Changeset - 579704541d47
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-03-20 21:27:04
bkuhn@ebb.org
Reword some of this and remove FIXME.
1 file changed with 12 insertions and 21 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -2932,27 +2932,18 @@ of a ``User Product'', which includes devices that are sold for personal,
 
family, or household use.  Distributors are only required to provide
 
Installation Information when they convey object code in a User Product.
 

	
 
In brief, we condition the right to convey object code in a defined class of
 
``User Products,'' under certain circumstances, on providing whatever
 
information is required to enable a recipient to replace the object code with
 
a functioning modified version.
 

	
 
%FIXME: this really big section on user product stuff may be too much for the
 
%       tutorial
 

	
 
In our earlier drafts, the requirement to provide encryption keys
 
applied to all acts of conveying object code, as this requirement was
 
part of the general definition of Corresponding Source. Section 6 of
 
Draft 3 now limits the applicability of the technical restrictions
 
provisions to object code conveyed in, with, or specifically for use in
 
a defined class of ``User Products.''
 

	
 
In our discussions with companies and governments that use specialized
 
or enterprise-level computer facilities, we found that sometimes these
 
organizations actually want their systems not to be under their own
 
control. Rather than agreeing to this as a concession, or bowing to
 
pressure, they ask for this as a preference. It is not clear that we
 
need to interfere, and the main problem lies elsewhere. 
 
In brief, the right to convey object code in a defined class of ``User
 
Products,'' under certain circumstances, on providing whatever information is
 
required to enable a recipient to replace the object code with a functioning
 
modified version.
 

	
 
This was a compromise that was difficult for the FSF to agree to during the
 
GPLv3 drafting process.  However, companies and governments that use
 
specialized or enterprise-level computer facilities reported that they
 
actually \textit{want} their systems not to be under their own control.
 
Rather than agreeing to this as a concession, or bowing to pressure, they ask
 
for this as a \texit{preference}.  It is not clear that GPL should interfere
 
here, since the main problem lies elsewhere.
 

	
 
While imposing technical barriers to modification is wrong regardless of
 
circumstances, the areas where restricted devices are of the greatest
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)