Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
Walter Landry <email@example.com> wrote:
>Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
>> "No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work,
>> shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in
>> order to gain access to that work.
>This is too broad. If I have a machine on the internet which is
>secured using GPL'd programs, I certainly do not give anyone and
>everyone the legal authority to see what is on the machine.
That's using your authority as the *machine owner*, though. Not your
authority as a *copyright holder*. That's precisely the distinction I'm
trying to make here, though I clearly haven't succeeded.
>That is the basic problem with these anti-DRM clauses: differentiating
>between DRM and legitimate privacy controls is basically impossible.
I think it is possible. It requires a sharp focus on the *legal* issues,
since the technology is not different, but the legal basis is. A legitimate
privacy control may control access to many things -- but it does *not* exert
control over works you have published (since they're, well, *public*.)
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
This space intentionally left blank.