Brian M Hunt wrote: > I was contemplating the conundrum of open source digital rights management, > and would like some feedback. If someone were to write digital rights > software, eg. for downloading from iTunes, could they license it under a free > software license like the GPL, with an added clause: > > "If the Program is designed to uphold digital rights management pursuant to > the distribution of copyrighted material, any modification to the Program to > undermine the terms of distribution for that copyright will violate this > license. All rights to publish, redistribute, and use the modified Program > are revoked upon violation of this clause. Derivative works may not modify > this license so as to remove this clause." > > Similarly, would such a clause violate DFSG?
Blatantly, yes. It's a restriction on the types of modifications permitted, which violates DFSG3. It is also arguably discrimination against types of use, although that is harder to argue. Furthermore, most DRM systems are designed to enforce far stricter restrictions than those of copyright law; in that case, it would be far easier to argue discrimination against perfectly legal uses. > If this cannot satisfy DFSG, what > changes are required to make it so? Removal of the clause entirely; DRM and freedom don't mix. > The hyperbole of this obviously leads to all sorts of non-free problems, > where > authors start contriving arbitrary restrictions. Is there a restriction that > can be placed on open source software that prevents modifying digital rights > management, and yet still satisfies DFSG? No. Free and Open Source Software is fundamentally incompatible with digital rights/restrictions management. Any license restriction that prevents you from using the software in any manner you choose would be non-free, and any license restriction that prevents you from changing the code to remove such limitations would also be non-free. Also, by its nature, digital restrictions management can only be effective if it restricts all rights except for those explicitly permitted; however, users should have all rights, except for those explicitly denied. This is one of many inherent flaws in DRM systems: they prevent legal uses that the enabler of the digital restrictions either didn't think of or didn't like. Such software forms a closed system: no extension or innovation is possible. Furthermore, such restrictions are obviously only applicable with non-free media, since Free media would have no need for such restrictions. If you want to go after people who copy your copyrighted material without permission, do so. Do not use your software to do it for you, throwing out legal uses and users' rights in the process. If you do, your software cannot possibly be Free Software. Someone who violates copyrights is already doing something illegal; there is no need for your license to state that (and it shouldn't attempt to). Someone who modifies your software for a new purpose that may possibly be used to violate copyrights is doing nothing wrong. Therefore, my suggestion is this: place the software under the GPL, with no additional restrictions. Let users take the responsibility to ensure they are complying with the copyrights of the media they use. This of course assumes you are not in a jurisdiction with laws such as the DMCA; if you are, then even the non-free restriction you mentioned above would not avoid violating the DMCA, since you would still be circumventing a "copy-protection" (really use-restriction) system. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
