Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hrrm. We need a different clause then. > >> > >> "No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, > >> shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in > >> order to gain access to that work. > > > >This is too broad. If I have a machine on the internet which is > >secured using GPL'd programs, I certainly do not give anyone and > >everyone the legal authority to see what is on the machine. > > That's using your authority as the *machine owner*, though. Not your > authority as a *copyright holder*. That's precisely the distinction I'm > trying to make here, though I clearly haven't succeeded.
In that case, a better example would be if I put up an file encrypted with your public key on a webserver. I am not giving anyone but you the authority to access the contents. > >That is the basic problem with these anti-DRM clauses: differentiating > >between DRM and legitimate privacy controls is basically impossible. > > I think it is possible. It requires a sharp focus on the *legal* > issues, since the technology is not different, but the legal basis > is. A legitimate privacy control may control access to many things > -- but it does *not* exert control over works you have published > (since they're, well, *public*.) A legitimate privacy device may function very much like DRM. Consider classified environments, where you really don't want people to copy things around willy-nilly. Making it hard to copy information won't eliminate leaks, but it will reduce them. I don't see why making a system to handle classified documents should be disallowed by the GPL. Cheers, Walter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
