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

Finish up Installation Information section.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-20 18:08:16 -04:00
parent b00ddaa698
commit 678c1d8099
1 changed files with 10 additions and 54 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

64
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -3069,63 +3069,19 @@ deliberately drawn in general terms, and it serves as a foundation for
reasonable enforcement policies that respect recipients' right to modify
while recognizing the legitimate interests of network providers.
Note that GPLv3 permits the practice of conveying object code in a mode not
practically susceptible to modification by any party, such as code burned in
ROM or embedded in silicon. The goal of the Installation Information
requirement is to ensure the downstream licensee receives the real right to
modify when the device manufacturer or some other party retains that right.
Accordingly, GPLv3\S6's ante-penultimate paragraph states that the
requirement to provide Installation Information ``does not apply if neither
you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code
on the User Product''.
Finally, GPLv3\S6 makes it clear that there is also no requirement to
provide warranty or support for the User Product itself.
% FIXME: This needs merged in somewhere in here
The mere fact that use of the work implies that the user \textit{has} the key
may not be enough to ensure the user's freedom in using it. The user must
also be able to read and copy the key; thus, its presence in a special
register inside the computer does not satisfy the requirement. In an
application in which the user's personal key is used to protect privacy or
limit distribution of personal data, the user clearly has the ability to read
and copy the key, which therefore is not included in the Corresponding
Source. On the other hand, if a key is generated based on the object code, or
is present in hardware, but the user cannot manipulate that key, then the key
must be provided as part of the Corresponding Source.
% FIXME: this came from Section 1 but is now mostly in Section 6
In section 1, we have tried to limit as precisely as possible the situation
in which an encryption or signing key is part of the Corresponding Source
Code of a GPL'd work. Where someone is provided a GPL'd work, he must
receive the whole of the power to use and modify the work that was available
to preceding licensors whose permissions he automatically receives. If a key
would be necessary to install a fully functional version of the GPL'd work
from source code, the user who receives the binary must receive the key along
with the source. The requirement of full functionality, which we have
illustrated with examples, is no more optional than it would be if GPL'd
software were redistributed with an additional license condition, rather than
a technical limitation, on the uses to which modified versions could be
put.\footnote{There is a clear distinction between this situation and the
situation of authenticated modules or plug-ins distributed as part of a
multi-component software system, so that instances of the software can
verify for the user the integrity of the collection. So long as the
decision about whether to run a modified version is the user's decision,
not controlled by a preceding licensor or a third party, the vendor's
authentication key would also not qualify as part of the Corresponding
Source under the language we have adopted for Draft 2.}
% FIXME: this needs the right place.
We do not object to the practice of conveying object code in a mode not
practically susceptible to modification by any party, such as code burned in
ROM or embedded in silicon. What we find ethically objectionable is the
refusal to pass on to the downstream licensee the real right to modify,
coupled with the retention of that right in the device manufacturer or some
other party. Our text has never prohibited distribution in ROM, but we have
decided to make the point explicitly, for clarity's sake. Accordingly, our
text states that the requirement to provide Installation Information ``does
not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
modified object code on the User Product.''
%FIXME: publicly documented format. This might work as a start on that:
Our primary objective here was to ensure that the
distributor use a generally-recognized mechanism for packaging source
code.
\section{Understanding License Compatibility}
\label{license-compatibility}