Re: GPL Violation?

[David Greaves <david@dgreaves.com>]

Patrick McFarland wrote:
> On Saturday 19 August 2006 06:48, David Greaves wrote:
>> David Schwartz wrote:
>> It's not a rights _enforcement_ scheme on it's own (presumably enforcement
>> would ultimately involve men with big sticks - aka the legal system). It
>> simply helps manage (GPL) rights.
> 
> Then how is it not a rights enforcement scheme? It helps me enforce the GPL 
> (see Helge Hafting's post: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/19/50 for example 
> why).

Semantics - I think we agree:

See where I said "not ... on it's own" and "It simply helps manage rights".
Well that equates with your statement where you accept that you are the enforcer
and this tool is an aide: "It _helps_ _me_ enforce the GPL".

As Helge says:
It is still a rights management system, even if it isn't
forced upon the users.

Which is what I meant - it's trivial to bypass - unlike some rights management
systems which are intrusive and designed to be hard to bypass. If it was
designed to be hard to bypass and actually worked (ie the deviant developer
couldn't simply lie) then it would be an enforcement system. As it is it wasn't
designed to enforce (it's bloody hard to design an open source system that you
can't work around - Tivo did it - hence GPLv3... but let's not <grin>)

The DVD's CSS and Macrovision OTOH were designed to be enforcement systems (not
perfect and lots of arguments that they hurt the wrong people and don't stop
pirates but...)

This tool/system serves to state one (- not the only) boundary that the
copyright owners feel strongly about and it clearly communicates that boundary
to other developers. It's like a "Private Property - No Trespassing" sign - if
you have a big glowing one then people later find it harder to argue that they
didn't know or that there was an implicit invitation because the gate was open...

David

--