Relevant text from FSF's "GPLv3 Final Discussion Draft Rationale",

as released on 2007-05-31.

I (Bradley M. Kuhn) went through FSF's "Third Discussion Draft Rationale",
and pasted in any sections that seemed useful to this tutorial.  There is a
lot of interesting material in that particular rationale document, although
much of it is probably too verbose for inclusion.  I expect much of this will
need to be cut out.

The raw material used for this commit can be found here:
     http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd4-guide.html
Specifically, a copy of the LaTeX sources are here:
     http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd4-rationale.tex

As I pasted in this text, I added FIXME's sometimes where it seemed the text
might need work.  However, I was much more extensive in just pasting here, so
there's a big editing job now.  As mentioned in a previous commit, the whole
GPLv3 chapter is now completely disjoint with all this pasting.

Finally, note that this material was originally copyrighted and licensed as
follows:

  Copyright © 2007, Free Software Foundation, Inc.

  Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted
  worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is
  preserved.

However, I am hereby relicensing this material to CC-By-SA-4.0, with the
verbal permission from John Sullivan, Executive Director of the FSF, which
was given to me during a conference call on Wednesday 12 February 2014.  I
also confirmed that relicensing permission on IRC with johnsu01 today.

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