Florian Weimer wrote: > * Nathanael Nerode: > > >>Hrrm. We need a different clause then. >> >>"No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require >>the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access >>to that work. Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a >>technological measure which effectively controls access to any work." > > > I think this is overly broad. What about the following? > > "You must not add any functionality to programs licensed under this > License which may not be removed, by you or any third party, according > to applicable law. Such functionality includes, but is not limited > to, technological measures which effectively control access to any > work, provided that removal of the measure would be prohibited by > applicable law."
Good idea. We need to do some more wording work, of course.... > > (It would make sense to include language which requires the > possibility of legal redistribution without the features, but I'm too > tired to rephrase it again.) I still see problems. :-/ This could be interpreted to prohibit adding access control features, rather than to require that they be removable. > The rationale is that we don't care if a piece of code enforces a > restriction if we can legally patch it away. This is the difference > between mandatory DRM and an ACL check in a file system. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]