On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 10:12:08AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
This is precisely why all future copylefts MUST have explicit clause
defending on this issue of cypto-lock-down, due the estoppel generated
against GPLv2 by public statements by otherwise knowledgeable folks
saying that GPLv2 allows crypto-lock-down.
This is only true if you believe that someone who attempts
crypto-lockdown must forced to disgorge the keys.
However, if three is language (such as you have proposed) which
protects someone who tries to circumvent lockdown measures from DMCA
or DMCA-like laws, that might be something that everyone can get
But let's be clear --- these two issues do not have to be linked, as
far as I can tell. Whether or not we should "protect" against crypto
lockdown, or indeed any kind of lockdown, is a separable issue from
trying to defend someone who is trying to circumvent such a lockdown...