Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 21:15 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Linus Torvalds, father of the Linux kernel, has fleshed out his unhappiness with GPLv3 in three recent posts on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Torvalds previously stated that the kernel will remain under the licensing terms of GPLv2. Yesterday, Torvalds offered his opinion as to where the battle over DRM should take place.
Thread beginning with comment 92251
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

please read the draft:

"Regardless of any other provision of this license, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License."

It's all about the code which is covered by the GPL and not any data!

Let me make an example: A hardware vendor offers a GPL device driver but the Hardware/driver has some DRM which allows only the original driver to run the hardware. That would mean, that you get a GPL driver but if you take use of your freedom (e.g. modify the driver) your new driver wouldn't run the device anymore. That's all about the DRM clause of GPLv3. You can't license your code under the GPL and than use some DRM to restrict other users to execute their rights given by the GPL.

Reply Parent Score: 2

CrLf Member since:

Well, what if you want to restrict the use of your data files to your particular build of the software?

For illustrative purposes: you release game engine X as GPL. You build a game using X and sign the data files and the game executable with some key. X gets that key only from an original CD.

The license for the data files doesn't allow you to use them from any changed version of X.

You distribute X with your data files.

This conflicts with the following excerpt of the draft, which seems to imply that you can't do the stated above (because if X is GPLv3, and you distribute it with the data files, you are giving permission for them to be used from a modified version of X, or any other software).

"No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data."

Well, now you may say that one can just modify X and make it read the very same key to decrypt the files. The author can't stop you from doing that, but that voids the license for the data files.

The license for the data files conflicts with the license for the software, thus proving that the GPLv3 is infecting data and not just software.

If that kind of data license is good or not (I don't like it) should not concern the GPL.

The GPLv3 is including data in its definition of derived works, in one way or another.

Reply Parent Score: 4