-do lists}
To see the \textit{specific, license fulfilling to-do lists} jump to the
following pages:
\begin{itemize}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-07-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
- \textit{(= Affero GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-07-Apache20} for the \textbf{APL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
+ \textit{(= Affero GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-Apache20} for the \textbf{ApL}
\textit{(= Apache License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-07-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
\textit{(= Berkeley Software Distribution)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-07-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
- \textit{(= Eclipse Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-07-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
- \textit{(= European Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-07-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
- \textit{(= GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-07-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
- \textit{(= Lesser GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-07-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
+ \textit{(= Eclipse Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
+ \textit{(= European Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
+ \textit{(= GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
+ \textit{(= Lesser GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
\textit{(= Massachusetts Institute of Technology)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-07-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
- \textit{(= Mozilla Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-07-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
+ \textit{(= Mozilla Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
\textit{(= Microsoft Public License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-07-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
\textit{(= Postgres License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-07-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-07-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
\end{itemize}
\item[OSUC-08:]\label{OSUC-08-DEF} Before you will distribute it, you are going
@@ -659,95 +657,94 @@ \section{The Open Source Use Cases and their links to the to-do lists}
To see the \textit{specific, license fulfilling to-do lists} jump to the
following pages:
\begin{itemize}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-08-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
- \textit{(= Affero GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-08-Apache20} for the \textbf{APL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
+ \textit{(= Affero GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-Apache20} for the \textbf{ApL}
\textit{(= Apache License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-08-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
\textit{(= Berkeley Software Distribution)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-08-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
- \textit{(= Eclipse Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-08-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
- \textit{(= European Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-08-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
- \textit{(= GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-08-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
- \textit{(= Lesser GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-08-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
+ \textit{(= Eclipse Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
+ \textit{(= European Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
+ \textit{(= GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
+ \textit{(= Lesser GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
\textit{(= Massachusetts Institute of Technology)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-08-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
- \textit{(= Mozilla Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-08-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
+ \textit{(= Mozilla Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
\textit{(= Microsoft Public License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-08-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
\textit{(= Postgres License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-08-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
\end{itemize}
\item[OSUC-09:]\label{OSUC-09-DEF} Only for yourself, you are going to modify an
open source library, code snippet, module, or plugin, before you will combine it
-- in the sense of software development - into a larger software unit as one of
-its parts . (= \textit{snimoli, modified, embedded, 4yourself}).
+-- in the sense of software development -- into a larger software unit as one of
+its parts. (= \textit{snimoli, modified, embedded, 4yourself}).
To see the \textit{specific, license fulfilling to-do lists} jump to the
following pages:
\begin{itemize}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-09-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
- \textit{(= Affero GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-09-Apache20} for the \textbf{APL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
+ \textit{(= Affero GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-Apache20} for the \textbf{ApL}
\textit{(= Apache License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-09-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
\textit{(= Berkeley Software Distribution)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-09-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
- \textit{(= Eclipse Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-09-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
- \textit{(= European Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-09-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
- \textit{(= GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-09-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
- \textit{(= Lesser GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-09-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
+ \textit{(= Eclipse Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
+ \textit{(= European Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
+ \textit{(= GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
+ \textit{(= Lesser GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
\textit{(= Massachusetts Institute of Technology)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-09-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
- \textit{(= Mozilla Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-09-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
+ \textit{(= Mozilla Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
\textit{(= Microsoft Public License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-09-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
\textit{(= Postgres License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-09-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-09-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
\end{itemize}
\item[OSUC-10:]\label{OSUC-10-DEF} Before you will distribute it to 3rd parties,
you are going to modify an open source library, code snippet, module, or plugin,
-and to combine it with other software components in the sense of
-software development (= \textit{snimoli, modified, independent, 4others}).
-To see the \textit{specific, license fulfilling to-do lists} jump to the
-following pages:
+which you then combine with other software components in the sense of software
+development (= \textit{snimoli, modified, independent, 4others}). To see the
+\textit{specific, license fulfilling to-do lists} jump to the following pages:
\begin{itemize}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-10-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
- \textit{(= Affero GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-10-Apache20} for the \textbf{APL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-AGPL} for the \textbf{AGPL}
+ \textit{(= Affero GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-Apache20} for the \textbf{ApL}
\textit{(= Apache License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-10-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-BSD} for the \textbf{BSD} License
\textit{(= Berkeley Software Distribution)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-10-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
- \textit{(= Eclipse Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-10-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
- \textit{(= European Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-10-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
- \textit{(= GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-10-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
- \textit{(= Lesser GNU Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-10-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-EPL} for the \textbf{EPL}
+ \textit{(= Eclipse Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-EUPL} for the \textbf{EUPL}
+ \textit{(= European Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-GPL} for the \textbf{GPL}
+ \textit{(= GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-LGPL} for the \textbf{LGPL}
+ \textit{(= Lesser GNU Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-MIT} for the \textbf{MIT} License
\textit{(= Massachusetts Institute of Technology)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-10-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
- \textit{(= Mozilla Pulic License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-10-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-MPL} for \textbf{MPL}
+ \textit{(= Mozilla Public License)}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-MsPL} for the \textbf{MSPL}
\textit{(= Microsoft Public License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-10-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-PGL} for the \textbf{PGL}
\textit{(= Postgres License)}
- \item p. \pageref{OSUC-10-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
+ \item p.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-PHP} for the \textbf{PHP} license
\end{itemize}
\end{description}
View
2  snippets/en/06C-OsFulfillmentByToDoListsInc.tex
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ \chapter{Open Source License Fulfillment: Classified To-do Lists for \ldots}
With respect to the defined open source use cases, this chapter lists for the
open source licenses what one has to do for fulfilling a specific license. You
should be able to jump into the license specific chapter and find all relevant
-information - though without proving details.
+information -- though without proving details.
\end{quote}
\normalsize{}
View
115 snippets/en/06C-osFulfillmentByToDoLists/0602-bsdFulfillToDoList.tex
@@ -42,10 +42,10 @@ \section{BSD Licensed Software \ldots}
\textit{open source use cases} which we have specified by our token
\textit{4others}. Conditions for the use cases specified by the token
\textit{4yourself} can be derived\footnote{For details of the \textit{open
-source use case tokens} see p. \pageref{OsucTokens}. For Details of the
+source use case tokens} see p.\ \pageref{OsucTokens}. For Details of the
\textit{open source use cases} based on these token see p.
\pageref{OsucDefinitionTree} }. Additionally the BSD license considers the form
-of the distribution, e.g. whether the work is distributed as a (set of) source
+of the distribution, esp.\ whether the work is distributed as a (set of) source
code file(s) or as a (set of) the binary file(s). Use the following tree to find
the BSD license fulfilling to-do lists.
@@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-2: Passing the unmodified software as source code}
\label{OSUC-02-BSD} \label{OSUC-05-BSD} \label{OSUC-07-BSD}
\begin{description}
-\item[means] that you are going distribute an unmodified version of the received
+\item[means] that you are going to distribute an unmodified version of the received
BSD software to 3rd parties in form of a set of source code files or an
integrated source code package\footnote{In this case it doesn't matter whether
you distribute a program, an application, a server, a snippet, a module, a
@@ -210,9 +210,9 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-2: Passing the unmodified software as source code}
\item[requires] the following tasks in order to fulfill the license conditions
\begin{itemize}
- \item \textbf{[mandatorily:]} Ensure that the licensing elements - e.g.
+ \item \textbf{[mandatorily:]} Ensure that the licensing elements -- esp.\
the BSD license text, the specific copyright notice of the original author(s),
- and the BSD disclaimer - are retained in your package in the form you have got
+ and the BSD disclaimer -- are retained in your package in the form you have got
them.
\item \textbf{[voluntarily:]} Let the documentation of your distribution
and/or your additional material also contain the original copyright notice, the
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-2: Passing the unmodified software as source code}
\subsubsection{BSD-3: Passing the unmodified software as binary}
\begin{description}
-\item[means] that you are going distribute an unmodified version of the BSD
+\item[means] that you are going to distribute an unmodified version of the BSD
received software to 3rd parties in form of a set of binary files or an
integrated bi\-na\-ry package\footnote{In this case it doesn't matter whether
you distribute a program, an application, a server, a snippet, a module, a library,
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-3: Passing the unmodified software as binary}
original copyright notice, the BSD license, and the BSD disclaimer in the form
you have got them. If you compile the binary file on the base of the source
code package and if this compilation does not also generate and integrate the
- licensing files, then create the copyright notice, the BSD conditions, and the
+ licensing files then create the copyright notice, the BSD conditions, and the
BSD disclaimer according to the form of the source code package and insert
these files into your distribution manually.
\item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the documentation of your
@@ -257,32 +257,39 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-3: Passing the unmodified software as binary}
\emph{\textbf{General remark for all binary distributions}:}
\label{MobileDeviceHint} Sometimes you probably want to distributing a BSD
bi\-na\-ry package on a medium which doesn't allow the user, to see package
-files directly - some mobile devices don't give their users the full access to
+files directly -- some mobile devices don't give their users the full access to
all stored elements. But the requirement, 'to give some one the BSD license and
the copyright notes' includes that he must be able to read it\footnote{to give
-someony anything he can't touch, feel, see etc., is like not giving him anything
-;-)}. Hence, on systems which offer a file browser, it is sufficient, to put
-these file onto the files system. On the other systems, you must present the
-content of the files by your application - maybe in a specific copyright dialog.
-And be aware: Although it's a good tradition to link to the homepages of the
-projects, it is not sufficient to offer only links. If you are required by the
-open source licenses to handover something to your users, you (sic!) must do it\footnote{The advantage of doing the job oneself is that one has not to struggle with uncommunicated implicite modfications of the link targets.}.
-The point is: you have to fulfill the license.
+someone anything he can't touch, feel, see etc., is like not giving him the
+object ;-)}. Hence, on systems which offer a file browser, it is sufficient, to
+put these file onto the files system. On the other systems, you \emph{must}
+present the content of the files by your application -- maybe in a specific
+copyright dialog. But in the open source community, it is a good tradition, to
+present these reference data voluntarily.
+
+This is often done by presenting links to general versions of these licensing
+files etc.\ Be aware: Although it is a good tradition -- especially iy you link
+to the homepages of the projects for being totally transparent -- it is not
+sufficient to offer only links. If you are required by the open source licenses
+to handover something to your users, you (sic!) must do it\footnote{The
+advantage of doing the job oneself is that one has not to struggle with
+uncommunicated implicite modfications of the link targets.}. The point is: you
+have to fulfill the license.
\end{itshape}
\subsubsection{BSD-4: Passing a modified program as source code}
\label{OSUC-04-BSD}
\begin{description}
-\item[means] that you are going distribute a modified version of the received
+\item[means] that you are going to distribute a modified version of the received
BSD program, application, or server (proapse) to 3rd parties in form of a set
of source code files or an integrated source code package.
-\item[covers] OSUC-04\footnote{For details see pp. \pageref{OSUC-04-DEF}}
+\item[covers] OSUC-04\footnote{For details see pp.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-DEF}}
\item[requires] the tasks in order to fulfill the license conditions
\begin{itemize}
- \item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the licensing elements - e.g.
+ \item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the licensing elements -- esp.\
the BSD license text, the specific copyright notice of the original author(s),
- and the BSD disclaimer - are retained in your package in the form you have got
+ and the BSD disclaimer -- are retained in your package in the form you have got
them.
\item \textbf{[voluntary:]} Let the documentation of your distribution
and/or your additional material also contain the original copyright notice, the
@@ -291,7 +298,7 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-4: Passing a modified program as source code}
\item \textbf{[voluntary:]} It is a good practice of the open source
community, to let the copyright notice which is shown by the running program
also state that the program is licensed under the BSD license. Because you are
- already modifying the program, you can also add such a hint, if the presented
+ already modifying the program you can also add such a hint if the presented
original copyright notice lacks such a statement.
\end{itemize}
\item[prohibits] nothing explicitly.
@@ -300,10 +307,10 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-4: Passing a modified program as source code}
\subsubsection{BSD-5: Passing a modified program as binary}
\begin{description}
-\item[means] that you are going distribute a modified version of the received
+\item[means] that you are going to distribute a modified version of the received
BSD pro\-gram, application, or server (proapse) to 3rd parties in form of a set
of binary files or an integrated binary package.
-\item[covers] OSUC-04\footnote{For details see pp. \pageref{OSUC-04-DEF}}
+\item[covers] OSUC-04\footnote{For details see pp.\ \pageref{OSUC-04-DEF}}
\item[requires] the tasks in order to fulfill the license conditions
\begin{itemize}
@@ -311,10 +318,10 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-5: Passing a modified program as binary}
original copyright notice, the BSD license, and the BSD disclaimer in the form
you have got them. If you compile the binary file on the base of the source
code package and if this compilation does not also generate and integrate the
- licensing files, then create the copyright notice, the BSD conditions, and the
+ licensing files then create the copyright notice, the BSD conditions, and the
BSD disclaimer according to the form of the source code package and insert
these files into your distribution manually\footnote{see also our 'Mobile
- Device Hint' on p. \pageref{MobileDeviceHint}}.
+ Device Hint' on p.\ \pageref{MobileDeviceHint}}.
\item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the documentation of your
distribution and/or your additional material also contain the author specific
@@ -323,7 +330,7 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-5: Passing a modified program as binary}
\item \textbf{[voluntary:]} It is a good practice of the open source
community, to let the copyright notice which is shown by the running program
also state that the program is licensed under the BSD license. Because you are
- already modifying the program, you can also add such a hint, if the presented
+ already modifying the program you can also add such a hint if the presented
original copyright notice lacks such a statement.
\end{itemize}
\item[prohibits] nothing explicitly.
@@ -332,16 +339,16 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-5: Passing a modified program as binary}
\subsubsection{BSD-6: Passing a modified library as independent source code}
\label{OSUC-08-BSD}
\begin{description}
-\item[means] that you are going distribute a modified version of the received
+\item[means] that you are going to distribute a modified version of the received
BSD code snippet, module, library, or plugin (snimoli) to 3rd parties in form
of a set of source code files or an integrated source code package, but without
embedding it into another larger software unit.
-\item[covers] OSUC-08\footnote{For details see pp. \pageref{OSUC-08-DEF}}
+\item[covers] OSUC-08\footnote{For details see pp.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-DEF}}
\item[requires] the tasks in order to fulfill the license conditions
\begin{itemize}
- \item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the licensing elements - e.g.
+ \item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the licensing elements -- esp.\
the BSD license text, the specific copyright notice of the original author(s),
- and the BSD disclaimer - are retained in your package in the form you have got
+ and the BSD disclaimer -- are retained in your package in the form you have got
them.
\item \textbf{[voluntary:]} Let the documentation of your distribution
and/or your additional material also contain the original copyright notice, the
@@ -354,11 +361,11 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-6: Passing a modified library as independent source code}
\subsubsection{BSD-7: Passing a modified library as independent binary}
\begin{description}
-\item[means] that you are going distribute a modified version of the received
+\item[means] that you are going to distribute a modified version of the received
BSD code snippet, module, library, or plugin (snimoli) to 3rd parties in form
-of a set of binary files or an integrated binary package, but without embedding
+of a set of binary files or an integrated binary package but without embedding
it into another larger software unit.
-\item[covers] OSUC-08\footnote{For details see pp. \pageref{OSUC-08-DEF}}
+\item[covers] OSUC-08\footnote{For details see pp.\ \pageref{OSUC-08-DEF}}
\item[requires] the tasks in order to fulfill the license conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that your distribution contains the
@@ -368,7 +375,7 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-7: Passing a modified library as independent binary}
licensing files, then create the copyright notice, the BSD conditions, and the
BSD disclaimer according to the form of the source code package and insert
these files into your distribution manually\footnote{see also our 'Mobile
- Device Hint' on p. \pageref{MobileDeviceHint}}.
+ Device Hint' on p.\ \pageref{MobileDeviceHint}}.
\item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the documentation of your
distribution and/or your additional material also contain the author specific
copyright notice, the BSD conditions, and the BSD disclaimer.
@@ -379,17 +386,17 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-7: Passing a modified library as independent binary}
\subsubsection{BSD-8: Passing a modified library as embedded source code}
\label{OSUC-10-BSD}
\begin{description}
-\item[means] that you are going distribute a modified version of the received
+\item[means] that you are going to distribute a modified version of the received
BSD code snippet, module, library, or plugin (snimoli) to 3rd parties in form
of a set of source code files or an integrated source code package together with
another larger software unit which contains this code snippet, module, library,
or plugin as an embedded component.
-\item[covers] OSUC-10\footnote{For details see pp. \pageref{OSUC-10-DEF}}
+\item[covers] OSUC-10\footnote{For details see pp.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-DEF}}
\item[requires] the tasks in order to fulfill the license conditions
\begin{itemize}
- \item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the licensing elements - e.g.
+ \item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the licensing elements -- esp.\
the BSD license text, the specific copyright notice of the original author(s),
- and the BSD disclaimer - are retained in your package in the form you have got
+ and the BSD disclaimer -- are retained in your package in the form you have got
them.
\item \textbf{[voluntary:]} Let the documentation of your distribution
and/or your additional material also contain the original copyright notice, the
@@ -408,12 +415,12 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-8: Passing a modified library as embedded source code}
\subsubsection{BSD-9: Passing a modified library as embedded binary}
\begin{description}
-\item[means] that you are going distribute a modified version of the received
+\item[means] that you are going to distribute a modified version of the received
BSD code snippet, module, library, or plugin to 3rd parties in form of a set of
binary files or an integrated binary package together with another larger
software unit which contains this code snippet, module, library, or plugin as
an embedded component.
-\item[covers] OSUC-10\footnote{For details see pp. \pageref{OSUC-10-DEF}}
+\item[covers] OSUC-10\footnote{For details see pp.\ \pageref{OSUC-10-DEF}}
\item[requires] the tasks in order to fulfill the license conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that your distribution contains the
@@ -423,7 +430,7 @@ \subsubsection{BSD-9: Passing a modified library as embedded binary}
licensing files, then create the copyright notice, the BSD conditions, and the
BSD disclaimer according to the form of the source code package and insert
these files into your distribution manually\footnote{see also our 'Mobile
- Device Hint' on p. \pageref{MobileDeviceHint}}.
+ Device Hint' on p.\ \pageref{MobileDeviceHint}}.
\item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the documentation of your
distribution and/or your additional material also contain the author specific
copyright notice, the BSD conditions, and the BSD disclaimer.
@@ -443,7 +450,7 @@ \subsection{Software licensed by the \emph{BSD 3-Clause License}}
license} only contains one additional 3rd clause, the rest is the same. So, for
acting according the \textit{BSD 3-Clause license}, do that, what you would have
to do for fulfilling the 2 clause license. And additionally do not use the name
-of licensing organization or the names of the licensing distributors to promote
+of the licensing organization or the names of the licensing distributors to promote
your own work.
\subsection{Discussions and Explanations}
@@ -477,22 +484,22 @@ \subsection{Discussions and Explanations}
modify these files or corresponding text snippets. For our purposes, we
translated the bans into the following executable task:
-\begin{quote}\textit{Ensure that the licensing elements - e.g. the BSD license
+\begin{quote}\textit{Ensure that the licensing elements -- esp.\ the BSD license
text, the specific copyright notice of the original author(s), and the BSD disclaimer
-- are retained in your package in the form you have got them.}\end{quote}
+-- are retained in your package in the form you have got them.}\end{quote}
\item For the redistribution in form of binary files, the license requires,
that the licensing elements must be \enquote{[\ldots] (reproduced) in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the
distribution}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{BsdLicense2Clause}. Hence, this is
-not required as necessary condition for the (re)distribution as source code
-package . But nevertheless, even for a distribution in form of source code, it
-is often possible, to fulfill this rule too - e.g., if you offer an own download
+not required as a necessary condition for the (re)distribution as source code
+package. But nevertheless, even for a distribution in form of source code, it
+is often possible to fulfill this rule too -- e.g.\ if you offer an own download
site for source code packages. In such cases, it is a sign of respect, to
mention the licensing not only inside of the packages, but also in the text of
your site. Because of that, we added the following voluntary task for all BSD
open source use cases which deal with the redistribution in form of source
-code'
+code:
\begin{quote}\textit{Let the documentation of your distribution and/or your
additional material also contain the original copyright notice, the BSD
@@ -503,11 +510,11 @@ \subsection{Discussions and Explanations}
is explicitly required for the \enquote{redistribution in binary
form}\footcite[cf.][\nopage wp]{BsdLicense2Clause}, we had to rewrite the
facultative task for a distribution in form of source code as a mandatory task
-for all BSD open source use cases which deal with the redistribution in binary
-form':
+for all BSD open source use cases which deals with the redistribution in binary
+form:
\begin{quote}\textit{Ensure that the documentation of your distribution and/or
-your additional material also contain the author specific copyright notice, the
+your additional material also contains the author specific copyright notice, the
BSD conditions, and the BSD disclaimer.}\end{quote}
\item In case of (re)distributing the program in form of binary files, it is
@@ -523,7 +530,7 @@ \subsection{Discussions and Explanations}
copyright notice, the BSD license, and the BSD disclaimer in the form you have
got them. If you compile the binary file on the base of the source code package
and if this compilation does not also generate and integrate the licensing
-files, then create the copyright notice, the BSD conditions, and the BSD
+files, then create the copyright notice the BSD conditions, and the BSD
disclaimer according to the form of the source code package and insert these
files into your distribution manually.}\end{quote}
@@ -531,9 +538,9 @@ \subsection{Discussions and Explanations}
tradition, to mention the used open source software and their licenses as a
remark of the 'copyright widget' of an application. This is not required by the
BSD license. But it is a general, good tradition. Naturally, because of the
-freedom, to use and modify open source software, and to redistribute a modified
+freedom to use and modify open source software and to redistribute a modified
version of it, you are also allowed to insert such references, even if they are
-missing. Therefore we added a third voluntary, license tradition fulfilling
+missing. Therefore we added a third voluntary license tradition fulfilling
task for all relevant open source use cases.
\end{itemize}
View
32 snippets/en/06C-osFulfillmentByToDoLists/0603-mitFulfillToDoList.tex
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ \subsection{MIT-2: Passing the unmodified software}
\begin{description}
\item[means] that you are going to distribute an unmodified version of the
-received MIT software to 3rd parties - regardless whether you distribute it in
+received MIT software to 3rd parties -- regardless whether you distribute it in
form of binaries or of source code files\footnote{In this case it also doesn't
matter whether you distribute a program, an application, a server, a snippet, a
module, a library, or a plugin as an independent package}
@@ -131,13 +131,13 @@ \subsection{MIT-2: Passing the unmodified software}
\item[requires] the tasks in order to fulfill the license conditions
\begin{itemize}
- \item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the licensing elements - eg.
+ \item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the licensing elements -- esp.\
the MIT license text containing the specific copyright notices of the original
- author(s), the permission notices and the MIT disclaimer - are retained in
+ author(s), the permission notices and the MIT disclaimer -- are retained in
your package in the form you have got them.
\item \textbf{[voluntary:]} It's a good tradition to let the documentation of
your distribution and/or your additional material also contain a link to the
- original software (project) and its' homepage.
+ original software (project) and its homepage.
\end{itemize}
\item[prohibits] nothing explicitly.
\end{description}
@@ -146,22 +146,22 @@ \subsection{MIT-3: Passing a modified program}
\label{OSUC-04-MIT}
\begin{description}
-\item[means] that you are going distribute a modified version of the received
+\item[means] that you are going to distribute a modified version of the received
MIT program, application, or server (proapse) to 3rd parties\footnote{In this
case it doesn't matter whether you are going to distribute it in form of a set
of source code files or as an integrated source code package.}.
\item[covers] OSUC-04\footnote{For details see pp. \pageref{OSUC-04-DEF}}
\item[requires] the tasks in order to fulfill the license conditions
\begin{itemize}
- \item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the original licensing elements - eg.
+ \item \textbf{[mandatory:]} Ensure that the original licensing elements -- esp.\
the MIT license text containing the specific copyright notices of the original
- author(s), the permission notices and the MIT disclaimer - are retained in
+ author(s), the permission notices and the MIT disclaimer -- are retained in
your package in the form you have got them.
\item \textbf{[voluntary:]} Mark your modifications in the sourcecode,
regardless whether you want to distribute the code or not.
\item \textbf{[voluntary:]} It's a good tradition to let the documentation of
your distribution and/or your additional material also contain a link to the