"The Open Source initiative has, to date, approved 73 licenses. How many do you really need? If you're a company or individual producing Open Source software, no more than 4. And you can get along with just 2 of them."
Full story »"The Open Source initiative has, to date, approved 73 licenses. How many do you really need? If you're a company or individual producing Open Source software, no more than 4. And you can get along with just 2 of them."
Full story »
aboutblank
15 years 33 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago
GPL3
One note is about the assertion that the GNU General Public License version 3 "attempts to prohibit Digital Restrictions Management". This assertion is erroneously simplistic; the GPL3 does not do what is suggested here. What the GPL3 does is: prohibit technical measures that effectively prevent users (of the GPL3 software) to practise their right to tinker; even then, this statement is still erroneously simplistic.
What I am certain is this: people are allowed to write software digital restriction management systems and license them under GPL3.
incinerator
15 years 33 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago
Section 3
(I am not a lawyer, this post is no legal advice nor is it any kind of legal opinion.)
Here, section 3 of the GPLv3 comes into play. It effectively denies software licensed under it the right to be part of a legally protected DRM scheme. This means, while you can implement a DRM scheme using GPLv3 software, anyone is legally allowed to circumvent is because section of the license says "this work is not a part of a DRM scheme as described in article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty," thus making anyone able to changing the software to remove the DRM scheme without acting against the law.
While this doesn't forbid a DRM system to be created using GPLv3 software, such a DRM system would become a toothless tiger, as anyone would be allowed to circumvent it legally. Any person or organisation seriously interested in implementing a copy protection or DRM scheme does have no other choice than to refrain from using or creating software licensed with GPLv3 in order to implement the scheme.
aboutblank
15 years 33 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago
GPL3
"One of the most ambitious things about GPL3 is that it attempts to prohibit DRM."
This is the quote I am referring to. This assertion is so simplistic that I consider it erroneous. While your interpretation is more accurate, it is still simplistic as it is missing some important details.
The following is my interpretation for section 3, 'If you apply a certain set of technological measures (DRM) to this GPL3 software, you must also provide a way to allow the recipients of this covered software to practice their rights . If you fail to provide this way, you will forfeit your right to convey copies of this program'.
This doesn't mean that the GPL3 attempts to prohibit DRM, that is far too simplistic to be accurate. This does mean it effectively prohibits people from using DRM class technological measures TOGETHER with the GPL3 software in order to subject users out of their rights (the right to run and tinker the software).
This doesn't mean that anybody will be allowed to circumvent the DRM-associated-with-the-GPL3-software, this interpretation is still simplistic. This does mean that all recipients of GPL3 software will have permission to circumvent the DRM if the DRM interferes with the recipient's other rights (the right to run and tinker the software). One must first get a copy the GPL3 software before one has the authority to circumvent the DRM. This means the software distributor will first be bound to the GPL3 before distributing the GPL3 software.
The more accurate statement would be: The GPL3 ensures that recipients of GPL3 software will possess their essential liberties regardless of any DRM misfeatures by ensuring that the user will maintain control over the DRM. The DRM (that isn't controlled by the user) is still dangerous and the DRM will still exist.