Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
  • Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:56:20 -0500

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' thoughts):

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.

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. IMHO, the difference is a real difference of intent, not merely of misunderstood semantics.

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page