distribution of binaries \textit{if} they are packaged together with the CCS,

but such packaging impractical, for at least three reasons.  First, even if

the CCS is packaged with the object code, it will only be available to a

non-seeding peer at the end of the distribution process, but the peer will

already have been providing parts of the binary to others in the network.

Second, in practice, peer-to-peer forms of transmission are poorly suited

means for distributing CCS.  In large distributions, packaging CCS with the

object code may result in a substantial increase in file size and

transmission time.  Third, in current practice, CCS packages themselves tend

\textit{not} to be transmitted through BitTorrent --- owing to reduced demand

-- thus, there generally will be too few participants downloading the same

source package at the same time to enable effective seeding and distribution.

GPLv3~\S6(e) addresses this issues.  If a licensee conveys such a work of

object code using peer-to-peer transmission, that licensee is in compliance

with GPLv3~\S6 if the licensee informs other peers where the object code and

its CCS are publicly available at no charge under subsection GPLv3~\S6(d).

The CCS therefore need not be provided through the peer-to-peer system that

was used for providing the binary.

Second, GPLv3\S9 also clarifies that ancillary propagation of a covered work

that occurs as part of the process of peer-to-peer file transmission does not

require acceptance, just as mere receipt and execution of the Program does

not require acceptance.  Such ancillary propagation is permitted without

limitation or further obligation.

% FIXME-LATER: Would be nice to explain much more about interactions between

% the various options of GPLv3~\S6(a-e), which might all be in play at once!

\subsection{User Products, Installation Information and Device Lock-Down}

As discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} of this tutorial, GPLv3 seeks thwart

technical measures such as signature checks in hardware to prevent

modification of GPLed software on a device.

To address this issue, GPLv3~\S6 requires that parties distributing object

code provide recipients with the source code through certain means.  When

those distributors pass on the CCS, they are also required to pass on any

information or data necessary to install modified software on the particular

device that included it.  (This strategy is not unlike that used in LGPLv2.1

to enable users to link proprietary programs to modified libraries.)

% FIXME-LATER: LGPLv2.1 section should talk about this explicitly and this

%              should be a forward reference here

\label{user-product}

The scope of these requirements are narrow.  GPLv3~\S6 introduces the concept

of a ``User Product'', which includes devices that are sold for personal,

family, or household use.  Distributors are only required to provide

Installation Information when they convey object code in a User Product.

In brief, the right to convey object code in a defined class of ``User

Products,'' under certain circumstances, on providing whatever information is

required to enable a recipient to replace the object code with a functioning

modified version.

This was a compromise that was difficult for the FSF to agree to during the

GPLv3 drafting process.  However, companies and governments that use

specialized or enterprise-level computer facilities reported that they

actually \textit{want} their systems not to be under their own control.

Rather than agreeing to this as a concession, or bowing to pressure, they ask

for this as a \texit{preference}.  It is not clear that GPL should interfere

here, since the main problem lies elsewhere.

While imposing technical barriers to modification is wrong regardless of

circumstances, the areas where restricted devices are of the greatest

practical concern today fall within the User Product definition.  Most, if

not all, technically-restricted devices running GPL-covered programs are

consumer electronics devices.  Moreover, the disparity in clout between the

manufacturers and these users makes it difficult for the users to reject

technical restrictions through their weak and unorganized market power.  Even

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

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

it is not clear whether a product falls under the definition of consumer

product, the product will be treated as a consumer product.\footnote{16

``normally used'' is understood to refer to the typical use of that type

of product, rather than a particular use by a particular buyer.

Products that are commonly used for personal as well as commercial

purposes are consumer products, even if the person invoking rights is a

commercial entity intending to use the product for commercial

interpreting Magnuson-Moss are in accord; see, e.g., \textit{Stroebner

Motors, Inc.~v.~Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.}, 459 F.~Supp.2d 1028,

1033 (D.~Hawaii 2006).}  Even a small amount of ``normal'' personal use

is enough to cause an entire product line to be treated as a consumer

Industries, Inc.}, 213 U.S.P.Q.~702 (S.D.~Tex.~1981). In this case, the

court concluded that TRS-80 microcomputers were consumer products, where

such computers were designed and advertised for a variety of users,

including small businesses and schools, and had only recently been

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.''

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.

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.

% FIXME: this needs integration

In Draft 3 we instead use a definition of ``Installation Information'' in

section 6 that is as simple and clear as that goal.  Installation Information

is information that is ``required to install and execute modified versions of

a covered work \dots from a modified version of its Corresponding Source,''

in the same User Product for which the covered work is conveyed.  We provide

guidance concerning how much information must be provided: it ``must suffice

to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no

case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been

made.''  For example, the information provided would be insufficient if it

enabled a modified version to run only in a disabled fashion, solely because

of the fact of modification (regardless of the actual nature of the

modification).  The information need not consist of cryptographic keys;

Installation Information may be ``any methods, procedures, authorization

keys, or other information.''

%FIXME: This probably needs work to be brought into clarity with tutorial,

%next three paragarphs.

Why do distributors only have to provide Installation Information for User

Products?

Some companies effectively outsource their entire IT department to another

company. Computers and applications are installed in the company's offices,

but managed remotely by some service provider. In some of these situations,

the hardware is locked down; only the service provider has the key, and the

customers consider that to be a desirable security feature.

We think it's unfortunate that people would be willing to give up their

freedom like this.  But they should be able to fend for themselves, and the

market provides plenty of alternatives to these services that would not lock

them down. As a result, we have introduced this compromise to the draft:

distributors are only required to provide Installation Information when

they're distributing the software on a User Product, where the customers'

buying power is likely to be less organized.

This is a compromise of strategy, and not our ideals. Given the environment