On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There seems to be some rift between the law and reality, though. If the > law is taken literally, it's a no-op: it forbids writing software that > can't be written (if you write software for an effective protection > scheme, then, well, it's not effective). If the law is being enforced > anyway (which it is, of course), then it's being interpreted to mean > something a little different--where "effective" means something other > than what it does in English. In that case, anti-DRM clauses, and > evaluations of their potential effectiveness, need to be done while > under the influence of the courts' private version of the language.
What about a clause which says 'designed to be' rather than 'effective'? Because GnuPG is an effective TPM, but it is designed as a personal privacy program rather than a copyright enforcement program. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
