Personal tools
You are here: Home Discussion Committees D Meeting minutes Minutes from 2006/02/21 meeting
Document Actions

Minutes from 2006/02/21 meeting

by novalis last modified 2006-03-03 10:53

Approved 2006/02/28

David Turner, FSF
Steven Edwards, Wine Project
Zak Greant, Foo Associates
Mark Doliner, Gaim
James Blackwell, Bazaar-NG
Richard Fontana, Software Freedom Law Center
Massimo Tisi, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Don Armstrong
tomislav medak, Multimedia Institute
Mako Hill

1. David Turner will coordinate by consensus

2. Minutes from last meeting approved by consensus

Discussion about the API keys under the anti-DRM and CCSC sections:

3. A number of web services require that users have a "key" to use them.
Sometimes, this key is zero-cost, sometimes it isn't.  Is this key
"source code"?  The CCSC's key provision was not intended as a back-door
way of making the GPL act over networks.

Usually, applications that use API keys ask users to provide their own
keys.  So, this might fall under "recommended or principal context of
use."  If not, GPL apps could perhaps be re-engineered such that it
does, for example by proxying web service requests through a local
key-storing proxy.  This might even be good engineering practice.

Questions from this:
a. Is the CCSC section intended to apply to API keys?

b. Does the bit about "recommended or principe context of use"
section, which was designed to address Seth Schoen's Owner Override
proposal, in fact open a loophole in the definition of source code
whereby a machine contains no keys, but users must provide keys (for
instance on DVDs)?

In order to figure out what the contours of the CCSC should be wrt API
keys, Don will write up lists of possible actions, and annotate them
as to which he thinks should and shouldn't be allowed.  Committee D
can generalize from that.

The language "execute the source code" is confusing in the case of
compiled languages. massimotisi takes will steward correction of this
language (passed by consensus).

4. Discussion about Clause 3 (DRM Clause) Confusion

Does the anti-DRM clause, as written, forbid signing keys?  This
should be clarified.  Proposed discussion language: "unless the work
also provides or can be instructed to provideequivalent unencrypted

5. Membership votes closing soon

6. Adjourn at 0001 UTC by consensus


Powered by Plone

This site conforms to the following standards: