@@ -2798,16 +2798,52 @@ 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?
% FIXME: installation information??
% FIXME: perhaps this additional information isn't needed, next 3 paras, but
% there might be something good here
Another major goal for GPLv3 has been to thwart technical measures such as
signature checks in hardware to prevent modification of GPLed software on a
device. Previous drafts attempted to accomplish this by defining
"Corresponding Source" to include any encryption or authorization keys
necessary to install new versions of the software. A number of members of
the community questioned the impact and utility of such a definition.
The third discussion draft uses a different strategy to accomplish the same
task. Section 6 requires that parties distributing object code provide
recipients with the source code through certain means. Now, when those
distributors pass on the source, they are also required to pass on any
information or data necessary to install modified software on the
particular device that included it. We believe that this will more
precisely accomplish our goals, and avoid potential problems with expanding
the definition of source code. The new strategy should be familiar to free
software developers: the GNU LGPL has long had similar requirements that
enable users to link proprietary programs to modified libraries.
In addition, the scope of these requirements has been narrowed. This draft
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. After some discussion with committees, we discovered
that the proposals in the second discussion draft would interfere with a
number of existing business models that don't seem to be dangerous. We
believe that this compromise will achieve the greatest success in
preventing tivoization.
%FIXME: This probably needs work to be brought into clarity with tutorial,
%next three paragarphs.
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.
@@ -3194,12 +3230,35 @@ GPL-covered code.
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: This probably needs editing
One major goal for GPLv3 is to provide developers with additional protection
from being sued for patent infringement. After much feedback and cooperation
from the committees, we are now proposing a patent license which closely
resembles those found in other free software licenses. This will be more
comfortable for everyone in the free software community to use, without
creating undue burdens for distributors.
We have also added new terms to stop distributors from colluding with third
parties to offer selective patent protection, as Microsoft and Novell have
recently done. The GPL is designed to ensure that all users receive the
same rights; arrangements that circumvent this make a mockery of free
software, and we must do everything in our power to stop them.
Our strategy has two parts. First, any license that protects some
recipients of GPLed software must be extended to all recipients of the
software. Second, we prohibit anyone who made such an agreement from
distributing software released under GPLv3. We are still considering
whether or not this ban should apply when a deal was made before these
terms were written, and we look forward to community input on this issue.
% 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
@@ -3278,12 +3337,27 @@ 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.
% FIXME: should we mention Microsoft-Novell at all?
We attack the Microsoft-Novell deal from two angles. First, in the sixth
paragraph of section 11, the draft says that if you arrange to provide patent
protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that
protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software,
no matter how they get it. This means that the patent protection Microsoft
has extended to Novell's customers would be extended to everyone who uses any
software Novell distributes under GPLv3.
Second, in the seventh paragraph, the draft says that you are prohibited from
distributing software under GPLv3 if you make an agreement like the
Microsoft-Novell deal in the future. This will prevent other distributors
from trying to make other deals like it.
\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