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

Re: Well-drafted anti-DRM clause [was: Re: GFDL redux, all over again, yet another time]

On 6/7/05, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> Yes.  If distributed alongside an unencumbered copy, the DRM does *not*
> alter or restrict the terms of the License, does *not* alter or restrict
> the rights granted under the License, and does *not* have the effect or
> intent of restricting the ability of any person to exercise those rights.

In other words, the DRM copy is essentially object code, and the
DRM-free copy is source code.  Explicit anti-DRM clauses are silly
political posturing and there is no reason not to simply use the GPL
for documents as well as programs if you are trying to oblige
licensees to continue providing source code access.  (Especially if
you believe, as I do, that a competent construction of the GPL under
applicable law doesn't permit its terms to encumber other works
related, not by copying substantial copyrightable expression, but by
use across a published, arm's length functional interface.)

- Michael

Reply to: