[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: the FSF's definition of Free Software and its value for Debian



On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 19:51, Jakob Bohm wrote:

> I don't know, but if there are not, and a lot of people start
> using such licenses, the big media companies are likely to get
> their supporters in government to enact an amendment stating
> that just because the copyright holders of *some* works
> protected by a technology authorize locksmithing, this does not
> allow ordinary citizens to create, distribute or possess tools
> which can also crack the works copyrighted by the big media
> companies.

If it ever does become the case that I or anyone else, as the copyright
holder of a work, can not legally grant permission to modify that work
through necessary technical means, then I suggest to you that my options
are very limited: a) move; b) stop writing and using OS software; c) be
proud of being a felon; d) get the law changed; or e) get the government
changed. [(e), of course, being a more severe form of (d)].

If the country is the obvious one, then I suppose Debian's immediate
options are to move or disband the project. I supposed that SPI would
insist on being legal, and that (d) or (e) would be too time consuming.
Anything else would be a violation of GPL 7.

> 
> Looking at it from another perspective, anti-copy-protection
> clauses in free software licenses are intended to deal with two
> unrelated issues:
> 
>    1. Someone might store a copy of the free software in a
> copy-protected format thereby subverting the virality of the
> license.  

First off, I assume you mean "distribute", not just store. I don't care
(and I doubt you do) what format I store software on my own computer.

Second, IMO, the GPL already covers this. See GPL 6's may not impose
further restrictions, and GPL 7.

Someone, by using a copy protection algorithm that can not be legally
circumvented, impose a restriction on my "exercise of the rights granted
herein." I'm pretty sure that would also violate GPL 7, which even gives
non royalty-free patent licenses as an example.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: