Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions

Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:34 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122)
In reply to: GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions by nim-nim
Parent article: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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)