With the FSF releasing a new version of the GPL there is bound to be debate. One of the most discussed provisions of the GPL version three is that involving DRM. I'm frankly embarrassed by the FSF's childish change of the common use of the DRM acronym from Digital Rights Management to Digital Restrictions Management. But, that doesn't effect the potential implications on free software.
In Inkscape we have a metadata editor that, among other things, allows users to specify the license of the work being created. This is stored in an RDF section in the XML file that Inkscape outputs. It is feasible (and I think that Inkscape should do this also) that other programs would read the data in that field and restrict the user's actions based on that. An example would be only allowing import of CC-SA content if the user agreed to share the final work. This brings forward the question of whether this is an 'effective' means of DRM according to the GPL. Inkscape most certainly will not encrypt the data, so it is feasible that the user could change the license using a text editor. But, for many people this hurdle is too high.
In the past we were able to say that free software was safe inside corporate environments because it didn't effect the uses of the software. Your documents could still be proprietary if you create them in Open Office. Users didn't need to worry about what they're using the software for. While this is still the case, I'm worried that this will lead further down the slope of restricting what people can use free software to do, we're already started restricting how free software can work. Overall, I think I like the GPL v2 better.
posted Feb 15, 2006 | permanent link
