Standing ovations to Eben! :-) <quote>
User Products In our earlier drafts, the requirement to provide encryption keys applied to all acts of conveying object code, as this requirement was part of the general definition of Corresponding Source. Section 6 of Draft 3 now limits the applicability of the technical restrictions provisions to object code conveyed in, with, or specifically for use in a defined class of User Products. In our discussions with companies and governments that use specialized or enterprise-level computer facilities, we found that sometimes these organizations actually 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 preference. It is not clear that we need to interfere, and 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, and we expect that to remain true in the near future. 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 if limited to User Products, as defined in Draft 3, the provision still does the job that needs to be done. Therefore we have decided to limit the technical restrictions provisions to User Products in this draft. The core of the User Product definition is a subdefinition of consumer product taken verbatim from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal consumer protection law in the United States: any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes. The United States has had three decades of experience of liberal judicial and administrative interpretation of this definition in a manner favorable to consumer rights. We mean for this body of interpretation to guide interpretation of the consumer product subdefinition in section 6, which will provide a degree of legal certainty advantageous to device manufacturers and downstream licensees alike. Our incorporation of such legal interpretation is in no way intended to work a general choice of United States law for GPLv3 as a whole. The paragraph in section 6 defining User Product and consumer product contains an explicit statement to this effect, bracketed for discussion. We will decide whether to retain this statement in the license text after gathering comment on it. 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. 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 purposes. Even a small amount of normal personal use is enough to cause an entire product line to be treated as a consumer product under Magnuson-Moss. We do not rely solely on the definition of consumer product, however, because in the area of components of dwellings we consider the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss underinclusive. Depending on how such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may not be considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products. Therefore, we define User Products as a superset of consumer products that also includes anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. Although the User Products rule of Draft 3 reflects a special concern for individual purchasers of devices, we wrote the rule to cover a category of products, rather than categorizing users. Discrimination against organizational users has no place in a free software license. Moreover, a rule that applied to individual use, rather than to use of products normally used by individuals, would have too narrow an effect. Because of its incorporation of the liberal Magnuson-Moss interpretation of consumer product, the User Products rule benefits not only individual purchasers of User Products but also all organizational purchasers of those same kinds of products, regardless of their intended use of the products. We considered including medical devices for implantation in the human body in the User Product definition. We decided against this, however, because there may be legitimate health and safety regulations concerning inexpert and reckless modifications of medical devices. In any case, it will probably be necessary to convince medical device regulators to allow usermodifiable implantable medical devices. We plan to begin a campaign to address this issue. </quote> ROFL. regards, alexander. -- "FORM 990, PART II, LINE 25 - OFFICER COMPENSATION SCHEDULE =========================================================== PROGRAM MANAGMENT OFFICER NAME AND TYPE OF COMPENSATION SERVICES AND GENERAL EBEN MOGLEN COMPENSATION: 116,875. 38,959." -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss