trans-coord-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

trans-coord/gnun fry/happy-birthday-to-gnu.html...


From: Yavor Doganov
Subject: trans-coord/gnun fry/happy-birthday-to-gnu.html...
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:10:20 +0000

CVSROOT:        /sources/trans-coord
Module name:    trans-coord
Changes by:     Yavor Doganov <yavor>   11/10/15 18:10:20

Modified files:
        gnun/fry       : happy-birthday-to-gnu.html 
        gnun/licenses  : gpl-faq.html 

Log message:
        Automatic sync from the master www repository.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/fry/happy-birthday-to-gnu.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/licenses/gpl-faq.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.34&r2=1.35

Patches:
Index: fry/happy-birthday-to-gnu.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/fry/happy-birthday-to-gnu.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- fry/happy-birthday-to-gnu.html      30 Sep 2011 18:11:06 -0000      1.9
+++ fry/happy-birthday-to-gnu.html      15 Oct 2011 18:10:20 -0000      1.10
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
 </video>
 </p>
 
-<p class="center">Mr. <a href="http://www.stephenfry.com/";>Stephen Fry</a> 
introduces you to free software, and reminds you of a very special birthday.</p>
+<p class="center">Mr. Stephen Fry introduces you to free software, and reminds 
you of a very special birthday.</p>
 
 <ul class="inline" id="download"> <li><a
 href="happy-birthday-to-gnu-download.html">Download video</a></li>
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@
 
 <p>Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2011/09/30 18:11:06 $
+$Date: 2011/10/15 18:10:20 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 

Index: licenses/gpl-faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/licenses/gpl-faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.34
retrieving revision 1.35
diff -u -b -r1.34 -r1.35
--- licenses/gpl-faq.html       20 Sep 2011 18:10:26 -0000      1.34
+++ licenses/gpl-faq.html       15 Oct 2011 18:10:20 -0000      1.35
@@ -223,13 +223,11 @@
     <li><a href="#AGPLv3ServerAsUser">If some network client software
     is released under AGPLv3, does it have to be able to provide
     source to the servers it interacts with?</a></li>
-
  </ul>
 
   <h4>Using GNU licenses for your programs</h4>
 
   <ul>
-
     <li><a href="#v3HowToUpgrade">How do I upgrade from (L)GPLv2 to
     (L)GPLv3?</a></li>
 
@@ -313,7 +311,6 @@
   <h4>Distribution of programs released under the GNU licenses</h4>
 
   <ul>
-
     <li><a href="#ModifiedJustBinary">Can I release a modified version
     of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?</a></li>
 
@@ -437,7 +434,6 @@
   programs</h4>
 
   <ul>
-
     <li><a href="#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">Can I have a GPL-covered
     program and an unrelated non-free program on the same
     computer?</a></li>
@@ -475,13 +471,11 @@
 
     <li><a href="#LibGCCException">Where can I learn more about the
     GCC Runtime Library Exception?</a></li>
-  
   </ul>
 
   <h4>Combining work with code released under the GNU licenses</h4>
 
   <ul>
-
     <li><a href="#v2v3Compatibility">Is GPLv3 compatible with
     GPLv2?</a></li>
 
@@ -601,7 +595,6 @@
   <h4>Questions about violations of the GNU licenses</h4>
 
   <ul>
-
     <li><a href="#ReportingViolation">What should I do if I discover a
     possible violation of the GPL?</a></li>
 
@@ -642,75 +635,87 @@
 
 <dl>
 
-<dt id="WhatDoesGPLStandFor">What does &ldquo;GPL&rdquo; stand for?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>&ldquo;GPL&rdquo; stands for &ldquo;General Public License&rdquo;.
+<dt id="WhatDoesGPLStandFor">What does &ldquo;GPL&rdquo; stand for?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatDoesGPLStandFor"
+ >#WhatDoesGPLStandFor</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+&ldquo;GPL&rdquo; stands for &ldquo;General Public License&rdquo;.
 The most widespread such license is the GNU General Public License, or GNU
 GPL for short.  This can be further shortened to &ldquo;GPL&rdquo;, when it
-is understood that the GNU GPL is the one intended.
-</p></dd>
+is understood that the GNU GPL is the one intended.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL">Does free software mean using
-the GPL?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>Not at all&mdash;there are many other free software licenses.  We
+<dt id="DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL">Does free software mean using
+    the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL"
+ >#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Not at all&mdash;there are many other free software licenses.  We
 have an <a href="/licenses/license-list.html">incomplete list</a>.  Any
 license that provides the user <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">certain
 specific freedoms</a> is a free software license.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="WhyUseGPL">Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than other
-free software licenses?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>Using the GNU GPL will require that all
+<dt id="WhyUseGPL">Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than other
+    free software licenses?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyUseGPL"
+ >#WhyUseGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Using the GNU GPL will require that all
 the <a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">released improved versions be free
 software</a>.  This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with
 a proprietary modified version of your own work.  However, in some special
 situations it can be better to use a
-<a href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">more permissive license</a>.
-</p></dd>
+<a href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">more permissive license</a>.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense">Does all GNU
-software use the GNU GPL as its license?</dt>
 
+<dt id="DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense">Does all GNU
+    software use the GNU GPL as its license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a 
href="#DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense"
+ >#DoesAllGNUSoftwareUseTheGNUGPLAsItsLicense</a>)</span></dt>
 <dd><p>
 Most GNU software packages use the GNU GPL, but there are a few
 GNU programs (and parts of programs) that use looser licenses, such as the
 Lesser GPL.  When we do this, it is a matter of <a
-href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">strategy</a>.
-</p></dd>
+href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">strategy</a>.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware">Does using the
-GPL for a program make it GNU software?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>Anyone can release a program under the GNU GPL but that does not
+<dt id="DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware">Does using the
+    GPL for a program make it GNU software?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a 
href="#DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware"
+ >#DoesUsingTheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Anyone can release a program under the GNU GPL, but that does not
 make it a GNU package.</p>
 
 <p>Making the program a GNU software package means explicitly contributing
 to the GNU Project.  This happens when the program's developers and the GNU
 Project agree to do it.  If you are interested in contributing a program to
 the GNU Project, please write to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.
-</p></dd>
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="ReportingViolation">What should I do if I discover a possible
-violation of the GPL?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>You should <a href="/licenses/gpl-violation.html">report it</a>.
+<dt id="ReportingViolation">What should I do if I discover a possible
+    violation of the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ReportingViolation"
+ >#ReportingViolation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+You should <a href="/licenses/gpl-violation.html">report it</a>.
 First, check the facts as best you can.  Then tell the publisher or
 copyright holder of the specific GPL-covered program.  If that is the Free
 Software Foundation, write
 to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.
 Otherwise, the program's maintainer may be the copyright holder, or else
 could tell you how to contact the copyright holder, so report it to the
-maintainer.
-</p></dd>
+maintainer.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions">Why
-does the GPL permit users to publish their modified versions?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>A crucial aspect of free software is that users are free to cooperate.
+<dt id="WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions">Why
+    does the GPL permit users to publish their modified versions?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a 
href="#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions"
+ >#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+A crucial aspect of free software is that users are free to cooperate.
 It is absolutely essential to permit users who wish to help each other
 to share their bug fixes and improvements with other users.</p>
 
@@ -728,14 +733,15 @@
 Emacs have been made outside the GNU Project, but users can tell them
 apart.  The GPL requires the maker of a version to place his or her
 name on it, to distinguish it from other versions and to protect the
-reputations of other maintainers.
-</p></dd>
+reputations of other maintainers.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">Does the GPL require that
-source code of modified versions be posted to the public?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any
+<dt id="GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">Does the GPL require that
+    source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic"
+ >#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any
 part of it.  You are free to make modifications and use them privately,
 without ever releasing them.  This applies to organizations (including
 companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it
@@ -747,108 +753,119 @@
 
 <p>Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in
 certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release
-it is up to you.
-</p></dd>
+it is up to you.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">Can I have a GPL-covered
-program and an unrelated non-free program on the same
-computer?</dt>
 
+<dt id="GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">Can I have a GPL-covered
+    program and an unrelated non-free program on the same computer?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine"
+ >#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine</a>)</span></dt>
 <dd><p>Yes.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="CanIDemandACopy">If I know
-    someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give
-    me a copy?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>No.  The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of
+<dt id="CanIDemandACopy">If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered
+    program, can I demand he give me a copy?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CanIDemandACopy"
+ >#CanIDemandACopy</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of
 the program <em>if he chooses to do so</em>.  He also has the right not to
 redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.</p></dd>
 
+
 <dt id="WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid">What does &ldquo;written offer
         valid for any third party&rdquo; mean in GPLv2?  Does that mean
-        everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no
-        matter what?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody
+    everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program
+    no matter what?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid"
+ >#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody
 who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.</p>
-<p>
-If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source
+
+<p>If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source
 code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the
 source code later.  When users non-commercially redistribute the
 binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this
 written offer.  This means that people who did not get the binaries
 directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with
 the written offer.</p>
-<p>
-The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party
+
+<p>The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party
 is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way
-can order the source code from you.
-</p></dd>
+can order the source code from you.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">GPLv2 says that modified
-versions, if released, must be &ldquo;licensed &hellip; to all third
-parties.&rdquo; Who are these third parties?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be
+<dt id="TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">GPLv2 says that modified
+    versions, if released, must be &ldquo;licensed &hellip; to all third
+    parties.&rdquo; Who are these third parties?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions"
+ >#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be
 licensed to all third parties under the GPL.  &ldquo;All third
 parties&rdquo; means absolutely everyone&mdash;but this does not require
 you to *do* anything physically for them.  It only means they have a
-license from you, under the GPL, for your version.
-</p></dd>
+license from you, under the GPL, for your version. </p></dd>
 
-<dt id="RequiredToClaimCopyright">Am I required to claim a copyright
-        on my modifications to a GPL-covered program?</dt>
 
-<dd>
+<dt id="RequiredToClaimCopyright">Am I required to claim a copyright
+    on my modifications to a GPL-covered program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#RequiredToClaimCopyright"
+ >#RequiredToClaimCopyright</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
 You are not required to claim a copyright on your changes.  In most
 countries, however, that happens automatically by default, so you need to
 place your changes explicitly in the public domain if you do not want them
-to be copyrighted.
-<p>
-Whether you claim a copyright on your changes or not, either way you
-must release the modified version, as a whole, under the GPL. (<a
+to be copyrighted.</p>
+
+<p>Whether you claim a copyright on your changes or not, either way you
+must release the modified version, as a whole, under the GPL (<a
 href="#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic">if you release your modified
-version at all</a>)
-</p></dd>
+version at all</a>).</p></dd>
 
 
 <dt id="CombinePublicDomainWithGPL">If a program combines
         public-domain code with GPL-covered code, can I take the
-        public-domain part and use it as public domain code?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>You can do that, if you can figure out which part is the public domain
+    public-domain part and use it as public domain code?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL"
+ >#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+You can do that, if you can figure out which part is the public domain
 part and separate it from the rest.  If code was put in the public
 domain by its developer, it is in the public domain no matter where it
-has been.
-</p></dd>
+has been.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowMoney">Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of
-the program for money?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this.  The <a
-href="/philosophy/selling.html">right to sell copies</a> is part of
-the definition of free software.  Except in one special situation,
-there is no limit on what price you can charge.  (The one exception is
-the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany
-binary-only release.)
-</p></dd>
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowMoney">Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of
+    the program for money?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney"
+ >#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this.  The <a
+href="/philosophy/selling.html">right to sell copies</a> is part of the
+definition of free software.  Except in one special situation, there is
+no limit on what price you can charge.  (The one exception is the
+required written offer to provide source code that must accompany
+binary-only release.)</p></dd>
 
 <dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee">Does the GPL allow me to charge a
        fee for downloading the program from my site?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>Yes.  You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the
+<dd><p>
+Yes.  You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the
 program.  If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide
 &ldquo;equivalent access&rdquo; to download the source&mdash;therefore, the
 fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the
-binary.
-</p></dd>
+binary.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee">Does the GPL allow me to require
         that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or
-        notify me?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>No.  In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free.
+    notify me?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee"
+ >#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free.
 If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they
 have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free.
 See the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">
@@ -856,23 +873,29 @@
 
 <p>The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people
 to use and even redistribute the software without being required to
-pay anyone a fee for doing so.
-</p></dd>
+pay anyone a fee for doing so.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic">If I
   distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make
-  it available to the public without a charge?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>No.  However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives
+    it available to the public without a charge?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">
+ (<a href="#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic"
+ >#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives
 them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee.
 For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a
 web site for the general public.
 </p></dd>
 
-<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowNDA">Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies
-  under a nondisclosure agreement?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>No.  The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the
+<dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowNDA">Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies
+    under a nondisclosure agreement?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA"
+ >#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the
 right to redistribute copies, modified or not.  You are not allowed to
 distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.</p>
 
@@ -882,24 +905,27 @@
 
 <p>If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright
 holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would
-for any other kind of violation of the GPL.
-</p></dd>
+for any other kind of violation of the GPL.</p></dd>
 
 
 <dt id="DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA">Does the GPL allow me to distribute a
-  modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>No.  The GPL says that your modified versions must carry all the
+    modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA"
+ >#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  The GPL says that your modified versions must carry all the
 freedoms stated in the GPL.  Thus, anyone who receives a copy of your
 version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or
 not) of that version.  You may not distribute any version of the work
-on a more restrictive basis.
-</p></dd>
+on a more restrictive basis.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="DevelopChangesUnderNDA">Does the GPL allow me to develop a
-  modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>Yes.  For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and
+<dt id="DevelopChangesUnderNDA">Does the GPL allow me to develop a
+    modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DevelopChangesUnderNDA"
+ >#DevelopChangesUnderNDA</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes.  For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and
 agree not to release <em>your changes</em> until the client says ok.
 This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is
 being distributed under an NDA.</p>
@@ -911,23 +937,27 @@
 
 <p>The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version.
 In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right,
-but does <em>have</em> the right.
-</p></dd>
+but does <em>have</em> the right.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="IWantCredit">I want to get credit
         for my work.  I want people to know what I wrote.  Can I still get
-        credit if I use the GPL?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>You can certainly get credit for the work.  Part of releasing a
+    credit if I use the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#IWantCredit"
+ >#IWantCredit</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+You can certainly get credit for the work.  Part of releasing a
 program under the GPL is writing a copyright notice in your own name
 (assuming you are the copyright holder).  The GPL requires all copies
-to carry an appropriate copyright notice.
-</p></dd>
+to carry an appropriate copyright notice.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL
-        require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the 
program?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that
+<dt id="WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL
+    require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyMustIInclude"
+ >#WhyMustIInclude</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that
 everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are.</p>
 
 <p>It might be tempting to include a URL that refers to the license,
@@ -938,20 +968,24 @@
 <p>The only way to make sure that people who have copies of the program
 will continue to be able to see the license, despite all the changes
 that will happen in the network, is to include a copy of the license in
-the program.
-</p></dd>
+the program.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="WhatIfWorkIsShort">What
-        if the work is not much longer than the license itself?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple
+<dt id="WhatIfWorkIsShort">What
+    if the work is not much longer than the license itself?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort"
+ >#WhatIfWorkIsShort</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple
 all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
 
+
 <dt id="GPLOmitPreamble">Can I omit the preamble of the GPL, or the
-        instructions for how to use it on your own programs, to save
-        space?</dt>
-<dd>
-<p>The preamble and instructions are integral parts of the GNU GPL and
+    instructions for how to use it on your own programs, to save space?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLOmitPreamble"
+ >#GPLOmitPreamble</a>)</span></dt>     
+<dd><p>
+The preamble and instructions are integral parts of the GNU GPL and
 may not be omitted.  In fact, the GPL is copyrighted, and its license
 permits only verbatim copying of the entire GPL.  (You can use the
 legal terms to make <a href="#ModifyGPL">another license</a> but it
@@ -961,14 +995,15 @@
 than 1/5 of the GPL's total size.  They will not make a substantial
 fractional change in the size of a software package unless the package
 itself is quite small.  In that case, you may as well use a simple
-all-permissive license rather than the GNU GPL.
-</p></dd>
+all-permissive license rather than the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="WhatIsCompatible">What does it
-        mean to say that two licenses are &ldquo;compatible&rdquo;?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>In order to combine two programs (or substantial parts of them) into a
+<dt id="WhatIsCompatible">What does it
+    mean to say that two licenses are &ldquo;compatible&rdquo;?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatIsCompatible"
+ >#WhatIsCompatible</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+In order to combine two programs (or substantial parts of them) into a
 larger work, you need to have permission to use both programs in this way.
 If the two programs' licenses permit this, they are compatible.  If there
 is no way to satisfy both licenses at once, they are incompatible.</p>
@@ -979,14 +1014,15 @@
 
 <p>If you just want to install two separate programs in the same system, it
 is not necessary that their licenses be compatible, because this does not
-combine them into a larger work.</p>
-</dd>
+combine them into a larger work.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="WhatDoesCompatMean">What does it mean to say a license is
-&ldquo;compatible with the GPL?&rdquo;</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can
+<dt id="WhatDoesCompatMean">What does it mean to say a license is
+    &ldquo;compatible with the GPL?&rdquo;
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatDoesCompatMean"
+ >#WhatDoesCompatMean</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can
 combine code released under the other license with code released under the
 GNU GPL in one larger program.</p>
 
@@ -998,24 +1034,24 @@
 <p>GPLv3 is compatible with more licenses than GPLv2: it allows you to make
 combinations with code that has specific kinds of additional requirements
 that are not in GPLv3 itself.  Section 7 has more information about this,
-including the list of additional requirements that are permitted.
-</p></dd>
+including the list of additional requirements that are permitted.</p></dd>
 
 
 <dt id="FSWithNFLibs">Can I write
-free software that uses non-free libraries?</dt>
-
-<dd>
+    free software that uses non-free libraries?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#FSWithNFLibs"
+ >#FSWithNFLibs</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
 If you do this, your program won't be fully usable in a free
 environment. If your program depends on a non-free library to do a
 certain job, it cannot do that job in the Free World. If it depends on a
 non-free library to run at all, it cannot be part of a free operating
-system such as GNU; it is entirely off limits to the Free World.
-<p>
-So please consider: can you find a way to get the job done without using
+system such as GNU; it is entirely off limits to the Free World.</p>
+
+<p>So please consider: can you find a way to get the job done without using
 this library? Can you write a free replacement for that library?</p>
-<p>
-If the program is already written using the non-free library, perhaps it
+
+<p>If the program is already written using the non-free library, perhaps it
 is too late to change the decision. You may as well release the program
 as it stands, rather than not release it. But please mention in the
 README that the need for the non-free library is a drawback, and suggest
@@ -1023,32 +1059,30 @@
 the non-free library.  Please suggest that anyone who thinks of doing
 substantial further work on the program first free it from dependence
 on the non-free library.</p>
-<p>
-Note that there may also be legal issues with combining certain non-free
-libraries with GPL-covered Free Software.  Please see <a
+
+<p>Note that there may also be legal issues with combining certain non-free
+libraries with GPL-covered free software.  Please see <a
 href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">the question on GPL software with
-GPL-incompatible libraries</a> for more information.
-</p></dd>
+GPL-incompatible libraries</a> for more information.</p></dd>
 
 
-<dt id="GPLIncompatibleLibs">What
-legal issues come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL
-software?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-
-<p>Both versions of the GPL have an exception to their copyleft, commonly
-  called the system library exception.  If the GPL-incompatible libraries
-  you want to use meet the criteria for a system library, then you don't
-  have to do anything special to use them; the requirement to distribute
-  source code for the whole program does not include those libraries, even
-  if you distribute a linked executable containing them.</p>
+<dt id="GPLIncompatibleLibs">What legal issues
+    come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL software?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs"
+ >#GPLIncompatibleLibs</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Both versions of the GPL have an exception to their copyleft, commonly
+called the system library exception.  If the GPL-incompatible libraries
+you want to use meet the criteria for a system library, then you don't
+have to do anything special to use them; the requirement to distribute
+source code for the whole program does not include those libraries, even
+if you distribute a linked executable containing them.</p>
 
 <p>The criteria for what counts as a &quot;system library&quot; vary
-  between different versions of the GPL.  GPLv3 explicitly defines
-  &quot;System Libraries&quot; in section 1, to exclude it from the
-  definition of &quot;Corresponding Source.&quot; GPLv2 says the following,
-  near the end of section 3:</p>
+between different versions of the GPL.  GPLv3 explicitly defines
+&quot;System Libraries&quot; in section 1, to exclude it from the
+definition of &quot;Corresponding Source.&quot; GPLv2 says the following,
+near the end of section 3:</p>
 
 <blockquote><p>
      However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
@@ -1059,35 +1093,34 @@
 </p></blockquote>
 
 <p>If you want your program to link against a library not covered by the
-  system library exception, you need to provide permission to do that.
-  Below are two example license notices that you can use to do that; one
-  for GPLv3, and the other for GPLv2.  In either case, you should put this
-  text in each file to which you are granting this permission.</p>
+system library exception, you need to provide permission to do that.
+Below are two example license notices that you can use to do that; one
+for GPLv3, and the other for GPLv2.  In either case, you should put this
+text in each file to which you are granting this permission.</p>
 
 <p>Only the copyright holders for the program can legally release their
-  software under these terms. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then
-  assuming your employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are
-  the copyright holder&mdash;so you can authorize the exception. But if you 
want
-  to use parts of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code,
-  you cannot authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval
-  of the copyright holders of those programs.</p>
+software under these terms. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then
+assuming your employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are
+the copyright holder&mdash;so you can authorize the exception. But if you want
+to use parts of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code,
+you cannot authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval
+of the copyright holders of those programs.</p>
 
 <p>When other people modify the program, they do not have to make the same
-  exception for their code&mdash;it is their choice whether to do so.</p>
+exception for their code&mdash;it is their choice whether to do so.</p>
 
 <p>If the libraries you intend to link with are non-free, please also see
-  <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">the section on writing Free Software which uses
-  non-free libraries</a>.</p>
+<a href="#FSWithNFLibs">the section on writing Free Software which uses
+non-free libraries</a>.</p>
 
 <p>If you're using GPLv3, you can accomplish this goal by granting an
-  additional permission under section 7.  The following license notice will
-  do that.  You must replace all the text in brackets with text that is
-  appropriate for your program.  If not everybody can distribute source for
-  the libraries you intend to link with, you should remove the text in
-  braces; otherwise, just remove the braces themselves.</p>
+additional permission under section 7.  The following license notice will
+do that.  You must replace all the text in brackets with text that is
+appropriate for your program.  If not everybody can distribute source for
+the libraries you intend to link with, you should remove the text in
+braces; otherwise, just remove the braces themselves.</p>
 
 <blockquote>
-
 <p>Copyright (C) <var>[years]</var> <var>[name of copyright
 holder]</var></p>
 
@@ -1114,18 +1147,16 @@
 non-source form of such a combination shall include the source code for the
 parts of <var>[name of library]</var> used as well as that of the covered
 work.}</p>
-
 </blockquote>
 
 <p>If you're using GPLv2, you can provide your own exception to the
-  license's terms.  The following license notice will do that.  Again, you
-  must replace all the text in brackets with text that is appropriate for
-  your program.  If not everybody can distribute source for
-  the libraries you intend to link with, you should remove the text in
-  braces; otherwise, just remove the braces themselves.</p>
+license's terms.  The following license notice will do that.  Again, you
+must replace all the text in brackets with text that is appropriate for
+your program.  If not everybody can distribute source for
+the libraries you intend to link with, you should remove the text in
+braces; otherwise, just remove the braces themselves.</p>
 
 <blockquote>
-
 <p>Copyright (C) <var>[years]</var> <var>[name of copyright
 holder]</var></p>
 
@@ -1164,17 +1195,15 @@
 Public License gives permission to release a modified version without this
 exception; this exception also makes it possible to release a modified
 version which carries forward this exception.</p>
+</blockquote></dd>
 
-</blockquote>
-
-</dd>
-
-<dt id="HowIGetCopyright">How do I
-  get a copyright on my program in order to release it under the
-  GPL?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>Under the Berne Convention, everything written is automatically
+<dt id="HowIGetCopyright">How do I get a copyright on my program
+    in order to release it under the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#HowIGetCopyright"
+ >#HowIGetCopyright</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Under the Berne Convention, everything written is automatically
 copyrighted from whenever it is put in fixed form.  So you don't have to do
 anything to &ldquo;get&rdquo; the copyright on what you write&mdash;as long
 as nobody else can claim to own your work.</p>
@@ -1194,14 +1223,15 @@
 resolve the problem clearly by getting a copyright disclaimer signed
 by a suitably authorized officer of the company or school.  (Your
 immediate boss or a professor is usually NOT authorized to sign such a
-disclaimer.)
-</p></dd>
+disclaimer.)</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="WhatIfSchool">What if my school
-  might want to make my program into its own proprietary software
-  product?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>Many universities nowadays try to raise funds by restricting the use
+<dt id="WhatIfSchool">What if my school
+    might want to make my program into its own proprietary software product?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatIfSchool"
+ >#WhatIfSchool</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Many universities nowadays try to raise funds by restricting the use
 of the knowledge and information they develop, in effect behaving little
 different from commercial businesses.  (See &ldquo;The Kept
 University&rdquo;, Atlantic Monthly, March 2000, for a general discussion
@@ -1218,66 +1248,77 @@
 half-done, saying, &ldquo;If you will agree to releasing this as free
 software, I will finish it.&rdquo;  Don't think of this as a bluff.  To
 prevail, you must have the courage to say, &ldquo;My program will have
-liberty, or never be born.&rdquo;
-</p></dd>
+liberty, or never be born.&rdquo;</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="CouldYouHelpApplyGPL">Could
-  you give me step by step instructions on how to apply the GPL to my
-  program?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>See the page of <a href="/licenses/gpl-howto.html">GPL
+<dt id="CouldYouHelpApplyGPL">Could
+  you give me step by step instructions on how to apply the GPL to my program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CouldYouHelpApplyGPL"
+ >#CouldYouHelpApplyGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+See the page of <a href="/licenses/gpl-howto.html">GPL
 instructions</a>.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="HeardOtherLicense">I heard
-  that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program under another license.  Is
-  this possible?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to
+<dt id="HeardOtherLicense">I heard that someone got a copy
+    of a GPL'ed program under another license.  Is this possible?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#HeardOtherLicense"
+ >#HeardOtherLicense</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to
 the program.  But the copyright holder for a program can release it
 under several different licenses in parallel.  One of them may be the
 GNU GPL.</p>
 
 <p>The license that comes in your copy, assuming it was put in by the
 copyright holder and that you got the copy legitimately, is the
-license that applies to your copy.
-</p></dd>
+license that applies to your copy.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF">I
-  would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would
-  like to use the same code in non-free programs.</dt>
 
-<dd><p>To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but
+<dt id="ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF">I would like to release a program I wrote
+    under the GNU GPL, but I would
+    like to use the same code in non-free programs.
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF"
+ >#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but
 legally there is no obstacle to your doing this.  If you are the copyright
 holder for the code, you can release it under various different
-non-exclusive licenses at various times.
-</p></dd>
+non-exclusive licenses at various times.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="DeveloperViolate">Is the
   developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL?  Could the
-  developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others
+    developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DeveloperViolate"
+ >#DeveloperViolate</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others
 to use, distribute and change the program.  The developer itself is
 not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not
 a &ldquo;violation&rdquo; of the GPL.</p>
 
 <p>However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if
 done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the
-community.
-</p></dd>
+community.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="CanDeveloperThirdParty">Can the developer of a program who
-  distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for
-  exclusive use?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>No, because the public already has the right to use the program under
+<dt id="CanDeveloperThirdParty">Can the developer of a program who distributed
+    it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CanDeveloperThirdParty"
+ >#CanDeveloperThirdParty</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No, because the public already has the right to use the program under
 the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.</p></dd>
 
+
 <dt id="CanIUseGPLToolsForNF">Can I use GPL-covered editors such as
   GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs?  Can I use GPL-covered tools
-  such as GCC to compile them?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover
+    such as GCC to compile them?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF"
+ >#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover
 the code you write.  Using them does not place any restrictions, legally,
 on the license you use for your code.</p>
 
@@ -1292,25 +1333,30 @@
 This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison
 standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction.  We
 made the decision because there were other tools comparable to Bison
-which already permitted use for non-free programs.
-</p></dd>
+which already permitted use for non-free programs.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="GPLFairUse">Do I have &ldquo;fair use&rdquo;
-  rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>Yes, you do.  &ldquo;Fair use&rdquo; is use that is allowed without any
+<dt id="GPLFairUse">Do I have &ldquo;fair use&rdquo;
+    rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLFairUse"
+ >#GPLFairUse</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes, you do.  &ldquo;Fair use&rdquo; is use that is allowed without any
 special permission.  Since you don't need the developers' permission for
 such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about
 it&mdash;in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL
 or any other free software license.</p>
 
 <p>Note, however, that there is no world-wide principle of fair use; what
-kinds of use are considered &ldquo;fair&rdquo; varies from country to country.
-</p></dd>
+kinds of use are considered &ldquo;fair&rdquo; varies from country to
+country.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="GPLUSGov">Can the US Government
-    release a program under the GNU GPL?</dt>
+
+<dt id="GPLUSGov">Can the US Government release a program under the GNU GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLUSGov"
+ >#GPLUSGov</a>)</span></dt>
 <dd><p>
+
 If the program is written by US federal government employees in the
 course of their employment, it is in the public domain, which means it
 is not copyrighted.  Since the GNU GPL is based on copyright, such a
@@ -1325,24 +1371,29 @@
 the government agency, which can then release the software under the
 GNU GPL.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="GPLUSGovAdd">Can the US Government
-    release improvements to a GPL-covered program?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>Yes.  If the improvements are written by US government employees in
+<dt id="GPLUSGovAdd">Can the US Government
+    release improvements to a GPL-covered program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLUSGovAdd"
+ >#GPLUSGovAdd</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes.  If the improvements are written by US government employees in
 the course of their employment, then the improvements are in the
 public domain.  However, the improved version, as a whole, is still
 covered by the GNU GPL.  There is no problem in this situation.</p>
 
 <p>If the US government uses contractors to do the job, then the
-improvements themselves can be GPL-covered.
-</p></dd>
+improvements themselves can be GPL-covered.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="GPLOutput">Is there some way that
   I can GPL the output people get from use of my program?  For example,
   if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that
-  these designs must be free?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you
+    these designs must be free?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLOutput"
+ >#GPLOutput</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you
 any say in the use of the output people make from their data using
 your program.  If the user uses your program to enter or convert his
 own data, the copyright on the output belongs to him, not you.  More
@@ -1360,19 +1411,23 @@
 output even if there is no technical reason to do so.  But if that
 copied text serves no practical purpose, the user could simply delete
 that text from the output and use only the rest.  Then he would not
-have to obey the conditions on redistribution of the copied text.
-</p></dd>
+have to obey the conditions on redistribution of the copied text.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="WhatCaseIsOutputGPL">In what cases is the output of a GPL program 
covered by the GPL too?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>Only when the program copies part of itself into the
-output.</p></dd>
+<dt id="WhatCaseIsOutputGPL">In what cases is the output of a GPL
+    program covered by the GPL too?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL"
+ >#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="GPLModuleLicense">If I add
-  a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the GPL as the
-  license for my module?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released
+<dt id="GPLModuleLicense">If I add a module to a GPL-covered program,
+    do I have to use the GPL as the license for my module?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLModuleLicense"
+ >#GPLModuleLicense</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released
 under the GPL.  So your module has to be available for use under the
 GPL.</p>
 
@@ -1380,22 +1435,24 @@
 can, if you wish, release your program under a license which is more lax
 than the GPL but compatible with the GPL.  The
 <a href="/licenses/license-list.html">license list page</a> gives a partial
-list of GPL-compatible licenses.
-</p></dd>
+list of GPL-compatible licenses. </p></dd>
 
-<dt id="IfLibraryIsGPL">If a library
-  is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any
-  software which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible
-  license?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>Yes, because the software as it is actually run includes the
+<dt id="IfLibraryIsGPL">If a library is released under the GPL
+    (not the LGPL), does that mean that any software which uses it
+    has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#IfLibraryIsGPL"
+ >#IfLibraryIsGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes, because the software as it is actually run includes the
 library.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="IfInterpreterIsGPL">If a
-  programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that
-  mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under
-  GPL-compatible licenses?</dt>
 
+<dt id="IfInterpreterIsGPL">If a programming language interpreter
+    is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be
+    interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#IfInterpreterIsGPL"
+ >#IfInterpreterIsGPL</a>)</span></dt>
 <dd><p>
 When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no.  The
 interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software
@@ -1417,44 +1474,44 @@
 <a href="#GPLPluginsInNF">link dynamically with these specific
 libraries</a>, then it too needs to be released in a GPL-compatible
 way.</p>
-<p>
-Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the
+
+<p>Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the
 interpreter which are themselves interpreted.  For instance, Perl
 comes with many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with
 many Java classes.  These libraries and the programs that call them
 are always dynamically linked together.</p>
-<p>
-A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java
+
+<p>A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java
 classes in your program, you must release the program in a
 GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java
 interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on.
 </p></dd>
 
+
 <dt id="WindowsRuntimeAndGPL">I'm writing a Windows application with
   Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) and I will be releasing it
   under the GPL.  Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual
-  C++ (or Visual Basic) run-time library permitted under the
-  GPL?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>The GPL permits this because that run-time library normally accompanies
+    C++ (or Visual Basic) run-time library permitted under the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL"
+ >#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The GPL permits this because that run-time library normally accompanies
 the compiler or interpreter you are using.  The run-time libraries here are
 &ldquo;System Libraries&rdquo; as GPLv3 defines them, and as such they are
 not considered part of the Corresponding Source.  GPLv2 has a similar
 exception in section 3.</p>
 
-<p>
-That doesn't mean it is a good idea to write the program so that it
+<p>That doesn't mean it is a good idea to write the program so that it
 only runs on Windows.  Doing so results in a program that is free
 software but &ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">trapped</a>&rdquo;
-by Windows.
-</p></dd>
+by Windows.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="OrigBSD">Why is the original BSD
-license incompatible with the GPL?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>
+<dt id="OrigBSD">Why is the original BSD
+    license incompatible with the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#OrigBSD"
+ >#OrigBSD</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
 Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL; namely,
 the requirement on advertisements of the program.  Section 6 of GPLv2
 states:</p>
@@ -1466,15 +1523,16 @@
 provides just such a further restriction, and thus is GPL-incompatible.</p>
 
 <p>The revised BSD license does not have the advertising clause, which
-eliminates the problem.
-</p></dd>
+eliminates the problem.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="GPLAndPlugins">If a program
   released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for
-  the licenses of a plug-in?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins.  If the program
+  the licenses of a plug-in?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLAndPlugins"
+ >#GPLAndPlugins</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins.  If the program
 uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate
 programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements
 for them.</p>
@@ -1490,13 +1548,15 @@
 <p>If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication
 between them is limited to invoking the &lsquo;main&rsquo; function of
 the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a
-borderline case.
-</p></dd>
+borderline case.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="GPLPluginsInNF">Can I apply the
-GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the
+<dt id="GPLPluginsInNF">Can I apply the
+    GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLPluginsInNF"
+ >#GPLPluginsInNF</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the
 plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program
 makes no requirements for them.  So you can use the GPL for a plug-in,
 and there are no special requirements.</p>
@@ -1511,70 +1571,74 @@
 the non-free main program.</p>
 
 <p>See also the question <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">I am
-writing free software that uses a non-free library.</a>
-</p></dd>
+writing free software that uses a non-free library.</a></p></dd>
 
-<dt id="NFUseGPLPlugins">Can I
-release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered
-plug-in?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins.  For instance, if
+<dt id="NFUseGPLPlugins">Can I release a non-free program
+    that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NFUseGPLPlugins"
+ >#NFUseGPLPlugins</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins.  For instance, if
 the program uses <em>only</em> simple fork and exec to invoke and
 communicate with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so
 the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main
 program.</p>
-<p>
-If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function
+
+<p>If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function
 calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a
 single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main
 program and the plug-ins.  In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins,
 the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible
 free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed
 when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.</p>
-<p>
-If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication
+
+<p>If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication
 between them is limited to invoking the &lsquo;main&rsquo; function of
 the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a
 borderline case.</p>
-<p>
-Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures
+
+<p>Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures
 is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking.</p>
-<p>
-See also the question <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">I am
-writing free software that uses a non-free library.</a>
-</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="LinkingWithGPL">You have a
-  GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a
-  proprietary program.  Does the fact that I link with your program mean
-  I have to GPL my program?</dt>
+<p>See also the question <a href="#FSWithNFLibs">I am
+writing free software that uses a non-free library.</a></p></dd>
+
 
-<dd><p>Not exactly.  It means you must release your program under a license
+<dt id="LinkingWithGPL">You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like
+    to link with my code to build a proprietary program.  Does the fact
+    that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LinkingWithGPL"
+ >#LinkingWithGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Not exactly.  It means you must release your program under a license
 compatible with the GPL (more precisely, compatible with one or more GPL
 versions accepted by all the rest of the code in the combination that you
-link).  The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions.
-</p></dd>
+link).  The combination itself is then available under those GPL
+versions.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="SwitchToLGPL">If so, is there
-  any chance I could get a license of your program under the Lesser
-  GPL?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>You can ask, but most authors will stand firm and say no.
+<dt id="SwitchToLGPL">If so, is there
+  any chance I could get a license of your program under the Lesser GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SwitchToLGPL"
+ >#SwitchToLGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+You can ask, but most authors will stand firm and say no.
 The idea of the GPL is that if you want to include our code in your
 program, your program must also be free software.  It is supposed
 to put pressure on you to release your program in a way that makes
 it part of our community.</p>
 
-<p>You always have the legal alternative of not using our code.
-</p></dd>
+<p>You always have the legal alternative of not using our code.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="LinkingOverControlledInterface">How can I allow linking of
   proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a controlled
-  interface only?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Add this text to the license notice of each file in the package, at
+  interface only?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LinkingOverControlledInterface"
+ >#LinkingOverControlledInterface</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Add this text to the license notice of each file in the package, at
 the end of the text that says the file is distributed under the GNU
 GPL:</p>
 
@@ -1598,25 +1662,25 @@
 permission to release a modified version without this exception; this
 exception also makes it possible to release a modified version which
 carries forward this exception.</p>
-
 </blockquote>
-<p>
-Only the copyright holders for the program can legally authorize this
+
+<p>Only the copyright holders for the program can legally authorize this
 exception. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then assuming your
 employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are the copyright
 holder&mdash;so you can authorize the exception. But if you want to use parts
 of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code, you cannot
 authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval of the
-copyright holders of those programs.
-</p></dd>
+copyright holders of those programs.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="ManyDifferentLicenses">I have written an application that links
   with many different components, that have different licenses.  I am
   very confused as to what licensing requirements are placed on my
-  program.  Can you please tell me what licenses I may use?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>To answer this question, we would need to see a list of each component
+    program.  Can you please tell me what licenses I may use?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ManyDifferentLicenses"
+ >#ManyDifferentLicenses</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+To answer this question, we would need to see a list of each component
 that your program uses, the license of that component, and a brief (a
 few sentences for each should suffice) describing how your library
 uses that component.  Two examples would be:</p>
@@ -1626,15 +1690,15 @@
 <li>My software makes a system call (with a command line that I built) to
       run the BAR program, which is licensed under &ldquo;the GPL, with a
       special exception allowing for linking with QUUX&rdquo;.</li>
-</ul>
-</dd>
+</ul></dd>
 
-<dt id="MereAggregation">What is the difference between an
-    &ldquo;aggregate&rdquo; and other kinds of &ldquo;modified
-    versions&rdquo;?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>An &ldquo;aggregate&rdquo; consists of a number of separate programs,
+<dt id="MereAggregation">What is the difference between an
+    &ldquo;aggregate&rdquo; and other kinds of &ldquo;modified versions&rdquo;?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#MereAggregation"
+ >#MereAggregation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+An &ldquo;aggregate&rdquo; consists of a number of separate programs,
 distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media.  The GPL permits
 you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the
 other software are non-free or GPL-incompatible.  The only condition is
@@ -1660,162 +1724,174 @@
 separate programs.  But if the semantics of the communication are
 intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too
 could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger
-program.
-</p></dd>
+program.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="AssignCopyright">Why does
   the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign
   copyright to the FSF?  If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should
-  I do this, too?  If so, how?</dt>
+    I do this, too?  If so, how?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AssignCopyright"
+ >#AssignCopyright</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Our lawyers have told us that to be in the <a
+href="/licenses/why-assign.html">best position to enforce the GPL</a> in
+court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the
+program as simple as possible.  We do this by asking each contributor to
+either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim
+copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.</p>
 
-<dd>
-Our lawyers have told us that to be in the <a 
href="/licenses/why-assign.html">best position to enforce
-the GPL</a> in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status
-of the program as simple as possible.  We do this by asking each contributor
-to either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim
-copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.
-<p>
-We also ask individual contributors to get copyright disclaimers from
+<p>We also ask individual contributors to get copyright disclaimers from
 their employers (if any) so that we can be sure those employers won't
 claim to own the contributions.</p>
-<p>
-Of course, if all the contributors put their code in the public
+
+<p>Of course, if all the contributors put their code in the public
 domain, there is no copyright with which to enforce the GPL.  So we
 encourage people to assign copyright on large code contributions, and
 only put small changes in the public domain.</p>
-<p>
-If you want to make an effort to enforce the GPL on your program, it
+
+<p>If you want to make an effort to enforce the GPL on your program, it
 is probably a good idea for you to follow a similar policy.  Please
 contact <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a> if
 you want more information.
 </p></dd>
 
-<dt id="ModifyGPL">Can I modify the GPL
-    and make a modified license?</dt>
 
-<dd>
+<dt id="ModifyGPL">Can I modify the GPL
+    and make a modified license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ModifyGPL"
+ >#ModifyGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
 You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
 provided that you call your license by another name and do not include
 the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at
 the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention
-GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
-<p>
-If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write
+GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).</p>
+
+<p> If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write
 to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>
 for permission.  For this purpose we would want to check the actual
 license requirements to see if we approve of them.</p>
-<p>
-Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified
+
+<p>Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified
 license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it.  Such
 a modified license is almost certainly <a href="#WhatIsCompatible">
 incompatible with the GNU GPL</a>, and that incompatibility blocks
 useful combinations of modules.  The mere proliferation of different
-free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.
-</p></dd>
+free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="GPLCommercially">If I use a
   piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I
   allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then
-  distribute and sell that new program commercially?</dt>
-
-<dd>
+    distribute and sell that new program commercially?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLCommercially"
+ >#GPLCommercially</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
 You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially,
 but only under the terms of the GNU GPL.  Thus, for instance, you must
 make the source code available to the users of the program as
 described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and
-modify it as described in the GPL.
-<p>
-These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered
+modify it as described in the GPL.</p>
+
+<p>These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered
 code you received in a program of your own.
 </p></dd>
 
 
 <dt id="GPLOtherThanSoftware">Can I use the GPL for something other than
-software?</dt>
+    software?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLOtherThanSoftware"
+ >#GPLOtherThanSoftware</a>)</span></dt>
 
-<dd><p>You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear
+<dd><p>
+You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear
 what constitutes the &ldquo;source code&rdquo; for the work.  The GPL
 defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in
 it.</p>
 
 <p>However, for manuals and textbooks, or more generally any sort of work
 that is meant to teach a subject, we recommend using the GFDL rather
-than the GPL.
-</p></dd>
-
+than the GPL.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="LGPLJava">How does the LGPL
-    work with Java?</dt>
 
-<dd>
+<dt id="LGPLJava">How does the LGPL work with Java?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LGPLJava"
+ >#LGPLJava</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+<a href="/licenses/lgpl-java.html">See this article for details.</a>
+It works as designed, intended, and expected.</p></dd>
 
-<p><a href="/licenses/lgpl-java.html">See this article for details.</a>  It 
works as designed, intended, and expected.
-</p></dd>
 
 <dt id="Consider">Consider this situation:
        1) X releases V1 of a project under the GPL.
-       2) Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code 
based on V1.
-       3) X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license. Does X need Y's 
permission?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Yes.  Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a
+    2) Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code
+       based on&nbsp;V1. 
+    3) X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license.
+       Does X need Y's permission?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#Consider"
+ >#Consider</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes.  Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a
 consequence of basing it on X's version V1.  Nothing required Y to
 agree to any other license for its code.  Therefore, X must get Y's
-permission before releasing that code under another license.
-</p></dd>
+permission before releasing that code under another license.</p></dd>
 
 
 <dt id="GPLInProprietarySystem">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered
-  software in my proprietary system.  Can I do this?</dt>
-
-<dd>
+    software in my proprietary system.  Can I do this?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLInProprietarySystem"
+ >#GPLInProprietarySystem</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
 You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system.
 The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy,
 redistribute, understand, and modify a program.  If you could
 incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have
-the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.
-<p>
-A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of
+the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.</p>
+
+<p>A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of
 that program.  The GPL says that any extended version of the program
 must be released under the GPL if it is released at all.  This is for
 two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the
 freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back
 improvements that they make.</p>
-<p>
-However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software
+
+<p>However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software
 alongside your proprietary system.  To do this validly, you must make
 sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length,
 that they are not combined in a way that would make them
 effectively a single program.</p>
-<p>
-The difference between this and &ldquo;incorporating&rdquo; the GPL-covered
+
+<p>The difference between this and &ldquo;incorporating&rdquo; the GPL-covered
 software is partly a matter of substance and partly form.  The substantive
 part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become
 effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two
 separate programs.  So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.</p>
-<p>
-If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the
+
+<p>If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the
 kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two
 separate programs&mdash;but you have to do it properly.  The issue is
 simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing.  Why do we
 care about this?  Because we want to make sure the users clearly
 understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the
 collection.</p>
-<p>
-If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it &ldquo;part
-of&rdquo; a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be
-uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software.  But if they
-know that what they have received is a free program plus another program,
-side by side, their rights will be clear.
-</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="GPLWrapper">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in
-my proprietary system.  Can I do this by putting a &ldquo;wrapper&rdquo;
-module, under a GPL-compatible lax permissive license (such as the X11
-license) in between the GPL-covered part and the proprietary
-part?</dt>
+<p>If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it
+&ldquo;part&nbsp;of&rdquo; a system that users know is partly
+proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the
+GPL-covered software.  But if they know that what they have received is
+a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be
+clear.</p></dd>
+
 
-<dd><p>No.  The X11 license is compatible with the GPL, so you can add
+<dt id="GPLWrapper">I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in
+    my proprietary system.  Can I do this by putting a &ldquo;wrapper&rdquo;
+    module, under a GPL-compatible lax permissive license (such as the X11
+    license) in between the GPL-covered part and the proprietary part?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLWrapper"
+ >#GPLWrapper</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  The X11 license is compatible with the GPL, so you can add
 a module to the GPL-covered program and put it under the X11 license.
 But if you were to incorporate them both in a larger program, that
 whole would include the GPL-covered part, so it would have to be
@@ -1823,152 +1899,165 @@
 
 <p>The fact that proprietary module A communicates with GPL-covered
 module C only through X11-licensed module B is legally irrelevant;
-what matters is the fact that module C is included in the whole.
-</p></dd>
+what matters is the fact that module C is included in the whole.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="LibGCCException">Where can I learn more about the GCC
-      Runtime Library Exception?</dt>
+      Runtime Library Exception?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LibGCCException"
+ >#LibGCCException</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The GCC Runtime Library Exception covers libgcc, libstdc++,
+libfortran, libgomp, libdecnumber, and other libraries distributed
+with GCC.  The exception is meant to allow people to distribute
+programs compiled with GCC under terms of their choice, even when
+parts of these libraries are included in the executable as part of
+the compilation process.  To learn more, please read our
+<a href="/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html">FAQ about the GCC
+Runtime Library Exception</a>.</p></dd>
 
-<dd><p>The GCC Runtime Library Exception covers libgcc, libstdc++,
-    libfortran, libgomp, libdecnumber, and other libraries distributed
-    with GCC.  The exception is meant to allow people to distribute
-    programs compiled with GCC under terms of their choice, even when
-    parts of these libraries are included in the executable as part of
-    the compilation process.  To learn more, please read our
-    <a href="/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html">FAQ about the GCC
-    Runtime Library Exception</a>.</p></dd>
 
 <dt id="MoneyGuzzlerInc">I'd like to
   modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability
   libraries from Money Guzzler Inc.  I cannot distribute the source code
   for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions
   would have to obtain those libraries separately.  Why doesn't the
-  GPL permit this?</dt>
-
-<dd>
+    GPL permit this?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#MoneyGuzzlerInc"
+ >#MoneyGuzzlerInc</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
 There are two reasons for this.
-<p>
 First, a general one.  If we permitted company A to make a proprietary
 file, and company B to distribute GPL-covered software linked with
 that file, the effect would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough to
 drive a truck through.  This would be carte blanche for withholding
 the source code for all sorts of modifications and extensions to
 GPL-covered software.</p>
-<p>
-Giving all users access to the source code is one of our main goals,
+
+<p>Giving all users access to the source code is one of our main goals,
 so this consequence is definitely something we want to avoid.</p>
-<p>
-More concretely, the versions of the programs linked with the Money
+
+<p>More concretely, the versions of the programs linked with the Money
 Guzzler libraries would not really be free software as we understand
 the term&mdash;they would not come with full source code that enables users
-to change and recompile the program.
-</p></dd>
+to change and recompile the program.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="GPLIncompatibleAlone">If
-license for a module Q has a requirement that's incompatible with the GPL,
-but the requirement applies only when Q is distributed by itself, not when
-Q is included in a larger program, does that make the license
-GPL-compatible?  Can I combine or link Q with a GPL-covered
-program?</dt>
 
-<dd>
+<dt id="GPLIncompatibleAlone">If the license for a module Q has a
+    requirement that's incompatible with the GPL,
+    but the requirement applies only when Q is distributed by itself, not when
+    Q is included in a larger program, does that make the license
+    GPL-compatible?  Can I combine or link Q with a GPL-covered program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLIncompatibleAlone"
+ >#GPLIncompatibleAlone</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
 If a program P is released under the GPL that means *any and every part of
 it* can be used under the GPL.  If you integrate module Q, and release the
 combined program P+Q under the GPL, that means any part of P+Q can be used
 under the GPL.  One part of P+Q is Q.  So releasing P+Q under the GPL says
 that Q any part of it can be used under the GPL.  Putting it in other
 words, a user who obtains P+Q under the GPL can delete P, so that just Q
-remains, still under the GPL.
-<p>
-If the license of module Q permits you to give permission for that,
+remains, still under the GPL.</p>
+
+<p>If the license of module Q permits you to give permission for that,
 then it is GPL-compatible.  Otherwise, it is not GPL-compatible.</p>
-<p>
-If the license for Q says in no uncertain terms that you must do certain
+
+<p>If the license for Q says in no uncertain terms that you must do certain
 things (not compatible with the GPL) when you redistribute Q on its own,
 then it does not permit you to distribute Q under the GPL.  It follows that
 you can't release P+Q under the GPL either.  So you cannot link or combine
-P with Q.
-</p></dd>
+P with Q.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="ModifiedJustBinary">Can I release a modified
-    version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?</dt>
-<dd>
-<p>No.  The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions
-must be <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">
-free software</a>&mdash;which means, in particular, that the source
-code of the modified version is available to the users.
-</p></dd>
+    version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ModifiedJustBinary"
+ >#ModifiedJustBinary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions
+must be <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>&mdash;which
+means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is
+available to the users.</p></dd>
 
 
 <dt id="UnchangedJustBinary">I
     downloaded just the binary from the net.  If I distribute copies,
-    do I have to get the source and distribute that too?</dt>
-<dd>
-<p>Yes.  The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute
+    do I have to get the source and distribute that too?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#UnchangedJustBinary"
+ >#UnchangedJustBinary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes.  The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute
 the complete corresponding source code too.  The exception for the case
-where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.
-</p></dd>
+where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="DistributeWithSourceOnInternet">I want to distribute
   binaries via physical media without accompanying sources.  Can I provide
-  source code by FTP?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-
-<p>Version 3 of the GPL allows this; see option 6(b) for the full details.
+  source code by FTP?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet"
+ >#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Version 3 of the GPL allows this; see option 6(b) for the full details.
 Under version 2, you're certainly free to offer source via FTP, and most
 users will get it from there.  However, if any of them would rather get the
 source on physical media by mail, you are required to provide that.</p>
 
 <p>If you distribute binaries via FTP, <a
-href="#AnonFTPAndSendSources">you should distribute source via FTP.</a></p>
+href="#AnonFTPAndSendSources">you should distribute source via
+FTP.</a></p></dd>
 
-</dd>
 
 <dt id="RedistributedBinariesGetSource">My friend got a GPL-covered
     binary with an offer to supply source, and made a copy for me.
-    Can I use the offer myself to obtain the source?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Yes, you can.  The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy
+    Can I use the offer myself to obtain the source?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#RedistributedBinariesGetSource"
+ >#RedistributedBinariesGetSource</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes, you can.  The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy
 of the binary that it accompanies.  This is why the GPL says your
 friend must give you a copy of the offer along with a copy of the
-binary&mdash;so you can take advantage of it.
-</p></dd>
+binary&mdash;so you can take advantage of it.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites">Can I put the binaries on my
-  Internet server and put the source on a different Internet
-  site?</dt>
+    Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites"
+ >#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes.  Section 6(d) allows this.  However, you must provide
+clear instructions people can follow to obtain the source, and you
+must take care to make sure that the source remains available for
+as long as you distribute the object code.</p></dd>
 
-<dd><p>Yes.  Section 6(d) allows this.  However, you must provide
-    clear instructions people can follow to obtain the source, and you
-    must take care to make sure that the source remains available for
-    as long as you distribute the object code.</p></dd>
 
 <dt id="DistributeExtendedBinary">I want to distribute an extended
   version of a GPL-covered program in binary form.  Is it enough to
-  distribute the source for the original version?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>No, you must supply the source code that corresponds to the binary.
+    distribute the source for the original version?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DistributeExtendedBinary"
+ >#DistributeExtendedBinary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No, you must supply the source code that corresponds to the binary.
 Corresponding source means the source from which users can rebuild the
 same binary.</p>
 
 <p>Part of the idea of free software is that users should have access to
-the source code for *the programs they use*.  Those using your version
+the source code for <em>the programs they use</em>.  Those using your version
 should have access to the source code for your version.</p>
 
 <p>A major goal of the GPL is to build up the Free World by making sure
 that improvement to a free program are themselves free.  If you
 release an improved version of a GPL-covered program, you must release
-the improved source code under the GPL.
-</p></dd>
+the improved source code under the GPL.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="DistributingSourceIsInconvenient">I want to distribute
   binaries, but distributing complete source is inconvenient.  Is it ok if
   I give users the diffs from the &ldquo;standard&rdquo; version along with
-  the binaries?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the
+  the binaries?
+<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient"
+ >#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the
 source doesn't really do the job.</p>
 
 <p>A user that wants the source a year from now may be unable to get the
@@ -1977,48 +2066,50 @@
 probably won't work with that version.</p>
 
 <p>So you need to provide complete sources, not just diffs, with
-the binaries.
-</p></dd>
+the binaries.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="AnonFTPAndSendSources">Can I make binaries available
-  on a network server, but send sources only to people who order
-  them?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>If you make object code available on a network server, you have
-    to provide the Corresponding Source on a network server as well.
-    The easiest way to do this would be to publish them on the same
-    server, but if you'd like, you can alternatively provide
-    instructions for getting the source from another server, or even a
-    <a href="#SourceInCVS">version control system</a>.  No matter what
-    you do, the source should be just as easy to access as the object
-    code, though.  This is all specified in section 6(d) of GPLv3.</p>
+<dt id="AnonFTPAndSendSources">Can I make binaries available
+    on a network server, but send sources only to people who order them?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AnonFTPAndSendSources"
+ >#AnonFTPAndSendSources</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If you make object code available on a network server, you have
+to provide the Corresponding Source on a network server as well.
+The easiest way to do this would be to publish them on the same
+server, but if you'd like, you can alternatively provide
+instructions for getting the source from another server, or even a
+<a href="#SourceInCVS">version control system</a>.  No matter what
+you do, the source should be just as easy to access as the object
+code, though.  This is all specified in section 6(d) of GPLv3.</p>
 
 <p>The sources you provide must correspond exactly to the binaries.
 In particular, you must make sure they are for the same version of
-the program&mdash;not an older version and not a newer version.</p>
+the program&mdash;not an older version and not a newer version.</p></dd>
 
-</dd>
 
 <dt id="HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource">How can I make sure each
-  user who downloads the binaries also gets the source?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>You don't have to make sure of this.  As long as you make the source
+    user who downloads the binaries also gets the source?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a 
href="#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource"
+ >#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+You don't have to make sure of this.  As long as you make the source
 and binaries available so that the users can see what's available and take
 what they want, you have done what is required of you.  It is up to the
 user whether to download the source.</p>
 
 <p>Our requirements for redistributors are intended to make sure the
 users can get the source code, not to force users to download the
-source code even if they don't want it.
-</p></dd>
+source code even if they don't want it.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="UnreleasedMods">A company
     is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site.
-    Does the GPL say they must release their modified
-    sources?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without
+    Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#UnreleasedMods"
+ >#UnreleasedMods</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without
 ever distributing it to others.  What this company is doing is a
 special case of that.  Therefore, the company does not have to release
 the modified sources.</p>
@@ -2028,14 +2119,17 @@
 putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly
 &ldquo;private&rdquo; use, so it would be legitimate to require release of
 the source code in that special case.  Developers who wish to address this
-might want to use the <a href="/licenses/agpl.html">GNU Affero GPL</a> for
-programs designed for network server use.
-</p></dd>
+might want to use the
+<a href="/licenses/agpl.html">GNU&nbsp;Affero&nbsp;GPL</a> for programs
+designed for network server use.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="InternalDistribution">Is making and using multiple copies
-    within one organization or company &ldquo;distribution&rdquo;?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for
+<dt id="InternalDistribution">Is making and using multiple copies
+    within one organization or company &ldquo;distribution&rdquo;?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#InternalDistribution"
+ >#InternalDistribution</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for
 itself.  As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop
 a modified version and install that version through its own
 facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that
@@ -2043,15 +2137,16 @@
 
 <p>However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations
 or individuals, that is distribution.  In particular, providing copies
-to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
-</p></dd>
+to contractors for use off-site is distribution.</p></dd>
 
 
 <dt id="StolenCopy">If someone steals
     a CD containing a version of a GPL-covered program, does the GPL
-    give him the right to redistribute that version?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably
+    give him the right to redistribute that version?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#StolenCopy"
+ >#StolenCopy</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably
 does have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the GPL,
 but if he is imprisoned for stealing the CD he may have to wait until
 his release before doing so.</p>
@@ -2061,73 +2156,78 @@
 secret law, depending on other circumstances.  The GPL does not change
 that.  If the company tried to release its version and still treat it
 as a trade secret, that would violate the GPL, but if the company
-hasn't released this version, no such violation has occurred.
-</p></dd>
+hasn't released this version, no such violation has occurred.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="TradeSecretRelease">What if a company distributes a copy as
-    a trade secret?</dt>
-<dd>
-<p>If a company distributes a copy to you and claims it is a trade
+    a trade secret?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#TradeSecretRelease"
+ >#TradeSecretRelease</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If a company distributes a copy to you and claims it is a trade
 secret, the company has violated the GPL and will have to cease
 distribution.  Note how this differs from the theft case above; the
 company does not intentionally distribute a copy when a copy is
-stolen, so in that case the company has not violated the GPL.
-</p></dd>
+stolen, so in that case the company has not violated the GPL.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">Why are some GNU libraries released under
-  the ordinary GPL rather than the Lesser GPL?</dt>
 
-<dd>
+<dt id="WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">Why are some GNU libraries released under
+    the ordinary GPL rather than the Lesser GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL"
+ >#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
 Using the Lesser GPL for any particular library constitutes a retreat
 for free software.  It means we partially abandon the attempt to
 defend the users' freedom, and some of the requirements to share what
 is built on top of GPL-covered software.  In themselves, those are
-changes for the worse.
-<p>
-Sometimes a localized retreat is a good strategy.  Sometimes, using
+changes for the worse.</p>
+
+<p>Sometimes a localized retreat is a good strategy.  Sometimes, using
 the LGPL for a library might lead to wider use of that library, and
 thus to more improvement for it, wider support for free software, and
 so on.  This could be good for free software if it happens to a large
 extent.  But how much will this happen?  We can only speculate.</p>
-<p>
-It would be nice to try out the LGPL on each library for a while, see
+
+<p>It would be nice to try out the LGPL on each library for a while, see
 whether it helps, and change back to the GPL if the LGPL didn't help.
 But this is not feasible.  Once we use the LGPL for a particular
 library, changing back would be difficult.</p>
-<p>
-So we decide which license to use for each library on a case-by-case
+
+<p>So we decide which license to use for each library on a case-by-case
 basis.  There is a <a href="/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">long
-explanation</a> of how we judge the question.
-</p></dd>
+explanation</a> of how we judge the question.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="WillYouMakeAnException">Using a certain GNU program under the
   GPL does not fit our project to make proprietary software.  Will you
-  make an exception for us?  It would mean more users of that
-  program.</dt>
+    make an exception for us?  It would mean more users of that program.
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WillYouMakeAnException"
+ >#WillYouMakeAnException</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Sorry, we don't make such exceptions.  It would not be right.</p>
 
-<dd>
-Sorry, we don't make such exceptions.  It would not be right.
-<p>
-Maximizing the number of users is not our aim.  Rather, we are trying
+<p>Maximizing the number of users is not our aim.  Rather, we are trying
 to give the crucial freedoms to as many users as possible.  In
 general, proprietary software projects hinder rather than help the
 cause of freedom.</p>
-<p>
-We do occasionally make license exceptions to assist a project which
+
+<p>We do occasionally make license exceptions to assist a project which
 is producing free software under a license other than the GPL.
 However, we have to see a good reason why this will advance the cause
 of free software.</p>
-<p>
-We also do sometimes change the distribution terms of a package, when
+
+<p>We also do sometimes change the distribution terms of a package, when
 that seems clearly the right way to serve the cause of free software;
 but we are very cautious about this, so you will have to show us very
-convincing reasons.
-</p></dd>
+convincing reasons.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="VersionThreeOrLater">Why should programs say &ldquo;Version
-3 of the GPL or any later version&rdquo;?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>From time to time, at intervals of years, we change the
+<dt id="VersionThreeOrLater">Why should programs say
+    &ldquo;Version&nbsp;3 of the GPL or any later version&rdquo;?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#VersionThreeOrLater"
+ >#VersionThreeOrLater</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+From time to time, at intervals of years, we change the
 GPL&mdash;sometimes to clarify it, sometimes to permit certain kinds of use
 not previously permitted, and sometimes to tighten up a requirement.  (The
 last two changes were in 2007 and 1991.)  Using this &ldquo;indirect
@@ -2145,29 +2245,31 @@
 version gives additional permission, that permission will be available
 immediately to all the users of the program.  But if the new GPL version
 has a tighter requirement, it will not restrict use of the current version
-of the program, because it can still be used under GPL version 3.  When a
+of the program, because it can still be used under GPL version&nbsp;3.  When a
 program says &ldquo;Version 3 of the GPL or any later version&rdquo;, users
 will always be permitted to use it, and even change it, according to the
-terms of GPL version 3&mdash;even after later versions of the GPL are
+terms of GPL version&nbsp;3&mdash;even after later versions of the GPL are
 available.</p>
 
 <p>If a tighter requirement in a new version of the GPL need not be obeyed
-for existing software, how is it useful?  Once GPL version 4 is available,
+for existing software, how is it useful?  Once GPL version&nbsp;4 is available,
 the developers of most GPL-covered programs will release subsequent
-versions of their programs specifying &ldquo;Version 4 of the GPL or any
+versions of their programs specifying &ldquo;Version&nbsp;4 of the GPL or any
 later version&rdquo;.  Then users will have to follow the tighter
-requirements in GPL version 4, for subsequent versions of the program.</p>
+requirements in GPL version&nbsp;4, for subsequent versions of the program.</p>
 
 <p>However, developers are not obligated to do this; developers can
 continue allowing use of the previous version of the GPL, if that is their
-preference.
-</p></dd>
+preference.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="OnlyLatestVersion">Is it a good idea to use a license saying
     that a certain program can be used only under the latest version
-    of the GNU GPL?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>The reason you shouldn't do that is that it could result some
+    of the GNU GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#OnlyLatestVersion"
+ >#OnlyLatestVersion</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The reason you shouldn't do that is that it could result some
 day in withdrawing automatically some permissions that the users
 previously had.</p>
 
@@ -2186,13 +2288,15 @@
 isn't really freedom.  Thus, if you get a copy of a program version
 under one version of a license, you should <em>always</em> have the
 rights granted by that version of the license.  Releasing under
-&ldquo;GPL version N or any later version&rdquo; upholds that
+&ldquo;GPL version&nbsp;N or any later version&rdquo; upholds that
 principle.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why
-don't you use the GPL for manuals?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>It is possible to use the GPL for a manual, but the GNU Free
+<dt id="WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why don't you use the GPL for manuals?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyNotGPLForManuals"
+ >#WhyNotGPLForManuals</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+It is possible to use the GPL for a manual, but the GNU Free
 Documentation License (GFDL) is much better for manuals.</p>
 
 <p>The GPL was designed for programs; it contains lots of complex clauses
@@ -2217,18 +2321,17 @@
 <p>Our manuals also include sections that state our political position
 about free software.  We mark these as &ldquo;invariant&rdquo;, so that
 they cannot be changed or removed.  The GFDL makes provisions for these
-&ldquo;invariant sections&rdquo;.
-</p></dd>
-
+&ldquo;invariant sections&rdquo;.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="FontException">How does the
-GPL apply to fonts?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-
-<p>Font licensing is a complex issue which needs serious
+<dt id="FontException">How does the GPL apply to fonts?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#FontException"
+ >#FontException</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Font licensing is a complex issue which needs serious
 consideration.  The following license exception is experimental but
-approved for general use.  We welcome suggestions on this subject&mdash;please 
see this this <a
+approved for general use.  We welcome suggestions on this
+subject&mdash;please see this this <a
 href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050425novalis";>explanatory
 essay</a> and write to
 <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>.</p>
@@ -2251,30 +2354,32 @@
 
 
 <dt id="WMS">I am writing a website maintenance system
-(called a &ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">content
-management system</a>&rdquo; by some), or some other application which
-generates web pages from templates.  What license should I use for
-those templates?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Templates are minor enough that it is not worth using copyleft to
+    (called a &ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">content
+    management system</a>&rdquo; by some), or some other application which
+    generates web pages from templates.  What license should I use for
+    those templates?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WMS"
+ >#WMS</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Templates are minor enough that it is not worth using copyleft to
 protect them.  It is normally harmless to use copyleft on minor works,
 but templates are a special case, because they are combined with data
 provided by users of the application and the combination is
 distributed.  So, we recommend that you license your templates under
-simple permissive terms. </p>
+simple permissive terms.</p>
 
-<p>Some templates make calls into Javascript functions.  Since
+<p>Some templates make calls into JavaScript functions.  Since
 Javascript is often non-trivial, it is worth copylefting.  Because the
 templates will be combined with user data, it's possible that
-template+user data+Javascript would be considered one work under
-copyright law.  A line needs to be drawn between the Javascript
-(copylefted), and the user code
-(usually under incompatible terms). </p>
+template+user data+JavaScript would be considered one work under
+copyright law.  A line needs to be drawn between the JavaScript
+(copylefted), and the user code (usually under incompatible terms).</p>
+
+<p><a href="/licenses/template-diagram.png">
+<img src="/licenses/template-diagram.png"
+     alt="A diagram of the above content"/></a></p>
 
-<p><a href="/licenses/template-diagram.png"><img 
src="/licenses/template-diagram.png" alt="A diagram of the above content" 
/></a></p>
-
-<p>Here's an exception for Javascript code that does this:</p>
+<p>Here's an exception for JavaScript code that does this:</p>
 
 <blockquote><p>As a special exception to the GPL, any HTML file which
 merely makes function calls to this code, and for that purpose includes
@@ -2286,14 +2391,15 @@
 libraries.  If you modify this code, you may extend this exception to
 your version of the code, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do
 not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.
-</p></blockquote>
+</p></blockquote></dd>
 
-</dd>
 
 <dt id="NonFreeTools">Can I release
-    a program under the GPL which I developed using non-free tools?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>Which programs you used to edit the source code, or to compile it, or
+    a program under the GPL which I developed using non-free tools?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NonFreeTools"
+ >#NonFreeTools</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Which programs you used to edit the source code, or to compile it, or
 study it, or record it, usually makes no difference for issues
 concerning the licensing of that source code.</p>
 
@@ -2302,17 +2408,17 @@
 releasing the source code under the GPL, but if the libraries don't
 fit under the &ldquo;system library&rdquo; exception, you should affix
 an explicit notice giving permission to link your program with
-them.  <a href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">Our FAQ about using
+them.  <a href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">The FAQ entry about using
 GPL-incompatible libraries</a> provides more information about
-how to do that.</p>
-</dd>
-
+how to do that.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="GPLTranslations">Are there
-translations of the GPL into other languages?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>It would be useful to have translations of the GPL into languages
+<dt id="GPLTranslations">Are there translations
+    of the GPL into other languages?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLTranslations"
+ >#GPLTranslations</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+It would be useful to have translations of the GPL into languages
 other than English.  People have even written translations and sent
 them to us.  But we have not dared to approve them as officially
 valid.  That carries a risk so great we do not dare accept it.</p>
@@ -2346,45 +2452,44 @@
 
 <ul>
 <li><p>Referring people to unofficial translations.
-This means that we permit people to write translations of the GPL, but
-we don't approve them as legally valid and binding.</p>
+  This means that we permit people to write translations of the GPL, but
+  we don't approve them as legally valid and binding.</p>
 
-<p>An unapproved translation has no legal force, and it should say so
-explicitly.  It should be marked as follows:</p>
+  <p>An unapproved translation has no legal force, and it should say so
+  explicitly.  It should be marked as follows:</p>
 
-<blockquote><p>
+  <blockquote><p>
     This translation of the GPL is informal, and not officially approved
     by the Free Software Foundation as valid.  To be completely sure of
     what is permitted, refer to the original GPL (in English).
-</p></blockquote>
+  </p></blockquote>
 
-<p>But the unapproved translation can serve as a hint for how to
-understand the English GPL.  For many users, that is sufficient.</p>
+  <p>But the unapproved translation can serve as a hint for how to
+  understand the English GPL.  For many users, that is sufficient.</p>
 
-<p>However, businesses using GNU software in commercial activity, and
-people doing public ftp distribution, should need to check the real
-English GPL to make sure of what it permits.</p>
-</li>
+  <p>However, businesses using GNU software in commercial activity, and
+  people doing public ftp distribution, should need to check the real
+  English GPL to make sure of what it permits.</p></li>
 
 <li><p>Publishing translations valid for a single country only.</p>
 
-<p>We are considering the idea of publishing translations which are
-officially valid only for one country.  This way, if there is a mistake, it
-will be limited to that country, and the damage will not be too great.</p>
-
-<p>It will still take considerable expertise and effort from a sympathetic
-and capable lawyer to make a translation, so we cannot promise any
-such translations soon.</p>
-</li>
-</ul>
-</dd>
-
-<dt id="InterpreterIncompat">If
-a programming language interpreter has a license that is incompatible
-with the GPL, can I run GPL-covered programs on it?</dt>
+  <p>We are considering the idea of publishing translations which are
+  officially valid only for one country.  This way, if there is a mistake, it
+  will be limited to that country, and the damage will not be too great.</p>
+
+  <p>It will still take considerable expertise and effort from a sympathetic
+  and capable lawyer to make a translation, so we cannot promise any
+  such translations soon.</p></li>
+</ul></dd>
+
 
-<dd>
-<p>When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is yes.
+<dt id="InterpreterIncompat">If a programming language interpreter has a
+    license that is incompatible with the GPL, can I run GPL-covered
+    programs on it?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#InterpreterIncompat"
+ >#InterpreterIncompat</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is yes.
 The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; the GPL
 doesn't restrict what tools you process the program with.</p>
 
@@ -2398,6 +2503,7 @@
 <p>So if these facilities are released under a GPL-incompatible license,
 the situation is like linking in any other way with a GPL-incompatible
 library.  Which implies that:</p>
+
 <ol>
   <li>If you are writing code and releasing it under the GPL, you can
   state an explicit exception giving permission to link it with those
@@ -2412,13 +2518,14 @@
   <li>You can't take someone else's GPL-covered code and use it that
   way, or add such exceptions to it.  Only the copyright holders of that
   code can add the exception.</li>
-</ol>
-</dd>
+</ol></dd>
 
-<dt id="WhoHasThePower">Who has the
-power to enforce the GPL?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of
+<dt id="WhoHasThePower">Who has the power to enforce the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhoHasThePower"
+ >#WhoHasThePower</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of
 the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL.  If
 you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of
 the GPL-covered software involved.  They either are the copyright
@@ -2428,22 +2535,25 @@
 </p></dd>
 
 
-<dt id="OOPLang">In an object-oriented
-language such as Java, if I use a class that is GPL'ed without
-modifying, and subclass it, in what way does the GPL affect the larger
-program?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>Subclassing is creating a derivative work.  Therefore, the terms of
+<dt id="OOPLang">In an object-oriented language such as Java,
+    if I use a class that is GPL'ed without modifying, and subclass it,
+    in what way does the GPL affect the larger program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#OOPLang"
+ >#OOPLang</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Subclassing is creating a derivative work.  Therefore, the terms of
 the GPL affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed
 class.
 </p></dd>
 
-<dt id="PortProgramToGL">If I port
-my program to GNU/Linux, does that mean I have to release it as Free
-Software under the GPL or some other Free Software license?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>In general, the answer is no&mdash;this is not a legal requirement.  In
+<dt id="PortProgramToGL">If I port my program to GNU/Linux,
+    does that mean I have to release it as free software under the GPL
+    or some other Free Software license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#PortProgramToGL"
+ >#PortProgramToGL</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+In general, the answer is no&mdash;this is not a legal requirement.  In
 specific, the answer depends on which libraries you want to use and what
 their licenses are.  Most system libraries either use the <a
 href="/licenses/lgpl.html">GNU Lesser GPL</a>, or use the GNU GPL plus an
@@ -2465,15 +2575,16 @@
 
 <p>If you hope some day to look back on your career and feel that
 it has contributed to the growth of a good and free society, you
-need to make your software free.
-</p></dd>
+need to make your software free.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="CompanyGPLCostsMoney">I just found out that a company has a
-copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it.  Aren't they
-violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>No.  The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for
+<dt id="CompanyGPLCostsMoney">I just found out that a company has a
+    copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it.  Aren't they
+    violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#CompanyGPLCostsMoney"
+ >#CompanyGPLCostsMoney</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for
 distribution.  It also does not require anyone in particular to
 redistribute the program.  And (outside of one special case), even if
 someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL
@@ -2483,15 +2594,16 @@
 <p>What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a
 copy to you <em>if he wishes to</em>.  Once the copyright holder does
 distribute a copy program to someone, that someone can then redistribute
-the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.
-</p></dd>
+the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="ReleaseNotOriginal">Can
-I release a program with a license which says that you can distribute
-modified versions of it under the GPL but you can't distribute the
-original itself under the GPL?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>No.  Such a license would be self-contradictory.  Let's look at its 
+<dt id="ReleaseNotOriginal">Can I release a program with a license which
+    says that you can distribute modified versions of it under the GPL
+    but you can't distribute the original itself under the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ReleaseNotOriginal"
+ >#ReleaseNotOriginal</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  Such a license would be self-contradictory.  Let's look at its 
 implications for me as a user.</p>
 
 <p>Suppose I start with the original version (call it version A), add 
@@ -2506,65 +2618,67 @@
 the GPL by deleting those lines from version B, in effect the license 
 now says that I can't fully use version B in all the ways that the GPL 
 permits.  In other words, the license does not in fact allow a user to 
-release a modified version such as B under the GPL. 
-</p>
-</dd>
+release a modified version such as B under the GPL.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="DistributeSubsidiary">Does moving a copy to a
-majority-owned, and controlled, subsidiary constitute
-distribution?</dt>
-<dd>
-<p>
+
+<dt id="DistributeSubsidiary">Does moving a copy to a majority-owned,
+    and controlled, subsidiary constitute distribution?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DistributeSubsidiary"
+ >#DistributeSubsidiary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
 Whether moving a copy to or from this subsidiary constitutes
 &ldquo;distribution&rdquo; is a matter to be decided in each case under the
 copyright law of the appropriate jurisdiction.  The GPL does not and cannot
 override local laws.  US copyright law is not entirely clear on the point,
-but appears not to consider this distribution.
-</p><p>
-If, in some country, this is considered distribution, and the
+but appears not to consider this distribution.</p>
+
+<p>If, in some country, this is considered distribution, and the
 subsidiary must receive the right to redistribute the program,
 that will not make a practical difference.  The subsidiary is
 controlled by the parent company; rights or no rights, it won't
-redistribute the program unless the parent company decides to do
-so.
-</p>
-</dd>
+redistribute the program unless the parent company decides to do so.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="ClickThrough">Can software installers ask people
   to click to agree to the GPL?  If I get some software under the GPL,
-  do I have to agree to anything?</dt>
-<dd>
-<p>
+  do I have to agree to anything?
+   <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ClickThrough"
+ >#ClickThrough</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
 Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to
 click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL.
 This is neither required nor forbidden.  With or without a click
 through, the GPL's rules remain the same.</p>
 
-<p>
-Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you.  You
+<p>Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you.  You
 are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is
 licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or
 distribute the software.  If it really bothers you to click through
-the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the GPLed software to bypass this.
-</p>
-</dd>
+the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the GPLed software to bypass
+this.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="GPLCompatInstaller">I would
     like to bundle GPLed software with some sort of installation software.
-    Does that installer need to have a GPL-compatible license?</dt>
-<dd>
-<p>No.  The installer and the files it installs are separate works.  As a
-result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation software.</p>
-</dd>
+    Does that installer need to have a GPL-compatible license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLCompatInstaller"
+ >#GPLCompatInstaller</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  The installer and the files it installs are separate works.  As a
+result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation
+software.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="ExportWarranties">Some distributors of GPL'd software
-require me in their umbrella EULAs or as part of their downloading
-process to &ldquo;represent and warrant&rdquo; that I am located in
-the US or that I intend to distribute the software in compliance with
-relevant export control laws.  Why are they doing this and is it a
-violation of those distributors' obligations under GPL?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>This is not a violation of the GPL.  Those distributors (almost
+<dt id="ExportWarranties">Some distributors of GPL'd software
+    require me in their umbrella EULAs or as part of their downloading
+    process to &ldquo;represent and warrant&rdquo; that I am located in
+    the US or that I intend to distribute the software in compliance with
+    relevant export control laws.  Why are they doing this and is it a
+    violation of those distributors' obligations under GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ExportWarranties"
+ >#ExportWarranties</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This is not a violation of the GPL.  Those distributors (almost
 all of whom are commercial businesses selling free software
 distributions and related services) are trying to reduce their own
 legal risks, not to control your behavior.  Export control law in the
@@ -2596,66 +2710,71 @@
 the desire of commercial distributors located in the US to comply with
 US laws.  They have a right to choose to whom they distribute
 particular copies of free software; exercise of that right does not
-violate GPL unless they add contractual restrictions beyond those
-permitted by GPL.</p></dd>
+violate the GPL unless they add contractual restrictions beyond those
+permitted by the GPL.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="SubscriptionFee">Can I use
-GPLed software on a device that will stop operating if customers do
-not continue paying a subscription fee?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>No.  In this scenario, the requirement to keep paying a fee limits
+<dt id="SubscriptionFee">Can I use
+    GPLed software on a device that will stop operating if customers do
+    not continue paying a subscription fee?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SubscriptionFee"
+ >#SubscriptionFee</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  In this scenario, the requirement to keep paying a fee limits
 the user's ability to run the program.  This is an additional
-requirement on top of the GPL, and the license prohibits it.</p>
-</dd>
+requirement on top of the GPL, and the license prohibits it.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="v3HowToUpgrade">How do I upgrade from (L)GPLv2 to
-(L)GPLv3?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>First, include the new version of the license in your package.
-    If you're using LGPLv3 in your project, be sure to include copies
-    of both GPLv3 and LGPLv3, since LGPLv3 is now written as a set
-    of additional permissions on top of GPLv3.</p>
+<dt id="v3HowToUpgrade">How do I upgrade from (L)GPLv2 to (L)GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3HowToUpgrade"
+ >#v3HowToUpgrade</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+First, include the new version of the license in your package.
+If you're using LGPLv3 in your project, be sure to include copies
+of both GPLv3 and LGPLv3, since LGPLv3 is now written as a set
+of additional permissions on top of GPLv3.</p>
 
 <p>Second, replace all your existing v2 license notices (usually at
-  the top of each file) with the new recommended text available on
-  <a href="/licenses/gpl-howto.html">the GNU licenses howto</a>.  It's
-  more future-proof because it no longer includes the FSF's postal
-  mailing address.</p>
+the top of each file) with the new recommended text available on
+<a href="/licenses/gpl-howto.html">the GNU licenses howto</a>.  It's
+more future-proof because it no longer includes the FSF's postal
+mailing address.</p>
 
 <p>Of course, any descriptive text (such as in a README) which talks about
-the package's license should also be updated appropriately.</p>
-</dd>
+the package's license should also be updated appropriately.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="BitTorrent">How does GPLv3 make
-BitTorrent distribution easier?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>Because GPLv2 was written before peer-to-peer distribution of
+<dt id="BitTorrent">How does GPLv3 make BitTorrent distribution easier?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#BitTorrent"
+ >#BitTorrent</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Because GPLv2 was written before peer-to-peer distribution of
 software was common, it is difficult to meet its requirements when you
 share code this way.  The best way to make sure you are in compliance
 when distributing GPLv2 object code on BitTorrent would be to include
 all the corresponding source in the same torrent, which is
 prohibitively expensive.</p>
+
 <p>GPLv3 addresses this problem in two ways.  First, people who
 download this torrent and send the data to others as part of that
 process are not required to do anything.  That's because section 9
 says &ldquo;Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a
 consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy
 likewise does not require acceptance [of the license].&rdquo;</p>
+
 <p>Second, section 6(e) of GPLv3 is designed to give
 distributors&mdash;people who initially seed torrents&mdash;a clear and
 straightforward way to provide the source, by telling recipients where it
 is available on a public network server.  This ensures that everyone who
 wants to get the source can do so, and it's almost no hassle for the
-distributor.</p>
-</dd>
+distributor.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="Tivoization">What is
-tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent it?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are
+<dt id="Tivoization">What is tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent it?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#Tivoization"
+ >#Tivoization</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are
 designed so that users are not allowed to modify that software.  There
 are lots of different ways to do this; for example, sometimes the
 hardware checksums the software that is installed, and shuts down if
@@ -2663,207 +2782,223 @@
 GPLv2 by giving you the source code, but you still don't have the
 freedom to modify the software you're using.  We call this practice
 tivoization.</p>
+
 <p>When people distribute User Products that include software under
 GPLv3, section 6 requires that they provide you with information
 necessary to modify that software.  User Products is a term specially
 defined in the license; examples of User Products include portable
-music players, digital video recorders, and home security systems.</p>
-</dd>
+music players, digital video recorders, and home security systems.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="DRMProhibited">Does GPLv3
-prohibit DRM?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>It does not; you can use code released under GPLv3 to develop any
+<dt id="DRMProhibited">Does GPLv3 prohibit DRM?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#DRMProhibited"
+ >#DRMProhibited</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+It does not; you can use code released under GPLv3 to develop any
 kind of DRM technology you like.  However, if you do this, section 3
 says that the system will not count as an effective technological
-&ldquo;protection&rdquo; measure, which means that if someone breaks the DRM, 
he
-will be free to distribute his software too, unhindered by the DMCA
+&ldquo;protection&rdquo; measure, which means that if someone breaks the
+DRM, he will be free to distribute his software too, unhindered by the DMCA
 and similar laws.</p>
+
 <p>As usual, the GNU GPL does not restrict what people do in software,
-it just stops them from restricting others.</p>
-</dd>
+it just stops them from restricting others.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="GPLHardware">Can I use the GPL
-to license hardware?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL.
+<dt id="GPLHardware">Can I use the GPL to license hardware?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLHardware"
+ >#GPLHardware</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL.
 GPLv3 can also be used to license materials covered by other
 copyright-like laws, such as semiconductor masks.  So, as an example,
 you can release a drawing of a hardware design under the GPL.
 However, if someone used that information to create physical hardware,
 they would have no license obligations when distributing or selling
 that device: it falls outside the scope of copyright and thus the GPL
-itself.</p>
-</dd>
+itself.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="GiveUpKeys">I use public key
-cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true
-that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>No.  The only time you would be required to release signing keys is
+<dt id="GiveUpKeys">I use public key cryptography to sign my code to
+    assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release
+    my private signing keys?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GiveUpKeys"
+ >#GiveUpKeys</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  The only time you would be required to release signing keys is
 if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware
 checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it
 would function. In that specific case, you would be required to
 provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign
 and install modified software on his device so that it will run.  If
 each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only
-give each purchaser the key for his instance.</p>
-</dd>
+give each purchaser the key for his instance.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="v3VotingMachine">Does
-GPLv3 require that voters be able to modify the software running in a
-voting machine?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>No.  Companies distributing devices that include software under
+<dt id="v3VotingMachine">Does GPLv3 require that voters be able to
+    modify the software running in a voting machine?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3VotingMachine"
+ >#v3VotingMachine</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  Companies distributing devices that include software under
 GPLv3 are at most required to provide the source and Installation
 Information for the software to people who possess a copy of the
 object code.  The voter who uses a voting machine (like any other
 kiosk) doesn't get possession of it, not even temporarily, so the
 voter also does not get possession of the binary software in it.</p>
+
 <p>Note, however, that voting is a very special case.  Just because
 the software in a computer is free does not mean you can trust the
 computer for voting.  We believe that computers cannot be trusted for
-voting. Voting should be done on paper.</p>
-</dd>
+voting. Voting should be done on paper.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="v3PatentRetaliation">Does GPLv3 have a &ldquo;patent retaliation
-clause&rdquo;?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>In effect, yes.  Section 10 prohibits people who convey the
+<dt id="v3PatentRetaliation">Does GPLv3 have a &ldquo;patent retaliation
+    clause&rdquo;?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3PatentRetaliation"
+ >#v3PatentRetaliation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+In effect, yes.  Section 10 prohibits people who convey the
 software from filing patent suits against other licensees.  If someone
 did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license
-and any patent licenses that accompanied it.</p>
-</dd>
+and any patent licenses that accompanied it.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="SourceCodeInDocumentation">Can I use snippets of GPL-covered
-source code within documentation that is licensed under some license
-that is incompatible with the GPL?</dt>
+    source code within documentation that is licensed under some license
+    that is incompatible with the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SourceCodeInDocumentation"
+ >#SourceCodeInDocumentation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If the snippets are small enough that you can incorporate them
+under fair use or similar laws, then yes.  Otherwise, no.</p></dd>
 
-<dd>
-<p>If the snippets are small enough that you can incorporate them
-under fair use or similar laws, then yes.  Otherwise, no.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt id="v3Under4and5">The beginning
-of GPLv3 section 6 says that I can convey a covered work in object
-code form &ldquo;under the terms of sections 4 and 5&rdquo; provided I also 
meet
-the conditions of section 6. What does that mean?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>This means that all the permissions and conditions you have to
+<dt id="v3Under4and5">The beginning of GPLv3 section 6 says that I can
+    convey a covered work in object code form &ldquo;under the terms of
+    sections 4 and 5&rdquo; provided I also meet the conditions of
+    section 6.  What does that mean?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3Under4and5"
+ >#v3Under4and5</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This means that all the permissions and conditions you have to
 convey source code also apply when you convey object code: you may
-charge a fee, you must keep copyright notices intact, and so on.</p>
-</dd>
+charge a fee, you must keep copyright notices intact, and so on.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="v2OrLaterPatentLicense">My company owns a lot of patents.
-Over the years we've contributed code to projects under &ldquo;GPL version 2
-or any later version&rdquo;, and the project itself has been distributed
-under the same terms. If a user decides to take the project's code
-(incorporating my contributions) under GPLv3, does that mean I've
-automatically granted GPLv3's explicit patent license to that
-user?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>No.  When you convey GPLed software, you must follow the terms and
+<dt id="v2OrLaterPatentLicense">My company owns a lot of patents.
+    Over the years we've contributed code to projects under &ldquo;GPL
+    version&nbsp;2 or any later version&rdquo;, and the project itself has
+    been distributed under the same terms. If a user decides to take the
+    project's code (incorporating my contributions) under GPLv3, does
+    that mean I've automatically granted GPLv3's explicit patent license
+    to that user?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v2OrLaterPatentLicense"
+ >#v2OrLaterPatentLicense</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  When you convey GPLed software, you must follow the terms and
 conditions of one particular version of the license.  When you do so,
-that version defines the obligations you have.  If users may also
+that version defines the obligations you have.  Ipf users may also
 elect to use later versions of the GPL, that's merely an additional
 permission they have&mdash;it does not require you to fulfill the
 terms of the later version of the GPL as well.</p>
+
 <p>Do not take this to mean that you can threaten the community with
 your patents.  In many countries, distributing software under GPLv2
 provides recipients with an implicit patent license to exercise their
 rights under the GPL.  Even if it didn't, anyone considering enforcing
 their patents aggressively is an enemy of the community, and we will
-defend ourselves against such an attack.</p>
-</dd>
+defend ourselves against such an attack.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="LGPLv3ContributorVersion">If I distribute a proprietary
-program that links against an LGPLv3-covered library that I've
-modified, what is the &ldquo;contributor version&rdquo; for purposes of
-determining the scope of the explicit patent license grant I'm
-making&mdash;is it just the library, or is it the whole
-combination?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>The &ldquo;contributor version&rdquo; is only your version of the 
library.</p>
-</dd>
+    program that links against an LGPLv3-covered library that I've
+    modified, what is the &ldquo;contributor version&rdquo; for purposes of
+    determining the scope of the explicit patent license grant I'm
+    making&mdash;is it just the library, or is it the whole
+    combination?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LGPLv3ContributorVersion"
+ >#LGPLv3ContributorVersion</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The &ldquo;contributor version&rdquo; is only your version of the
+library.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="v2v3Compatibility">Is
-GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>No.  Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to
+<dt id="v2v3Compatibility">Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v2v3Compatibility"
+ >#v2v3Compatibility</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to
 provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2.  As a result,
 the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released
 under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2.</p>
-<p>However, if code is released under GPL &ldquo;version 2 or later,&rdquo; 
that
-is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it
-permits.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt id="Cure">What does it mean to &ldquo;cure&rdquo; a
-violation of GPLv3?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>To cure a violation means to adjust your practices to comply with
-the requirements of the license.</p>
-</dd>
+
+<p>However, if code is released under GPL &ldquo;version 2 or
+later,&rdquo; that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the
+options it permits.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt id="Cure">What does it mean to &ldquo;cure&rdquo; a violation of GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#Cure"
+ >#Cure</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+To cure a violation means to adjust your practices to comply with
+the requirements of the license.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="v3InternationalDisclaimers">The warranty and liability
-disclaimers in GPLv3 seem specific to U.S. law. Can I add my own
-disclaimers to my own code?</dt>
+    disclaimers in GPLv3 seem specific to U.S. law. Can I add my own
+    disclaimers to my own code?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3InternationalDisclaimers"
+ >#v3InternationalDisclaimers</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes.  Section 7 gives you permission to add your own disclaimers,
+specifically 7(a).</p></dd>
 
-<dd>
-<p>Yes.  Section 7 gives you permission to add your own disclaimers,
-specifically 7(a).</p>
-</dd>
 
 <dt id="NonvisualLegalNotices">My program has interactive user
-interfaces that are non-visual in nature. How can I comply with the
-Appropriate Legal Notices requirement in GPLv3?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>All you need to do is ensure that the Appropriate Legal Notices are
+    interfaces that are non-visual in nature. How can I comply with the
+    Appropriate Legal Notices requirement in GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NonvisualLegalNotices"
+ >#NonvisualLegalNotices</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+All you need to do is ensure that the Appropriate Legal Notices are
 readily available to the user in your interface.  For example, if you
 have written an audio interface, you could include a command that
-reads the notices aloud.</p>
-</dd>
+reads the notices aloud.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="v3CoworkerConveying">If I give a copy of a GPLv3-covered
-program to a coworker at my company, have I &ldquo;conveyed&rdquo; the copy to
-him?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>As long as you're both using the software in your work at the
+<dt id="v3CoworkerConveying">If I give a copy of a GPLv3-covered
+    program to a coworker at my company, have I &ldquo;conveyed&rdquo; the
+    copy to him?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3CoworkerConveying"
+ >#v3CoworkerConveying</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+As long as you're both using the software in your work at the
 company, rather than personally, then the answer is no.  The copies
 belong to the company, not to you or the coworker.  This copying is
 propagation, not conveying, because the company is not making copies
-available to others.</p>
-</dd>
+available to others.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="v3ConditionalWarranty">If I distribute a GPLv3-covered
-program, can I provide a warranty that is voided if the user modifies
-the program?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>Yes.  Just as devices do not need to be warranted if users modify
+<dt id="v3ConditionalWarranty">If I distribute a GPLv3-covered
+    program, can I provide a warranty that is voided if the user modifies
+    the program?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3ConditionalWarranty"
+ >#v3ConditionalWarranty</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes.  Just as devices do not need to be warranted if users modify
 the software inside them, you are not required to provide a warranty
 that covers all possible activities someone could undertake with
-GPLv3-covered software.</p>
-</dd>
+GPLv3-covered software.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="SeparateAffero">Why did you
-decide to write the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a separate
-license?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>Early drafts of GPLv3 allowed licensors to add an Affero-like
+<dt id="SeparateAffero">Why did you decide to write the GNU Affero GPLv3
+    as a separate license?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SeparateAffero"
+ >#SeparateAffero</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Early drafts of GPLv3 allowed licensors to add an Affero-like
 requirement to publish source in section 7.  However, some companies
 that develop and rely upon free software consider this requirement to
 be too burdensome.  They want to avoid code with this requirement, and
@@ -2872,199 +3007,207 @@
 separate license, with provisions in it and GPLv3 to allow code under
 these licenses to link to each other, we accomplish all of our
 original goals while making it easier to determine which code has the
-source publication requirement.</p>
-</dd>
+source publication requirement.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="WhyPropagateAndConvey">Why did you invent the new terms
-&ldquo;propagate&rdquo; and &ldquo;convey&rdquo; in GPLv3?</dt>
+    &ldquo;propagate&rdquo; and &ldquo;convey&rdquo; in GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhyPropagateAndConvey"
+ >#WhyPropagateAndConvey</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The term &ldquo;distribute&rdquo; used in GPLv2 was borrowed from
+United States copyright law.  Over the years, we learned that some
+jurisdictions used this same word in their own copyright laws, but gave
+it different meanings. We invented these new terms to make our intent as
+clear as possible no matter where the license is interpreted.  They are
+not used in any copyright law in the world, and we provide their
+definitions directly in the license.</p></dd>
 
-<dd>
-<p>The term &ldquo;distribute&rdquo; used in GPLv2 was borrowed from United 
States
-copyright law.  Over the years, we learned that some jurisdictions
-used this same word in their own copyright laws, but gave it different
-meanings. We invented these new terms to make our intent as clear as
-possible no matter where the license is interpreted.  They are not
-used in any copyright law in the world, and we provide their
-definitions directly in the license.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt id="NoMilitary">I'd like to license
-my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it
-can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do
-this?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>No, because those two goals contradict each other.  The GNU GPL is
+<dt id="NoMilitary">I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd
+    also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or
+    commercial uses. Can I do this?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NoMilitary"
+ >#NoMilitary</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No, because those two goals contradict each other.  The GNU GPL is
 designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions.
 GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other
-added restriction can be removed by the user.</p>
-</dd>
+added restriction can be removed by the user.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="ConveyVsDistribute">Is
-&ldquo;convey&rdquo; in GPLv3 the same thing as what GPLv2 means by
-&ldquo;distribute&rdquo;?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>Yes, more or less.  During the course of enforcing GPLv2, we
+<dt id="ConveyVsDistribute">Is &ldquo;convey&rdquo; in GPLv3 the same
+    thing as what GPLv2 means by &ldquo;distribute&rdquo;?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ConveyVsDistribute"
+ >#ConveyVsDistribute</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes, more or less.  During the course of enforcing GPLv2, we
 learned that some jurisdictions used the word &ldquo;distribute&rdquo; in their
 own copyright laws, but gave it different meanings.  We invented a new
 term to make our intent clear and avoid any problems that could be
-caused by these differences.</p>
-</dd>
+caused by these differences.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="v3MakingAvailable">GPLv3
-gives &ldquo;making available to the public&rdquo; as an example of 
propagation.
-What does this mean? Is making available a form of
-conveying?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>One example of &ldquo;making available to the public&rdquo; is putting the
+<dt id="v3MakingAvailable">GPLv3 gives &ldquo;making available to the
+    public&rdquo; as an example of propagation.  What does this mean?
+    Is making available a form of conveying?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3MakingAvailable"
+ >#v3MakingAvailable</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+One example of &ldquo;making available to the public&rdquo; is putting the
 software on a public web or FTP server.  After you do this, some time
 may pass before anybody actually obtains the software from
 you&mdash;but because it could happen right away, you need to fulfill
 the GPL's obligations right away as well.  Hence, we defined conveying
-to include this activity.</p>
-</dd>
+to include this activity.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="PropagationNotConveying">Since distribution and making
-available to the public are forms of propagation that are also
-conveying in GPLv3, what are some examples of propagation that do not
-constitute conveying?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>Making copies of the software for yourself is the main form of
+<dt id="PropagationNotConveying">Since distribution and making
+    available to the public are forms of propagation that are also
+    conveying in GPLv3, what are some examples of propagation that do not
+    constitute conveying?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#PropagationNotConveying"
+ >#PropagationNotConveying</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Making copies of the software for yourself is the main form of
 propagation that is not conveying.  You might do this to install the
-software on multiple computers, or to make backups.</p>
-</dd>
+software on multiple computers, or to make backups.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="Prelinking">Does prelinking a
-GPLed binary to various libraries on the system, to optimize its
-performance, count as modification?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>No.  Prelinking is part of a compilation process; it doesn't
+<dt id="Prelinking">Does prelinking a
+    GPLed binary to various libraries on the system, to optimize its
+    performance, count as modification?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#Prelinking"
+ >#Prelinking</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  Prelinking is part of a compilation process; it doesn't
 introduce any license requirements above and beyond what other aspects
 of compilation would.  If you're allowed to link the program to the
 libraries at all, then it's fine to prelink with them as well.  If you
 distribute prelinked object code, you need to follow the terms of
-section 6.</p>
-</dd>
+section&nbsp;6.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="LaptopLoan">If someone installs
-GPLed software on a laptop, and then lends that laptop to a friend
-without providing source code for the software, have they violated the
-GPL?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>No.  In the jurisdictions where we have investigated this issue,
+<dt id="LaptopLoan">If someone installs GPLed software on a laptop, and
+    then lends that laptop to a friend without providing source code for
+    the software, have they violated the GPL?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LaptopLoan"
+ >#LaptopLoan</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  In the jurisdictions where we have investigated this issue,
 this sort of loan would not count as conveying.  The laptop's owner
-would not have any obligations under the GPL.</p>
-</dd>
+would not have any obligations under the GPL.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="TwoPartyTivoization">Suppose that two companies try to
-circumvent the requirement to provide Installation Information by
-having one company release signed software, and the other release a
-User Product that only runs signed software from the first company. Is
-this a violation of GPLv3?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>Yes.  If two parties try to work together to get around the
+<dt id="TwoPartyTivoization">Suppose that two companies try to
+    circumvent the requirement to provide Installation Information by
+    having one company release signed software, and the other release a
+    User Product that only runs signed software from the first company. Is
+    this a violation of GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#TwoPartyTivoization"
+ >#TwoPartyTivoization</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Yes.  If two parties try to work together to get around the
 requirements of the GPL, they can both be pursued for copyright
 infringement.  This is especially true since the definition of convey
 explicitly includes activities that would make someone responsible for
-secondary infringement.</p>
-</dd>
+secondary infringement.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="SourceInCVS">Am I complying
-with GPLv3 if I offer binaries on an FTP server and sources by way of
-a link to a source code repository in a version control system, like
-CVS or Subversion?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>This is acceptable as long as the source checkout process does not
+<dt id="SourceInCVS">Am I complying with GPLv3 if I offer binaries on an
+    FTP server and sources by way of a link to a source code repository
+    in a version control system, like CVS or Subversion?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SourceInCVS"
+ >#SourceInCVS</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This is acceptable as long as the source checkout process does not
 become burdensome or otherwise restrictive.  Anybody who can download
 your object code should also be able to check out source from your
 version control system, using a publicly available free software
 client.  Users should be provided with clear and convenient
 instructions for how to get the source for the exact object code they
 downloaded&mdash;they may not necessarily want the latest development
-code, after all.</p>
-</dd>
+code, after all.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="RemoteAttestation">Can
-someone who conveys GPLv3-covered software in a User Product use
-remote attestation to prevent a user from modifying that
-software?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>No.  The definition of Installation Information, which must be
+<dt id="RemoteAttestation">Can someone who conveys GPLv3-covered
+    software in a User Product use remote attestation to prevent a user
+    from modifying that software?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#RemoteAttestation"
+ >#RemoteAttestation</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+No.  The definition of Installation Information, which must be
 provided with source when the software is conveyed inside a User
 Product, explicitly says: &ldquo;The information must suffice to ensure that
 the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case
 prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been
 made.&rdquo;  If the device uses remote attestation in some way, the
 Installation Information must provide you some means for your modified
-software to report itself as legitimate.</p>
-</dd>
+software to report itself as legitimate.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="RulesProtocols">What does
-&ldquo;rules and protocols for communication across the network&rdquo; mean in
-GPLv3?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>This refers to rules about traffic you can send over the network.  For
+<dt id="RulesProtocols">What does &ldquo;rules and protocols for
+    communication across the network&rdquo; mean in GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#RulesProtocols"
+ >#RulesProtocols</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This refers to rules about traffic you can send over the network.  For
 example, if there is a limit on the number of requests you can send to a
 server per day, or the size of a file you can upload somewhere, your access
 to those resources may be denied if you do not respect those limits.</p>
+
 <p>These rules do not include anything that does not pertain directly to
 data traveling across the network.  For instance, if a server on the
 network sent messages for users to your device, your access to the network
 could not be denied merely because you modified the software so that it did
-not display the messages.</p>
-</dd>
+not display the messages.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="SupportService">Distributors that provide Installation
-Information under GPLv3 are not required to provide &ldquo;support 
service&rdquo;
-for the product. What kind of &ldquo;support service&rdquo;do you
-mean?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>This includes the kind of service many device manufacturers provide to
+<dt id="SupportService">Distributors that provide Installation Information
+    under GPLv3 are not required to provide &ldquo;support service&rdquo;
+    for the product. What kind of &ldquo;support service&rdquo;do you mean?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#SupportService"
+ >#SupportService</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This includes the kind of service many device manufacturers provide to
 help you install, use, or troubleshoot the product.  If a device relies on
 access to web services or similar technology to function properly, those
 should normally still be available to modified versions, subject to the
 terms in section 6 regarding access to a network.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="v3Notwithstanding">In GPLv3 and AGPLv3, what does it mean
-    when it says &ldquo;notwithstanding any other provision of this
-    License&rdquo;?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>This simply means that the following terms prevail over anything
+<dt id="v3Notwithstanding">In GPLv3 and AGPLv3, what does it mean when it
+    says &ldquo;notwithstanding any other provision of this License&rdquo;?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3Notwithstanding"
+ >#v3Notwithstanding</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This simply means that the following terms prevail over anything
 else in the license that may conflict with them.  For example, without this
 text, some people might have claimed that you could not combine code under
 GPLv3 with code under AGPLv3, because the AGPL's additional requirements
 would be classified as &ldquo;further restrictions&rdquo; under section 7
 of GPLv3.  This text makes clear that our intended interpretation is the
-correct one, and you can make the combination.
-</p><p>
-This text only resolves conflicts between different terms of the license.
+correct one, and you can make the combination.</p>
+
+<p>This text only resolves conflicts between different terms of the license.
 When there is no conflict between two conditions, then you must meet them
 both.  These paragraphs don't grant you carte blanche to ignore the rest of
-the license&mdash;instead they're carving out very limited exceptions.</p>
-</dd>
+the license&mdash;instead they're carving out very limited exceptions.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="AGPLv3CorrespondingSource">Under AGPLv3, when I modify the
-Program under section 13, what Corresponding Source does it have to
-offer?</dt>
 
-<dd><p> &ldquo;Corresponding Source&rdquo; is defined in section 1 of the
+<dt id="AGPLv3CorrespondingSource">Under AGPLv3, when I modify the Program
+    under section 13, what Corresponding Source does it have to offer?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AGPLv3CorrespondingSource"
+ >#AGPLv3CorrespondingSource</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+&ldquo;Corresponding Source&rdquo; is defined in section 1 of the
 license, and you should provide what it lists.  So, if your modified
 version depends on libraries under other licenses, such as the Expat
 license or GPLv3, the Corresponding Source should include those libraries
 (unless they are System Libraries).  If you have modified those libraries,
-you must provide your modified source code for them.
-</p><p>
-The last sentence of the first paragraph of section 13 is only meant to
+you must provide your modified source code for them.</p>
+
+<p>The last sentence of the first paragraph of section 13 is only meant to
 reinforce what most people would have naturally assumed: even though
 combinations with code under GPLv3 are handled through a special exception
 in section 13, the Corresponding Source should still include the code that
@@ -3073,39 +3216,46 @@
 instead it means that such code is <em>not</em> excluded from the
 definition of Corresponding Source.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="AGPLv3InteractingRemotely">In AGPLv3, what counts as
-&ldquo;interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer
-network?&rdquo;</dt>
 
-<dd><p>If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send
+<dt id="AGPLv3InteractingRemotely">In AGPLv3, what counts as
+    &ldquo;interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer
+    network?&rdquo;
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely"
+ >#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send
 responses over a network, then it meets these criteria.  Common examples of
 programs that would fall into this category include web and mail servers,
 interactive web-based applications, and servers for games that are played
-online.
-</p><p>
-If a program is not expressly designed to interact with a user through a
+online.</p>
+
+<p>If a program is not expressly designed to interact with a user through a
 network, but is being run in an environment where it happens to do so, then
 it does not fall into this category.  For example, an application is not
 required to provide source merely because the user is running it over SSH,
-or a remote X session.
-</p></dd>
+or a remote X session.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="ApacheLegalEntity">How does GPLv3's concept of
-&ldquo;you&rdquo; compare to the definition of &ldquo;Legal Entity&rdquo;
-in the Apache License 2.0?</dt>
 
-<dd><p>They're effectively identical.  The definition of &ldquo;Legal
+<dt id="ApacheLegalEntity">How does GPLv3's concept of
+    &ldquo;you&rdquo; compare to the definition of &ldquo;Legal Entity&rdquo;
+    in the Apache License 2.0?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#ApacheLegalEntity"
+ >#ApacheLegalEntity</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+They're effectively identical.  The definition of &ldquo;Legal
 Entity&rdquo; in the Apache License 2.0 is very standard in various kinds
 of legal agreements&mdash;so much so that it would be very surprising if a
 court did not interpret the term in the same way in the absence of an
 explicit definition.  We fully expect them to do the same when they look at
 GPLv3 and consider who qualifies as a licensee.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="v3TheProgram">In GPLv3, what does &ldquo;the Program&rdquo;
-refer to?  Is it every program ever released under GPLv3?</dt>
 
-<dd>
-<p>The term &ldquo;the Program&rdquo; means one particular work that is
+<dt id="v3TheProgram">In GPLv3, what does &ldquo;the Program&rdquo;
+    refer to?  Is it every program ever released under GPLv3?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v3TheProgram"
+ >#v3TheProgram</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The term &ldquo;the Program&rdquo; means one particular work that is
 licensed under GPLv3 and is received by a particular licensee from an
 upstream licensor or distributor.  The Program is the particular work of
 software that you received in a given instance of GPLv3 licensing, as you
@@ -3116,21 +3266,25 @@
 reasons.  We've published
 an <a href="/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html">analysis of the term
 &ldquo;the Program&rdquo;</a> for those who would like to learn more about
-this.</p>
-</dd>
+this.</p></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="NoDistributionRequirements">If I only make copies of a
-GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to
-others, what does the license require of me?</dt>
+    GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to
+    others, what does the license require of me?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#NoDistributionRequirements"
+ >#NoDistributionRequirements</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+Nothing.  The GPL does not place any conditions on this activity.</p></dd>
 
-<dd><p>Nothing.  The GPL does not place any conditions on this
-activity.</p></dd>
 
 <dt id="AGPLv3ServerAsUser">If some network client software is
-released under AGPLv3, does it have to be able to provide source to
-the servers it interacts with?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>This should not be required in any typical server-client
+    released under AGPLv3, does it have to be able to provide source to
+    the servers it interacts with?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AGPLv3ServerAsUser"
+ >#AGPLv3ServerAsUser</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+This should not be required in any typical server-client
 relationship.  AGPLv3 requires a program to offer source code to
 &ldquo;all users interacting with it remotely through a computer
 network.&rdquo; In most server-client architectures, it simply
@@ -3148,10 +3302,13 @@
 do&mdash;so there's no meaningful way for the server operator to be
 considered a user of that software.</p></dd>
 
-<dt id="AllCompatibility">How are the various GNU licenses
-compatible with each other?</dt>   
 
-<dd><p>The various GNU licenses enjoy broad compatibility between each
+<dt id="AllCompatibility">How are the various GNU licenses
+    compatible with each other?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#AllCompatibility"
+ >#AllCompatibility</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>
+The various GNU licenses enjoy broad compatibility between each
 other.  The only time you may not be able to combine code under two of
 these licenses is when you want to use code that's <em>only</em> under
 an older version of a license with code that's under a newer
@@ -3366,9 +3523,7 @@
 combinations with LGPLv3, you must convey the project under GPLv3's
 terms in this case, since it will allow that combination.</p>
 
-<div id="matrix-skip-target"></div>
-</dd>
-
+<div id="matrix-skip-target"></div></dd>
 
 </dl>
 
@@ -3384,7 +3539,7 @@
 the FSF.
 <br />
 Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -3395,7 +3550,7 @@
 </p>
 
 <p>
-Copyright &copy; 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,</p>
+Copyright &copy; 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,</p>
 <p>
 This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
@@ -3405,50 +3560,11 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2011/09/20 18:10:26 $
+$Date: 2011/10/15 18:10:20 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
 
-<!-- <div id="translations"> -->
-<!-- <h4>Translations of this page</h4> -->
-<!--  -->
-<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical by language code. -->
-<!-- Comment what the language is for each type, i.e. de is German. -->
-<!-- Write the language name in its own language (Deutsch) in the text. -->
-<!-- If you add a new language here, please -->
-<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
-<!--  - /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
-<!--  - one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
-<!--  - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
-<!--  to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
-<!-- Please also check you have the language code right; see: -->
-<!-- http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php -->
-<!-- If the 2-letter ISO 639-1 code is not available, -->
-<!-- use the 3-letter ISO 639-2. -->
-<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities. -->
-<!--  -->
-<!-- <ul class="translations-list"> -->
-<!-- Czech -->
-<!-- <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.cs.html">&#x010c;esky</a>&nbsp;[cs]</li> 
-->
-<!-- English -->
-<!-- <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.html">English</a>&nbsp;[en]</li> -->
-<!-- Spanish -->
-<!-- <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.es.html">Espa&#x00f1;ol</a>&nbsp;[es]</li> 
-->
-<!-- French -->
-<!-- <li><a 
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.fr.html">Fran&#x00e7;ais</a>&nbsp;[fr]</li> -->
-<!-- Italian -->
-<!-- <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.it.html">Italiano</a>&nbsp;[it]</li> -->
-<!-- Japanese -->
-<!-- <li><a 
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.ja.html">&#x65e5;&#x672c;&#x8a9e;</a>&nbsp;[ja]</li> -->
-<!-- Korean -->
-<!-- <li><a 
href="/licenses/gpl-faq.ko.html">&#xd55c;&#xad6d;&#xc5b4;</a>&nbsp;[ko]</li> -->
-<!-- Polish -->
-<!-- <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.pl.html">polski</a>&nbsp;[pl]</li> -->
-<!-- Brazilian Portuguese -->
-<!-- <li><a href="/licenses/gpl-faq.pt-br.html">portugu&#x0ea;s do 
Brasil</a>&nbsp;[pt-br]</li> -->
-<!-- </ul> -->
-<!-- </div> -->
 </div>
 </body>
 </html>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]