Re: CC Non-waivable Compulsory License Scheme
On 9/16/07, Olive <email@example.com> wrote:
But why someone will want to do that? To put DRM and at the same time to
provide someone with the possibility of bypassing them seems absurd.
Could you give a /realistic/ example of a comportment that you think
should be allowed and is nevertheless restricted.
There are issues with certain devices (e.g. game consoles, some media
players) that will only play files in their proprietary DRM-encumbered
format. So, parallel distribution would give recipients one copy they
could play on their DRM-using player, and one copy they could edit on
Ah I understand. But I remember Stallman speaking of tivoisation
(because apparently tivo do that) and saying that GPLv3 was crafted to
forbid that ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization ). So it
seems that this is forbidden by the GPLv3 as well. We indeed see:
The preamble of the GPLv3 (which is integral part of the license):
"Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run
modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer
can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting
users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such
abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is
precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed
this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If
such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to
extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as
needed to protect the freedom of users."
" “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product
from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information
must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified
object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
modification has been made."
But I still fail to see how does it violate the DFSG? I find it
completely with the spirit of copyleft to ensure that anyone having
received the software is able to modify the copy he owns.