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 these 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 to thwart

technical measures such as signature checks in hardware to prevent

modification of GPL'd 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

\subsubsection{User Products}

\label{user-product}

The scope of these requirements is 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

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 \textit{preference}.  It is not clear that the 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'' adapted 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 USA 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 to 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

CFR~\S\ 700.1(a); \textit{McFadden v.~Dryvit Systems, Inc.}, 54

UCC~Rep.~Serv.2d 934 (D.~Ore.~2004).}  Moreover, for a given product,

``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

\item Creating aggregates of libraries that are not derivative works of

  each other, and distributing them as a unit (in LGPLv2.1~\S7)

\end{itemize}

Due to time constraints, we cannot cover these additional terms in detail,

but they are mostly straightforward. The key to understanding LGPLv2.1 is

understanding the difference between a ``work based on the library'' and a

``work that uses the library.''  Once that distinction is clear, the

remainder of LGPLv2.1 is close enough to GPL that the concepts discussed in

our more extensive GPL unit can be directly applied.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}

Since GPL'd software is now extremely prevalent through the industry, it

is useful to have some basic knowledge about using GPL'd software in

business and how to build business models around GPL'd software.

\section{Using GPL'd Software In-House}

As discussed in Sections~\ref{GPLv2s0} and~\ref{GPLv2s5} of this tutorial,

the GPL only governs the activities of copying, modifying and

distributing software programs that are not governed by the license.

Thus, in FSF's view, simply installing the software on a machine and

using it is not controlled or limited in any way by the GPL\@. Using Free

Software in general requires substantially fewer agreements and less

license compliance activity than any known proprietary software.

Even if a company engages heavily in copying the software throughout the

enterprise, such copying is not only permitted by GPLv2~\S\S1 and 3, but it is

encouraged!  If the company simply deploys unmodified (or even modified)

Free Software throughout the organization for its employees to use, the

obligations under the license are very minimal. Using Free Software has a

substantially lower cost of ownership --- both in licensing fees and in

licensing checking and handling -- than the proprietary software

equivalents.

\section{Business Models}

\label{Business Models}

Using Free Software in house is certainly helpful, but a thriving

market for Free Software-oriented business models also exists. There is the

traditional model of selling copies of Free Software distributions.

Many companies make substantial revenue

from this model. Some choose this model because they have

For example, charging a ``convenience fee'' for Free Software,

when set at a reasonable price (around \$60 or so), can produce some

profit. Even though Red Hat's system is fully downloadable on their

Web site, people still go to local computer stores and buy copies of their

box set, which is simply a printed version of the manual (available under

a Free license as well) and the Free Software system it documents.

\medskip

However, custom support, service, and software improvement contracts

are the most widely used models for GPL'd software. The GPL is

central to their success, because it ensures that the code base

remains common, and that large and small companies are on equal

footing for access to the technology. Consider, for example, the GNU

Compiler Collection (GCC). Cygnus Solutions, a company started in the

early 1990s, was able to grow steadily simply by providing services

for GCC --- mostly consisting of new ports of GCC to different or new,

embedded targets. Eventually, Cygnus was so successful that

it was purchased by Red Hat where it remains a profitable division.

However, there are very small companies that compete in

this space. Because the code-base is protected by the GPL, it creates and

demands industry trust. Companies can cooperate on the software and

improve it for everyone. Meanwhile, companies who rely on GCC for their

work are happy to pay for improvements, and for ports to new target

platforms. Nearly all the changes fold back into the standard

versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.

\medskip

\label{Proprietary Relicensing}

A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is

proprietary relicensing of a GPL'd code base. This is only an option for

software in which a particular entity is the sole copyright holder. As

discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is permitted under

copyright law to license a software system under her copyright as many

different ways as she likes to as many different parties as she wishes.

Some companies use this to their

financial advantage with regard to a GPL'd code base. The standard

version is available from the company under the terms of the GPL\@.

However, parties can purchase separate proprietary software licensing for

a fee.

This business model is at best problematic and at worst predatory because it means that the GPL'd code

base must be developed in a somewhat monolithic way, because volunteer