Various changes to make all that Magnuson-Moss verbiage useful to the tutorial.

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,
+However, Magnuson-Moss is not a perfect fit because in the area of components
-because in the area of components of dwellings we consider the settled
+of dwellings, the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss underinclusive.
-interpretation under Magnuson-Moss underinclusive.  Depending on how
+Depending on how such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may
-such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may not be
+not be considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products.\footnote{Building
-considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products.\footnote{Building materials
+  materials that are purchased directly by a consumer from a retailer, for
-that are purchased directly by a consumer from a retailer, for improving
+  improving or modifying an existing dwelling, are consumer products under
-or modifying an existing dwelling, are consumer products under
+  Magnuson-Moss, but building materials that are integral component parts of
-Magnuson-Moss, but building materials that are integral component parts
+  the structure of a dwelling at the time that the consumer buys the dwelling
-of the structure of a dwelling at the time that the consumer buys the
+  are not consumer products. 16 C.F.R.~\S\S~700.1(c)--(f); Federal Trade
-dwelling are not consumer products. 16 C.F.R.~\S\S~700.1(c)--(f);
+  Commission, Final Action Concerning Review of Interpretations of
-Federal Trade Commission, Final Action Concerning Review of
+  Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 64 Fed.~Reg.~19,700 (April 22, 1999); see also,
-Interpretations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 64 Fed.~Reg.~19,700
+  e.g., \textit{McFadden}, 54 U.C.C.~Rep.~Serv.2d at 934.}  Therefore, GPLv3
-(April 22, 1999); see also, e.g., \textit{McFadden}, 54
+defines User Products as a superset of consumer products that also includes
-U.C.C.~Rep.~Serv.2d at 934.}  Therefore, we define User Products as a
+``anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.''
-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
+Thus, the three sentences in the center of GPLv3's User Product definition
-for individual purchasers of devices, we wrote the rule to cover a
+encapsulate the judicial and administrative principles established over the
-category of products, rather than categorizing users.  Discrimination
+past three decades in the USA concerning the Magnuson-Moss consumer product
-against organizational users has no place in a free software license.
+definition.  First, it states that doubtful cases are resolved in favor of
-Moreover, a rule that applied to individual use, rather than to use of
+coverage under the definition.  Second, it indicate that the words ``normally
-products normally used by individuals, would have too narrow an
+used'' in the consumer product definition refer to a typical or common use of
-effect. Because of its incorporation of the liberal Magnuson-Moss
+a class of product, and not the status of a particular user or expected or
-interpretation of ``consumer product,'' the User Products rule benefits
+actual uses by a particular user.  Third, it clearly states that the
-not only individual purchasers of User Products but also all
+existence of substantial non-consumer uses of a product does not negate a
-organizational purchasers of those same kinds of products, regardless of
+determination that it is a consumer product, unless such non-consumer uses
-their intended use of the products.
+represent the only significant mode of use of that product.
 
-we have replaced the Magnuson-Moss
+It should be clear from these added sentences that it is the general mode of
-reference with three sentences that encapsulate the judicial and
+use of a product that determines objectively whether or not it is a consumer
-administrative principles established over the past three decades in the
+product.  One could not escape the effects of the User Products provisions by
-United States concerning the Magnuson-Moss consumer product definition.
+labeling what is demonstrably a consumer product in ways that suggest it is
-First, we state that doubtful cases are resolved in favor of coverage
+``for professionals'', for example.
-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.
 
 % 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