read GPLv3 comments: 614

# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 614: Purpose of this text?

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
This Comment is part of the discussion on:
#1131: (fontana) Difficulty of determining when a work is one that "invades users' privacy" (and when that rises to the level of illegality)
This Comment is part of the discussion on:
#1136: (fontana) Umbrella issue for objections to this provision

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: pde on 2006-01-20 at 21:00 EST
4 agree: proski, neroden, andrewpm, fej
noted by pde on 2006-01-20 at 21:00 EST:

Can anyone involved in the drafting process shed some light on the intention of this language?

noted by pde on 2006-01-20 at 21:01 EST:

Was it about moderating the effect of the following paragraph? In that case, does my suggestion of limiting that following paragraph to "legally published" data or works help?

noted by pde on 2006-01-20 at 21:04 EST:

Or was it about trying to stop rootkits, spyware and other creepy crawlies included as part of DRM systems? If that was the case, as others have noted, it shouldn't be limited to "illegal" invasion of privacy. Perhaps some expanded and clarified language (a whole paragraph?) could better achieve such an objective?

noted by pochini on 2006-01-22 at 13:15 EST:

1) GPL is about distribution. It should not rule what programs can do.
2) Privacy is a term that depends on the law. In some countries privacy may not be a right at all. This makes the clause almost useless.

noted by apm on 2006-01-23 at 07:21 EST:

The subject text is totally redundant and will only cause confusions. What the SONY rootkit did was almost certainly illegal, but there's no point in having a license forbidding something which is illegal by law. And there is no way you can decide from the source code alone whether is it going to be used illegaly. This text is probably the most obvious candidate for deletion from the draft.

collapse children