GPL 3 to Take Hard Line on DRM

sebFlyte writes "ZDNet is reporting that Eben Moglen, the FSF's lead lawyer and the co-authour of GPL3, has explained that DRM is 'fundamentally incompatible' with the aims of the FSF and will be given short shrift in the latest version of the free software licence, which bans the use of 'digital restrictions' in GPL3 governed software. In his words: 'I recognise that that's a highly aggressive position, but it's not an aggression which we thought up. It's a defence related to an aggression which was launched against the people whose rights are our primary concern... We don't want our software used in a way which batters the head of the user to please somebody else. Our goal is the protection of users' rights, not movies' rights.'" We discussed the new GPL on Monday.

Comments

Enforceable?

[w.p.richardson]

I for one would be interested to know if this is enforceable in an actual court. The GPL is legally sound (so I have heard from lawyers), but could this provision pass the actual muster of a bought and paid for legal system?

One More Step Towards GPL Irrelevancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to moves like this one, the move to truly free licenses that companies use for their products and are willing to allow to be used internally will be accelerated.

Commercial BSD variants just got a little stronger today.

Hurray!

Re:Sony fiasco related?

[The Spoonman]

Which again raises the question: is the GPL enforceable? I've seen many examples of "stolen" GPL material showing up in commercial products over the last year, but I don't remember seeing any example of anyone being punished for it. Are there any such examples? Unless someone actively tries to enforce it soon, it's going to be meaningless in the eyes of the law. "They didn't come after any of these people, they're just singling us out because we're more profitable" becomes a defense.