The current draft says under 3:
"No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure."
A license can't order that.
Take any DRM program sold under a non-free license until now. Then the copyright holders start distributing under the GPLv3 as well, or under the GPLv3 only. This fact does not change anything about the effectiveness of the technology.
If the technology is not effective in the first place, this clause does nothing.
If on the other hand the technology is enough of a speedbump to work against an average user who does not want to look for a circumvention program on the Internet, this clause does not remove whatever effictiveness that program has.
The question of whether a technological measure is effective is one of fact. The license text can't add anything or remove anything.
The current draft then continues:
"That is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system
to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least
for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other
software capable of accessing the same data."
That is something a license can do.
However, I am not convinced yet that this is effective against anti-circumvention laws.
Take European law. Article 6, paragraph 2 of the 2001 copyright Directive prohibits sale of software designed for circumvention of DRM.
This prohibition is unconditional. I don't see that the permission of the copyright holder in the DRM system circumvented is a defense.
The reason is that the DRM developer is not the person protected by the DRM. The copyright holder for the works protected by the DRM is. If SonyBMG puts DRM developed by First4Internet on their CDs, permission to circumvent by First4Internet does not matter. Permission by SonyBMG is required, and they would be enforcing the anti-circumvention laws.
That probably means that this particular permission in the GPLv3 won't achieve much of anything.
Posted by Karl-Friedrich Lenz at January 22, 2006 07:24 PM