diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index 8374feae1647bf87fc56cd0bf8db7073bc64583f..7b0453c1ff67b06a11ba3697807c4629a2fcf2ee 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -2801,10 +2801,46 @@ 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, @@ -3197,6 +3233,29 @@ 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. @@ -3281,6 +3340,21 @@ 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.