To achieve that goal, GPLv2~\S2 first sets forth that the rights of

redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim

copying, as presented in GPLv2~\S1.  Therefore, the details of charging money,

here as well.  However, there are three additional requirements.

The first (GPLv2~\S2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent

have any value.

Software is not so.  While the source code --- the human-readable

programmers alike cannot make the proper use of software in that

human-readable form.  Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer

can understand --- must be predicable and attainable for the software to

USA-centric\footnote{See Section~\ref{non-usa-copyright} of this tutorial for

  a brief discussion about non-USA copyright systems.}  copyright phrases and

wording with neutral terminology rooted in description of behavior rather

GPLv3 that follows, nearly every section had changes related to issues of

internationalization.

\S~\ref{GPLv3s6} of this tutorial).  Compared to GPLv2\S2(b), GPLv3\S5(c)

states that the GPL applies to the whole of the work.  Such was stated

already in GPLv2\S2(b), in ``in whole or in part'', but this simplified

Another change in GPLv3\S5(c) is the removal of the

words ``at no charge,'' which was often is misunderstood upon na\"{i}ve

either be accompanied by the machine-readable source code, or it may be

accompanied by a valid written offer to provide the machine-readable source

code.  However, unlike in GPLv2, that offer cannot be exercised by any third

the offer.  (Note that this is a substantial narrowing of requirements of

offer fulfillment, and is a wonderful counterexample to dispute claims that

the GPLv3 has more requirements than GPLv2.)

copy the Corresponding Source Code ``in the same way through the same

place''.  This wording might be interpreted to permit peer-to-peer

distribution of binaries \textit{if} they are packaged together with the CCS,

the CCS is packaged with the object code, it will only be available to a

non-seeding peer at the end of the distribution process, but the peer will

already have been providing parts of the binary to others in the network.

-- thus, there generally will be too few participants downloading the same

source package at the same time to enable effective seeding and distribution.

object code using peer-to-peer transmission, that licensee is in compliance

with GPLv3~\S6 if the licensee informs other peers where the object code and

its CCS are publicly available at no charge under subsection GPLv3~\S6(d).

\label{user-product}

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.

  adopted in several state and provincial consumer protection laws.}

Ideally, this body of interpretation\footnote{The FSF, however, was very

  clear that incorporation of such legal interpretation was in no way

interpretation of the consumer product subdefinition in GPLv3~\S6, and this

will hopefully provide a degree of legal certainty advantageous to device

manufacturers and downstream licensees alike.

promoted for use in the home.}.

However, Magnuson-Moss is not a perfect fit because in the area of components

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

it was purchased by Red Hat where it remains a profitable division.

However, there are very small companies that compete in

demands industry trust. Companies can cooperate on the software and

improve it for everyone. Meanwhile, companies who rely on GCC for their

work are happy to pay for improvements, and for ports to new target

systems are built using both proprietary and GPL'd components that are

not legally derivative works of each other. Sometimes, it is easier simply to

improve existing GPL'd application than to start from scratch. In

back to the commons that made the work easier in the first place. It is a

reasonable trade-off and a way to help build a better world while also

making a profit.