Regarding the text:Regardless of any other provision of this license, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy In section: gpl3.drm.p0.s3 Submitted by: frxon 2006-01-31 at 18:46 EST
4 agree: proski, neroden, andrewpm, fej
noted by frxon 2006-01-31 at 18:46 EST:
Does this mean that I cannot modify a "licensed program" in order to
implement some illegal privacy-invading feature and distribute the
resulting work?
This is an unacceptable restriction on the functionality of modified versions and discriminates against possible uses of the work.
I'm definitely *against* privacy invasions, but this should not belong
in a copyright license.
If the privacy invasion is indeed illegal, there are already laws to
forbid that behavior. The license should *not* say that you cannot
distribute a modified program that performs illegal operations.
I suggest dropping this restrictions, especially in light of http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html
NoteUrl http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-1?Query=%20Creator%20=%20'frx'%20 changed to gplv3-draft-1 by orion4 (admin) on 2006-02-15 at 14:11 EST
I agree. GPL is hurting secirity research and freedom of speech here.
If I want to demonstrate how software could be used to invade privacy, I
should be allowed to create an exploit and possibly distribute it via
mailing lists. I don't want to be prosecuted for copyright violation
when reporting privacy-related security holes.
Comment 697: A hammer with a notice stating "you cannot use me to break people's heads"
This Comment is part of the discussion on:#1129: (fontana) Violates principle of no discrimination against fields of use
This Comment is part of the discussion on:
#1133: (fontana) Concerns regarding prohibition of legitimate uses of software
Regarding the text:
In section: gpl3.drm.p0.s3
Submitted by: frx on 2006-01-31 at 18:46 EST
4 agree: proski, neroden, andrewpm, fej
noted by frx on 2006-01-31 at 18:46 EST:
collapse children