[MPlayer-dev-eng] GPLv3 draft

[Rich Felker]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 04:54:01PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
> 
> i hope its not to early to flame about gplv3 ...
> 
> the first issue is that its possible to add a requirement for
> "functioning facilities that allow users to obtain copies of the 
> program's Complete Corresponding Source Code"
> thats obviously not reasonable for any embeded device, simply putting
> a CD with the source in the box is the sane solution, requireing the
> device to output the source somehow (USB, serial, screen, ...) is silly
> 
> now just imagine someone forks mplayer and adds this requirement :)

Then the person who forks it is responsible for making this
functionality if they want to use such a requirement, and no one will
use their fork. I don't see how it matters. :)

While in some ways I don't like this section, it very likely will
become an issue in the future -- companies misappropriating free
software meant for network/thinclient use and making proprietary
derivatives, and claiming they don't have to release their enhanced
source because they're not "distributing" the program, just allowing
remote use of it.

> DRM:
> do we like it: NO
> do we want to support it: NO
> does the text in the GPLv3 help or hurt DRM: hmm not so sure here
> IANAL and iam not a native english speaking liveform but there are 2 cases

I read the DRM section and it seems very good.

> 1. distribute a program which ignores DRM rules (is illegal obviously)
> 2. distribute a program which honors DRM rules 
> now is 2. legal under v2?, under v3?
> the user must due to the GPL be able to change the code so he can remove that
> restriction, now GPLv3 makes this impossible too if i understand it correctly
> and thus seems to help DRM rather then hurt it

I think you misunderstand the legalese.

> "No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection
> measure"
> so basically free software may not use DRM laws for good purposes?

DRM laws cannot be used for a good purpose, at least not "good" in the
sense of free software. I'm sure plenty people with specific other
agendas could think of ways to warp the DRM laws to prevent their
software from being used for a particular purpose they disagree with
(e.g. database in an abortion clinic or something); however it was
established a long time ago that free software cannot restrict fields
of endeavor or else everyone would have their own incompatible
restrictions based on their own causes and prejudices and no one could
use any aggregate free software due to all the conflicts. :)

> and the RIAA/MPAA/... wouldnt have used free sw anyway for a hundread other
> reasons
> what do we gain? nothing
> this is so sick philosophical shit ...
> DRM sucks, but if DRM laws exist why not use them for good things?

The clause is just a clarification to make sure that companies don't
steal GPL code and use it in non-free software that claims to be free,
by relying on the DRM laws rather than copyright to restrict copying.
Technically nothing is forbidden that wasn't before, since it was
already essential that the party modifying and distributing the
program give full license to anyone receiving it.

> not to mention its a matter of changing the law to invalidate that clause
> the reverse engeneering directive in the EU also clearly says you cant loose
> the right to reverese eneneer by contracts/licenses so that could happen to
> DRM too very easily
> you cant fight the law with a license or contract as the law is above the
> contracts and licenses (IANAL blah blah)

Yes, but the law that matters will not change, and that's basic
copyright. If someone does anything forbidden by the GPL they can lose
all permissions received under it. This is the whole legal purpose of
it.

Rich