Messages in this thread | | | From | Florian Weimer <> | Subject | Re: GPLv3 Position Statement | Date | Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:38:09 +0200 |
| |
* 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/
| |