Richard Fontana wrote at 23:49 (EDT) on Friday:
Fair enough. What I meant there was, if we knew of cases where this
clause was being asserted defensively by GPLv3 licensees, that would
be a good argument for keeping it in.
I've often wondered (I don't know for sure), if the addition of this
text:
No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological
measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article
11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or
similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such
measures.
... might help as a defense for those who want to use the second
paragraph as a defense.
For example, suppose I say in defense, after circumventing through some
ARM UEFI lock-down on a Sony TV and then I'm arrested at the behest of
Sony. I claim I'm immune from prosecution because of:
When You Distribute a Covered Work, You waive any legal power to
forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such
circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with
respect to the Covered Work, and You disclaim any intention to limit
operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against
the work's users, Your or third parties' legal rights to forbid
circumvention of technological measures.
But Sony says, "ok, maybe that's a defense in the civil suit we were
planning to file against you, but not in the criminal action, because
DMCA makes it a felony to do what you did."
Then what?
Would it have helped if the first paragraph were still there? I think
maybe it would.
Again, Fontana, you seem to be focused on what's happened in the past,
as if copyleft-next should only care about specific incidents that have
already happened, rather than looking forward to defend the users of the
future.
--
-- bkuhn