| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The incumbentThe incumbentPosted Feb 14, 2006 19:53 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)In reply to: The incumbent by man_ls Parent article: FSF: GPLv3 Update #2
Trivial counterexample, w/r/t to modifying the kernel and reloading the modified version (you can substitute any GPLv3ed component for the kernel in the example). If the user space software on the device checksums the kernel before it starts to run, then your change to the kernel will change that checksum and keep the user-level software from running. Since the change in the checksum is the result of your changes (that is, the user-level software runs as it did before except "as altered by your modifications"), the license would appear to be satisfied.
(Log in to post comments)
Not so trivial Posted Feb 14, 2006 20:56 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] In your example I did not modify the user-level software. So how come it does not run as it did? If I do modify it and stop it from working it would be ok, of course; but here the software decided it didn't like my changes and disable the device. Clearly not allowed.Yes, you can try to weasel your way out of the license; but it is not so easy. The intentions of the licensor and of the designers of the license are clear; Eben Moglen summed it up by saying "plays all the same movies". User-space or kernel-space, kernel or driver, hardware or software, it cannot decide to stop functioning; the "principal context of use" should work as it did before. So you can say that the wording of the GPLv3 could be clearer in regards to DRM, amd maybe it's necessary. But if the licensor comes and explains her intentions, and they are reasonable and have been made clear on public record for some time, the licensee is busted.
Not so trivial Posted Feb 15, 2006 0:12 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Well, there are three issues, at least as to the letter of the license.
The first is, as noted, that in the example it is, in fact, your change that results in the other software not working. Note that this is less than completely clear, because it IS possible (even easy) to change the GPLv3ed software in ways that keep the add-on software from working (because you change semantics of a service or break something that the add-on (non-GPL) software depends on.
The second is that it's not clear that the scope of "working as before" includes, or can include, more than the GPLv3ed software.
And, the third is as noted in a comment below, that the meaning of "you" is ambiguous - it isn't clear whether it refers to the licensed distributor or to the recipient of the distribution.
I thought their intention was clear, despite the ambiguities, until I read one of the comments on the GPLv3 draft site. Now I'm less sure.
Not so trivial Posted Feb 15, 2006 6:55 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I thought their intention was clear, despite the ambiguities, until I read one of the comments on the GPLv3 draft site.Which comment, if you'd be so kind? I think intention is the crucial part; the wording can be solved in time for the definitive version.
Not so trivial Posted Feb 15, 2006 16:00 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] The post below, by the user "idra". I took this person to be an FSF person, because he/she had apparently had the power to rearrange all the accumulated comments on that paragraph as children of a single parent comment. The note from idra said:
I too asked myself about this.
I propose to change the wording of the paragraph to something like:
Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or
That language seems to indicate that the "you" means the distributor, not the recipient.
|
|
||||||||||||