Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> There seems to be some rift between the law and reality, though. If the
> law is taken literally, it's a no-op: it forbids writing software that
> can't be written (if you write software for an effective protection
> scheme, then, well, it's not effective). If the law is being enforced
> anyway (which it is, of course), then it's being interpreted to mean
> something a little different--where "effective" means something other
> than what it does in English. In that case, anti-DRM clauses, and
> evaluations of their potential effectiveness, need to be done while
> under the influence of the courts' private version of the language.
What about a clause which says 'designed to be' rather than
'effective'? Because GnuPG is an effective TPM, but it is designed as
a personal privacy program rather than a copyright enforcement
program.
andrew
--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - ajdlinux@jabber.org.au
-------------------------------
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Reply to: