[cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Mon Sep 25 19:32:17 EDT 2006
drew Roberts wrote:
> On Monday 25 September 2006 11:01 am, Mia Garlick wrote:
> > Finally, GPL v3 draft 2 does not seem to be invoking this
> > provision. The quoted text seems to be saying that GPL-licensed
> > code cannot form part of a technological measure that is protected
> > under Section 1201. It is not saying that a copyright owner has
> > the power to authorize the circumvention of a technological lock
> > applied by someone else to their work.
> I think you have this spot on as it relates to the GPL. It is not
> talking about other works at all but about this work being considered
> a part of an effective technological measure. (At least I read it the
> same way you do. If I understand your take correctly.)
This is not the right part of GPLv3 to address this issue.
The quoted text does indeed regard the question of GPLv3'd software
being used to create a TPM, but that's a side issue.
The real issue is where GPLv3 (draft 2) defines "source code":
The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization
keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source
code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can
implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances.
(an excerpt -- the entire section is too long to quote, but may be found
This essentially forbids the use of TPM to restrict distribution of the
source, but it doesn't actually prevent source (and certainly not
binary) from being compiled, stored, used, or even distributed in a TPM
format (but none of these satisfies the source distribution requirement
-- meaning that you'd have to provide a parallel non-TPM source
distribution). That is the freedom that Debian wants to see.
In fact, the whole source/binary issue may be regarded as the model for
the Debian non-TPM/TPM parallel distribution proposal. In fact, the
analogy between "TPM" and "binary" forms of a work with another
"non-TPM" or "source" form is remarkably accurate.
AFAICT, there is no functional difference, only a difference of intent.
Thus, ISTM that the same practicalities will apply if the same legal
license is accorded to both, which is the Debian proposal. The
community has 15+ years of success with the source/binary parallel
distribution requirement, so I find any fears about it not working to be
So, if no one can refute the analogy between "non-TPM/TPM" and
"source/binary" then I think any remaining objection to the parallel
distribution idea is nothing more than FUD. Please convince me of the
flaw in this analogy, if there is one. What's different?
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-licenses