From novalis at fsf.org Mon Apr 3 12:43:34 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:43:34 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] A signing problem In-Reply-To: <20060331050412.GH2631@frotz.zork.net> References: <20060329083316.GH21921@frotz.zork.net> <1143769487.20099.119.camel@banks> <20060331050412.GH2631@frotz.zork.net> Message-ID: <1144082614.16866.87.camel@shepard> On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 21:04 -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > David Turner writes: > > > It seems to me that if someone signs an application for use in a DRM > > system, even if they do not distribute the application, there is a > > strong contributory infringement or inducement claim against them. So, > > that handles some of your cases. > > Apart from the question about whether contributory infringement is or > should be applicable to this situation, I wonder about the significance > of "for use in". The GPLv3 draft refers to the recommended or principal > context of use, but I'm not sure how clear that is. > > Furthermore, what is the nature of the copyright infringment that > someone like Deborah is allegedly contributing to? Making the GPL software part of a DRM system in violation of section 3; contributing to the non-provision of source code as defined in section 1. > > In cases where authors' signatures under the GPL are perverted for use > > in DRM (Yoyodyne), I think there is still a potential secondary > > liability claim for those who create the DRM system. Further, as you > > note, without some sort of agreement with the signer, this is vulnerable > > to an attack whereby the signer signs others' applications. > > Can you elaborate a bit on this secondary liability theory? V3 says that GPL software can't be part of a DRM system. This is a bit complicated, I'll admit - after all, the GPL software itself clearly doesn't implement DRM. But the function of the system as a whole is to limit users (otherwise, we wouldn't be discussing it). Creating such a system is necessarily contributory infringement, since the system itself is infringing. I am aware that there is some hand-waving in the middle of that. I'm not bothered by a little hand-waving, because the whole contributory infringement regime is about hand-waving. > > I also just noticed an objection to your comments at the meeting that > > this reading constitutes an expansion of copyright law. In my view, it > > does not: FSF opposes all expansions of copyright law -- we filed amici > > in Eldred and in Grokster on the side of less restrictive copyright > > laws. But if copyright laws are expanded, the GPL sometimes expands > > with them. This doesn't affect our commitment to overturning these bad > > laws and rulings. Copyleft itself is a reaction against copyright > > overreach. > > Secondary liability in copyright law is a judge-made doctrine, not > a statutory doctrine. But statutes have since recognized it . > The scope of secondary liability therefore > depends on what cases plaintiff bring and what theories of secondary > liability they are able to persuade courts to adopt. This is why > there is so much excitement about the particular technical details > of new secondary liability theories. If the plaintiffs prevail under > a novel secondary liability theory, they have made new law. We haven't yet had to go to court to enforce the GPL. This doesn't mean that we never will, but it's not likely any time soon, because violators quickly realize that they are outgunned. Our likely strategy when we do go to cout will be not to ask for an expansion of theories of secondary liability. That would be contrary to our larger goals. But we think our theories fall within existing precedents, without the need to make new law. From novalis at fsf.org Tue Apr 4 12:54:38 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:54:38 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting now Message-ID: <1144169678.19358.62.camel@shepard> Please join us on IRC. From novalis at fsf.org Tue Apr 4 14:21:40 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 14:21:40 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times Message-ID: <1144174900.19358.71.camel@shepard> Sorry, I got confused due to Daylight Savings Time. The meeting actually starts at 22:00 UTC, which is now an hour later for those of us who observe DST. So, next week we'll meet at 22:00 UTC, which ism for instance, 6:00PM EDT. From novalis at fsf.org Thu Apr 6 11:15:22 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:15:22 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Missing meeting April 18th Message-ID: <1144336522.5034.57.camel@shepard> Not the next meeting, but the meeting after, Richard Fontana and I will be on the way to Brazil, so we won't be able to attend. Will someone else volunteer to coordinate, and post logs and minutes? From don at donarmstrong.com Thu Apr 6 15:56:23 2006 From: don at donarmstrong.com (Don Armstrong) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 12:56:23 -0700 Subject: [Committee-d] Missing meeting April 18th In-Reply-To: <1144336522.5034.57.camel@shepard> References: <1144336522.5034.57.camel@shepard> Message-ID: <20060406195623.GU4737@volo.donarmstrong.com> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006, David Turner wrote: > Not the next meeting, but the meeting after, Richard Fontana and I will > be on the way to Brazil, so we won't be able to attend. Will someone > else volunteer to coordinate, and post logs and minutes? I likewise will not be there for similar reasons. Don Armstrong -- A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle over expenditures on armaments and military equipment. It pays without discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing for the syndicates of financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic terrors are an abundant source of gain. -- Anatole France http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu From zak at greant.com Thu Apr 6 17:16:39 2006 From: zak at greant.com (Zak Greant) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 14:16:39 -0700 Subject: [Committee-d] Missing meeting April 18th In-Reply-To: <20060406195623.GU4737@volo.donarmstrong.com> References: <1144336522.5034.57.camel@shepard> <20060406195623.GU4737@volo.donarmstrong.com> Message-ID: <8C1ED978-6CAC-4AC3-B5BA-D6540776465A@greant.com> On Apr 6, 2006, at 12:56PDT (CA), Don Armstrong wrote: > On Thu, 06 Apr 2006, David Turner wrote: >> Not the next meeting, but the meeting after, Richard Fontana and I >> will >> be on the way to Brazil, so we won't be able to attend. Will someone >> else volunteer to coordinate, and post logs and minutes? > > I likewise will not be there for similar reasons. I won't be traveling and can help. --zak From don at donarmstrong.com Tue Apr 11 01:07:46 2006 From: don at donarmstrong.com (Don Armstrong) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:07:46 -0700 Subject: [Committee-d] (no subject) Message-ID: <20060411050746.GV25905@archimedes.ucr.edu> Unfortunatly, it looks like I'll be missing the 11th meeting too, as I'll be in transit from LA. drm_allowing_authentication basically needs another go round to see if there are any significant problems. Here's the current draft of the replacement for that clause for starters: Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install, compile (if required), and execute the work, perhaps modified by you, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output unless the user has specifically instructed the work to provide encrypted output, and can instruct it to provide unencrypted output. Encryption or authorization codes that the user can easily disable or replace with their own codes and retain identical functioning need not be provided, so long as the user can easily generate the codes or obtain them at no cost. A code need not be included in cases where the use of the work normally implies the user already has it. http://svn.donarmstrong.com/don/trunk/projects/gplv3/issues/drm_allowing_authentication/ has the rest of things. Don Armstrong -- Cheop's Law: Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p242 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu From novalis at fsf.org Tue Apr 11 12:58:05 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:58:05 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Committee meeting in one hour Message-ID: <1144774685.1499.59.camel@shepard> From novalis at fsf.org Fri Apr 14 11:09:36 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Deadlines Message-ID: <1145027376.1397.25.camel@shepard> We now have a hard deadline of May 15 for reports on the first draft. So far, we've seen Don's and James's; we're expecting a few more. If anyone has written anything else, please submit it to the committee soon so we can discuss it before the deadline. From novalis at fsf.org Thu Apr 20 11:21:38 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:21:38 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] 60 days Message-ID: <1145546499.10567.74.camel@shepard> I talked to Harald Welte, who is the other major GPL enforcer, about the 60 days bit. My comment, based on his comments, is #1102. http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=1102 Does this sound right to everyone? From zak at greant.com Thu Apr 20 17:51:18 2006 From: zak at greant.com (Zak Greant) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:51:18 -0700 Subject: [Committee-d] 60 days In-Reply-To: <1145546499.10567.74.camel@shepard> References: <1145546499.10567.74.camel@shepard> Message-ID: <54277BDC-F80E-4A6D-ACDE-927A67384E80@greant.com> On Apr 20, 2006, at 08:21PDT (CA), David Turner wrote: > I talked to Harald Welte, who is the other major GPL enforcer, > about the > 60 days bit. My comment, based on his comments, is #1102. > > http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=1102 > > Does this sound right to everyone? Sounds right to me. --zak