Regarding the text:no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy In section: gpl3.drm.p0.s3 Submitted by: jblack (of Committee D) on 2006-01-16 at 21:16 EST
4 agree: proski, neroden, massa, andrewpm
noted by jblack (of Committee D) on 2006-01-16 at 21:16 EST:
The draft already clearly indicates in other places that this license does not allow for illegal activities.
Maybe I'm missing something, but, in general (not just regarding this
section), what possible business does the GNU GPL have in restricting
people's ability to break laws or punishing people for doing so?
If the law in question is in force in their jurisdiction, the courts
(not us) should metre out the appropriate punishment, and, if it isn't
in force in their jurisdiction, it is usually unfair for them to be
punished for breaking it.
Comment 257: Redundant statement
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:
#1130: (fontana) Perceptions of "redundancy" or pointlessness of a denial of permission for illegal conduct
Regarding the text:
In section: gpl3.drm.p0.s3
Submitted by: jblack (of Committee D) on 2006-01-16 at 21:16 EST
4 agree: proski, neroden, massa, andrewpm
noted by jblack (of Committee D) on 2006-01-16 at 21:16 EST: noted by joe on 2006-01-16 at 22:05 EST:
collapse children