GPL-Quiz

Take the Free Software licensing quiz and test your knowledge of the GPL and LGPL.

As this Quiz represents the legal opinions of the FSF (but is not legal advice), only verbatim copying and redistribution is allowed. Translations must be approved by the FSF; please write to licensing@gnu.org for details.

Joan writes a web browser and releases the source code under the GPL on her web site. Fred gives a CD with binaries of Joan's browser to his friend for her birthday. Which of the following does NOT satisfy Fred's obligation to make source code available:

He can put the source code on his web site, and put the URL on the CD.

He can give out source on the same CD as the binaries.

He can make a written offer to give out the source code on CD for a fee that covers his distribution costs.

I don't know at all.

Now Fred makes modifications to Joan's web browser, and distributes binaries on his web site. Which of the following fulfill Fred's obligation to distribute the source code of the modified browser?

He can distribute Joan's original source code verbatim, retaining all copyright notices.

He can distribute the modified source code alongside the binaries.

He can distribute only trivially-applied patches original source.

He can distribute trivially-applied patches against Joan's original source, along with the original source code.

Fred wishes to distribute Joan's browser linked to a third-party module. The third party module has the following license:

"This code may be freely modified, copied and distributed, so long as no fee is charged for it."

Would this violate the GPL?

Yes, because the GPL requires that code linked against GPL-licensed code be licensed under the GPL.

Yes, because the GPL does not allow additional restrictions to be applied to any part of the code.

No, because the new code is linked to Joan's code, rather than copied into Joan's code.

No, because the resulting work can still be distributed for free.

No, because the GPL already prohibits charging a fee for distribution.

I don't know at all.

Peter creates a library called LibIdo licensed under the Lesser General Public License. FooCorp distributes a modified version LibIdo library linked to their proprietary program Frobber. Which of the following is NOT an obligation of FooCorp?

FooCorp must provide a mechanism for Frobber to be linked against new versions of LibIdo.

FooCorp must make available the complete source code to their modified version of LibIdo.

FooCorp must note all their modifications to LibIdo.

FooCorp must make available the complete source code to Frobber.

I don't know at all.

Joan wants to distribute copies of her browser statically linked to Postfix (a mail server), which is released under the IBM Public License, a GPL-incompatible Free Software license. Other than Postfix, the browser includes only code on which Joan holds the copyright. Should she grant an exception to the GPL for this?

No, because static linking does not create a derivative work.

No, because the GPL already allows linking to other software, so long as that software is Free Software.

Yes -- she should write an exeption, which allows linking with Postfix

Yes -- she should write an exeption, which allows linking with any proprietary library

I don't know at all.

FooCorp sells binaries of Joan's GPL'd web browser on CD without source code. They include an offer to provide source code. Which of the following offers fulfills their obligations under the GPL?

"You can download the source code from our web site at http://foocorp.example.com/download.html"

"Everyone who buys a binary CD may order up to one source CD per binary CD for $5000."

"Everyone may order a source CD for $5000."

"Everyone who buys a binary CD may order up to one source CD per binary CD for the cost of distribution."

"Everyone may order a source CD for the cost of distribution."

"Everyone who buys a binary CD may order up to one source CD for free."

"Everyone may order a source CD for free."

Patty creates a library, and releases it under the GPL. Many people make improvements to this library, and submit them back to Patty, who incorporates them into newer versions of the library. Now Patty wants to make a proprietary version of this library. She makes two claims:

I. Because the original version was under the GPL, everyone who made improvements automatically assigned copyright on those improvements to Patty, so she doesn't need to ask permission before relicensing.

II. Because she is the copyright holder, she can relicense the code retroactively, so nobody can distribute old versions under the GPL anymore.

Are these claims true?

Section 4 of the GPL, explains the conditions under which permission to distribute GPL'd software can be revoked. Copyright law itself has more information.

FooCorp distributes Frobber linked against an unmodified version of LibIdo. Does the LGPL require FooCorp to allow users to reverse engineer Frobber for their own use?

Now FooCorp modifies Joan's browser to include a technology they have patented. They distribute this modified browser on CD. Are there any requirements in the GPL on how they may license their applicable patent?

No.

Yes, they must allow everyone to practice the patented technology for any purpose.

Yes, they must allow everyone who uses any code from the browser to practice their patented technology.

I don't know at all.