* James Bottomley:
> Further, the FSF's attempts at drafting and re-drafting these
> provisions have shown them to be a nasty minefield which keeps ensnaring
> innocent and beneficial uses of encryption and DRM technologies so, on such
> demonstrated pragmatic ground, these clauses are likewise dangerous and
> difficult to get right and should have no place in a well drafted update to
> GPLv2.
There is a very simple litmus test for DRM code: code that cannot be
altered or removed, according to applicable law or other agreements.
The GPLv3 could forbid the addition of such code to a covered code
base, I suppose. However, this runs contrary to the DRM-like optional
clauses in the GPLv3 (mandatory access through sources over a
communication channel, certain forms of copyright notices).
I think several of these optional clauses are bad. Even the copyright
notices can be annoying (although it's already in GPLv2). For
instance, if I run
emacs somefile.c
from the command line, somefile.c doesn't show up on in the editor,
but the copyright notice. Of course, you can put
(defun display-splash-screen () (interactive))
in a startup file, but if you do this as a distributor, it might be a
GPLv2 violation.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
