January 21, 2006
GPLv3 and the DMCA
The Free Software Foundation has posted a draft version of the new General Public License v3.0, and are soliciting comments. One thing that caught my eye is language intended to make it more difficult for people using GPLed code in DRM systems:
3. Digital Restrictions Management
As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any other provision of this license, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data.
I gather the second paragraph is intended to grant specific permission to reverse-engineer and make derivative works under the DMCA. It's an interesting tactic, but I'm not sure how often the licensor of the software (and thus the person granting general permission) would also own the copyright on the data being produced. If I make a DRM-enabled video-player and you break my crypto on the new Disney movie it's playing, isn't it Disney who'll come after you under the DMCA? What difference does it make if you have my permission?
Posted by bug to Intellectual Property at January 21, 2006 1:57 AM | TrackBackThis strikes me as a "Stallman special". It is deliberately gobbly-gook to keep large companies away from it.
That paragraph looks like an attempt to use the purported viral nature of the GPL to undermine the DMCA's 'protections'.
Imagine I've created a GPLed authentication system that's uber-cool, and the SuperHD Purple-Ray specification team wants to use it for their DRM system. That paragraph, if it passed legal muster, would make a such system not meet the definitions in the DMCA's language. Basically, removing any bypassing or breaking of the authentication system from violating the DMCA. There are still normal copyright violations to consider, but Disney couldn't nail me for a criminal DMCA violation merely for running DeSuperCSS on my UberLinux box to read my legally purchased disc.
All that said, I seriously doubt it'll past muster. Just saying "this leaf is hereby defined to be Not canabis" does not suddenly exempt you from drug laws.
Posted by: Brian at January 21, 2006 10:19 AMAll that said, I seriously doubt it'll past muster. Just saying "this leaf is hereby defined to be Not canabis" does not suddenly exempt you from drug laws.
Yeah, that's how I'm thinking too. I suppose it still puts up a mini-roadblock against companies using GPLed code but protecting their own data with the DMCA, e.g. Garmin couldn't use GPLed code in their DRM-enabled GPS-player unless they wanted to give up DMCA protection for their location data.
Posted by: Bug at January 22, 2006 8:04 PM