GPLv3

Comment 2656: Leave corporate DRM enforcement to support contracts

Regarding the text: A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.
In section: gpl3.nonsource.p7.s1
Submitted by: alexbk on 2007-03-30 at 06:53 EST
5 agree: alexbk, sepreece, bsost, PzyCrow, mux2005
noted by alexbk on 2007-03-30 at 06:53 EST:

The purpose of this distinction is to allow DRM in corporate/government setting where support functions and responsiblity are outsourced. The condition that the customer can't get the keys to fiddle/tinker can be specified in the support contract; if the customer really wants, he can obtain the keys via the GPL provisions but then he loses all support. Why complicate the software license instead of laying it out in support contracts where it belongs?

noted by crosbie on 2007-03-30 at 09:04 EST:

Maybe for a certain class of device the asinine law requires a manufacturer to disable/prevent owner-modification of the devices it sells?

It may not be possible to leave it to a separate, optional warranty or support contract.

Incidentally, it is not necessary to agree with your own comments. ;-)

noted by aaronmf on 2007-03-30 at 18:46 EST:

Often software contracts in the corporate world are offered on a take it or leave it basis. If it is left up to corporations to either include or not include something in a support contract one may be sure they will generally give less to the corporate consumer.

noted by aaronmf on 2007-03-30 at 18:46 EST:

Often software contracts in the corporate world are offered on a take it or leave it basis. If it is left up to corporations to either include or not include something in a support contract one may be sure they will generally give less to the corporate consumer.

noted by mux2005 on 2007-05-16 at 08:00 EDT:

I also find the argument made in the rationale unconvincing. It starts out with "In our discussions with companies and governments..." I'm sorry, but IMHO this alone disqualifies the arguments. Governments and companies are the entities that understand and value freedom the least of all. They're also chronically inflexible in their thinking and unwilling to adapt to changes unless forced to. The FSF should not let itself be guided by those who are afraid of their own freedom. I say, give them their 4 freedoms even if they're afraid of them. I promise you they will find a way to adapt. And in the case of Installation Information it's really easy. They can demand that Installation Information be shipped on a separate CD and then destroy that CD right upon delivery. Really, is this so hard? Does the whole free software community need to suffer having their freedoms limited to user products, just because some big organizations don't know how to securely dispose of a CD?

collapse children