Changeset - 678e841079aa
Parent rev.
Child rev.
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Free Software Foundation, Inc - 10 years ago 2014-03-19 20:01:54
info@fsf.org
Relevant text from FSF's "GPLv2 Discussion Draft 3 FAQ",
as published circa 2007-03-28, (around the time of GPLv3 Third Discussion
Draft)

I (Bradley M. Kuhn) carefully went through FSF's "GPLv2 Discussion Draft 3
FAQ", which appears to have been published on Thursday 28 March 2007, and
merged in any relevant text that might be of use in this tutorial.

The raw material used for this commit can be found here:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq

As I merged in this text, I added FIXME's where it seemed the text was
incomplete or referred to parts of GPLv3 draft text that disappeared in later
versions.

Finally, note that this material was originally copyrighted and licensed as
follows:

Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted
worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the
copyright notice, are preserved.

However, I am hereby relicensing this material to CC-By-SA-4.0, with the
verbal permission from John Sullivan, Executive Director of the FSF, which
was given to me during a conference call on Wednesday 12 February 2014. I
also confirmed that relicensing permission on IRC with johnsu01 today.
1 file changed with 29 insertions and 0 deletions:
gpl-lgpl.tex
29
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
gpl-lgpl.tex
➞
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -2782,48 +2782,77 @@ as permitted by section 7.
 

			




	
	
	
		
 
% FIXME: update lock-down section to work with more recent drafts


			




	
	
	
		
 

			




	
	
	
		
 
Though the definition of Complete Corresponding Source Code in the second


			




	
	
	
		
 
paragraph of section 1 is expansive, it is not sufficient to protect users'


			




	
	
	
		
 
freedoms in many circumstances. For example, a GPL'd program, or a modified


			




	
	
	
		
 
version of such a program, might need to be signed with a key or authorized


			




	
	
	
		
 
with a code in order for it to run on a particular machine and function


			




	
	
	
		
 
properly. Similarly, a program that produces digitally-restricted files might


			




	
	
	
		
 
require a decryption code in order to read the output.


			




	
	
	
		
 

			




	
	
	
		
 
The third paragraph of section 1 addresses this problem by making clear that


			




	
	
	
		
 
Complete Corresponding Source Code includes any such encryption,


			




	
	
	
		
 
authorization, and decryption codes. By requiring the inclusion of this


			




	
	
	
		
 
information whenever the GPL requires distribution of Complete Corresponding


			




	
	
	
		
 
Source Code, we thwart efforts to obstruct the goals of the GPL, and we


			




	
	
	
		
 
ensure that users will remain in control over their own machines. We


			




	
	
	
		
 
recognize an exception where use of the program normally implies that the


			




	
	
	
		
 
user already has the codes. For example, in secure systems a computer owner


			




	
	
	
		
 
might possess any keys needed to run a program, while the distributor of the


			




	
	
	
		
 
program might not have the keys.


			




	
	
	
		
 

			




	
	
	
		
 
% FIXME: installation information


			




	
	
	
		
 

			




	
	
	
		
 

			




	
	
	
		
 
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


			




	
	
	
		
 
we live in today --- where Digital Restrictions Management is focused largely


			




	
	
	
		
 
in consumer devices, and everyone, including large companies, is becoming


			




	
	
	
		
 
increasingly worried about the effects of DRM thanks to recent developments


			




	
	
	
		
 
like the release of Microsoft's Windows Vista --- we think that the proposed


			




	
	
	
		
 
language will still provide us with enough leverage to effectively thwart


			




	
	
	
		
 
DRM. We still believe you have a fundamental right to modify the software on


			




	
	
	
		
 
all the hardware you own; the preamble explains, ``If such problems [as


			




	
	
	
		
 
  locked-down hardware] arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready


			




	
	
	
		
 
to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as


			




	
	
	
		
 
needed to protect the freedom of users.''


			




	
	
	
		
 

			




	
	
	
		
 
% FIXME: This needs merged in somewhere in here


			




	
	
	
		
 

			




	
	
	
		
 
The mere fact that use of the work implies that the user \textit{has} the key


			




	
	
	
		
 
may not be enough to ensure the user's freedom in using it.  The user must


			




	
	
	
		
 
also be able to read and copy the key; thus, its presence in a special


			




	
	
	
		
 
register inside the computer does not satisfy the requirement. In an


			




	
	
	
		
 
application in which the user's personal key is used to protect privacy or


			




	
	
	
		
 
limit distribution of personal data, the user clearly has the ability to read


			




	
	
	
		
 
and copy the key, which therefore is not included in the Corresponding


			




	
	
	
		
 
Source. On the other hand, if a key is generated based on the object code, or


			




	
	
	
		
 
is present in hardware, but the user cannot manipulate that key, then the key


			




	
	
	
		
 
must be provided as part of the Corresponding Source.


			




	
	
	
		
 

			




	
	
	
		
 
% FIXME: this came from Section 1 but is now mostly in Section 6


			




	
	
	
		
 

			




	
	
	
		
 
In section 1, we have tried to limit as precisely as possible the situation


			




	
	
	
		
 
in which an encryption or signing key is part of the Corresponding Source


			




	
	
	
		
 
Code of a GPL'd work.  Where someone is provided a GPL'd work, he must


			




	
	
	
		
 
receive the whole of the power to use and modify the work that was available


			




	
	
	
		
 
to preceding licensors whose permissions he automatically receives.  If a key


			




	
	
	
		
 
would be necessary to install a fully functional version of the GPL'd work


			




	
	
	
		
 
from source code, the user who receives the binary must receive the key along


			




	
	
	
		
 
with the source.  The requirement of full functionality, which we have


			




	
	
	
		
 
illustrated with examples, is no more optional than it would be if GPL'd


			




        

    



    


    



    



      

      





    
    0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
    





    


  

  







    


    

  


    








    
        Server instance: kapok.sfconservancy.org-716
    
    
        This site is powered by
            Kallithea 0.6.3,
        which is
        © 2010–2020 by various authors & licensed under GPLv3.
            – Support
        – Privacy Policy