Reword paragraph.
This commit is contained in:
parent
cee78c87ef
commit
b17d0710ac
1 changed files with 15 additions and 17 deletions
32
gpl-lgpl.tex
32
gpl-lgpl.tex
|
@ -2956,25 +2956,23 @@ through their weak and unorganized market power. Even limited to User
|
||||||
Products, the provision addresses the fundamental problem. Therefore, the
|
Products, the provision addresses the fundamental problem. Therefore, the
|
||||||
technical restrictions provisions to User Products.
|
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
|
The core of the User Product definition is a subdefinition of ``consumer
|
||||||
product'' taken verbatim from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal
|
product'' taken verbatim from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal
|
||||||
consumer protection law in the United States: ``any tangible personal
|
consumer protection law in the USA found in 15~USC~\S2301: ``any tangible
|
||||||
property which is normally used for personal, family, or household
|
personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household
|
||||||
purposes.''\footnote{15 U.S.C.~\S\ 2301.} The United States has had
|
purposes.'' The United States has had three decades of experience of liberal
|
||||||
three decades of experience of liberal judicial and administrative
|
judicial and administrative interpretation of this definition in a manner
|
||||||
interpretation of this definition in a manner favorable to consumer
|
favorable to consumer rights.\footnote{The Magnuson-Moss consumer product
|
||||||
rights.\footnote{The Magnuson-Moss consumer product definition itself
|
definition itself has been influential in the USA and Canada, having been
|
||||||
has been influential in the United States and Canada, having been
|
adopted in several state and provincial consumer protection laws.}
|
||||||
adopted in several state and provincial consumer protection laws.} We
|
Ideally, this body of interpretation\footnote{The FSF, however, was very
|
||||||
mean for this body of interpretation to guide interpretation of the
|
clear that incorporation of such legal interpretation was in no way
|
||||||
consumer product subdefinition in section 6, which will provide a degree
|
intended work as a general choice of USA law for GPLv3.} will guide
|
||||||
of legal certainty advantageous to device manufacturers and downstream
|
interpretation of the consumer product subdefinition in GPLv3~\S6, and this
|
||||||
licensees alike. Our incorporation of such legal interpretation is in
|
will hopefully provide a degree of legal certainty advantageous to device
|
||||||
no way intended to work a general choice of United States law for GPLv3
|
manufacturers and downstream licensees alike.
|
||||||
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.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
One well-established interpretive principle under Magnuson-Moss is that
|
One well-established interpretive principle under Magnuson-Moss is that
|
||||||
ambiguities are resolved in favor of coverage. That is, in cases where
|
ambiguities are resolved in favor of coverage. That is, in cases where
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue