Rewrite material on Installation Information, put it into sections.
This commit is contained in:
parent
b3e528a31c
commit
b00ddaa698
1 changed files with 35 additions and 71 deletions
106
gpl-lgpl.tex
106
gpl-lgpl.tex
|
@ -2925,6 +2925,8 @@ to enable users to link proprietary programs to modified libraries.)
|
||||||
% FIXME-LATER: LGPLv2.1 section should talk about this explicitly and this
|
% FIXME-LATER: LGPLv2.1 section should talk about this explicitly and this
|
||||||
% should be a forward reference here
|
% should be a forward reference here
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\subsubsection{User Products}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\label{user-product}
|
\label{user-product}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The scope of these requirements are narrow. GPLv3~\S6 introduces the concept
|
The scope of these requirements are narrow. GPLv3~\S6 introduces the concept
|
||||||
|
@ -3028,85 +3030,47 @@ 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
|
labeling what is demonstrably a consumer product in ways that suggest it is
|
||||||
``for professionals'', for example.
|
``for professionals'', for example.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
% FIXME: this needs integration
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
In Draft 3 we instead use a definition of ``Installation Information'' in
|
\subsubsection{Installation Information}
|
||||||
section 6 that is as simple and clear as that goal. Installation Information
|
|
||||||
is information that is ``required to install and execute modified versions of
|
|
||||||
a covered work \dots from a modified version of its Corresponding Source,''
|
|
||||||
in the same User Product for which the covered work is conveyed. We provide
|
|
||||||
guidance concerning how much information must be provided: it ``must suffice
|
|
||||||
to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no
|
|
||||||
case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been
|
|
||||||
made.'' For example, the information provided would be insufficient if it
|
|
||||||
enabled a modified version to run only in a disabled fashion, solely because
|
|
||||||
of the fact of modification (regardless of the actual nature of the
|
|
||||||
modification). The information need not consist of cryptographic keys;
|
|
||||||
Installation Information may be ``any methods, procedures, authorization
|
|
||||||
keys, or other information.''
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%FIXME: This probably needs work to be brought into clarity with tutorial,
|
With the User Products definition complete, The ``Installation Information''
|
||||||
%next three paragarphs.
|
definition uses that to define what those receiving object code inside a User
|
||||||
|
Product must receive.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Why do distributors only have to provide Installation Information for User
|
Installation Information is information that is ``required to install and
|
||||||
Products?
|
execute modified versions of a covered work \dots from a modified version of
|
||||||
|
its'' CCS, in the same User Product for which the covered work is conveyed.
|
||||||
|
GPLv3 provides guidance concerning how much information must be provided: it
|
||||||
|
``must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified
|
||||||
|
object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
|
||||||
|
modification has been made.'' For example, the information provided would be
|
||||||
|
insufficient if it enabled a modified version to run only in a disabled
|
||||||
|
fashion, solely because of the fact of modification (regardless of the actual
|
||||||
|
nature of the modification). The information need not consist of
|
||||||
|
cryptographic keys; Installation Information may be ``any methods,
|
||||||
|
procedures, authorization keys, or other information''.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Some companies effectively outsource their entire IT department to another
|
Note that GPLv3 does not define ``continued functioning'' further. However,
|
||||||
company. Computers and applications are installed in the company's offices,
|
GPLv3 does provide some additional guidance concerning the scope of
|
||||||
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.''
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The definition of Installation Information states that the information
|
|
||||||
provided ``must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the
|
|
||||||
modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely
|
|
||||||
because modification has been made.'' We did not consider it necessary to
|
|
||||||
define ``continued functioning'' further. However, we believed it would be
|
|
||||||
appropriate to provide some additional guidance concerning the scope of
|
|
||||||
GPLv3-compliant action or inaction that distributors of
|
GPLv3-compliant action or inaction that distributors of
|
||||||
technically-restricted User Products can take with respect to a downstream
|
technically-restricted User Products can take with respect to a downstream
|
||||||
recipient who replaces the conveyed object code with a modified version. We
|
recipient who replaces the conveyed object code with a modified version.
|
||||||
make clear that GPLv3 implies no obligation ``to continue to provide support
|
First of all, GPLv3 makes clear that GPLv3 implies no obligation ``to
|
||||||
service, warranty, or updates'' for such a work.
|
continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates'' for such a work.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Most technically-restricted User Products are designed to communicate across
|
Second, most technically-restricted User Products are designed to communicate
|
||||||
networks. It is important for both users and network providers to know when
|
across networks. It is important for both users and network providers to
|
||||||
denial of network access to devices running modified versions becomes a GPL
|
know when denial of network access to devices running modified versions
|
||||||
violation. We settled on a rule that permits denial of access in two cases:
|
becomes a GPL violation. GPLv3 permits denial of access in two cases: ``when
|
||||||
``when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation
|
the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the
|
||||||
of the network,'' and when the modification itself ``violates the rules and
|
network,'' and when the modification itself ``violates the rules and
|
||||||
protocols for communication across the network.'' The second case is
|
protocols for communication across the network''. The second case is
|
||||||
deliberately drawn in general terms. We intend it to serve as a foundation
|
deliberately drawn in general terms, and it serves as a foundation for
|
||||||
for development of reasonable enforcement policies that respect recipients'
|
reasonable enforcement policies that respect recipients' right to modify
|
||||||
right to modify while recognizing the legitimate interests of network
|
while recognizing the legitimate interests of network providers.
|
||||||
providers.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We have made one additional change to the User Products provisions of section
|
Finally, GPLv3\S6 makes it clear that there is also no requirement to
|
||||||
6. In Draft 3 we made clear that the requirement to provide Installation
|
provide warranty or support for the User Product itself.
|
||||||
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 needs merged in somewhere in here
|
% FIXME: This needs merged in somewhere in here
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue