Relevant text from FSF's "GPLv2 Discussion Draft 3 FAQ",

as published circa 2007-03-28, (around the time of GPLv3 Third Discussion
Draft)

I (Bradley M. Kuhn) carefully went through FSF's "GPLv2 Discussion Draft 3
FAQ", which appears to have been published on Thursday 28 March 2007, and
merged in any relevant text that might be of use in this tutorial.

The raw material used for this commit can be found here:
    http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq

As I merged in this text, I added FIXME's where it seemed the text was
incomplete or referred to parts of GPLv3 draft text that disappeared in later
versions.

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, and the
  copyright notice, are 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

@@ -2803,6 +2803,35 @@ program might not have the keys.
 
 % FIXME: installation information
 
+
+Why do distributors only have to provide Installation Information for User Products?
+
+Some companies effectively outsource their entire IT department to another
+company. Computers and applications are installed in the company's offices,
+but managed remotely by some service provider. In some of these situations,
+the hardware is locked down; only the service provider has the key, and the
+customers consider that to be a desirable security feature.
+
+We think it's unfortunate that people would be willing to give up their
+freedom like this.  But they should be able to fend for themselves, and the
+market provides plenty of alternatives to these services that would not lock
+them down. As a result, we have introduced this compromise to the draft:
+distributors are only required to provide Installation Information when
+they're distributing the software on a User Product, where the customers'
+buying power is likely to be less organized.
+
+This is a compromise of strategy, and not our ideals. Given the environment
+we live in today --- where Digital Restrictions Management is focused largely
+in consumer devices, and everyone, including large companies, is becoming
+increasingly worried about the effects of DRM thanks to recent developments
+like the release of Microsoft's Windows Vista --- we think that the proposed
+language will still provide us with enough leverage to effectively thwart
+DRM. We still believe you have a fundamental right to modify the software on
+all the hardware you own; the preamble explains, ``If such problems [as
+  locked-down hardware] arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready
+to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as
+needed to protect the freedom of users.''
+
 % FIXME: This needs merged in somewhere in here
 
 The mere fact that use of the work implies that the user \textit{has} the key