![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* James Bottomley: > Further, the FSF's attempts at drafting and re-drafting these > provisions have shown them to be a nasty minefield which keeps ensnaring > innocent and beneficial uses of encryption and DRM technologies so, on such > demonstrated pragmatic ground, these clauses are likewise dangerous and > difficult to get right and should have no place in a well drafted update to > GPLv2. There is a very simple litmus test for DRM code: code that cannot be altered or removed, according to applicable law or other agreements. The GPLv3 could forbid the addition of such code to a covered code base, I suppose. However, this runs contrary to the DRM-like optional clauses in the GPLv3 (mandatory access through sources over a communication channel, certain forms of copyright notices). I think several of these optional clauses are bad. Even the copyright notices can be annoying (although it's already in GPLv2). For instance, if I run emacs somefile.c from the command line, somefile.c doesn't show up on in the editor, but the copyright notice. Of course, you can put (defun display-splash-screen () (interactive)) in a startup file, but if you do this as a distributor, it might be a GPLv2 violation. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2006-09-23 09:41 [W:1.618 / U:0.060 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||