Corresponding Source Code may include added parts that carry non-GPL terms,

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.

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

Draft1 removed the words ``at no charge'' from what is now subsection 5b, the

core copyleft provision, for reasons related to our current changes to the

second paragraph of section 4: it had contributed to a misconception that the

GPL did not permit charging for distribution of copies.  The purpose of the

``at no charge'' wording was to prevent attempts to collect royalties from

third parties.  The removal of these words created the danger that the

imposition of licensing fees would no longer be seen as a license

violation.

We therefore have added a new explicit prohibition on imposition of licensing

fees or royalties in section 10.  This section is an appropriate place for

such a clause, since it is a specific consequence of the general requirement

that no further restrictions be imposed on downstream recipients of

GPL-covered code.

\section{GPLv3~\S11: Explicit Patent Licensing}

\label{GPLv3s11}

The patent licensing practices that section 7 of GPLv2 (corresponding to

section 12 of GPLv3) was designed to prevent are one of several ways in which

software patents threaten to make free programs non-free and to prevent users

from exercising their rights under the GPL. GPLv3 takes a more comprehensive

approach to combatting the danger of patents.

% FIXME: just brought in words here, needs rewriting.

is rooted in the basic principles of the GPL.

Our license has always stated that distributors may not impose further

restrictions on users' exercise of GPL rights.  To make the suggested

distinction between contribution and distribution is to allow a

distributor to demand patent royalties from a direct or indirect

recipient, based on claims embodied in the distributed code. This

undeniably burdens users with an additional legal restriction on their

rights, in violation of the license.

%FIXME: possible useful text, but maybe not.

In the covenant provided in the revised section 11, the set of claims

that a party undertakes not to assert against downstream users are that

party's ``essential patent claims'' in the work conveyed by the party.

``Essential patent claims,'' a new term defined in section 0, are simply

all claims ``that would be infringed by making, using, or selling the

work.''  We have abandoned the phrase ``reasonably contemplated use.''

This change makes the obligations of distributing patent holders more

predictable.

% FIXME:  probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time.

cross-licensing agreements. With respect to some such agreements, it would

not be reasonable to expect a company to know that a particular patent

license covered by the agreement, but not specifically mentioned in it,

protects the company's distribution of GPL'd code.

% FIXME: does this still fit with the final retaliation provision?

This narrowly-targeted patent retaliation provision is the only form of

patent retaliation that GPLv3 imposes by its own force. We believe that it

strikes a proper balance between preserving the freedom of a user to run and

modify a program, and protecting the rights of other users to run, modify,

copy, and distribute code free from threats by patent holders. It is

particularly intended to discourage a GPL licensee from securing a patent

directed to unreleased modifications of GPL'd code and then suing the

original developers or others for making their own equivalent modifications.

Several other free software licenses include significantly broader patent

retaliation provisions. In our view, too little is known about the

consequences of these forms of patent retaliation. As we explain below,

section 7 permits distribution of a GPL'd work that includes added parts

covered by terms other than those of the GPL. Such terms may include certain

kinds of patent retaliation provisions that are broader than those of section

2.

\section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2 \S~7}

% FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

The wording in the first sentence of section 12 has been revised

slightly to clarify that an agreement, such as a litigation settlement

agreement or a patent license agreement, is one of the ways in which

conditions may be ``imposed'' on a GPL licensee that may contradict the

conditions of the GPL, but which do not excuse the licensee from

compliance with those conditions.  This change codifies what has been

our interpretation of GPLv2.  

% FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

We have removed the limited severability clause of GPLv2 section 7 as a

matter of tactical judgment, believing that this is the best way to ensure

that all provisions of the GPL will be upheld in court. We have also removed

the final sentence of GPLv2 section 7, which we consider to be unnecessary.

\section{GPLv3~\S13: The Great Affero Compromise}

% FIXME

\section{GPLv3~\S14: So, When's GPLv4?}