Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > Hi Glenn! > You wrote: >>>3. Digital Restrictions Management. >>> >>>As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors >>>technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share >>>copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of >>>this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. >>>Regardless of any >>>other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute >>>covered works that illegally invade users' privacy >> >>This is a butterknife being boxed with a "you may not sharpen this knife and >>stab people with it" notice: that's already illegal, and it just serves to >>complicate the license. > > I don't agree. The _use_ of a program can be illegal in some > jurisdiction, while the program itself and its distribution need not be > illegal. > Also, does this clause apply if I use GPLv3 code to write a spyware > program that is illegal in (e.g.) the US, but not in my home country? > > IMO, this is a clear violation of DFSG 6. If we allow terrorists to use > our code, and allow it to be used in biological weapons research, > clearly also black hat hackers must be allowed to use it to produce > spyware. It seems particularly hypocritical in light of <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html>: > The restrictions in the HESSLA prohibit specific activities that are > inexcusable: violations of human rights, and introduction of features > that spy on the user. People might ask why we do not declare an > exception for these particular restrictions--why do we stick to the > general policy of rejecting all restrictions on use and on the > functionality of modified versions? > > If we were ever going to make an exception to our principles of free > software, here would be the place to do it. But it would be a mistake > to do so: it would weaken our general stand, and would achieve > nothing. Trying to stop those particular activities with a software > license is either unnecessary or ineffective. > > In regard to modified versions, the HESSLA's restrictions are > unnecessary. The GNU GPL is sufficient protection against > privacy-violating features, because it ensures that someone can get > the source code, find the spyware feature, and publish an improved > version of the software which does not have the feature. Users can > then switch to that version if they don't want their personal > information to be reported. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature