On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:23:47AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > >> This doesn't address proprietary or otherwise difficult but not > >> impossible to reverse formats. > > > > I considered that but I'm not sure how much of a threat it really is. > > > > There's no way to keep the sourced locked into an obfuscated format > > under my proposal; the first person to crack it open is free to > > redistribute it in obfuscated form. This is directly analogous, I > > think, to the reason the GNU GPL doesn't have a clause forbidding > > selling a work so licensed for $1 million. > > Unfortunately, in the age of the DMCA that isn't quite enough. Since > the GPL has few restrictions on functional modification, it's not much > of an issue there. A document license has a broader problem: the > "first person to crack it open" would be violating the DMCA to do so.
Would this text fix the problem? 6.6. Each time you distribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that receive copies indirectly through the recipient the authority to gain access to the work by descrambling a scrambled work, decrypting an encrypted work, or otherwise avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or impairing a technological measure effectively controlling access to a work. Unimportant explanation of some of the above: *BAD TEXT FOLLOWS* 6.6. Each time you distribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that receive copies indirectly through the recipient the authority to gain access to the work by circumventing any technological access control measure. The problem with the text above is that the DMCA says that circumvention is defined as doind the things I listed *without* authority from the copyright holder. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
