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.
