Copyleft/guide Changeset - ed8fb5a938fa

Changeset - ed8fb5a938fa

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 1 0

Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-03-20 13:24:48
bkuhn@ebb.org

Reworked section describing how the DRM issue and the like relates.

1 file changed with 28 insertions and 43 deletions:

gpl-lgpl.tex

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... @@
 computers they cannot trust.  However, these measures are alike in one basic
 respect.  They all employ technical means to turn the system of copyright law
 (where the powers of the copyright holder are limited exceptions to general
 freedom) into a virtual prison, where everything not specifically permitted
 is utterly forbidden.  This system of ``para-copyright'' was created well
 after GPLv2 was written --- initially through legislation in the USA and the
 EU, and later in other jurisdictions as well.  This legislation creates
 serious civil or even criminal penalties to escape from these restrictions
 (commonly and aptly called ``jail-breaking a device''), even where the
 purpose in doing so is to restore the users' legal rights that the technology
 wrongfully prevents them from exercising.
 % FIXME: Remove FSF specific parts
 As a digital rights organization, we would not be following our mission if we
 did not oppose these injustices.  But the reason our license must respond to
 these practices at all is the result of a remarkable irony. Those who wish to
 impose DRM on the public would like to do so by using software covered by the
 GPL, a license that is intended to preserve the very freedom that they seek
 to crush.  They are not satisfied merely with publishing programs having
 limited capability, which free software permits. They seek to go further, to
 prevent the user from removing those limits, turning Freedom 1, the freedom
 to modify, into a sham.
 GPLv2 did not address the use of technical measures to take back the rights
 that the GPL granted, because such measures did not exist in 1991, and would
 have been irrelevant to the forms in which software was then delivered to
 users.  But GPLv3 must address these issues: free software is ever more
 widely embedded in devices that impose technical limitations on the user's
 freedom to change it.
 These unjust measures must not be confused with legitimate applications that
 give users control, as by enabling them to choose higher levels of system or
 data security within their networks, or by allowing them to protect the
 security of their communications using keys they can generate or copy to
 other devices for sending or receiving messages.  These technologies present
 no obstacles to the freedom of free software. The user is presented with
 choices, and figuratively as well as literally retains all the keys to the
 digital home.
 By contrast, technical restrictions that allow other parties to control the
 user have no legitimate social purpose.  In existing applications where the
 user is not afforded the same degree of real power to modify the free
 software in his system that vendors or distributors have retained, or have
 conveyed to third parties, the software has been delivered in a fashion that
 violates the spirit of the GPL, regardless of whether it complies with the
 letter of the license. The freedoms the GPL grants have actually been
 withdrawn by technical means.  It may even be a crime for the user to modify
 that free software to escape from those restrictions and regain control over
 what is still, at least nominally, his own system.
 % FIXME: reference \S6 and \S3 stuff.
 We believe that these provisions, taken together, are a minimalist set of
 terms sufficient to protect the free software community against the threat of
 invasive para-copyright.
 users.  GPLv3 addresses these issues, particularly because copylefted
 software is ever more widely embedded in devices that impose technical
 limitations on the user's freedom to change it.
 However, FSF always made a clear distinction to avoid conflating these
 ``lock-down'' measures with legitimate applications that give users control,
 as by enabling them to choose higher levels of system or data security within
 their networks, or by allowing them to protect the security of their
 communications using keys they can generate or copy to other devices for
 sending or receiving messages.  Such technologies present no obstacles to
 software freedom and the goals of copyleft.
 The public GPLv3 drafting process sought to balance these positions of
 copyleft advocates with various desperate views of the larger
 Free-Software-using community.  Ultimately, FSF compromised to the GPLv3\S3
 and GPLv3\S6 provisions that, taken together, are a minimalist set of terms
 sufficient to protect the software freedom against the threat of invasive
 para-copyright.
 The compromises made were ultimately quite reasonable.  The primary one is
 embodied in GPLv3\S6's ``User Product'' definition (see \S~\ref{user-product}
 in this tutorial for details).  Additionally, some readers of early GPLv3
 drafts seem to have assumed GPLv3 contained a blanket prohibition on DRM; but
 it does not.  In fact, no part of GPLv3 forbids DRM regarding non-GPL'd
 works; rather, GPLv3 forbids the use of DRM specifically to lock-down
 restrictions on users' ability to install modified versions of the GPL'd
 software itself, but again, \textit{only} with regard to User Products.
 Large enterprise users of free software often contract with non-employee
 developers, often working offsite, to make modifications intended for
 the user's private or internal use, and often arrange with other
 companies to operate their data centers.  Whether GPLv2 permits these
 activities is not clear and may depend on variations in copyright law.
 The practices seem basically harmless, so we have decided to make it
 clear they are permitted.
 \section{GPLv3~\S3: What Hath DMCA Wrought}
 \label{GPLv3s3}
@@ ... @@
 the license.  In addition, we have added disclaimers, based on advice
 of counsel from nations that have enacted para-copyright provisions
 akin to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US or pursuant to
 the European Union Copyright Directive.  We believe these disclaimers
 by each licensor of any intention to use GPL'd software to stringently
 control access to other copyrighted works should practically prevent
 any private or public parties from invoking DMCA-like laws against
 users who escape technical restriction measures implemented by GPL'd
 software.
 This section shields users from being subjected to liability under
 anti-circumvention law for exercising their rights under the GPL, so far as
 the GPL can do so.  Some readers seem to have assumed that this provision
 contains a prohibition on DRM; it does not (no part of GPLv3 forbids DRM).
 the GPL can do so.
 \section{GPLv3~\S4: Verbatim Copying}
 % FIXME: there appear to be minor changes here in later drafts, fix that.
 Section 4 has been revised from its corresponding section in GPLv2 in light
 of the new section 7 on license compatibility. A distributor of verbatim
 copies of the program's source code must obey any existing additional terms
 that apply to parts of the program. In addition, the distributor is required
 to keep intact all license notices, including notices of such additional
 terms.

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)