Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com> wrote:
> Walter Landry <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com> 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.
In that case, a better example would be if I put up an file encrypted
with your public key on a webserver. I am not giving anyone but you
the authority to access the contents.
> >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*.)
A legitimate privacy device may function very much like DRM. Consider
classified environments, where you really don't want people to copy
things around willy-nilly. Making it hard to copy information won't
eliminate leaks, but it will reduce them. I don't see why making a
system to handle classified documents should be disallowed by the GPL.