Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:42, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>>> If you're seriously interested in discussing how to do
>>>> copylefted TPM and DRM properly, I strongly suggest reading
>>>> my position statement from committee D on the first
>>>> discussion draft of the GPL
>>> URL please?
> I don't see anything in that position statement that would indicate
> a flaw in CC's 3.0 draft wording. Is there something specific that
> I missed?
That position statement is basically an introduction to a set of the
problems of dealing properly with TPM/DRM; it was written before CC
3.0 was published, but the issues haven't changed. [The other parts
are in the meeting notes with Seth Schoen.]
More precisely, it addresses the issues created by parallel distribution.
GPLv3 can't avoid this because it must deal with binary/source
distribution (i.e. there is already a parallel distribution system going
on, so it must be managed -- adding anti-TPM provisions to the mix gums
things up, but it's not avoidable in that case).
CCPL3 sidesteps it entirely, using an elegant solution which causes all
these issues to be dealt with implicitly. CC can get away with this
elegant solution, precisely because, being designed for content, not
code, it doesn't have to deal with any parallel distribution provisions.
So, I think it actually serves as a supporting argument for accepting
the CCPL3 as-is.
Terry Hancock (hancock@AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com