GPL3 is not anti-DRM as such [LWN.net]

GPL3 is not anti-DRM as such

Posted Dec 21, 2006 14:07 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: GPL3 is not anti-DRM as such by epa
Parent article: A 2006 retrospective

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...

(Log in to post comments)

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 the
program, 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.