An IT Manager's Journal article tries to clear up misunderstandings about the controversial GPLv3. It discusses several common points of controversy and misunderstanding, and notes that discussion of these points is ongoing.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: half truths - half disagreements
Member since:2005-10-02
It is not anti-DRM. It is perfectly legal and possible to use DRM with GPL v.3. Of course you cannot use it to prevent fair use since it would violate the four freedoms, but if you want to violate the four freedoms you shouldn't be using GPL at all.
If you support fair use you can only be against DRM in the way it is often used (e.g. to restrict rights one cannot surrender according to law).
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
you dont seem to understand that the gpl version 3 has NO anti-DRM clauses.. read the damn article..
"""
I've read the damned article and many like it. Of course GPLv3 does not prohibit DRM. It only prohibits the DRM being effective.
The FSF's double talk on that matter is slick enough that I imagine even Microsoft is impressed.
It does, however, lower my opinion of the FSF a bit.
Member since:2006-03-12
I think the comparisons to between the fsf and Microsoft is totals rational. Their are lots of parallels between the two companies.
One being a Non-Profit organization who preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software, and to defend the rights of all free software users.
And the other a mega corporation thats...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft
Exactly how they not doing that by "GPL-covered works from being subjected to civil and criminal liability under anti-circumvention law for exercising their rights under the GPL to copy, modify, and share free software"
Its not these freedoms haven't been about for years, prior to GPL3 was even discussed.
Edited 2007-05-11 22:03
Member since:2005-10-02
That depends on what you are using DRM for. Preventing fair use rights (often impossible to surrender according to law (depends on the country)) or protecting fair use rights for customers.
The first one is a violation of GPL - the latter one is okay. And DRM can be used quite efficient as that.
Remember: DRM is really not about protecting copyrights and preventing piracy. As such DRM will always fail. DRM is in reality about changing the courts and peoples perception of IP making people believe they are only renting what they are actually buying.
Member since:2006-08-26
The FSF's double talk on that matter is slick enough that I imagine even Microsoft is impressed.
It does, however, lower my opinion of the FSF a bit.
Why? Is favoring precise terminology when discussing a legal document unethical? I have yet to see how "anti-DRM" is the best way to describe the clause in question. However, DRM supporters would favor such blanket terminology to describe v3, so it would be stupid for the FSF to favor it over more precise language.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-03-12
If the article contains misinformation, and it could well do. This is a legal document, and unfortunately an increasing complicated one, *look* at the comments on the FSF draft.
It is too complicated, because it has to be. GPL violations are all too common, and not accounted for in earlier versions. Layers are expensive, the good ones *earn* there money becuase this is hard. Its a shame really because the *spirit* of GPL2 was pretty clear. Its a shame.
But if you have information that points out something different, or have noticed something that can be misinterpreted...point it out, do not feel shy. An off the cuff remark will not cut it.
Even Linus is pretty happy with the latest revision. The only article I have seen that hasn't liked the latest GPL3 draft is one stating that it failed to effectively cover Web based applications, and *if* it doesn't I think that needs to be addressed. I think there is an interview with Stallman somewhere where *he* thinks it needs to go further, and some parts have been softened.
Edited 2007-05-12 02:06
Member since:
2006-03-23
you dont seem to understand that the gpl version 3 has NO anti-DRM clauses.. read the damn article..