Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions

[James Blackwell]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:24:23PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:42:58AM -0500, James Blackwell wrote:
> > > You may not take GPLed software and use it on the Playstation because
> > > Sony, a third party over which you have no control, has implemented
> > > DRM measures in the hardware which will only run signed binaries. Even
> > > if you publish every scrap of information you posess under an
> > > unrestrictive license, you still can't do it.
> > 
> > This is _almost_ true. The draft doen't say 'you can't'. The draft says
> > that if you do, you have to provide the tools to sign new versions.  I.E.
> > you can't distribute gpled on DRM systems unless the opportunity for
> > anybody to replace it exists.
> 
> You can't do that because it's an externality. You have absolutely no
> means to make this happen.

Then you have nothing to worry about. :)

I'm not aware of UK laws. You'd have to talk to a lawyer, but I understand
US laws are much more flexible. There were at least a dozen lawyers at the
convention. Three of them are on the same board that I am. You are the
first person that I have heard from that this draft would be unenforcable.

The expertise of the lawyers I talked to hold more sway with me than you
do. Would you care to provide a list of your qualifications in this area,
so that I can properly evaluate the credence of your statement?

I don't believe this is true.  I watched one guy that was ostensibly from
the cell phone industry nearly panic and break down in tears. Other
companies weren't exactly hopping around in joy, but didn't act as if the
world was ending.

> 
> > > people who are punished have no control or influence over the
> > > matter. Sony does not care that nobody can run GPLed software on it,
> > > they never wanted to anyway, so they aren't punished.
> > 
> > I can see your viewpoint. I'd argue that if you can't compile new free
> > software for the machine, you're already locked out.
> 
> "Since users are already disadvantaged, we can fuck them over further"

This is a Straw man. Please rephrase in the terms of an actual logical
argument.

I currently recommend "gplv2 or later" and will likely recommend gplv3
when it comes out if its similiar in nature to the current gplv3 draft.
Yes, this is a change in stance from the past, as the gplv3 was an unknown
quantity to me. I continue to not recommend the GFDL.

You're free to license your software as you see fit. If the gplv3 won't
meet your needs then don't use it. As for me, though, I don't want my
software handed back to me on equipment that prevents me or anyone else from
continuing work on it. I consider DRM a loophole that has been used to
subvert my work. I want that loophole closed for my software.

I strongly encourage you to comment at gplv3.fsf.org/comments/ with your
suggestions on how to clean up the gplv3 -- The working groups are
particularly interested in opinions that can clearly state use cases that
rather than protecting free software, subvert it.

-- 
James Blackwell's home :  http://jblack.linuxguru.net
Gnupg 06357400   F-print AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature