On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 05:13:06PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:53:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > 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. > > In light of the DMCA, I'd say it's exactly as pervasive, for a significant > portion of our users. Once it goes in, it never comes out (legally, > anyway). I don't accept arguments of the form: "It doesn't impose significant extra penalties for users in country X, therefore it is DFSG-free" And I can't see that the DMCA can meaningfully be used for anything else. > However, I think it would be best to wait until the currently-hypothetical > language is actually available for review. It may well prohibit DRM systems > only insofar as they restrict the legal right to redistribute copies (that > is, DRM circumvention plus the DMCA situations). Ick, what a hairball that would be. It would make much more sense to use something like this: Each time you redistribute the work (or any derivative work), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. Which I just lifted from the GPL. Or, hey, license your document under the GPL; it has the advantage of being free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgpsFdmy6ARnU.pgp
Description: PGP signature