Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
GPLv3: a first lookGPLv3: a first lookPosted Jan 27, 2006 8:17 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524)Parent article: GPLv3: a first look No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: This does indeed sound quite weak. Thing is, unilaterally declaring what something is, or is not, doesn't in any way (generally) change what the thing is. If I write in the license for a program I make: "This is not a computer program", this changes nothing whatsoever, if indeed the thing is ruled by a court to infact *be* a computer program. If the complainer is the one licensing the program, then Estoppel could prevent them from at the same time claim (in the license) that the program is not a technological protection measuer, and at the same time claim (in the complaint) that the program *is* a technological protection measure. But this wouldn't help if the complainer is someone else than the one licensing the program. If X distributed a program under GPLv3 that is used to restrict access to content, and Y distributes content protected by the mechanism implemented in the program, then there's nothing stopping Y from using the DMCA against people who break the DRM and access the content. X migth be prevented, because they're saying in the license that the thing they're distributing is no technological protection measure. But Y never said any such thing, so they are free to claim that it is.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||