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

Rewrote this paragraph, removing much which wasn't useful.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-20 17:19:06 -04:00
parent f53db9025a
commit a83760dcc7
1 changed files with 11 additions and 18 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

29
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -2911,26 +2911,19 @@ limitation or further obligation.
\subsection{User Products, Installation Information and Device Lock-Down}
% FIXME: perhaps this additional information isn't needed, next 3 paras, but
% there might be something good here
As discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} of this tutorial, GPLv3 seeks thwart
technical measures such as signature checks in hardware to prevent
modification of GPLed software on a device.
Another major goal for GPLv3 has been to thwart technical measures such as
signature checks in hardware to prevent modification of GPLed software on a
device. Previous drafts attempted to accomplish this by defining
"Corresponding Source" to include any encryption or authorization keys
necessary to install new versions of the software. A number of members of
the community questioned the impact and utility of such a definition.
To address this issue, GPLv3~\S6 requires that parties distributing object
code provide recipients with the source code through certain means. When
those distributors pass on the CCS, they are also required to pass on any
information or data necessary to install modified software on the particular
device that included it. (This strategy is not unlike that used in LGPLv2.1
to enable users to link proprietary programs to modified libraries.)
The third discussion draft uses a different strategy to accomplish the same
task. Section 6 requires that parties distributing object code provide
recipients with the source code through certain means. Now, when those
distributors pass on the source, they are also required to pass on any
information or data necessary to install modified software on the
particular device that included it. We believe that this will more
precisely accomplish our goals, and avoid potential problems with expanding
the definition of source code. The new strategy should be familiar to free
software developers: the GNU LGPL has long had similar requirements that
enable users to link proprietary programs to modified libraries.
% FIXME-LATER: LGPLv2.1 section should talk about this explicitly and this
% should be a forward reference here
\label{user-product}
In addition, the scope of these requirements has been narrowed. This draft