Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders

[egallego@babel.ls.fi.upm.es (Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias)]

James Bruce <bruce@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias wrote:
>> ... 1.- Distribute a kernel with some DRM built-in under the GPL.
>> 2.- Claim that such kernel is an effective technological measure to
>>     protect copyright. 
>
> You forgot:
>
> 2.5- Due to the DMCA, the code now has an additional restriction on
>      top of what is already in its license, the GPL v2.  The GPL v2
>      forbids additional restrictions, and thus the resulting work
>      cannot be distributed.

Ok, so to add DRM to GPLed software, the copyright holder has to state
that the DMCA does not apply to such software? Or does the GPL state
that? 

Quoting the GPL:

6.- [...] You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
  exercise of the rights granted herein. [...]

The point is that it is not the copyright holder who is imposing the
restrictions, is the law. For example, the law may impose some export
restrictions, would that void the GPL?

>> 3.- You are no longer free to modify that kernel, (removing the DRM
                                 ^^^^^^
I meant modify and distribute, sorry.
>> [...]
>
> If the DRM author(s) are the ones claiming the DRM is an "effective
> technological measure", then they are the ones imposing an additional

They are only a claiming, not restricting. The restriction would come
from the law when a judge decides that the code in question is an
"effective technological measure".
> restriction.  Those authors are the ones who can be sued, not the end
> users of the kernel+DRM.  If someone else makes the claim, it carries
Ok, I mean a user who tries to exercise all the rights stated in the
GPL, including distribution of the modified code.
> no weight at all, because they are not the author or copyright owner.

Regards,

Emilio