GPL v3 possible issues.

["John Watson" <jgw2001uk@googlemail.com>]

Hi fowks.

 

 

I have been reading up regarding the new GPL version 3 and how it will restrict the usage of DRM, however during the research I do get conflicting stories regarding the objectives of this license. 

 

One aim is to prevent companies such as Sony to use DRM type technology, to sell its contents to users, or to stop companies selling GPL based code when  restricting its  usage via  DRM.

 

For the last part there is no examples of any company that  is using DRM to restrict GPL based code being used, and even if there was restrictions being placed on the source code, it is still available freely on request without any DRM restrictions.

 

On controlling music, I personally see no issues with this. With out DRM,  music or other  media type content could not be legally made available over the Internet. 

 

I took part in the BBC Imp trial which uses DRM to restrict copying and to prevent contents to be made available in other parts of the world. Very much enjoyed the experience, able to download any type of content that was broadcast on TV over the past two weeks, however I would have been great this service was also made available on the Linux platform however with this new GPL V 3 may make this impossible. It may also prevent the BBC using or contributing to  open source project at all. Even on a 3g phone  from three( three.co.uk) DRM is being used to restrict media content from copying.

 

I dont see this being an issue with the user as the user still has

the choice of purchasing a CD or even downloading non-DRM free-music from the Internet or preventing a music producer from releasing music on a non-DRM format.

 

However I see the GPL3 license as restricting the choice of the developer and also restricting the choice of the user. I think the open source community should be educating the user about freedom and not restricting it.

 

GPL licence is very sucessfull for two reasons, its simple and it works. It should not be changed. (However I do agree we need to include a intelligent property clause).

 

Thanks.

 

John Watson.