This change does the job that needs to be done to this ¶ for this tutorial.

This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-20 17:29:51 -04:00
parent 579704541d
commit cee78c87ef

View file

@ -2947,16 +2947,14 @@ here, since the main problem lies elsewhere.
While imposing technical barriers to modification is wrong regardless of While imposing technical barriers to modification is wrong regardless of
circumstances, the areas where restricted devices are of the greatest circumstances, the areas where restricted devices are of the greatest
practical concern today fall within the User Product definition. Most, practical concern today fall within the User Product definition. Most, if
if not all, technically-restricted devices running GPL-covered programs not all, technically-restricted devices running GPL-covered programs are
are consumer electronics devices, and we expect that to remain true in consumer electronics devices, and that has remained true since GPLv3's
the near future. Moreover, the disparity in clout between the release. Moreover, the disparity in clout between the manufacturers and
manufacturers and these users makes it difficult for the users to reject these users makes it difficult for the users to reject technical restrictions
technical restrictions through their weak and unorganized market through their weak and unorganized market power. Even limited to User
power. Even if limited to User Products, as defined in Draft 3, the Products, the provision addresses the fundamental problem. Therefore, the
provision still does the job that needs to be done. Therefore we have technical restrictions provisions to User Products.
decided to limit the technical restrictions provisions to User Products
in this draft.
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