I've put online a document for how GPLv3 addresses DRM:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/drm-and-gplv3
and one for how it addresses patents:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/patents-and-gplv3
So when some asks if GPLv3 probits encryption, there's a document which shows that it doesn't. Or if you want to research the patent bits, all the info is in one place. etc.
To make them, I got the relevent parts of the draft GPLv3 and attached the public comments made by Stallman and Moglen which were specific to each of those parts.
So it's the combination of the GPLv3 plus the transcripts: http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/torino-rms-transcript.en.html http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-gplv3-2006-02-25.html http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
...distilled down to focus on DRM / patents.
I put this in my blog too: http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/weblog/2_gplv3_docs_drm_and_patents
Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org
I've put online a document for how GPLv3 addresses DRM: http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/drm-and-gplv3
"It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it."
Digital signature software like GnuPG might not be distributed as signed binaries under GPLv3 unless the archive signing key is included, by the looks of that, depending on what "unseal" means in court. This still doesn't seem to fulfil RMS's purpose stated in the doc. Looks like a drafting bug.
and one for how it addresses patents: http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/patents-and-gplv3
"This License gives unlimited permission to privately modify and run the Program, provided you do not bring suit for patent infringement against anyone for making, using or distributing their own works based on the Program."
Does this really mean that all someone infringing a patent of the licensor needs to do is tack it onto the Program?
There seems little good reason to terminate copyright licence for patent problems. This is arguably misuse of copyright and inflicts patent problems on places without software patent laws. Why not split into GPLv3-copyright and GPLv3-patent?
It's also disappointing the GPLv3 is following the Apache and Eclipse sheep off the retaliation cliff.
These comments are made on discussion@ because I *still* can't break into the comments system and my earlier bug reports on it are still unclosed. If someone can forward these comments and get around the refusal of FSF to support all browsers, I thank you.
Best wishes,
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
"It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it."
Digital signature software like GnuPG might not be distributed as signed binaries under GPLv3 unless the archive signing key is included, by the looks of that, depending on what "unseal" means in court. This still doesn't seem to fulfil RMS's purpose stated in the doc. Looks like a drafting bug.
Why should a signing key have to be included? You can do with a signed GnuPG package what you want and install and run it on your machine so i wouldn't consider the output of a signed package as sealed. But IANAL and English isn't my native language.
These comments are made on discussion@ because I *still* can't break into the comments system and my earlier bug reports on it are still unclosed. If someone can forward these comments and get around the refusal of FSF to support all browsers, I thank you.
You can send your comments by email: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/email.html
Cheers, Bjoern
Bjoern Schiessle schiessle@fsfe.org
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Digital signature software like GnuPG might not be distributed as signed binaries under GPLv3 unless the archive signing key is included, by the looks of that, depending on what "unseal" means in court. [...]
Why should a signing key have to be included? [...]
To unseal the signature block. As posted, it depends what "unseal" means in court.
You can send your comments by email: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/email.html
Have you got that to work? I didn't.
GPLv3 seems almost a case study in how not to run a consultation, with a some-browsers-denied comments system feeding corporation-heavy committees whose discussions are mostly secret and memberships only published belatedly. It marginalises and disempowers regular hackers and encourages us to move away from using FSF licences for our work.
Then again, I had an email today from gov.uk explaining that they have removed the unified list of consultations because making voters visit every damn site in gov.uk is more efficient(!) At least fsf.org isn't doing anything that bad yet...
Digital signature software like GnuPG might not be distributed as signed binaries under GPLv3 unless the archive signing key is included, by the looks of that, depending on what "unseal" means in court. [...]
Why should a signing key have to be included? [...]
To unseal the signature block. As posted, it depends what "unseal" means in court.
The signature isn't blocking anything here. You don't need the signature to install and/or execute the program in question, so there is nothing to `unseal'. If a signature key was required to run and/or install the program (license key, dongle, come to mind) then the key would have to be included.
Cheers.
On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 07:27 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Bjoern Schiessle schiessle@fsfe.org
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Digital signature software like GnuPG might not be distributed as signed binaries under GPLv3 unless the archive signing key is included, by the looks of that, depending on what "unseal" means in court. [...]
Why should a signing key have to be included? [...]
To unseal the signature block. As posted, it depends what "unseal" means in court.
While I think this provision is fundamentally flawed (but in other ways), it does not say at all that you need to distribute your keys to verify the signatures, the signatures does not prevent you from running the software in the same way it would if you had the key.
You can send your comments by email: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/email.html
Have you got that to work? I didn't.
You didn't want to. And didn't either want to use the email based proxy which is available too. But let's not repeat this annoying thread we already went through it once.
GPLv3 seems almost a case study in how not to run a consultation, with a some-browsers-denied comments system feeding corporation-heavy committees whose discussions are mostly secret and memberships only published belatedly. It marginalises and disempowers regular hackers and encourages us to move away from using FSF licences for our work.
It is a way to get some work done and avoid annoying discussions on the method instead of discussions on the substance. And again, and for the Nth time, the committees does not have any authority on anything, they are just knowledgeable people that helps the FSF sort out all the comments and propose a summary. The FSF has all the power and will do all the decisions. And they can, and do read all the comments alone too. So it is basically a lot of gratis work for them.
Simo.
simo simo.sorce@xsec.it
On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 07:27 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Bjoern Schiessle schiessle@fsfe.org
You can send your comments by email: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/email.html
Have you got that to work? I didn't.
You didn't want to. And didn't either want to use the email based proxy which is available too. But let's not repeat this annoying thread we already went through it once.
I didn't want to so much that I have at least three times tried three browsers and the email-based proxy, as well as contacting the dismissive webmasters, hunted for contact info and tried to understand the labyrinthine source tarball.
I didn't want to? Your mind-reading equipment is faulty.
Let's not repeat the annoying thread where GPLv3 process apologists defend the bugs. Let's figure out how to let everyone in!