GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions [LWN.net]

GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions

Posted Sep 26, 2006 15:16 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
In reply to: GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions by mingo
Parent article: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF

This is the only point where I agree with the current criticism.

The great value of the GPL v2 is the simple way it's expressed, the fact there is only one of it, and a project does not need a dedicated lawyer to handle it. So either the so-called optional conditions are reasonable, simple and useful enough to be folded in the main license, or they should just be dumped. Being compatibe with every OSI license under the Sun via plugins is not simplifying the current mess, it's keeping it under a GPL label.

For the same reasons I support the language clarifications of the GPL v3. The US asumptions of the current license may be transparent to US developpers but they're a real cost to projects in other countries.

Likewise I support adopting common patent and DRM clauses. If the GPL continues to ignore other areas of IP law, the GPL will lose any practical value, as it's simplicity and unicity will be consumed by the specific patent and DRM agreements used in parallel.

Now finding a good simple and clear patent/DRM wording may be hard. But if the FSF with all the FLOSS community input can not find it, do you really expect your average corp lawyer to do better ?

No generic patent/DRM clause means the return of specific obfuscated arbitrary lawyerspeak. If you think the optional GPLv3 clauses are painful, you havent seen anything about what patent agreements of DRMs will require

(Log in to post comments)

GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions

Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:34 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link]

Likewise I support adopting common patent and DRM clauses.

The software patent changes i do support - but DRM is not really a "new area of IP", it is something that has existed for a long time and which roots in plain copyright. (and i have mentioned many reasons against trying to over-regulate in this area in the other threads so i wont repeat them here.)

Software patents are embodied in source code and are mostly orthogonal to classic copyright, so an extension of the Quid Pro Quo (from which the four freedoms derive) covering source code to software patents is only fair.

criminalization of un-DRM-ing....

Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:25 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

is a DMCA (2000? 1999?) thing. You must remember that PSP/tivo hacking is
actually a criminal offense in some countries. And no, that was NOT the
case before the DMCA.

criminalization of un-DRM-ing....

Posted Sep 27, 2006 10:00 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

Making GPLed software use incompatible with maximalist interpretations of the OMI treaty (father of DMCA and EUCD) is actually a feature, as media companies worldwide are trying very hard to convince legislators their clauses will be a boon for the media sector without harming everyone else.

It's much easier to convince a judge/MP the wordings pushed by the Universals of the word are harmful/dangerous/unreasonable if you can confront them to actual existing binding legal documents such as a license.

If you're only backed by general philosophy/economic considerations OTOH you'll lose to their general feeling, which is "hackers" are bad "protecting IP" is nice, and hobbyists will adapt

DRM is not new, but the GPLv3 is over-regulating. WTF?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:33 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

> DRM is not really a "new area of IP", it is something that
> has existed for a long time and which roots in plain copyright.

Copy-protection mechanisms themselves have indeed existed for a long
time, but they did not come to Free Software until the Tivo, long after
the GPLv2 was introduced. In that sense, DRM is new.

And far more significantly than that, the DMCA is new. Copy-protection
and tamper-prevention are one thing; laws prohibiting workarounds in the
absence of any actual violation of "plain copyright" are another.

> (i have mentioned many reasons against trying to over-regulate...)

The GPLv3 is not "trying to over-regulate". It is a mild attempt at a
workaround for legislative over-regulation in the form of the DMCA and
the equivalent laws imposed by governments around the world who are
tripping over themselves to sell their countries' wealth and freedom to
private interests.

Dear Ingo and fellow kernel-developers,

A GPLv3 operating system kernel would be a great boon to freedom. Please
consider providing one.

Regards,

Jonathan Maddox (xoddam)