2 GPLv3 docs: DRM and Patents

[MJ Ray]

Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran at 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 - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/  irc.oftc.net/slef  Jabber/SIP ask