offer to provide source code received from an upstream distributor.

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

New subsection 6d, which revises the final paragraph of GPLv2 section 3,

addresses distribution of object code by offering access to copy the code

from a designated place, such as by enabling electronic access to a network

server.  Subsection 6d clarifies that the distributor must offer equivalent

access to copy the source code ``in the same way through the same place.''

This wording permits a distributor to offer a third party access to both

object code and source code on a single network portal or web page, even

though the access may include links to different physical servers.  For

example, a downstream distributor may provide a link to an upstream

distributor's server and arrange with the operator of that server to keep the

source code available for copying for as long as the downstream distributor

enables access to the object code.  This codifies what has been our

interpretation of GPLv2.

%FIXME: 6e, peer-to-peer

%  FIXME: Not final paragraph anymore. 

The final paragraph of section 6 takes account of the fact that the Complete

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

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

% FIXME: needs to be updated to describe more complex termination

If a licensee who is in violation of GPLv3 acts to correct the violation and

enter into compliance, and the licensee receives no notice of the past

violation within 60 days, then the licensee need not worry about termination

of rights under the license.

\section{GPLv3~\S9: Acceptance}

% FIXME: needs some work here

Section 9 means what it says: mere receipt or execution of code neither

requires nor signifies contractual acceptance under the GPL.  Speaking more

broadly, we have intentionally structured our license as a unilateral grant

of copyright permissions, the basic operation of which exists outside of any

law of contract.  Whether and when a contractual relationship is formed

between licensor and licensee under local law do not necessarily matter to

the working of the license.

\section{GPLv3~\S10: Explicit Downstream License}

% FIXME: needs filled out and more here.

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.

GPLv3 adds a new section on licensing of patents. GPLv2 relies on an implied

patent license. The doctrine of implied license is one that is recognized

under United States patent law but may not be recognized in other

jurisdictions. We have therefore decided to make the patent license grant

explicit in GPLv3. Under section 11, a redistributor of a GPL'd work

automatically grants a nonexclusive, royalty-free and worldwide license for

any patent claims held by the redistributor, if those claims would be

infringed by the work or a reasonably contemplated use of the work.

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

The patent license is granted both to recipients of the redistributed work

and to any other users who have received any version of the work. Section 11

therefore ensures that downstream users of GPL'd code and works derived from

GPL'd code are protected from the threat of patent infringement allegations

made by upstream distributors, regardless of which country's laws are held to

apply to any particular aspect of the distribution or licensing of the GPL'd

code.

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

A redistributor of GPL'd code may benefit from a patent license that has been

granted by a third party, where the third party otherwise could bring a

patent infringement lawsuit against the redistributor based on the

distribution or other use of the code. In such a case, downstream users of

the redistributed code generally remain vulnerable to the applicable patent

claims of the third party. This threatens to defeat the purposes of the GPL,

for the third party could prevent any downstream users from exercising the

freedoms that the license seeks to guarantee.

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

The second paragraph of section 11 addresses this problem by requiring the

redistributor to act to shield downstream users from these patent claims. The

requirement applies only to those redistributors who distribute knowingly

relying on a patent license. Many companies enter into blanket patent

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?}

\label{GPlv2s14}

% FIXME Say more

No substantive change has been made in section 14. The wording of the section

has been revised slightly to make it clearer.

% FIXME; proxy

\section{GPLv3~\S15--17: Warranty Disclaimers and Liability Limitation}

No substantive changes have been made in sections 15 and 16.

% FIXME: more, plus 17

% FIXME: Section header needed here about choice of law.

% FIXME: reword into tutorial

Some have asked us to address the difficulties of internationalization

by including, or permitting the inclusion of, a choice of law

provision.  We maintain that this is the wrong approach.  Free

software licenses should not contain choice of law clauses, for both

legal and pragmatic reasons.  Choice of law clauses are creatures of