Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

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.