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

Reword paragraph.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-20 17:34:09 -04:00
parent cee78c87ef
commit b17d0710ac
1 changed files with 15 additions and 17 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

32
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -2956,25 +2956,23 @@ through their weak and unorganized market power. Even limited to User
Products, the provision addresses the fundamental problem. Therefore, the
technical restrictions provisions to User Products.
% FIXME-LATER: link \href to USC 2301
The core of the User Product definition is a subdefinition of ``consumer
product'' taken verbatim from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal
consumer protection law in the United States: ``any tangible personal
property which is normally used for personal, family, or household
purposes.''\footnote{15 U.S.C.~\S\ 2301.} The United States has had
three decades of experience of liberal judicial and administrative
interpretation of this definition in a manner favorable to consumer
rights.\footnote{The Magnuson-Moss consumer product definition itself
has been influential in the United States and Canada, having been
adopted in several state and provincial consumer protection laws.} We
mean for this body of interpretation to guide interpretation of the
consumer product subdefinition in section 6, which will provide a degree
of legal certainty advantageous to device manufacturers and downstream
licensees alike. Our incorporation of such legal interpretation is in
no way intended to work a general choice of United States law for GPLv3
as a whole. The paragraph in section 6 defining ``User Product'' and
``consumer product'' contains an explicit statement to this effect,
bracketed for discussion. We will decide whether to retain this
statement in the license text after gathering comment on it.
consumer protection law in the USA found in 15~USC~\S2301: ``any tangible
personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household
purposes.'' The United States has had three decades of experience of liberal
judicial and administrative interpretation of this definition in a manner
favorable to consumer rights.\footnote{The Magnuson-Moss consumer product
definition itself has been influential in the USA and Canada, having been
adopted in several state and provincial consumer protection laws.}
Ideally, this body of interpretation\footnote{The FSF, however, was very
clear that incorporation of such legal interpretation was in no way
intended work as a general choice of USA law for GPLv3.} will guide
interpretation of the consumer product subdefinition in GPLv3~\S6, and this
will hopefully provide a degree of legal certainty advantageous to device
manufacturers and downstream licensees alike.
One well-established interpretive principle under Magnuson-Moss is that
ambiguities are resolved in favor of coverage. That is, in cases where