France requires non-proprietary format for ebooks

[xdrudis at tinet.cat]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:13:54PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> xdrudis at tinet.cat writes:
> 
> > Possibly redundant here but there is no possible working DRM in
> > effectively free software, because the goal of DRM is to remove some
> > freedoms from the user.
> 
> The freedom of the software that implements DRM is a matter of what
> freedoms the recipient has. There is no contradiction between “you have
> these freedoms in this work” and “this work implements DRM”. So the DRM
> can work just fine in free software.
>
> What I think you're implying is that DRM cannot be expected to *remain*
> in such software, because the recipients have explicit license to do so;
> and then the DRM-free derivative will spread, again by the explicit
> license recipients have to do so.
>

Correct, thanks for making it explicit.

> But be clear: the original, DRM-enabled work is free software and the
> DRM works fine. That is, after all, what allows the chain of events
> afterward.
>

Ok, I was just assuming it won't exist because nobody will write it
because it may not remain so. Anyway, one could theoretically write it
(if only to prove a point).

> > I think the closest is some tivo-like scheme in which the software
> > would be free but unrunable when modified.
> 
> Yes, that's an obvious example of free software implementing DRM.
>

And that's why I said effectively free software, not just free
software. GPL 3 was written among other reasons to help ensure the
software freedom was effective, not merely rethorical in these cases.

> There is *other* software on the device — the firmware, if I understand
> correctly – which refuses to run modified versions of the free software.
> 
> So the recipient remains free to modify the software (and, if they
> choose, cease its implementation of DRM), but the *device* as a whole is
> not free because it then refuses to run the modified software.
>

Yes, but possibly the content will not work in another device because
it won't be decryptable or whatever, so the software won't be useful.

> > It's not something we still don't have, it's something that can't
> > happen because requirements are contradictory. Software freedom
> > requires the ability to decode and copy the content, as part of
> > freedom 0, and DRM needs to prevent it. Free software needs control to
> > be granted to the user and DRM needs control granted to the rights
> > holder.
> 
> Merely being contradictory doesn't stop these requirements from being
> enforcible by law :-/
>

Merely being legal does not make something being produced or sold.
For me there is a difference between humans (judges, etc.) enforcing
law on other humans and devices enforcing law on humans. Or what
does a purchase mean when the seller still controls what the item sold
does after the sale, etc.

> What is needed is not just a declaration that there is a contradiction,
> but a *resolution* of that contradiction to give recipients explicit
> freedom to exercise their rights under the law.
>

By resolution you mean DRM should be outlawed or DRM circumvention
should be legal ?  I agree.