Posted by: lordcorusa
on January 30, 2006 04:33 AM
As I read it, the new clauses are trying to restrict the ability to use software to implement or enforce DRM. To me that's the fundamental philosophical change -- that v3 is going to restrict use instead of continuing to guarantee freedoms.
Your assertion is partially correct, and partially incorrect. This draft of the GPLv3 does not forbid use of software to encode or decode DRM. It does not forbid use! However, it does forbid legal enforcement of DRM.
This draft of GPLv3 still allows programmers to write software that encodes or decodes DRM-wrapped file formats. However, this draft of GPLv3 legally defines any such software as not "an effective technological protection measure". These words have a specific legal meaning. In the United States the DMCA (and abroad, similar laws) legally forbids a user from circumventing an effective technological protection measure; as such, if a piece of GPLv2 software implements a DRM-wrapper, it would be illegal under the DMCA to modify the software, even though the GPLv2 otherwise intends to grant you that right. With this draft of the GPLv3, by legally defining the software as not "an effective technological protection measure" the DMCA will never be invoked, and the user is free to exercise his freedom by modifying the software.
What is the difference between any version of the GPL, and the modified BSD license, or the MIT license? Some groups claim that the latter two licenses are more free than any version of the GPL. In one sense, they are correct. Each version of the GPL has put certain restrictions on redistribution, whereas the other two licenses put virtually no restrictions on redistribution.
RMS and the FSF have always stated that users should be free to do anything with the software, anything except restrict other users' freedom to do anything with the software. That was the whole point of the restrictions in any version of the GPL, including GPLv2.
When you look at it in this light, you realize that forbidding the legal enforcement of DRM is in fact consistent with the philosophical aims of the GPLv2, because legal enforcement of DRM is nothing more than a way of restricting a user's freedom to do whatever he wants with the software. However, this draft of GPLv3 makes this explicit, because DRM-protecting laws like the DMCA have become so dangerous to the exsistence of any Free Software. In other words, copyright law has fundamentally changed with the advent of DMCA-type laws, and therefore the GPL must adapt as well if it is going to continue being effective in its mission to ensure that all users remain free to do anything with their software.
So to summarize a long explanation, you can still write software which encodes or decodes DRM-wrapped files under this draft of the GPLv3, and you can still use such software to encode or decode such files. However, you cannot sue any of your users if they choose to circumvent such DRM-wrappers, because under this draft of the GPLv3, you agree that your software does not meet the legal standard of "an effective technological protection measure".
Issues over the abuses of the technology should be handled in the proper venue: the courts and legislative bodies of the countries affected. Not in a licensing document.
Many people are taken aback by the complexity of the GPL. However, they must realize that any software license is a statement of the rights a software developer wants his software's users to have; as such, the intent of the GPL has always been to protect users' four freedoms from any tactic that may infringe those freedoms. Unfortunately, copyright (and now also patent) law has become complex and now many attacks on the user's four freedoms exist. As such, the GPL must in turn become complex to defend against all of the known attacks.
Your statement seems to say that we should deal with the issue of copyright and patent law in court and the legislature. In the long term, I agree with you and I believe so does RMS and the FSF. However, most large corporations favor exclusionary copyright and patent law and the general public does not care about the issue, therefore the copyright and patent law situation is unlikely to improve in the near future. As such, the only way to protect the users' four freedoms in the short term is to use a powerful copyleft license. The GPLv2 was once that license, although many vectors are open to attack it now. This draft of the GPLv3 looks like it will close those loopholes.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Undoing DRM consistent with philosophy of GPLv2
Posted by: lordcorusa on January 30, 2006 04:33 AMYour assertion is partially correct, and partially incorrect. This draft of the GPLv3 does not forbid use of software to encode or decode DRM. It does not forbid use! However, it does forbid legal enforcement of DRM.
This draft of GPLv3 still allows programmers to write software that encodes or decodes DRM-wrapped file formats. However, this draft of GPLv3 legally defines any such software as not "an effective technological protection measure". These words have a specific legal meaning. In the United States the DMCA (and abroad, similar laws) legally forbids a user from circumventing an effective technological protection measure; as such, if a piece of GPLv2 software implements a DRM-wrapper, it would be illegal under the DMCA to modify the software, even though the GPLv2 otherwise intends to grant you that right. With this draft of the GPLv3, by legally defining the software as not "an effective technological protection measure" the DMCA will never be invoked, and the user is free to exercise his freedom by modifying the software.
What is the difference between any version of the GPL, and the modified BSD license, or the MIT license? Some groups claim that the latter two licenses are more free than any version of the GPL. In one sense, they are correct. Each version of the GPL has put certain restrictions on redistribution, whereas the other two licenses put virtually no restrictions on redistribution.
RMS and the FSF have always stated that users should be free to do anything with the software, anything except restrict other users' freedom to do anything with the software. That was the whole point of the restrictions in any version of the GPL, including GPLv2.
When you look at it in this light, you realize that forbidding the legal enforcement of DRM is in fact consistent with the philosophical aims of the GPLv2, because legal enforcement of DRM is nothing more than a way of restricting a user's freedom to do whatever he wants with the software. However, this draft of GPLv3 makes this explicit, because DRM-protecting laws like the DMCA have become so dangerous to the exsistence of any Free Software. In other words, copyright law has fundamentally changed with the advent of DMCA-type laws, and therefore the GPL must adapt as well if it is going to continue being effective in its mission to ensure that all users remain free to do anything with their software.
So to summarize a long explanation, you can still write software which encodes or decodes DRM-wrapped files under this draft of the GPLv3, and you can still use such software to encode or decode such files. However, you cannot sue any of your users if they choose to circumvent such DRM-wrappers, because under this draft of the GPLv3, you agree that your software does not meet the legal standard of "an effective technological protection measure".
Many people are taken aback by the complexity of the GPL. However, they must realize that any software license is a statement of the rights a software developer wants his software's users to have; as such, the intent of the GPL has always been to protect users' four freedoms from any tactic that may infringe those freedoms. Unfortunately, copyright (and now also patent) law has become complex and now many attacks on the user's four freedoms exist. As such, the GPL must in turn become complex to defend against all of the known attacks.
Your statement seems to say that we should deal with the issue of copyright and patent law in court and the legislature. In the long term, I agree with you and I believe so does RMS and the FSF. However, most large corporations favor exclusionary copyright and patent law and the general public does not care about the issue, therefore the copyright and patent law situation is unlikely to improve in the near future. As such, the only way to protect the users' four freedoms in the short term is to use a powerful copyleft license. The GPLv2 was once that license, although many vectors are open to attack it now. This draft of the GPLv3 looks like it will close those loopholes.
#