copy the Corresponding Source Code ``in the same way through the same

place''.  This wording might be interpreted to permit peer-to-peer

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}

In brief, we condition 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.

%FIXME: this really big section on user product stuff may be too much for the

%       tutorial

In our earlier drafts, the requirement to provide encryption keys

applied to all acts of conveying object code, as this requirement was

part of the general definition of Corresponding Source. Section 6 of

Draft 3 now limits the applicability of the technical restrictions

provisions to object code conveyed in, with, or specifically for use in

a defined class of ``User Products.''

In our discussions with companies and governments that use specialized

or enterprise-level computer facilities, we found that sometimes these

organizations actually 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 preference. It is not clear that we

need to interfere, and 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, and we expect that to remain true in

the near future. 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 if limited to User Products, as defined in Draft 3, the

provision still does the job that needs to be done. Therefore we have

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

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