Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode:
>>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. Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a
>>technological measure which effectively controls access to any work."
> I think this is overly broad. What about the following?
> "You must not add any functionality to programs licensed under this
> License which may not be removed, by you or any third party, according
> to applicable law. Such functionality includes, but is not limited
> to, technological measures which effectively control access to any
> work, provided that removal of the measure would be prohibited by
> applicable law."
Good idea. We need to do some more wording work, of course....
> (It would make sense to include language which requires the
> possibility of legal redistribution without the features, but I'm too
> tired to rephrase it again.)
I still see problems. :-/ This could be interpreted to prohibit adding
access control features, rather than to require that they be removable.
> The rationale is that we don't care if a piece of code enforces a
> restriction if we can legally patch it away. This is the difference
> between mandatory DRM and an ACL check in a file system.