GPLv3 anti-DRM clause
GPLv3 anti-DRM clause
Posted Oct 3, 2008 14:46 UTC (Fri) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435)In reply to: GPLv3 anti-DRM clause by cortana
Parent article: Plugging into GCC
In that case, it sounds more like a declaration by the copyright holders (who chose to use that license) that they do not intend any DRM-like restrictions within the code to be considered illegal to circumvent... Of course, the intent is to restrict future third-parties who modify the code to ADD such restrictions, but the point is the same, because those third-parties, by choosing to modify and distribute a GPLv3 work, chose to accept the terms of that license, and so are bound by its restrictions...
In the case being discussed, the whole point was that a work may not actually BE a derived work, and therefore wouldn't come under the terms of the GPL in the first place, so no amount of additional restrictions added to the license would ever accomplish anything...
Posted Oct 3, 2008 18:06 UTC (Fri)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (10 responses)
Yes! Absolutely.
'Derived Work' is a very specific legal term that is codified in the USA's copyright law. It's not up to a copyright holder, or licensee, to define the scope of 'derived work'. The definition of 'derived work' is set out in copyright law and in the judgements handed down by the nation's court system.
So if the GPLvX tries to say that 'linking' a program to GPL'd licensed code causes the program that links to be 'derived work' and a judge disagrees with that interpretation of the copyright law.. then guess what? You can legally link against a GPL program and there isn't anything that the copyright holders, lawyers, programmers, or anybody else can do about it. If it's beyond the scope of copyright then it's something that you simply can't write a license to prevent.
Posted Oct 3, 2008 20:29 UTC (Fri)
by ikm (guest, #493)
[Link] (8 responses)
Could you use an EULA instead to combat this? :)
Posted Oct 3, 2008 21:05 UTC (Fri)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (7 responses)
But think about what your asking.. Your asking to make a license that is _more_ restrictive then what is possible under copyright law. Is that approach really something you want to do when making 'Free' software?
----------------------------
The GCC folks probably really really need to reevaluate their entire attitude towards preventing proprietary plugins and back-ends/front-ends.
What is happening, it seems to me, that they are going to such lengths to fight a phantom menace that they are hurting real progress. That in a effort to combat a proprietary threat that, so far, has not existed, that they are doing REAL and immediate damage to the Free software folks that depend on their software and want to extend it to improve the state of the art.
Why not do everything you can to facilitate and create the best, most flexible, and most beneficial compiler you can and IF proprietary software becomes a problem THEN do something to try to deal with?
I am not saying that they should abandon all hope and embrace proprietary extensions.. I am saying that if people can prove a real benefit to extending the GCC framework in a way that would benefit Free software then they should do it.
Posted Oct 3, 2008 22:17 UTC (Fri)
by ikm (guest, #493)
[Link]
No in fact, I think that 'trust your users more' is a kind of better approach. But the FSF seems to know better and in doing so they sometimes start to feel like some kind of Free Software's Microsoft way(tm)(r).
Posted Oct 4, 2008 7:25 UTC (Sat)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (5 responses)
Aha. So NOW we are at stage where we are ignoring history if it does not suit us, right? Menace was clearly not phantom and threat was quite real - and you can read about this story here. These two sentences pretty much invalidate all your affectations: Why do we have a free C++ compiler? Only because the GNU GPL said it had to be free. That's pretty big accomplishment of all these "draconian restrictions" if you ask me. Of course that was then and we are talking about now, but... those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it so we can not ignore the past and do everything you can to facilitate and create the best, most flexible, and most beneficial compiler you can and IF proprietary software becomes a problem THEN do something to try to deal with. Because the proprietary software WAS and IS the threat. Quite real and tangible. Yes, some companies like to play nice with free software (IBM, Google, etc)... as long as free software benefits them. Once that's not the case... all bets are off. Now, does it mean GCC should not implement plugins system? Of course not: it's usable for free software too. But do that and pretend that "proprietary threat" does not exist... it's just folly.
Posted Oct 4, 2008 8:41 UTC (Sat)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (4 responses)
Look; There is a reason why people pored work into LLVM instead of improving GCC.
If you want people to use a GPL license and create open source software, making it impossible to do the work they need to get done is a shitty way of accomplishing that goal.
Posted Oct 4, 2008 10:16 UTC (Sat)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (3 responses)
Argh. WHY the license worked then? Apple and MCC specifically asked "can we distribute our front-ends as proprietary plugin to GCC" and RMS said "no" - after that GCC got C++ and ObjectiveC. And this worked because there were no simple way to write proprietary plugin and claim it's "independent work" (you were and still are pretty much forced to use large chunks of GCC code to interact with backend).
Posted Oct 4, 2008 11:37 UTC (Sat)
by Frej (guest, #4165)
[Link] (1 responses)
That's true, there is no life time guarantee that someday you will be on your own using llvm when rest went closed. But in reality llvm+clang looks like a great piece of software (just avoiding the platform buzzword...) that can support existing C and C++ code...For now it just appears to be better software. Integrating clang with stuff like anjuta or emacs would finally bring actual code editors instead of text editors. ... ok just rambling now; sorry ;)
Posted Oct 19, 2008 1:55 UTC (Sun)
by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
[Link]
'For now' it doesn't support c++.
Posted Feb 5, 2009 14:22 UTC (Thu)
by trasz (guest, #45786)
[Link]
It didn't. Marketing worked.
Posted Oct 5, 2008 6:07 UTC (Sun)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link]
'Derived Work' is a very specific legal term that is codified in the USA's copyright
law.
I'll admit that this is a minor faux pas, and feel bad about seeming to pick on you
specifically, but
I've noticed that computerists perpetuate any number of characteristic errors about law through
merely quoting each other and not bothering to learn about actual law. In this case, I'm referring
to
your phrase 'derived work'. The actual phrase used in (at minimum) US and Canadian copyright
law,
which can be found in section 101 of United State Code title 17 (the Copyright Act) is 'derivative
work'.
Rick Moen
GPLv3 anti-DRM clause
GPLv3 anti-DRM clause
GPLv3 anti-DRM clause
GPLv3 anti-DRM clause
Phantom menace? Threat that, so far, has not existed? Sorry - you are DEAD wrong.
Phantom menace? Threat that, so far, has not existed? Sorry - you are DEAD wrong.
Have you actually READ the article?
The license worked then... so it won't work now?
Look; There is a reason why people pored work into LLVM instead of improving GCC.
Yes and there are reason why Unix went nowhere while Linux took it's place. BSD went from being "something far beyond Linux" to "roughly equal, sometimes better, but often much worse". Yes, Apache/BSD licenses attract more developers and they do more work which is then wasted when companies go out of business. NetBSD tale should teach us something. The question today is: is GPLv3 (which makes it impossible for proprietary vendors to ship GCC with proprietary extensions - they can only ship extensions without appropriate copy of GCC) enough to prevent balcanization of GCC or not?If you want people to use a GPL license and create open source software, making it impossible to do the work they need to get done is a shitty way of accomplishing that goal.
The question is, of course, not so simple. It's more like: do people want to create free software or do they want to create proprietary software, how many of the second camp can be pressured to first camp and how many of guys from first camp will go away in frustration if plugins will not be implemented? Answers to these questions are not easily obtainable - we can only guess...Have you actually READ the article?
Have you actually READ the article?
Have you actually READ the article?
"drag" wrote:
GPLv3 anti-DRM clause
rick@linuxmafia.com