From b17d0710acbeaf9c44cec2a7e02caf8f52f30415 2014-03-20 21:34:09 From: Bradley M. Kuhn Date: 2014-03-20 21:34:09 Subject: [PATCH] Reword paragraph. --- diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index 229ff226ee432d8c8f6de6d40a15ac999b7d1d5c..7ac49fb534458bfab4235641554393615b98eefb 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/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 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