Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I think that "effective" does not mean "perfect". Having a police force is an effective way of combatting crime, but it is far from perfect. > 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. This sounds like the disclaimers you sometimes see stating that a particular piece of software is not designed for safety critical systems. If it is just a disclaimer, then there is no freeness problem. But then I don't really see the point. If it is meant to prohibit certain types of modifications of the software, then we run squarely into DFSG #3 and/or #6. Cheers, Walter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
