| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
GPL3 is not anti-DRM as such
GPL3 is not anti-DRM as such
Posted Dec 21, 2006 13:02 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769)Parent article: A 2006 retrospective
It's a mistake to characterize the proposed GPL3 as moving away from 'simple free software' and starting to attack DRM or anything else. The purpose of the GPL has always been what it says, 'to ensure the software is free for all its users'. If you have a Tivo or other device and it's locked down so you cannot change the software running on it, then the software is not free software for you. The GPL3 aims to make sure of what the GPL2 and earlier wanted all along: that every user who runs the software has the freedom to use, share and change it.
We may dislike DRM but it's just a special case of the more general problem of computers doing what the manufacturer or other special interest wants, rather than what their owners want. There is nothing in the GPL3 text specific to DRM. GPL'd software to restrict copying of CDs (for example) is quite possible, all you must do is allow the user the same freedom to change the software that the manufacturer has.
(Log in to post comments)
GPL3 is not anti-DRM as such
Posted Dec 21, 2006 14:07 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
The GPL3 aims to make sure of what the GPL2 and earlier wanted all along: that every user who runs the software has the freedom to use, share and change it.
Actually GPLv2 quite explicitly says that "activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope". So if you have the software but can not use it... well - to bad, it's "outside its scope". For RMS it may be "obvious" that situation when you have the software but can not use changed version of it is nonsense, but for a lot of people it's not obvious at all - thus all GPLv3 hoopla...
GPL3 is not anti-DRM as such
Posted Dec 21, 2006 14:27 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
You are quite right. The GPLv2 is fairly simple and only tries to control the copying and redistribution of the work. But my point is that the aim of the licence has not changed, only the means of achieving that aim. The spirit and intent of the GPLv2 is clear:
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have."
This would seem to mean that if Tivo has the right to go and change the software running on your PVR, then you the recipient should also have that right. Of course it's not legally binding, just a statement of what the licence is meant to achieve. So my interpretation of that clause (which goes on to talk about source code) is not that important.
True, it's not explicitly stated that users must be able to not only 'change' the software, but change it and actually run the new version. This is an omission that v3 aims to fix.
GPL3 is not anti-DRM as such
Posted Dec 21, 2006 17:46 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link]
But it is arguable that what the GPLv2 allows you to modify is theprogram, not the source code - indeed, it does specify that source should
be supplied in the most convenient form, does it not? In which case, it's
not a very big stretch to argue that modification to the source code is
only the means by which modifications to the running software may be
effected, not an end in its own right.
If the effect of the GPLv3 is to make explicit that implicit argument,
then I struggle to see why it's even controversial. Not to mention that a
DRM system doesn't have to lock out user-compiled binaries; all that's
needed is a per-machine key, and a way of accessing that at compile time.
If the GPLv3 does not explicitly prohibit such a scheme, then it cannot
possibly be said to be anti-DRM. To make that claim would be to confuse
concept with implementation.