From b3e528a31cf17ac665f3694b544275c5a599ac7a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:46:00 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Various changes to make all that Magnuson-Moss verbiage useful to the tutorial. --- gpl-lgpl.tex | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------- 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index 1a07c77..7e1bf39 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -2957,10 +2957,10 @@ limited to User Products, this provision addresses the fundamental problem. % 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 +product'' adapted from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal 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 +purposes.'' The USA 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 @@ -2995,62 +2995,38 @@ such computers were designed and advertised for a variety of users, including small businesses and schools, and had only recently been promoted for use in the home.}. -We do not rely solely on the definition of consumer product, however, -because in the area of components of dwellings we consider the settled -interpretation under Magnuson-Moss underinclusive. Depending on how -such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may not be -considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products.\footnote{Building materials -that are purchased directly by a consumer from a retailer, for improving -or modifying an existing dwelling, are consumer products under -Magnuson-Moss, but building materials that are integral component parts -of the structure of a dwelling at the time that the consumer buys the -dwelling are not consumer products. 16 C.F.R.~\S\S~700.1(c)--(f); -Federal Trade Commission, Final Action Concerning Review of -Interpretations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 64 Fed.~Reg.~19,700 -(April 22, 1999); see also, e.g., \textit{McFadden}, 54 -U.C.C.~Rep.~Serv.2d at 934.} Therefore, we define User Products as a -superset of consumer products that also includes ``anything designed or -sold for incorporation into a dwelling.'' +However, Magnuson-Moss is not a perfect fit because in the area of components +of dwellings, the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss underinclusive. +Depending on how such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may +not be considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products.\footnote{Building + materials that are purchased directly by a consumer from a retailer, for + improving or modifying an existing dwelling, are consumer products under + Magnuson-Moss, but building materials that are integral component parts of + the structure of a dwelling at the time that the consumer buys the dwelling + are not consumer products. 16 C.F.R.~\S\S~700.1(c)--(f); Federal Trade + Commission, Final Action Concerning Review of Interpretations of + Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 64 Fed.~Reg.~19,700 (April 22, 1999); see also, + e.g., \textit{McFadden}, 54 U.C.C.~Rep.~Serv.2d at 934.} Therefore, GPLv3 +defines User Products as a superset of consumer products that also includes +``anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.'' -Although the User Products rule of Draft 3 reflects a special concern -for individual purchasers of devices, we wrote the rule to cover a -category of products, rather than categorizing users. Discrimination -against organizational users has no place in a free software license. -Moreover, a rule that applied to individual use, rather than to use of -products normally used by individuals, would have too narrow an -effect. Because of its incorporation of the liberal Magnuson-Moss -interpretation of ``consumer product,'' the User Products rule benefits -not only individual purchasers of User Products but also all -organizational purchasers of those same kinds of products, regardless of -their intended use of the products. +Thus, the three sentences in the center of GPLv3's User Product definition +encapsulate the judicial and administrative principles established over the +past three decades in the USA concerning the Magnuson-Moss consumer product +definition. First, it states that doubtful cases are resolved in favor of +coverage under the definition. Second, it indicate that the words ``normally +used'' in the consumer product definition refer to a typical or common use of +a class of product, and not the status of a particular user or expected or +actual uses by a particular user. Third, it clearly states that the +existence of substantial non-consumer uses of a product does not negate a +determination that it is a consumer product, unless such non-consumer uses +represent the only significant mode of use of that product. -we have replaced the Magnuson-Moss -reference with three sentences that encapsulate the judicial and -administrative principles established over the past three decades in the -United States concerning the Magnuson-Moss consumer product definition. -First, we state that doubtful cases are resolved in favor of coverage -under the definition. Second, we indicate that the words ``normally -used'' in the consumer product definition refer to a typical or common -use of a class of product, and not the status of a particular user or -expected or actual uses by a particular user. Third, we make clear that -the existence of substantial non-consumer uses of a product does not -negate a determination that it is a consumer product, unless such -non-consumer uses represent the only significant mode of use of that -product. - -It should be clear from these added sentences that it is the general -mode of use of a product that determines objectively whether or not it -is a consumer 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 ``for professionals,'' for example, contrary -to what some critics of Draft 3 have suggested. - -We have made one additional change to the User Products provisions of -section 6. In Draft 3 we made clear that the requirement to provide -Installation 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. +It should be clear from these added sentences that it is the general mode of +use of a product that determines objectively whether or not it is a consumer +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 +``for professionals'', for example. % FIXME: this needs integration @@ -3125,6 +3101,13 @@ for development of reasonable enforcement policies that respect recipients' right to modify while recognizing the legitimate interests of network providers. +We have made one additional change to the User Products provisions of section +6. In Draft 3 we made clear that the requirement to provide Installation +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 The mere fact that use of the work implies that the user \textit{has} the key