Re: Well-drafted anti-DRM clause [was: Re: GFDL redux, all over again, yet another time]
In message <[🔎] email@example.com>, Francesco
Poli <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes
On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:25:00 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
You may not impose any terms or any technological measures on the
Work, the Derivative Work or the Work incorporated in a Collective
Work that alter or restrict the terms of this Licence or any rights
granted under it or have the effect or intent of restricting the
ability of any person to exercise those rights;
Does this allow distribution on DRM-encumbered media as long as an
unencumbered copy is distributed alongside?
As I understand it, it REQUIRES it. (Or requires the provision of an
alternative access mechanism that bypasses the DRM, but I'm not sure
that's a valid interpretation of the above clause.)
If the DRM prevents Free access to the work, then it's a breach of the
licence on the work.
IIRC, this was told many times to be an important right...
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999