Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
