Re: ["agree"] Release plans

[Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>  > I also am saying that I can't think of any non-contrived feature
>  > bans that wouldn't be subject to the same criticism.
>
> I wouldn't go so far.  I think it's arguable that the
> anti-tech-measures and must-distribute-keys provisions of GPL v3 fit
> this bill.
>   

Those aren't feature bans, though: they are legal and technical
conditions on conveying a work.

You are free to distribute GPLv3 code, modified
to have DRM features.    The catches are that you (a) assert
that the code is not covered by anti-circumvention laws;
(b) not use secret keys or similar measures to prevent users
from fully exercising their GPLv3 rights.

You can put the code in there, though.   Might even be
useful for something, who knows.

-t