[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

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",

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

Reply to: