product'' taken verbatim from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal

purposes.''  The United States has had three decades of experience of liberal

We do not rely solely on the definition of consumer product, however,

because in the area of components of dwellings we consider the settled

interpretation under Magnuson-Moss underinclusive.  Depending on how

such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may not be

considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products.\footnote{Building materials

that are purchased directly by a consumer from a retailer, for improving

or modifying an existing dwelling, are consumer products under

Magnuson-Moss, but building materials that are integral component parts

of the structure of a dwelling at the time that the consumer buys the

dwelling are not consumer products. 16 C.F.R.~\S\S~700.1(c)--(f);

Federal Trade Commission, Final Action Concerning Review of

Interpretations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 64 Fed.~Reg.~19,700

(April 22, 1999); see also, e.g., \textit{McFadden}, 54

U.C.C.~Rep.~Serv.2d at 934.}  Therefore, we define User Products as a

superset of consumer products that also includes ``anything designed or

sold for incorporation into a dwelling.''

Although the User Products rule of Draft 3 reflects a special concern

for individual purchasers of devices, we wrote the rule to cover a

category of products, rather than categorizing users.  Discrimination

against organizational users has no place in a free software license.

Moreover, a rule that applied to individual use, rather than to use of

products normally used by individuals, would have too narrow an

effect. Because of its incorporation of the liberal Magnuson-Moss

interpretation of ``consumer product,'' the User Products rule benefits

not only individual purchasers of User Products but also all

organizational purchasers of those same kinds of products, regardless of

their intended use of the products.

we have replaced the Magnuson-Moss

reference with three sentences that encapsulate the judicial and

administrative principles established over the past three decades in the

United States concerning the Magnuson-Moss consumer product definition.

First, we state that doubtful cases are resolved in favor of coverage

under the definition.  Second, we indicate that the words ``normally

used'' in the consumer product definition refer to a typical or common

use of a class of product, and not the status of a particular user or

expected or actual uses by a particular user.  Third, we make clear that

the existence of substantial non-consumer uses of a product does not

negate a determination that it is a consumer product, unless such

non-consumer uses represent the only significant mode of use of that

product.

It should be clear from these added sentences that it is the general

mode of use of a product that determines objectively whether or not it

is a consumer product.  One could not escape the effects of the User

Products provisions by labeling what is demonstrably a consumer product

in ways that suggest it is ``for professionals,'' for example, contrary

to what some critics of Draft 3 have suggested.

We have made one additional change to the User Products provisions of

section 6.  In Draft 3 we made clear that the requirement to provide

Installation Information implies no requirement to provide warranty or

support for a work that has been modified or installed on a User

Product.  The Final Draft adds that there is similarly no requirement to

provide warranty or support for the User Product itself.