Ineffective Technological Protection Measure
From GPLv3 Wiki
Revision as of 01:25, 4 March 2006 mav (Talk | contribs) New page ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 01:26, 4 March 2006 mav (Talk | contribs) addendum Next diff → |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
What if some foreign court comes up with a definition of a UCB ("Unproductive Copyright Boondoggle") which they outlaw, only to claim that it is not the same thing as an "Effective Technological Protection Measure" as defined in the DMCA? | What if some foreign court comes up with a definition of a UCB ("Unproductive Copyright Boondoggle") which they outlaw, only to claim that it is not the same thing as an "Effective Technological Protection Measure" as defined in the DMCA? | ||
- | How can the ETPM clause of the GPL v3 be made general enough to counter this threat? | + | How can the ETPM clause of the GPL v3 be made general enough to counter this threat, given that it only requires one to stipulate that a Covered Work cannot constitute an ETPM, without having to update the GPL every time some country comes up with something to ban in some DMCA-like law? |
Revision as of 01:26, 4 March 2006
What if some foreign court comes up with a definition of a UCB ("Unproductive Copyright Boondoggle") which they outlaw, only to claim that it is not the same thing as an "Effective Technological Protection Measure" as defined in the DMCA?
How can the ETPM clause of the GPL v3 be made general enough to counter this threat, given that it only requires one to stipulate that a Covered Work cannot constitute an ETPM, without having to update the GPL every time some country comes up with something to ban in some DMCA-like law?