Regarding the text:no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, In section: gpl3.drm.p0.s3 Submitted by: tuxcaron 2006-04-16 at 20:35 EDT
1 agree: fej
noted by tuxcaron 2006-04-16 at 20:35 EDT:
it is unclear if someone can or can't distribute a gpl3 proof of concept
an example:
someone discover a new kind of security flaw and make a gpl code that exploit it in order to demonstrate that this is a real security flaw
what is unclear is the "illegaly" term
this term depends a lot on the law of the country where the code is relased:
*if the country prohibit spywares,drm,viruses... the person can't distribute his code
*if the country does not prohibit spywares,drm,viruses but only prohibit things such as cracking/hacking it will only be illegal when:
**the program is included or hidden inside another program in the purpose of cracking/hacking
**the program is used in order to crack/hack
The clause isn't bulletproof (and was never intended to be) and does, as
you mention, depend on regional laws (which is taken up in other comments).
You've given an example of either a "fair use" of the software--using
the GPL software to comment on a flaw--or a use of the software that is
not an example of "distribution".
Comment 1095: proof of concept (viruses,spywares...)
This Comment is part of the discussion on:#1133: (fontana) Concerns regarding prohibition of legitimate uses of software
Regarding the text:
In section: gpl3.drm.p0.s3
Submitted by: tuxcar on 2006-04-16 at 20:35 EDT
1 agree: fej
noted by tuxcar on 2006-04-16 at 20:35 EDT: noted by ashawley on 2006-06-01 at 18:52 EDT:
collapse children