AKFQuiz 4.3.0 or higher
#The original Quiz can be found on:
author: David Turner
copyright: Free Software Foundation <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
keywords: GPL, GFDL, LGPL, GNU General Public License
default: I don't know at all.
# Test your knowledge of Free Software licensing with this
# supposedly quiz about the GPL and LGPL. If you don't
# find it mind-numbingly dull, you should volunteer for us
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 email@example.com 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
+1 He can put the source code on his web site, and put the URL on the CD.
-1 He can give out source on the same CD as the binaries.
-1 He can make a written offer to give out the source code on CD for a \
fee that covers his distribution costs.
This issue is covered in detail in the GPL FAQ.
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?
-1 He can distribute Joan's original source code verbatim, retaining all \
+1 He can distribute the modified source code alongside the binaries.
-1 He can distribute only trivially-applied patches original source.
+1 He can distribute trivially-applied patches against Joan's original \
source, along with the original source code.
This issue is covered in detail in the GPL FAQ, and in sections 2 and 3 of the GPL.
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?
-1 Yes, because the GPL requires that code linked against GPL-licensed \
code be licensed under the GPL.
+1 Yes, because the GPL does not allow additional restrictions to be \
applied to any part of the code.
-1 No, because the new code is linked to Joan's code, rather than copied \
into Joan's code.
-1 No, because the resulting work can still be distributed for free.
-1 No, because the GPL already prohibits charging a fee for distribution.
You can find out about this issue in the GPL, section 6, and in
the Free Software
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?
-1 FooCorp must provide a mechanism for Frobber to be linked against new \
versions of LibIdo.
-1 FooCorp must make available the complete source code to their modified \
version of LibIdo.
-1 FooCorp must note all their modifications to LibIdo.
+1 FooCorp must make available the complete source code to Frobber.
You can find out about this issue in the LGPL, sections 2
# the original has put correct and wrong exception-clauses into the answers
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
Should she grant an exception to the GPL for this?
-1 No, because static linking does not create a derivative work.
-1 No, because the GPL already allows linking to other software, so long \
as that software is Free Software.
+1 Yes -- she should write an exeption, which allows linking with Postfix
-1 Yes -- she should write an exeption, which allows linking with any \
# the following exception is OK:
# In addition, as a special exception, Joan Smith gives permission
# to link the code of this program with Postfix (or with modified
# versions of Postfix that use the same license as Postfix), and
# distribute linked combinations including the two. You must obey
# the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code
# used other than Postfix. If you modify this file, you may extend
# this exception to your version of the file, but you are not
# obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this
# exception statement from your version.
You can find out about this issue in the GPL FAQ here,
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?
-1 "You can download the source code from our web site at \
-1 "Everyone who buys a binary CD may order up to one source CD \
per binary CD for $5000."
-1 "Everyone may order a source CD for $5000."
-1 "Everyone who buys a binary CD may order up to one source CD per \
binary CD for the cost of distribution."
+1 "Everyone may order a source CD for the cost of distribution."
-1 "Everyone who buys a binary CD may order up to one source CD for \
+1 "Everyone may order a source CD for free."
You can find out about this issue in the GPL, section 3b.
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:
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
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?
-1 Both claims are true.
-1 I is true but II is false
-1 II is true but I is false
+1 Both claims are false.
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?
Section 6 of the LGPL contains the
requirements for a "work that uses the library."
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
-1 Yes, they must allow everyone to practice the patented technology for \
+1 Yes, they must allow everyone who uses any code from the browser to \
practice their patented technology.
Section 7 of the GPL explains patent
100 You got everything right! The FSF is looking for people to answer \
licensing questions -- if think you've got what it takes, why not \
volunteer to \
answer licensing questions from the public?
0 You might want to review the \
GPL FAQ. \
Better luck next time!