[MPlayer-dev-eng] GPLv3 draft

[Michael Niedermayer]

Hi

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:54:54AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 04:54:01PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > i hope its not to early to flame about gplv3 ...
> > 
> > the first issue is that its possible to add a requirement for
> > "functioning facilities that allow users to obtain copies of the 
> > program's Complete Corresponding Source Code"
> > thats obviously not reasonable for any embeded device, simply putting
> > a CD with the source in the box is the sane solution, requireing the
> > device to output the source somehow (USB, serial, screen, ...) is silly
> > 
> > now just imagine someone forks mplayer and adds this requirement :)
> 
> Then the person who forks it is responsible for making this
> functionality if they want to use such a requirement, and no one will
> use their fork. I don't see how it matters. :)
> 
> While in some ways I don't like this section, it very likely will
> become an issue in the future -- companies misappropriating free
> software meant for network/thinclient use and making proprietary
> derivatives, and claiming they don't have to release their enhanced
> source because they're not "distributing" the program, just allowing
> remote use of it.

yes, but why not say something like
every user must be able to obtain the source under the same license for
a reasonable fee

ahh 5 pages of legealese less :)


> 
> > DRM:
> > do we like it: NO
> > do we want to support it: NO
> > does the text in the GPLv3 help or hurt DRM: hmm not so sure here
> > IANAL and iam not a native english speaking liveform but there are 2 cases
> 
> I read the DRM section and it seems very good.
> 
> > 1. distribute a program which ignores DRM rules (is illegal obviously)
> > 2. distribute a program which honors DRM rules 
> > now is 2. legal under v2?, under v3?
> > the user must due to the GPL be able to change the code so he can remove that
> > restriction, now GPLv3 makes this impossible too if i understand it correctly
> > and thus seems to help DRM rather then hurt it
> 
> I think you misunderstand the legalese.

very possible


> 
> > "No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection
> > measure"
> > so basically free software may not use DRM laws for good purposes?
> 
> DRM laws cannot be used for a good purpose, at least not "good" in the
> sense of free software. I'm sure plenty people with specific other
> agendas could think of ways to warp the DRM laws to prevent their
> software from being used for a particular purpose they disagree with
> (e.g. database in an abortion clinic or something); however it was
> established a long time ago that free software cannot restrict fields
> of endeavor or else everyone would have their own incompatible
> restrictions based on their own causes and prejudices and no one could
> use any aggregate free software due to all the conflicts. :)

i was more thinking about using DRM laws to protect private/sensitive 
information instead of programs ...
yeah encrypt and use bugfree software ... if it where that easy, someone
just needs a little camera behind you and you loose

[...]
-- 
Michael