This website is an archive. It was used for drafting and public consultation on GPLv3 and version 3 of other GNU licenses which were published in 2007. For up to date information, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html. For more information about this archive, see https://www.fsf.org/licensing/gplv3-archive

From GPLv3 Wiki

What if some foreign court comes up with a definition of a UCB ("Unproductive Copyright Boondoggle") which they outlaw, only to claim that it is not the same thing as an "Effective Technological Protection Measure" as defined in the DMCA?

How can the ETPM clause of the GPL v3 be made general enough to counter this threat, given that it only requires one to stipulate that a Covered Work cannot constitute an ETPM, without having to update the GPL every time some country comes up with something to ban in some DMCA-like law?

I encourage you to submit your concerns in the comment system if you haven't already. If you do that, they'll be reviewed by the discussion committees and addressed appropriately. Perhaps this page could be use to brainstorm possible solutions? --brett 15:28, 7 March 2006 (EST)