Subject: Re: FSBs and mechanized documentation
From: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:52:25 -0500

On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 14:22 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "simo" == simo  <s@ssimo.org> writes:
> 
>     >> The GPLv3 declares "this software is not part of an effective
>     >> mechanism" (or whatever the formal statement is).  That is an
>     >> explicit restriction on use.
> 
>     simo> Why ? It does not stop you to use it as a circumvention
>     simo> mechanism.
> 
> Of course it does.  An effective anti-circumvention mechanism is by
> definition one protected under the DMCA.  Under GPLv3, you must forgo
> that protection, and therefore such use is prohibited.

Copying is protected under copyright law, by choosing the GNU GPL (any
version) you choose to let anyone copy your work. IT is about the rights
you choose _not_ to enforce by choosing this license. It's not a kind of
further restriction IMO.

>     simo> To me, it is the same as stating: the GNU GPL is not a
>     simo> proprietary license.
> 
> Non-proprietary license is an oxymoron.  Either someone has
> proprietary rights, or there is no need for anyone to obtain a
> license.  Starting from a contradiction, you can prove anything. :-)

Well, if you want to play with words you're free to do it all you want,
I think you and others understood perfectly what I meant an what was my
point. :-)

>     simo> It really depends on what you mean by use.
> 
> Argh.  No, it depends on what the FSF means by and intends to enforce
> as "use", and whether the FSF's terminology is consistent across their
> legal documents.  I know what I mean by "use", but with respect to GNU
> software what matters is what the FSF's documents say, plus any
> "context" that the courts may consider relevant.  My opinions are not
> on that map.

But your claims are surely based on your opinions, aren't they ? :-)

>     simo> The GPLv3 provision about anti-circumvention mechanisms do
>     simo> not prevent you to distribute it, or do not force you to use
>     simo> it privately. And if you feel that the outcome maybe a
>     simo> restriction on use I think you should add a comment in the
>     simo> GPLv3 comment system on gplv3.fsf.org
> 
> I think not.  My goal is to get attempts to fight DRM _out_ of
> software licenses, because I believe it's an ineffective and
> inappropriate use of a copyright license.  Ditto anti-patent
> provisions.  The FSF quite clearly intends to use their significant
> share of the stock of free software to promote exactly such licenses,
> and they have a lot of grass-roots support.  You have a right to act
> on your own opinion, however incorrect it is. :-)

Well let me decide whether my opinions stand correct or not. Personally,
as a GNU GPL user, I welcome the v3 provisions. They defend my rights
against thieves as I call people that try all the way to use my works by
trying to circumvent the license I choose.
Said that, I think DRMs are silly unless they are embedded in hardware,
at that point they change from silly to dangerous. They are still
ineffective to protect works from people determined to reproduce them,
but they are effective in denying freedom to the vast majority of users.

> Better I should devote my efforts to clarifying what their license
> actually means, rather than inducing them to obscure it further.

Well so you want to spread your opinion on the license, but you said
your opinions didn't count just 2 statement above ... you're for sure a
complicated man :-)

Simo.