On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 15:25, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:59:50PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > > > 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. > > Strike the indicated text. It shouldn't be possible to "steal" the > source code of Free Software.
I don't understand this. > Access control is entirely the > responsibility of the distributor, and he fails to perform that function > diligently, he should not have standing under the terms of a Free > Software license to sue random third parties for having "gained > unathorized access" to the work. Er, I think the idea is that if I give you a CSS'd DVD of my Free Software movie, and you give a copy to your friend, who then uses DeCSS on it, I've granted him or her permission to do that. > Any breach of a distributor's access control that is truly reprehensible > will surely be punishable under statutes unrelated to copyright. > > I feel pretty strongly about this, by the way. :) Huh? Now I'm more confused than ever. -- -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
