On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 03:42:41PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 08:16:11PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > No, prohibiting DRM systems is unambiguously non-free under the DFSG. > > > > It just happens to be _silly_ right now. > > Er. How's that again? > > How is this significantly different than section 6 of the GPL, which > forbids you from putting any further restrictions on anyone who receives a > copy (the inherent purpose of DRM systems, presumably, being to limit how > far a copy can propagate, the antithesis of Free documentation). > > Or am I missing something glaringly obvious here? There is a difference between saying "You may make no further legal restrictions" and saying "You may make no technical restrictions"; it's the difference between "inclusive" and "exclusive", approximately. For a more practical line of reasoning: the GFDL intends to prohibit the transmission of data over a DRM-controlled mechanism, regardless of what other methods of distribution are employed in parallel. Suppose, hypothetically, that the DRM-controlled mechanism is preferable for cost or bandwidth reasons. I don't see why end-users shouldn't be able to use it. Besides, DRM is not pervasive like a legal restriction. All technical restrictions can and will be overcome. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgp6vEYHh0Npo.pgp
Description: PGP signature