NB: please avoid needlessly embolding words: it only heatens discussions that are better discussed calmly.[1]
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Terry Hancock wrote: > Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Terry Hancock wrote: > >> Prohibiting TPM *distribution* is fine under DFSG. > > > > No, it's not. Prohibiting TPM distribution is quite clearly a > > restriction on a field of endeavor. > > Since distribution is always a use, then *any* distribution > requirement is a use restriction in the broadest sense of the term. > > Thus, by this logic, GPL, LGPL, and even BSD are "restrictions on a > field of endeavor". This is a classical misunderstanding, unfortunatly. What the GPL does (and other similar copyleft licenses do) is make requirements on what you must distribute (or otherwise provide). This may indirectly restrict fields of endeavor because they are no longer profitable or useful, but it doesn't directly restrict them. [It may seem like splitting hairs, but it's an important distinction.] > 1) TPM-distribution is allowed, so long as there is a parallel > distribution of an equal or better version of the work without TPM, > and there is a publically available key and encryption tool for > converting the non-TPM work to TPM in order to play on the platform If I'm parsing you correctly, this would be appropriate; it's basically what the GPLv3 is trying to go for. > If it's #1, then there is only one practical concern, which is where > the application of TPM occurs. > > In that case, I would argue that it needs to happen at the end-user, > because that's the only way to truly prove both that the non-TPM > work is "equal or better" than the TPM work, AND it's the only way > to prove that the keys and encryption tools are available. This is the very same reasoning could be applied to compiled works; the counter arguments are the same reasons why important that we be able to distribute binary works. It may not be practicable for every end user to have the equipment to apply the TPM, or it may not be legal for them to posses the TPM circumventing devices. > > The critical aspect here is that parallel distribution does not > > cause the rights of a recipient of the work to be restricted; they > > retain all abilities that they had originally and gain additional > > ones (namely, being able to run the work on a TPM-inflicted > > device.) > > No. They already have that freedom in CCPL3.0. Problem solved. I'm unable to follow this line of reasoning. > > There are two choices: You either 1) allow parallel distribution > > 2) require distribution of keys or information needed to deploy > > modified versions to the device. > > CCPL3.0 chooses #2. The end user loads the TPM'd content onto the > device, applying the TPM at that point. You appear to be arguing that it requires a third state, that DRMed content cannot be distributed, and that the transformation to a TPM format must occur in by action of the end user. > > If you're seriously interested in discussing how to do copylefted > > TPM and DRM properly, I strongly suggest reading my position > > statement from committee D on the first discussion draft of the > > GPL > > URL please? http://svn.donarmstrong.com/don/trunk/projects/gplv3/issues/drm_allowing_authentication/ http://svn.donarmstrong.com/don/trunk/projects/gplv3/meeting_notes/ Don Armstrong 1: Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I've not responded until now, and elided large portions of your message. -- Build a fire for a man, an he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. -- Jules Bean http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
