[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues forAthens

[Bernard Lang]

Thanks to Richard and to Peter Eckersley for they thoughtful replies.

I will not answer now, if ever, because I want to take time to
understand it fully.

However, ther is one point I can make now :


> =09=09   Now we have a choice of making free software that will
>     control the restrictions, or not making any ...  that is the only
>     choice.
>
> That choice will not be open to us if Hollywood has any say about the
> question.  The latest proposals prohibit all free software capable of
> accessing the data, even if *as written* it implements the same
> restrictions.

The law (DADVSI) that is being discussed now in the French parliament
states exactly the opposite.  It is legal to do it as free software,
as long as it implements the same restrictions.  This passed the lower
chamber (Assembl=E9e Nationale), and did not make the US Secretary for
commerce (Mr Guttierez) very happy.

... and this law is about to be examined by the French Senate, which
is why I have little time just now.


>  For instance, this is what the WIPO Broadcast Treaty is
> designed to do.

Can you send me more information on that :

- where can I find the text of the treaty (sorry if it appeared on the
  list before : I cannot read everything)

- what parts of the treaty actually deal with these issues.

This is an urgent request
           --------------


and for a clarification :

  you use of the word "tivoize" refer to hardware encryption
  preventing users to run their own software on their machine.  Any
  reference to a precise definition, or a paper ?

Amicalement

Bernard Lang

* Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>, le 05-04-06, a =E9crit:
>     I will illustrate with an example. People want to listen to music on
>     their computer.  The music they want may be sold under condition that
>     is controlled by a DRM system ... any other software that gives acces=
s
>     to it without controlling restrictions is illegal (that is the law of
>     the country).
>
> Those are the only lawful choices, but what society really needs
> is for someone to break the copy lock.
>
> =09=09   Now we have a choice of making free software that will
>     control the restrictions, or not making any ...  that is the only
>     choice.
>
> That choice will not be open to us if Hollywood has any say about the
> question.  The latest proposals prohibit all free software capable of
> accessing the data, even if *as written* it implements the same
> restrictions.  For instance, this is what the WIPO Broadcast Treaty is
> designed to do.
>
> The people who seek to impose DRM have the goal of restricting the
> public.  If the users can get free software which implements the
> restrictions, users can modify it to remove the restrictions.  The
> perpetrators of DRM do not want this to be possible.  This is why they
> frequently seek to tivoize the software so that users can't run
> modified versions.  Practically speaking, that is not really free.
>
>     So, since I do want to enable people to use these platforms, I will
>     use a free software licence that does not preclude the implementation
>     of DRM (thus not the GPLv3 licence).
>
> GPLv3 does not preclude the implementation of DRM.  GPLv3 will allow
> you to modify the program to implements technical restrictions,
> whichever technical restrictions you like.
>
> What GPLv3 prohibits is the usual next step: to tivoize the program
> so that the user cannot effectively run changed versions.
>
> That's the usual next step for Hollywood.  You, as a supporter of free
> software, might not want to take that step.  If you don't, the GPLv3
> would be just fine for you.
>
>     if we choose not to make any, then it is likely that no one will make
>     it for free software platforms, thus making them less appealing to th=
e
>     many people who want to listen to the restricted music.  That probabl=
y
>     does not help popularizing these platforms.
>
> It won't help anyway.  You see, the perpetrators of DRM want to make
> damned sure that users can't change the software.  So they want to
> tivoize the kernel and all the other system facilities that your
> application depends on.
>
> Which means that your application won't be allowed to run on GNU/Linux
> systems in general.  It will only be allowed to run on systems whose
> binaries have been signed by some multinational company--and which the
> user can't really change.  In other words, they won't really be free
> platforms.

--
             Le brevet logiciel menace votre entreprise
               Software patents threaten your company
    Soutenez la Majorit=E9 =C9conomique - Support the Economic Majority
                  http://www.economic-majority.com/

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion