Slashdot

On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 10:32:45AM -0500, Timothy Brownawell via RT wrote:
> If someone were to buy both a "User Product" and a piece of software
> under GPLv3 from the same retailer at the same time (checkout once,
> credit card gets charged once, they all arrive in the same box, etc),
> how does this work with the installation information requirements?

Timothy,

I'm going to put forward an example of the kind of situation I think we're
talking about, to help make sure we're on the same page. If I
misunderstood something, please let me know.

Suppose I go to an online retailer and order two things: a cell phone (a
User Product), and a GNU/Linux distribution that includes GPLv3-covered
software. In this case, nobody has to provide Installation Information
telling me how to install the GPLv3-covered software on the cell phone. To
conclude that someone was required to provide such information, one would
have to read "with" considerably more broadly than we intended it. There
should be some intentional connection between the User Product and the
software, rather than a merely coincidental one. So, an example of how the
software could be conveyed "with... a User Product" is if the cell phone
came with a firmware upgrade CD-ROM in its box that incorporated
GPLv3-covered code.

> (Also, is this address archived online somewhere, or can I post online
> whatever response this might get?)

This address is not publicly archived. However, you may republish this
entire e-mail without any modifications or omissions.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

Please note that I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice.

Well, I guess it's nice to confirm they intended a sane definition, even if they didn't include that definition and it seems redundant with the "... or specifically for use in ..." part (so why didn't they just leave the "or with" out?). :-/