On GameSpot: Handheld Xbox coming...eventually.
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 21 of 76:
Next »
« Previous
RE:
"Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden."

and the provisions...

"Digital Restrictions Management.

As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.

No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data."

The author is mixing P and Q's. There is a patent retalation cluase and the author can choose to not use it, however there is not a DRM retalation clause.

The new Patent portions are here;

" They may impose software patent retaliation, which means permission for use of your added parts terminates or may be terminated, wholly or partially, under stated conditions, for users closely related to any party that has filed a software patent lawsuit (i.e., a lawsuit alleging that some software infringes a patent). The conditions must limit retaliation to a subset of these two cases: 1. Lawsuits that lack the justification of retaliating against other software patent lawsuits that lack such justification. 2. Lawsuits that target part of this work, or other code that was elsewhere released together with the parts you added, the whole being under the terms used here for those parts."

and

"Liberty or Death for the Program.

If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute the Program, or other covered work,so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute it at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other exclusive rights or to contest their legal validity. The sole purpose of this section is to protect the integrity of the free software distribution system. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice."

and

"When you distribute a covered work, you grant a patent license to the recipient, and to anyone that receives any version of the work, permitting, for any and all versions of the covered work, all activities allowed or contemplated by this License, such as installing, running and distributing versions of the work, and using their output. This patent license is nonexclusive, royalty-free and worldwide, and covers all patent claims you control or have the right to sublicense, at the time you distribute the covered work or in the future, that would be infringed or violated by the covered work or any reasonably contemplated use of the covered work.

If you distribute a covered work knowingly relying on a patent license, you must act to shield downstream users against the possible patent infringement claims from which your license protects you."

Some of this is mis-reporting. If your application contains no GPL code e.g. a non-GPL media player written for Linux then it does not effect it. However if your player uses GPL code then it must allow the user to bypass legally the restriction mechanism that disallows legal uses of the copyrighted materials - e.g. to transfer your copy or make limited copies under Fair Use.
Posted by: Edward Meyers   Posted on: 01/18/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

New Linux license takes aim at DRM and Hollywood  Loverock Davidson | 01/18/06
Rockhead, "tongue in cheek" is NOT the same ...  Judas I. | 01/18/06
You realize of course that...  #_z | 01/18/06
Linus will just use the existing GPL...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/18/06
Liar! Oh...the "L" word. Or wait...that's "Loverock"!  techboy_z | 01/18/06
Why the insults? Can think of a real comment?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/18/06
You realize....  Shelendrea | 01/18/06
Isn't that sad???  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/19/06
In order to be worthy of a REAL comment ...  Judas I. | 01/19/06
He is what he is.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/19/06
true  Shelendrea | 01/19/06
Oh, now THAT'S rich.  Judas I. | 01/19/06
Knock it off  Shelendrea | 01/19/06
You must be new around here.  Judas I. | 01/19/06
Oh this is getting good  Shelendrea | 01/19/06
Yep, gittin' really good, we're makin' progress, Shelendrea.  Judas I. | 01/19/06
Trouble is, DRM has good uses  A.Sinic | 01/20/06
Good uses?  jgoecks@... | 01/20/06
No, Linus said that...  Tony Agudo | 01/18/06
An odd statement.  Anton Philidor | 01/18/06
RE:  Edward Meyers | 01/18/06
Also tricky.  Anton Philidor | 01/18/06
A Good Chunk  Edward Meyers | 01/18/06
It Apears to be Aimed More At  Edward Meyers | 01/18/06
Another 10 year block of our lives...  John Le'Brecage | 01/19/06
DRM in the studio...  A.Sinic | 01/20/06
Funny how none of those security measures  mustangj36@... | 01/21/06
DRM and GPL3  hipparchus2001 | 01/18/06
Then it wouldn't be DRM anymore  Tony Agudo | 01/18/06
remote DRM?  __howard__ | 01/18/06
Does Hollywood have to abandon Linux...  Anton Philidor | 01/18/06
Mr Stallman v. Mr Gates/Ballmer  mdsmedia | 01/19/06
DRM (actually TPM) and GPL3  krehbiel | 01/19/06
Malware Writters Will Just Sign The Code  Edward Meyers | 01/19/06
Malware Writters Can't Just Sign The Code  krehbiel | 01/19/06
Oh well, knew it was coming  Boot_Agnostic | 01/19/06
This article is 100% FUD  krehbiel | 01/19/06
And that's why DRM doesn't work  voska | 01/19/06
Big win for Microsoft CE and sad day for PMPs  wa1gon | 01/19/06
TiVo USES Linux  Roger Ramjet | 01/19/06
Change to Windows I suppose.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/19/06
If it came down to it  Loverock Davidson | 01/19/06
linux reference is more than kernel.. bigger than Tivo  john.gruber@... | 01/19/06
Hmm...  thetargos | 01/19/06
Bad headline  John L. Ries | 01/19/06
So much nothing chat about a license to use Copyrighted works.  B.O.F.H. | 01/19/06
So I pose a serious question. When does it end?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/19/06
A License is a contract, a copyright is different  Physco Dude | 01/19/06
I am presuming that you are versed in Copyright Law by now.  B.O.F.H. | 01/19/06
DMCA and DRM Question?  alricsca | 01/19/06
GPL or any future version...  krehbiel | 01/19/06
DRM is NOT A BAD THING!  RMD | 01/19/06
You must be new to DRM to say that  Tony Agudo | 01/19/06
Yes!  TimeBomb | 01/19/06
Thanks!  Tony Agudo | 01/20/06
GREAT post Rafterman wink  btljooz | 01/20/06
I'm not a Windows user but...  Tony Agudo | 01/21/06
You have a point, but...  Physco Dude | 01/19/06
Sell what? The song is not the product, a ticket to a show is a product!!!  xunil skcor | 01/19/06
huh?????  Shelendrea | 01/19/06
Legally, you're probably not "buying" the song  __howard__ | 01/19/06
Your not buying the song or any "license" either.  xunil skcor | 01/20/06
Nor give it away ...  __howard__ | 01/24/06
so.............  Shelendrea | 01/19/06
iTunes  TimeBomb | 01/19/06
It really isn't a bad thing. Just FUD on overtime.  osreinstall | 01/21/06
People! GPL software does not mean you have to run GPL sofwatre on it....  Physco Dude | 01/19/06
GO Stallman!!! This is great news for open software!!!  xunil skcor | 01/19/06
Obutterball  Shelendrea | 01/19/06
Perfect sense to me, Shelendrea.  Judas I. | 01/19/06
Uncle Uncle!  Shelendrea | 01/19/06
Just ignore DRM  Mectron | 01/20/06
DRM is not just for Movies and Music  A.Sinic | 01/20/06
RE: DRM is not just for Movies and Music by A.Sinic  btljooz | 01/20/06
RE: Just ignore DRM by Mectron  btljooz | 01/20/06
GOOD!!!!  btljooz | 01/20/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here