Ciarán's free software notes

(Correction in progress. I wrongly announced the release of the second discussion draft but the final version was actually released.)

FSF have just published the 2nd draft of the GNU Affero GPL. The GNU Affero GPL will be a modified version of GPLv3. The difference, very roughly, is that it includes a requirement that if the software is used on a public server, users must be able to get the source code.

This issue was discussed a lot during the GPLv3 drafting process. Some software developers thought that this requirement should be in GPLv3. However, the majority of software developers who commented strongly disagreed.

The topic was controversial because there is a privacy issue. All versions of the GPL allow people to use modified version of the software privately without being obliged to make their modified source code available to anyone. When people put software on a public server, the question is less clear: is that private use or public use? This was called the "software as a service" issue, or "SaaS".

FSF decided that developer unhappiness was enough of a reason not to add this requirement to the standard GPLv3. If developers didn't like GPLv3, they wouldn't use it, and if people don't use it, it can't do it's job of protecting software freedom for computer users. Instead, FSF will publish a separate version, called the GNU Affero GPL, which does include this requirement and each project can choose if they want a GPLv3 with that requirement or without.

So, that's the background. The second draft is online and comments are being accepted via the same system used for GPLv3. If you might have something to say, go take a look!

Sean Daly has posted a second interview about the BBC's DRM-infested iPlayer software:

• Groklaw interview: Becky Hogge on iPlayer

It's an informative interview, and I agree with Ms. Hogge's call for the BBC to stop using DRM, but I don't share her motivations.

Ms. Hogge talks about "balancing interests between" the UK public and the BBC's ability to make money from it's TV programmes. She then argues that in this case, there is not enough commercial motivation to outweight the UK public's right to choose and control the software they use.

This leads her to the conclusion I share: The BBC should not put DRM in the iPlayer. But, suggesting this "balance" reasoning leads us to a situation where if the BBC could prove the commercial value is much higher than we think, or that the UK public's freedom to control and choose software is not as valuable as we think, then the "balance" reasoning would suggest that using DRM is OK. There, I would disagree.

I rather argue that DRM is always unacceptable (more specifically, computer users should always be alowed to disable DRM). Data should not tell computers what to do with people - people should tell computers what to do with data.

She does say later that DRM is a black hold that the BBC is falling into, and that DRM blocks many legal acts, so I guess we're more similar than dissimilar in how we see DRM. But, I do think it's a mistake to portray people's freedoms to use, control, and choose software as something that can be counter balanced by economic interests of a TV channel.

That said, it's an informative article with good links. For anyone interested in more on this, the first installment in this series of interviews was with Mark Taylor.

There was also an interesting story about a sports fan who got stung by DRM. Having bought DRM restricted videos of his favourite sports team, he found one day that they all stopped working and the company told him they were never going to work ever again.

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan,
Support free software: Join FSFE's Fellowship