[cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Oct 2 15:35:13 EDT 2006
On Monday 02 October 2006 12:56 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> I haven't read the other replies yet, but I think it matters that I
> respond to a couple of particulars (even if this is repeating others'
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Saturday 30 September 2006 02:15 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
> > So, I have not kept the fine details in my head lately but I will
> > state it again another way to try and help clarify and wait for
> > corrections.
> > The GPL-3 addresses DRM from two points.
> Precisely: in two separate parts of the license.
> > 1. GPL-3 code cannot be incorporated into a DRM system that is put
> > forth by its maker as being "an effective TPM" as per the DMCA.
> This is what is usually called the "anti-TPM" part. AFAIK, it is not
> really very controversial (there were wording problems in draft 1 which
> have, IMHO, been fixed, and the new wording is pretty solid). In fact, I
> heartily applaud the new wording in this part.
> > 2. The GPL-3 also contains language that would prevent a TPM/DRM
> > system containing (made from) no GPL-3 code whatsoever from being
> > used to "protect" GPL-3 code unless keys were provided such that
> > those getting the platofrm and code can mod the code and sign and run
> > the modded code on the platform.
> Yes. This is addressed much earlier under the definition of the term
> "Corresponding Source". It is the language that Linus Torvalds and other
> Linux developers objected to; it is the part that fights "TiVo-ization";
> and it's the part that I'm talking about when I say that the GPLv3 would
> not allow a work licensed under it to be "ported" to a DRM-only platform
> (assuming that Greg London's "DRM Dave" example is correct).
> It *might* even be construed to violate Eben Moglen's claim that a
> ROM-only embedded device could run GPLv3 code (I think this is really a
> wording problem, and I'm hoping it'll get fixed).
> > > The GPLv3 is a big, complicated can of worms about to be opened,
> > > and to dismiss so casually the legitimate concerns of people who
> > > have a high stake in the use of the GPL license and 15 years of
> > > experience with the older version, is naive, IMHO.
> > I am not so sure the kernel guys have such a high stake in the GPL3.
> > Some seem to think that they can't put the kernel under the GPL3 even
> > if they wanted to. At least without (major?) re-writes due to code
> > contributed by people who will not go along or who can't be found, or
> > who are dead...
> No, it's the GPL *v2* that they have a high stake in. The problem is
> that GPLv3 could potential de-value the GPLv2, by introducing a large
> body of GPLv2-incompatible code. The Linux hackers therefore fear
> fragmentation (forking) of the free O/S world into GPLv3 and GPLv2
> camps, much the same as the BSD/GPL fork.
Ah, but they made that decision when they put the kernel under the GPL2 only.
I would not be happy to see such a split, but I am not sure how this
de-valuing of the GPL2 is any more of a philosophical problem that is the
devauling of BY-SA by CC when they offer all of those other options.
> I'm not sure I agree with the Linux developers' opinion, but I don't
> think they are "mistaken" about any of the legal language in question.
I don't think I posited that they were mistaken as to the legal language.
> IMHO, the difference is a real difference of intent, not merely of
> misunderstood semantics.
all the best,
(da idea man)
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
More information about the cc-licenses