Regarding the text:no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally In section: gpl3.drm.p0.s3 Submitted by: pjrmon 2006-01-18 at 07:49 EST
5 agree: proski, neroden, davelab6, andrewpm, fej
noted by pjrmon 2006-01-18 at 07:49 EST:
I see no point for a license to withold permission to do what is already illegal.
I object to the many legal documents (conditions of use etc.) that forbid doing illegal things, and do not want the GNU GPL to lend weight to such clauses. Such clauses make the document harder to read, and hence fewer people read the document, and hence it is easier to get people to agree to objectionable terms.
I believe the reasoning is "we don't want any licensee claiming 'but the
GPL made me do it!'"
I agree that lawyers and judges realize that legal documents can't force
you to break the law. But many non-lawyers don't recognize this.
To bring up a politically-charged issue, remember the number of
reporters claiming that they had to protect their sources in the Plame
issue because they had enforceable contracts to do so. Any lawyer would
say "that contract may have been legal when it was made, but now
'protecting your sources' is illegal in your case so the contract is no
longer valid, just as if you had a long-standing contract to supply a
product that was later banned your contract would no longer be binding."
pjrm: I think your concern is a valid one. The only case I can think of
in which it is helpful to add a second layer of privacy protection is
where it allows a different party to file a lawsuit over that privacy
violation.
1. it is about privacy, but it is buried inside the DRM section, that
is related to the subject of privacy, but not _about_ it.
2. nor the license nor the body of law in many jurisdictions define
exactly what is privacy, nor which are the privacy rights and
expectations of the individuals, nor which are the exceptions to those
rights.
2a. maybe those definitions are out of the scope of the GPLv3.
3. there are privacy-invasion acts that are illegal -- and there are
those that are legal (like a wiretap authorized by a judge, or a
surveillance camera on a street). which acts are being banned by this
sentence?
4. last but not least, even if a program _can_ be used to invade the
privacy of others, exist the possibility that such program is not
_intended_ to be used in such a fashion, and that its primary function
is not simply invading the privacy of others, or that to fulfill its
primary function, as a collateral, the program _can_ be used to invade
the privacy of others (example: nmap and other security scanners). Are
those programs banned?
Comment 485: redundant (& hence harmful)
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:
#1136: (fontana) Umbrella issue for objections to this provision
Regarding the text:
In section: gpl3.drm.p0.s3
Submitted by: pjrm on 2006-01-18 at 07:49 EST
5 agree: proski, neroden, davelab6, andrewpm, fej
noted by pjrm on 2006-01-18 at 07:49 EST: noted by mlybbert on 2006-01-18 at 15:55 EST: noted by pde on 2006-01-18 at 23:00 EST: noted by massa on 2006-05-17 at 14:25 EDT:
collapse children