The arguments over anti-DRM provisions in earlier drafts of GPL v.3 led to accusations that the FSF was dictating which software features would be "unworthy" of open source licensing.  The new GPL does not disqualify software that contains DRM (or any other) functionality from GPL applicability.  But Section 3 of the new license renders anticircumvention law, such as the DMCA in the US and the European Union Copyright Directive, inapplicable to any work covered under the license.  

The effect of this bit of legal sleight-of-hand is to eliminate the legal backstop that DRM software has in many countries if it is hacked.  This seriously hampers open-source DRM efforts such as Sun Microsystems's Project DReaM and the Digital Media Project (DMP); such initiatives will have to use an older GPL, the so-called Lesser GPL (which omits Section 3, among other things), or some other license, none of which carry the same cachet in open-source circles as the full GPL. 

The primary legal authority behind the GPL is Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center, a tenured law professor at Columbia University and formerly General Counsel of the FSF.  His anti-DRM stance is as well known as it is consistent with the FSF's general aversion towards commerce in intellectual property. 

While we believe that previous GPL v.3 drafts represented ideological overreach, we can't help but admire Moglen's DMCA stun gun.  We have always held that the biggest problem with DMCA is that it lets technologists shirk the responsibility of developing DRM schemes that actually work -- i.e., that provide sufficient content security while also affording a decent consumer experience.  Anticirumvention laws take liability away from DRM developers and put it squarely on the hacker.  GPL v.3 puts liability back on the developer, where it belongs.

Of course, the structure of GPL v.3 virtually guarantees that no DRM software will ever use it, so the point is moot -- and the FSF will have achieved the same purpose they originally had in mind without resorting to overt political correctness.  That's unfortunate, because in addition to the responsibility of creating quality technology, software developers should also have the right to choose the licensing scheme that suits them best -- and there is no denying the value of open source.  GPL v.3 Section 3 doesn't rule out DRM, but it gives developers incentive to stay away from open source licensing for it.

Get DRM Watch Newsletter

Click here to subscribe to DRM Watch