Free software vs. DRM
The Free Software Foundation is battling the proliferation of Digital Rights Management (DRM) schemes in a number of ways -- it calls them "Digital Restrictions Management" -- most notably with prohibitions on DRM in the new draft GPL v3 license.
Section 3 of the draft creates a DMCA hacking exemption where GPL'd code is involved:
"No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data."As the comments to the draft license explain:
"The second paragraph of section 3 declares that no GPL'd program is part of an effective technological protection measure, regardless of what the program does. Ill-advised legislation in the United States and other countries has prohibited circumvention of such technological measures. If a covered work is distributed as part of a system for generating or accessing certain data, the effect of this paragraph is to prevent someone from claiming that some other GPL'd program that accesses the same data is an illegal circumvention."
"Someday, we hope, copyright law's traditional respect for individual user rights will be restored, and user-disabling DRM will no longer be permitted. In the meantime, we have designed GPLv3 to forbid such perversion of free software."
The FSF is also promoting a consumer pledge not to buy copy-protected CDs, but ultimately that's old technology and the real action is in electronic delivery of digital content.
Richard Stallman has written an open letter to the Boston Public Library criticizing its use of a Microsoft DRM solution in connection with audio books. On one hand, this about maintaining access to public materials through free software platforms that do not support DRM. On the other hand, it is about the larger debate, see prior post, about how publishers are restricting use of books through licensing means. According to Stallman's letter,
"There is another, deeper issue at stake here. The tendency of digitalization is to convert public libraries into retail stores for vendors of digital works. The choice to distribute information in a secret format--information designed to evaporate and become unreadable--is the antithesis of the spirit of the public library. Libraries which participate in this have lost their hearts."
The FSF's anti-DRM initiative raises the question as to whether the free software movement can effectively combat the use of DRM in connection with digital content, or whether it risks marginalizing itself by incorporating these "values" into the GPL. The GPL v3 draft also prohibits usage of free software in a manner that illegally violates personal privacy, which by definition is already prohibited by law:
"Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License."
By inserting these values into GPL v3 draft, the GPL has gone a step beyond ensuring the use of free software -- as it has done with mandatory source access and patent prohibitions. Now it makes a value-judgment as to how free software can be used. Clearly these are important values to the FSF community. Query however whether this will undermine in any way the goal of advancing the broad use of free software. How much social engineering is possible through a software license? That's what we'll find out, and why Stallman is the MacArthur Fellow.
In addition, these restrictions could be inconsistent with the Open Source Initiative's definition of open source software, but clearly that's the tail wagging the dog, as the FSF charts its own course, with Stallman being the founder of the free software movement. See fyi the OSI's definition:
"No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."
"Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it."
