[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

Freek Dijkstra <debian2007@macfreek.nl> writes:

> 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.

For the record, it's my opinion that the current wording of the
various CC licenses unnecessarily restricts freedom, as demonstrated
previously in this thread; so I think that packages under those
licenses should *not* be in main.

> 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.
> Correct?

That's my understanding, yes.

> 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.

The author can still *use* them, as a technical process; but the
author is simultaneously making explicit (with the chosen license
terms) that they do not consider those measures to be "effective
technical measures" or the equivalent as defined under some copyright

> So while the method is rather different, the end-result is exactly the
> same.

As I see it, the above difference measn that the GPLv3 wording
*permits* (by never forbidding) usage of access-restricting technology
in the media, while simultaneously ensuring that the result is not
vulnerable to being called an "effective technological measure" by the
copyright holder or their agent in a lawsuit.

So, if the other requirements of the GPLv3 are met, the recipient can
redistribute on any media, even those that implement access

 \                "I got fired from my job the other day. They said my |
  `\    personality was weird. ... That's okay, I have four more."  -- |
_o__)                                        Bug-Eyed Earl, _Red Meat_ |
Ben Finney

Reply to: