Re: GPL v3 Draft
Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> email@example.com wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:15:09PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > > > No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological
> > > > > measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a
> > > > > to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at
> > > > > for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other
> > > > > software capable of accessing the same data.
> > > > It sounds like this means "if your GPL application accesses data, you
> > > > a GPL license to every other application that accesses the data".
> > >
> > > Not quite -- it says "you give general permission for other applications
> > > to be distributed under the GPL". Which means that when someone does
> > > reverse engineer your stuff, and puts it in a GPLed app, you can't then
> > > say "You don't have permission to do that because you're violationg <my
> > > patents|the DMCA>" -- because you've already given them the permission
> > > you claim they don't have.
> > I am not disagreeing with you here, but my main issue with this
> > paragraph in the license is that it can just not be true. GPG is an
> > effective way of encrypting communications, and having the license say
> > otherwise does not change that.
> OK, there's a subtle issue here which could be cleared up with a
> small change in the license.
> "Effective technological protection measure" is supposed to mean
> "Effective technological protection measure for preventing copying
> or distribution". This is what it means in the DMCA, which is what
> the clause is referring to. GPG is not in fact an effective way of
> doing that, since an encrypted copy is still a copy (and can be
> decrypted given some computing power).
That is not how the court ruled in MPAA v. 2600. 2600 was not
circumventing copy protection, they were circumventing the encryption.
If the DVD CCA had disallowed software implementations and used any of
the algorithms implemented in GPG, they would have had a much more
effective technological protection measure.