Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

[Florian Weimer]

* 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/