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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> writes:

> On Saturday, Sep 13, 2003, at 03:47 US/Eastern, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> I can't understand why, if (and only if) you interpret this delivery
>> as "binary" and also deliver the free source code on a free medium, so
>> that everyone can create their own DRM medias as they like.
> At least for the GPL, I don't think thats allowed.
>> That delivering only on such a medium is not ok according to GPL, is
>> obvious. It's also obvious that such a medium is not nice.
> GPL 6 doesn't say that you may place restrictions on some copies, as
> long as your provide an unrestricted copy as well. Instead it says you
> may place no restrictions. 

You are being misleading.  It actually says in part:

    6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
  Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
  original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
  these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
  restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

So if I give somebody a DRM binary and an unencumbered copy of the
source and build scripts, I'm fine.

> I don't think you can enforce DRM on GPL software.

There are plenty of circumstances where this might be useful: say, a
player application and a set of keys.  Some not-very-useful keys are
in the source, and some very useful keys are on the DRM medium.
Alternately, many of the TCPA tools will make good use of this situation.


Brian T. Sniffen                                        bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: