IV.  Proposed Revisions

Assuming that FSF does indeed intend to give GPLv3 additional privacy-protection power, the license will have a better chance at success in protecting privacy with a provision more limited in scope.  FSF first must recognize that privacy invasion is ultimately carried out by institutions and individuals, not software programs, and software licenses will thus be largely ineffective at preventing the problem.  Problems can only be contained by software to the extent that those problems are actually caused by software.  For instance, a GPLv3 prohibition on self-propagating programs such as viruses or worms, which spread to other computers and perform actions without the user's knowledge, would survive under the criteria of GNU-style freedom.  GPLv3 may reasonably provide that each “distribution” permitted by the license must be at the hands of user action, not some self-propagating “distribution” by the work itself, outside the control of the user.  While it is both impractical and contrary to the purposes of GNU and the GPL to restrict the tasks that software may be written to perform, the GPL has been quite successful in defining how humans may distribute GPL-covered works.  A “no automatic propagation” provision can capitalize on this success and address privacy issues at the same time.

In the area of “effective technological protection measures,” a better solution to upholding the GPL's philosophy is to not place the GPL at permanent odds with the DMCA, but to encourage the use of GPL-covered software in such applications.  As discussed above, some device manufacturers have discovered economic advantages to sharing their work, and GPLv3 must encourage rather than discourage this trend.  While those seeking effective technological protection measures may not turn out to use and share GPL-covered software in large numbers, there is no reason to forbid the practice.  Open-minded manufacturers may well find a way to balance their proprietary interests with the interests of consumers and developers of GPL-covered software.  There is no technical reason that a GPL-covered program cannot protect proprietary data while the protection program itself remains free and open.107  Such a balance would both maintain the integrity of the GPL's software-purpose neutrality and encourage more openness on the part of device makers.