From novalis at fsf.org Thu Mar 2 12:03:39 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 12:03:39 -0500 Subject: [Committee-d] Interpreter binding issue Message-ID: <1141319019.23508.44.camel@shepard> The interpreted language binding issue comment has been posted as-promised: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=924 From novalis at fsf.org Fri Mar 3 09:19:14 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 09:19:14 -0500 Subject: [Committee-d] Timeline Message-ID: <1141395554.5791.5.camel@shepard> I appreciate the progress that Committee D has made on gathering issues. Let's try to wrap up the issue gathering process by the end of this month. Then we can spend April drafting opinions on these issues, to be sent to the drafters by the beginning of May. That will ensure that Committee D's comments are addressed in the second draft of v3. Any issues that the committee does not get to by then will have to be addressed in the third draft. From novalis at fsf.org Wed Mar 8 16:30:11 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:30:11 -0500 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? Message-ID: <1141853411.27129.114.camel@banks> I notice that a lot of people aren't making it to meetings. Would a different meeting time be better? Or are people simply not able to allocate time for meetings at all? Would people who have not participated in meetings prefer to participate in some other way? From to-me at mi2.hr Wed Mar 8 17:56:38 2006 From: to-me at mi2.hr (tomislav medak) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:56:38 +0100 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? In-Reply-To: <1141853411.27129.114.camel@banks> References: <1141853411.27129.114.camel@banks> Message-ID: <440F6126.9070809@mi2.hr> maybe trying with the mailing list for change... to see if people can better particpate through that... David Turner wrote: > I notice that a lot of people aren't making it to meetings. Would a > different meeting time be better? Or are people simply not able to > allocate time for meetings at all? Would people who have not > participated in meetings prefer to participate in some other way? > > _______________________________________________ > Committee-D mailing list > Committee-D at gplv3.fsf.org > http://gplv3.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/committee-d From biella at rci.rutgers.edu Wed Mar 8 19:23:22 2006 From: biella at rci.rutgers.edu (Gabriella Coleman) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:23:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? In-Reply-To: <1141853411.27129.114.camel@banks> References: <1141853411.27129.114.camel@banks> Message-ID: <52819.67.85.190.129.1141863802.squirrel@webmail.rci.rutgers.edu> > I notice that a lot of people aren't making it to meetings. Would a > different meeting time be better? Or are people simply not able to > allocate time for meetings at all? Would people who have not > participated in meetings prefer to participate in some other way? A reminder email-notice would certainly help me show up more consistently! Biella -- Gabriella Coleman Fellow, Center For Cultural Analysis Rutgers University (732)-932-8426 biella at rci.rutgers.edu From jesse at fsck.com Thu Mar 9 02:11:26 2006 From: jesse at fsck.com (jesse) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 02:11:26 -0500 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? In-Reply-To: <440F6126.9070809@mi2.hr> References: <1141853411.27129.114.camel@banks> <440F6126.9070809@mi2.hr> Message-ID: <20060309071126.GI3276@bestpractical.com> > maybe trying with the mailing list for change... to see if people can > better particpate through that... Seconded. I've been finding myself on way too many airplanes of late. I feel badly that I haven't had much time for the GPLv3 effort. How are the other committees doing, anyway? Jesse > > David Turner wrote: > > I notice that a lot of people aren't making it to meetings. Would a > > different meeting time be better? Or are people simply not able to > > allocate time for meetings at all? Would people who have not > > participated in meetings prefer to participate in some other way? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Committee-D mailing list > > Committee-D at gplv3.fsf.org > > http://gplv3.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/committee-d > _______________________________________________ > Committee-D mailing list > Committee-D at gplv3.fsf.org > http://gplv3.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/committee-d > -- From novalis at fsf.org Thu Mar 9 13:51:15 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:51:15 -0500 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? In-Reply-To: <20060309071126.GI3276@bestpractical.com> References: <1141853411.27129.114.camel@banks> <440F6126.9070809@mi2.hr> <20060309071126.GI3276@bestpractical.com> Message-ID: <1141930276.27129.206.camel@banks> On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 02:11 -0500, jesse wrote: > Seconded. I've been finding myself on way too many airplanes of late. I > feel badly that I haven't had much time for the GPLv3 effort. How are > the other committees doing, anyway? They are making progress on various fronts to greater or lesser extents. To my knowledge, no committee has yet submitted anything, although some are close to doing so. From don at donarmstrong.com Sun Mar 12 03:36:16 2006 From: don at donarmstrong.com (Don Armstrong) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:36:16 -0800 Subject: [Committee-d] DRM and Allowing Authentication Draft Message-ID: <20060312083616.GM3141@volo.donarmstrong.com> Here is the current draft of the changes to section 1 that I'm going to suggest to deal with this particular issuee. It's still rather suboptimal, but I think I'm moving in the proper direction. Suggestions about the current draft appreciated. Original: Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, 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. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it. Modification: Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install, compile (if required), and execute the covered 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 you have specifically instructed the work to provide encrypted output, and can instruct it to provide unencrypted output. Encryption or authorization codes that you can disable or replace with your own codes and retain identical functioning need not be provided, so long as you can generate the codes or obtain them at no cost to you. A code need not be included in cases where the use of the covered work normally implies you already have it. Wdiff Output: Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to [-install and/or-] {+install, compile (if required), and+} execute the [-source code of the-] {+covered+} work, perhaps modified by you, [-in the recommended or principal context of use,-] 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 you have specifically instructed the work to provide encrypted output, and can instruct it to provide unencrypted+} output. [-Notwithstanding this, a-] {+Encryption or authorization codes that you can disable or replace with your own codes and retain identical functioning need not be provided, so long as you can generate the codes or obtain them at no cost to you. A+} code need not be included in cases where {+the+} use of the {+covered+} work normally implies [-the user-] {+you+} already [-has-] {+have+} it. As always the most current version is available at http://svn.donarmstrong.com/don/trunk/projects/gplv3/issues/drm_allowing_authentication I'll try to remember to stick a pdf in an accessible location, or you can build the pdf yourself if you want. [You'll just need rubber, latex and wdiff.] Don Armstrong -- The attackers hadn't simply robbed the bank. They had carried off everything portable, including the security cameras, the carpets, the chairs, and the light and plumbing fixtures. The conspirators had deliberately punished the bank, for reasons best known to themselves, or to their unknown controllers. They had superglued doors and shattered windows, severed power and communications cables, poured stinking toxins into the wallspaces, and concreted all of the sinks and drains. In eight minutes, sixty people had ruined the building so thouroughly that it had to be condemed and later demolished. -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p4 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://gplv3.fsf.org/pipermail/committee-d/attachments/20060312/ebe191b7/attachment.pgp From jesse at fsck.com Sun Mar 12 12:05:12 2006 From: jesse at fsck.com (jesse) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Committee-d] DRM and Allowing Authentication Draft In-Reply-To: <20060312083616.GM3141@volo.donarmstrong.com> References: <20060312083616.GM3141@volo.donarmstrong.com> Message-ID: <20060312170512.GY3276@bestpractical.com> > codes and retain identical functioning need not be provided, so long > as you can generate the codes or obtain them at no cost to you. A code Having been absent a bunch lately, I could easily be misreading or rehashing. If I am, tell me to go RTFLogs ;) "obtain them at no cost to you" seems to suggest that a vendor could provide them gratis as long as the feel like complying, but that if they go belly up or have a change of heart, the public could lose. -jesse From jbsoufron at gmail.com Sun Mar 12 15:10:32 2006 From: jbsoufron at gmail.com (Jean-Baptiste Soufron) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:10:32 +0100 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? In-Reply-To: <1141853411.27129.114.camel@banks> References: <1141853411.27129.114.camel@banks> Message-ID: <44148038.8070305@gmail.com> Meeting on Sundays would be much better for me. Jean-Baptiste Soufron cersa-cnrs paris 2 +33 (0) 617 962 457 http://soufron.typhon.net David Turner wrote: > I notice that a lot of people aren't making it to meetings. Would a > different meeting time be better? Or are people simply not able to > allocate time for meetings at all? Would people who have not > participated in meetings prefer to participate in some other way? > > _______________________________________________ > Committee-D mailing list > Committee-D at gplv3.fsf.org > http://gplv3.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/committee-d > > From don at donarmstrong.com Sun Mar 12 18:05:27 2006 From: don at donarmstrong.com (Don Armstrong) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:05:27 -0800 Subject: [Committee-d] DRM and Allowing Authentication Draft In-Reply-To: <20060312170512.GY3276@bestpractical.com> References: <20060312083616.GM3141@volo.donarmstrong.com> <20060312170512.GY3276@bestpractical.com> Message-ID: <20060312230527.GT3141@volo.donarmstrong.com> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, jesse wrote: > > codes and retain identical functioning need not be provided, so long > > as you can generate the codes or obtain them at no cost to you. A code > > Having been absent a bunch lately, I could easily be misreading or > rehashing. If I am, tell me to go RTFLogs ;) > > "obtain them at no cost to you" seems to suggest that a vendor could > provide them gratis as long as the feel like complying, but that if > they go belly up or have a change of heart, the public could lose. This is also a problem with sourcecode as well... so I'm not sure if there's anything that we can do about it. I was really trying to address the issue where the key infrastructure requires you to purchase a multithousand dollar key from a CA, and perhaps in some cases have an insurance policy current for a few million dollars to cover misuse of your key. [Such a key would be "available"] Don Armstrong -- A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election. -- Bill Vaughan http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu From pde at cs.mu.OZ.AU Mon Mar 13 03:50:50 2006 From: pde at cs.mu.OZ.AU (Peter Eckersley) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:50:50 +1100 Subject: [Committee-d] GPLv3-draft1 and anti-circumvention laws Message-ID: <20060313085050.GA18599@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Hi all, as discussed at last week's IRC meeting, I've written up a set of ideas that committee D may wish to look at for clarifying the DRM clause in GPLv3-draft1 and the way that it relates to anti-circumvention laws. This document is available at: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~pde/gplv3-drm-proposals.pdf it does not currently include citations to any of the comments submitted on -draft1, although there would be many of relevance. -- Peter Eckersley Department of Computer Science & mailto:pde at cs.mu.oz.au IP Research Institute of Australia http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~pde The University of Melbourne From novalis at fsf.org Tue Mar 14 17:32:01 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:32:01 -0500 Subject: [Committee-d] GPLv3 Committee D meeting, 2200 UTC Message-ID: <1142375522.28044.72.camel@banks> The meeting today seems a bit sparsely attended. Sorry for the late reminder. From novalis at fsf.org Tue Mar 14 18:05:48 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:05:48 -0500 Subject: [Committee-d] GPLv3-draft1 and anti-circumvention laws In-Reply-To: <20060313085050.GA18599@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> References: <20060313085050.GA18599@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Message-ID: <1142377549.28044.78.camel@banks> On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 19:50 +1100, Peter Eckersley wrote: > Hi all, > > as discussed at last week's IRC meeting, I've written up a set of ideas > that committee D may wish to look at for clarifying the DRM clause in > GPLv3-draft1 and the way that it relates to anti-circumvention laws. > > This document is available at: > > http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~pde/gplv3-drm-proposals.pdf > > it does not currently include citations to any of the comments submitted > on -draft1, although there would be many of relevance. We discussed this proposal on IRC today. Rickerby and I think it is too broad -- does anyone else have any comments? One interesting thing to note is that the US DMCA thinks that an "effective" access control measure (the thing you can't circumvent), is one that appears in the ordinary course of operation. So, this would be "effective" ; if then " I proposed that the license simply define "ordinary course of operation" to include modification. I think this would have a lot of generally useful effects -- it would explain what the license intends, and it might affect the interpretation of patent clauses as well. It could maybe even live in the preamble. Do others have issues with this? From fontana at softwarefreedom.org Tue Mar 14 20:28:38 2006 From: fontana at softwarefreedom.org (Richard Fontana) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:28:38 -0500 Subject: [Committee-d] New version of GPLv3 commenting system Message-ID: <44176DC6.3020804@softwarefreedom.org> Today the FSF made live a new interface for the public commenting system that I think you will find interesting, useful, and easier to use, particularly for your work as committee members. The new system color-codes words in the license draft text based on how many comments each area of the text has received. (The leader is the phrase "technological protection" in Section 3, which accordingly shows up highlighted in red.) The new system also lets you click on text in the draft and see all the comments that have been made in reference to that text. Further progress on browser compatibility has been made. You can see the new interface at: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/ The old interface is still available, at: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/classic.html -- Richard E. Fontana Counsel Software Freedom Law Center tel. 212-461-1909 fax 212-580-0898 From zak at greant.com Fri Mar 17 11:23:07 2006 From: zak at greant.com (Zak Greant) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:23:07 -0800 Subject: [Committee-d] GPLv3-draft1 and anti-circumvention laws In-Reply-To: <1142377549.28044.78.camel@banks> References: <20060313085050.GA18599@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1142377549.28044.78.camel@banks> Message-ID: <220B1E2D-137C-4260-9E9A-AD6655EC4529@greant.com> On Mar 14, 2006, at 15:05PST (CA), David Turner wrote: > We discussed this proposal on IRC today. Rickerby and I think it > is too > broad -- does anyone else have any comments? I concur. The suggestions broaden the scope of the GPL, which seems likely to weaken the license as a whole. > One interesting thing to note is that the US DMCA thinks that an > "effective" access control measure (the thing you can't > circumvent), is > one that appears in the ordinary course of operation. > > So, this would be "effective" > ; if then " > > I proposed that the license simply define "ordinary course of > operation" > to include modification. I think this would have a lot of generally > useful effects -- it would explain what the license intends, and it > might affect the interpretation of patent clauses as well. It could > maybe even live in the preamble. > > Do others have issues with this? I am not sure that I understand - heading off to IRC / #CommitteeD to try and catch up with you to discuss. Cheers! --zak From zak at greant.com Fri Mar 17 13:09:07 2006 From: zak at greant.com (Zak Greant) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:09:07 -0800 Subject: [Committee-d] GPLv3-draft1 and anti-circumvention laws In-Reply-To: <1142377549.28044.78.camel@banks> References: <20060313085050.GA18599@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1142377549.28044.78.camel@banks> Message-ID: List members might be interested in this BoingBoing post: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/10/access_to_knowledge_.html Access to Knowledge Treaty first draft is live Last fall, we kicked ass at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a UN agency that is supposed to be a humanitarian body but really spends all of its time ratcheting up the exclusive rights of big patent, copyright and trademark holders. We went to WIPO and drafted the "Geneva Declaration," laying out the case for a WIPO that lived up to its humanitarian mission by promoting international development and creativity. The Declaration begat the Development Agenda proposal, which the delegations of India, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and others took to the main session of WIPO, calling on it to reform itself. WIPO passed the Development Agenda, and now we're holding them to their promise. Last winter, a group of activists, scholars, reps of commercial and standards bodies and practicioners of development gathered in Geneva to begin drafting a new treaty on Access to Knowledge (A2K), inviting all who couldn't be there in person to follow along on a public mailing list. Those two days were among the most exhilarating in my life: we began the process of drafting a treaty that will guarantee rights of archivists, educators and those who provide access to disabled people. A2K is bearing fruit: the first draft of the treaty has just been published preparatory to a drafting summit in London this Thursday and Friday. I'm reading through it now and boy it's good stuff -- just check out some of the provisions on DRM: legal prohibitions against anti-circumvention of DRM/TPM measures shall be limited, and not be enforced in the following cases: i. When DRM/TPM licensing terms preclude implementation in Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), ii. When DRM/TPM systems are marketed without adequate disclosure of their restriction modes and the terms under which they can be invoked, or when terms can be modified without a user's explicit consent, iii. When DRM/TPM systems do not provide mechanisms to permit works to be accessible by persons with visually impairments or other disabilities, iv. When DRM systems rely upon social entities that such as households and families in their technology more narrowly or restrictively than have been defined in local law, Cheers! --zak From novalis at fsf.org Tue Mar 21 16:15:46 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:15:46 -0500 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting, 2200 utc Message-ID: <1142975747.7953.116.camel@banks> There's a meeting in about 45 minutes, on Freenode #committeed. Be there. From novalis at fsf.org Thu Mar 23 15:23:56 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:23:56 -0500 Subject: [Committee-d] Collecting issues Message-ID: <1143145436.7953.255.camel@banks> I notice at least one issue marked as owned by committee D, but which we haven't discussed. This doesn't particularly bother me -- I figure we'll discuss everything eventually, and indicating an interest causes no harm. If you're going to do this, tho, please indicate on the list that you've done so, so that interested parties can talk with you to discuss preparing a report. We also should start marking a few more issues -- right now, we've only got a half dozen or so marked. If you expressed interest in a set of comments, please (a) group the comments together using parent/child, (b) mark the top-level comment as an issue, and (c) mark the issue as owned by committee D. If something we're interested in is already an issue and is owned by another committee, this is OK -- we get to write our own report. Just add D to the list of interested committees. Then tell the list what you've done. Thanks. -- -- -David Turner GPLv3 Coordinator Free Software Foundation From novalis at fsf.org Tue Mar 28 17:04:16 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:04:16 -0500 Subject: [Committee-d] Committee D meeting, now Message-ID: <1143583456.20099.61.camel@banks> Please join us. From schoen at loyalty.org Wed Mar 29 03:33:16 2006 From: schoen at loyalty.org (Seth David Schoen) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:33:16 -0800 Subject: [Committee-d] A signing problem Message-ID: <20060329083316.GH21921@frotz.zork.net> Suppose that there is a developer who creates applications for PDAs and mobile phones. The developer signs the source and binary packages that she publishes. She packages the binary packages in a standard format that is supported by a large number of mobile devices that all use the same microprocessor. Anyone who has a device that runs on that microprocessor can -- if the device is programmed to allow it -- download and run Deborah's object package. Some of those devices are manufactured or sold by Yoyodyne Corporation, which does not want to give users the freedom to install the software of their choice on its devices. However, the managers at Yoyodyne (who all have unrestricted PDAs made by rival companies for their own personal use) discover that the developer's (Deborah's) application is really useful and that the ability to install it on Yoyodyne PDAs would enhance their value. They hard-code Deborah's public key into the next generation Yoyodyne PDA and tell it to allow users to install anything signed by Deborah. Empresas Inamigaveis SA is another manufacturer of compatible devices that would potentially be capable of running Deborah's applications. They are a little more paranoid than Yoyodyne and do not want to delegate directly to her the ability to empower their customers to run anything she wants. (It is unclear whether they fear that Deborah will become a spyware developer or whether they worry that she will start generating signatures for third-party development tools and interpreters that would be able to run arbitrary third-party applications.) EI approaches Deborah with a suggestion. If she will submit new versions of her object code packages to EI, they will, after verifying certain properties of her application to their satisfaction, generate and publish their own signature on the particular versions that they think are safe and not incompatible with their business model. Then their users will be able to choose to run those versions of Deborah's software on their EI PDAs. Since Deborah wants to make her software available to the largest possible number of people, she agrees and starts e-mailing her new versions to EI for their verification. She never makes any changes to her software on their behalf, but she realizes that they reserve the right to approve or disapprove each version on its own. After a while, she sets up an RSS feed to notify EI automatically when a new version comes out. After two years, Deborah's application is so popular with EI's customers that EI decides to start charging customers separately for the ability to run it. (Users of EI PDAs don't have to pay Deborah because she doesn't ask for a royalty for her application. However, they do have to pay EI because EI won't give them the software or keys necessary to run Deborah's application without payment of a special "third-party software activation fee".) Another company, Eigentumstechnik GmbH, also makes compatible PDAs. They download various versions of Deborah's program and review and sign it to authorize their users to run it. They don't ask Deborah about this or even tell her that they're doing it, but it proves to be so popular that EGTT starts to consider Deborah's work a "killer application" and a mainstay of their market -- it's a major reason that people buy EGTT devices. Since Deborah hasn't been writing this program for a living, they start to worry about what might happen if she decided to stop developing it, or just about what would happen if she got distracted by other interests. In order to align Deborah's incentives with their own, EGTT decides to make a voluntary contribution of 1 Euro to Deborah for each copy of her work that gets installed on an EGTT customer device. EGTT does not enter into a contractual relationship with Deborah; they just send her a letter in which they say that they want to show their appreciation for her work and hope to allow her to continue to devote her efforts to developing new versions of her application. Sure enough, EGTT's plan works: the amount of money they're sending her allows Deborah to quit her day job and spend all her time working on maintaining her application. Of course, it still runs perfectly on EI and Yoyodyne PDAs, and even on "open" PDAs made by other companies (that is, PDAs that allow their owners to install software of the owner's choice). However, Yoyodyne's excellent marketing and EI and EGTT's deep "discounts" (subsidies based on the assumption that most customers will pay substantial fees after purchase for the right to run particular third party software application) start to drive the open PDA makers out of the market. Within a few years, only 8% of purchasers of PDAs that would be technically capable of running Deborah's software have PDAs that allow them to install modified versions not published by Deborah (and possibly approved by the manufacturer). The knowledge represented by Deborah's signing key is of value for several different reasons: * it represents Deborah's artistic control over the direction of her project and is tied to her reputation as a good programmer; * it helps people who get a copy of her application know that it really came from her and hasn't been infected with a virus or spyware; * it is used by Yoyodyne as a means of control over its users. The knowledge represented by EI's and EGTT's signing keys is of value because these keys are used by them as means of control over their respective users (and thereby, perhaps, as a means of extracting revenue from the users for the right to perform an action that would have had no marginal cost to anyone). My questions are: Where did Deborah go astray? Has she still not gone astray? What if she actually got paid by a company pursuant to contract to develop software directly with the goal that it be used only on one platform and only in unmodified form, with at least the latter condition enforced by technical means within the target platform? If Deborah incorporated GPLv3-covered code originally written by someone else into her application, what would the definition of "complete corresponding source code" encompass? Is there anything here that she would be prohibited by GPLv3 from doing for some other reason than a potential failure to provide the CCSC? -- Seth David Schoen | This is a new focus for the security http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | community. The actual user of the PC http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | [...] is the enemy. | -- David Aucsmith, IDF 1999 From novalis at fsf.org Thu Mar 30 20:44:47 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:44:47 -0500 Subject: [Committee-d] A signing problem In-Reply-To: <20060329083316.GH21921@frotz.zork.net> References: <20060329083316.GH21921@frotz.zork.net> Message-ID: <1143769487.20099.119.camel@banks> 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. 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. 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. From schoen at loyalty.org Fri Mar 31 00:04:12 2006 From: schoen at loyalty.org (Seth David Schoen) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:04:12 -0800 Subject: [Committee-d] A signing problem In-Reply-To: <1143769487.20099.119.camel@banks> References: <20060329083316.GH21921@frotz.zork.net> <1143769487.20099.119.camel@banks> Message-ID: <20060331050412.GH2631@frotz.zork.net> 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? > 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? > 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. 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. If a free software developer comes up with a reason for a court to find secondary liability for someone engaged in a kind of activity that has never previously been thought to constitute contributory infringement, that free software developer is enlarging the scope of copyright. This is a very important issue in free software activism in general. It is important not to expand the scope of copyright in the interest of copyleft enforcement in ways that would imply a diminished right of free software developers to reverse engineer, interoperate with, or produce feature-compatible versions of proprietary programs. -- Seth David Schoen | This is a new focus for the security http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | community. The actual user of the PC http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | [...] is the enemy. | -- David Aucsmith, IDF 1999