Groklaw has just published an interview with Ashley Highfield, the BBC's Future Media and Technology Director - the department responsible for the development of the DRM'd iPlayer software:

• Groklaw interview: Ashley Highfield on iPlayer

On the positive side, he says:

...the long-term alternative solution is a world beyond DRM and how we can work together, particularly with our rights holders, to get to a world beyond DRM.

On the worrying side, he says that free software DRM is probably the interim solution. Free software DRM? That doesn't make sense. DRM is used to impose restrictions on how the software can be used, and software is only free software if the user is free to use it for any purpose. I guess they're still in the research phase regarding that idea.

Another worrying tidbit is that he says it is necessary that the copyright holders be...

...assured that the content would be available free within the UK but not freely copying available outside the UK.

I'm not sure how they can prevent that without taking control over the computers of everyone who watches the content. Maybe an alternative solution would be for the big customers of this content to agree to continue paying as much as they do and to abandon attempts to prevent people's computers from copying or redistributing the data.

Some of his later comments are positive again later when asked about this supposed free software DRM:

But even that, as I think you'd agree, is not the solution. The solution is actually to find a solution to DRM, to move beyond DRM in the long run.

So, this story's only beginning. Interesting interview.

I did a bit of research about "free software DRM" while discussing this with Sean Daly, so I'll put some notes on this in my blog later today.

(Correction in progress. I wrongly announced the release of the second discussion draft but the final version was actually released.)

FSF have just published the 2nd draft of the GNU Affero GPL. The GNU Affero GPL will be a modified version of GPLv3. The difference, very roughly, is that it includes a requirement that if the software is used on a public server, users must be able to get the source code.

This issue was discussed a lot during the GPLv3 drafting process. Some software developers thought that this requirement should be in GPLv3. However, the majority of software developers who commented strongly disagreed.

The topic was controversial because there is a privacy issue. All versions of the GPL allow people to use modified version of the software privately without being obliged to make their modified source code available to anyone. When people put software on a public server, the question is less clear: is that private use or public use? This was called the "software as a service" issue, or "SaaS".

FSF decided that developer unhappiness was enough of a reason not to add this requirement to the standard GPLv3. If developers didn't like GPLv3, they wouldn't use it, and if people don't use it, it can't do it's job of protecting software freedom for computer users. Instead, FSF will publish a separate version, called the GNU Affero GPL, which does include this requirement and each project can choose if they want a GPLv3 with that requirement or without.

So, that's the background. The second draft is online and comments are being accepted via the same system used for GPLv3. If you might have something to say, go take a look!