Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Reword some of this and remove FIXME.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-20 17:27:04 -04:00
parent dd9e082222
commit 579704541d
1 changed files with 11 additions and 20 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

31
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -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.
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.
%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.
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