Re: Anti-TPM clauses
Thanks for all the feedback!
The majority of the discussion seems to have shifted to CC-BY-SA 3.0,
even though my initial question was about GPL v3. Let me first summarize
the comments on the creative commons discussion.
Kudos to Olive for making the most useful distinction in this
discussion: it is not about whether or not CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are
"free", but whether or not CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are free according to the
DFSG. Are they *DFSG-free* or not? So yes, it *is* a GR-vote who decides
here. Because the DFSG are only changed or clarified by such a vote.
FYI, My personal opinion is that CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are clearly created
with the intention of keeping a work available for other to build upon
it, and are thus "free" or "Freek-free", since it is my, Freek's,
definition of free. (Hmm, that name a nice ring to it ;-) .). Clearly,
"Freek-free" and "Francesco-free" are not equal. Not surprising: there
is always a trade-off in freeness. We probably all agree that allowing
someone to take existing work, claim it as his/her own, and exploit it
is actually a freedom for that person. However, it is a freedom that we
like to limit, to allow others to experience similar freedoms. Freedom
is a trade-off, and so there are multiple definitions.
Anyway, it is my opinion that the DFSG should be clarified, and allow CC
licensed work in main. But for now, package authors should be cautious.
Note that the discussion actually applies to both BY and BY-SA creative
commons licenses: both have the anti-TPM clause, even though I only
OK, enough about CC. My original question was about GPLv3. I was utterly
confused by an anti-TPM clause in there, and wondered how it differs
from the CC anti-TPM clause.
Ben Finney was kind enough to explain to me:
> The difference is: one is a restriction, the other is not.
> It [The GPL anti-TPM clause] is instead a declaration: the licensor,
> by choosing these license terms for a work, states explicitly that
> the work isn't an "effective technological measure" under copyright
> law. The intent is that this in effect prevents certain restrictive
> laws from applying to recipients of the work.
I agree that in the legal wording, this is a big difference in approach:
- The CC explicitly restricts derivatives with TPM (e.g. DRM'ed)
- In the GPLv3 the author asserts that his/her work does not apply TPM.
However, the GPL *does* restrict an author in the choice of license for
derivative works: he/she can choose the GPLv3. So effectively, GPLv3 is
forcing authors to assert that he/she does not apply TPM, and thus
restricts authors not to use technology protective measures.
So while the method is rather different, the end-result is exactly the
same. At least, so it seems to me. So I asl my question again: In this
light, doesn't that make GPLv3 just a free or non-free (in particular
DSFG-free or DSFG-non-free) as CC-BY and CC-BY-SA?
(Wishing life was as easy as my disclaimer)
Disclaimer: This is an e-mail message. Use your own judgment about its
value. If you do not have such common sense (e.g. you are a lawyer) or
you like to see crap like warranties, intended-audience or as-is
statements, then the following applies: you do not understand the
concept of satire and are not allowed to read this e-mail.