Re: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Posted Sep 23, 2006 13:45 UTC (Sat) by mingo
In reply to: Re: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
That DRM is a tool is correct, but the GPLv3 doesn't go against DRM.
i used to buy this (relatively new) line of the FSF, but then i read the actual text of the GPLv3 draft, which in Section 1 says:
The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or
authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified
versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of
use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the
same range of circumstances.
this attaches keys to the source, fundamentally. And since we all agree that modified source must be given out, the keys have to be given out too. The GPLv3 draft does carve out a few exceptions in later sections, but the damage has already been done here in Section 1: by attaching keys to the source we implicitly and explicitly judge the tool of hiding keys to be immoral! (because by hiding it you are "not giving out the modified source code")
if this "we attach keys to the source" definition in Section 1 is removed then all the DRM problems are solved - no need for the later exceptions either. This portion of section 1 is the big problem.
(Sidenote: this new "we dont go against DRM" position of the FSF is quite inconsistent with earlier positions they took - which questions whether they truly consider this whole issue so fundamental that no compromises are possible)
to post comments)