Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

Florian Weimer
2006-09-23T11:38:32Z

* James Bottomley:

> Further, the FSF's attempts at drafting and re-drafting these
> provisions have shown them to be a nasty minefield which keeps ensnaring
> innocent and beneficial uses of encryption and DRM technologies so, on such
> demonstrated pragmatic ground, these clauses are likewise dangerous and
> difficult to get right and should have no place in a well drafted update to
> GPLv2.

There is a very simple litmus test for DRM code: code that cannot be
altered or removed, according to applicable law or other agreements.
The GPLv3 could forbid the addition of such code to a covered code
base, I suppose. However, this runs contrary to the DRM-like optional
clauses in the GPLv3 (mandatory access through sources over a
communication channel, certain forms of copyright notices).

I think several of these optional clauses are bad. Even the copyright
notices can be annoying (although it's already in GPLv2). For
instance, if I run

emacs somefile.c

from the command line, somefile.c doesn't show up on in the editor,
but the copyright notice. Of course, you can put

(defun display-splash-screen () (interactive))

in a startup file, but if you do this as a distributor, it might be a
GPLv2 violation.