diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index 2882d47..10cde11 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -2654,6 +2654,35 @@ We believe that these provisions, taken together, are a minimalist set of terms sufficient to protect the free software community against the threat of invasive para-copyright. +Large enterprise users of free software often contract with non-employee +developers, often working offsite, to make modifications intended for +the user's private or internal use, and often arrange with other +companies to operate their data centers. Whether GPLv2 permits these +activities is not clear and may depend on variations in copyright law. +The practices seem basically harmless, so we have decided to make it +clear they are permitted. + +GPLv3 now gives an explicit permission for a client to provide a copy of +its modified software to a contractor exclusively for that contractor to +modify it further, or run it, on behalf of the client. However, the +client can only exercise this control over its own copyrighted changes +to the GPL-covered program. The parts of the program it obtained from +other contributors must be provided to the contractor with the usual GPL +freedoms. + +This permission is stated in section 2. It permits a user to convey +covered works to contractors operating exclusively on the user's behalf, +under the user's direction and control, and to require the contractors +to keep the user's copyrighted changes confidential, but only if the +contractor is limited to acting on the user's behalf, just as the user's +employees would have to act. + +The strict conditions in this provision are needed so that it cannot be +twisted to fit other activities, such as making a program available to +users or customers. By making the limits on this provision very narrow, +we ensure that in all other cases the contractor gets the full freedoms +of the GPL. + \section{GPLv3~\S3: What Hath DMCA Wrought} \label{GPLv3s3} @@ -2713,6 +2742,11 @@ any private or public parties from invoking DMCA-like laws against users who escape technical restriction measures implemented by GPL'd software. +This section shields users from being subjected to liability under +anti-circumvention law for exercising their rights under the GPL, so far as +the GPL can do so. Some readers seem to have assumed that this provision +contains a prohibition on DRM; it does not (no part of GPLv3 forbids DRM). + \section{GPLv3~\S4: Verbatim Copying} % FIXME: there appear to be minor changes here in later drafts, fix that. @@ -3046,6 +3080,34 @@ 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. + %FIXME: This probably needs work to be brought into clarity with tutorial, %next three paragarphs. @@ -3923,6 +3985,35 @@ distributing software under GPLv3 if you make an agreement like the Microsoft-Novell deal in the future. This will prevent other distributors from trying to make other deals like it. +The main reason for this is tactical. We believe we can do more to +protect the community by allowing Novell to use software under GPL +version 3 than by forbidding it to do so. This is because of +paragraph 6 of section 11 (corresponding to paragraph 4 in Draft 3). +It will apply, under the Microsoft/Novell deal, because of the coupons +that Microsoft has acquired that essentially commit it to participate +in the distribution of the Novell SLES GNU/Linux system. + +Microsoft is scrambling to dispose of as many Novell SLES coupons as +possible prior to the adoption of GPLv3. Unfortunately for Microsoft, +those coupons bear no expiration date, and paragraph 6 has no cut-off +date. Through its ongoing distribution of coupons, Microsoft will +have procured the distribution of GPLv3-covered programs as soon as +they are included in Novell SLES distributions, thereby extending +patent defenses to all downstream recipients of that software by +operation of paragraph 6. + +A secondary reason is to avoid affecting other kinds of agreements for +other kinds of activities. We have tried to take care in paragraph 7 +to distinguish pernicious deals of the Microsoft/Novell type from +business conduct that is not particularly harmful, but we cannot be +sure we have entirely succeeded. There remains some risk that other +unchangeable past agreements could fall within its scope. + +In future deals, distributors engaging in ordinary business practices +can structure the agreements so that they do not fall under paragraph +7. However, it will block Microsoft and other patent aggressors from +further such attempts to subvert parts of our community. + A software patent forbids the use of a technique or algorithm, and its existence is a threat to all software developers and users. A patent holder can use a patent to suppress any program which implements the