Re: A possible GFDL compromise
* Joel Baker (firstname.lastname@example.org) [030906 23:50]:
> 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?
You may put any work under the GPL in a DRM. You're (only) forced to
give also the source code away that you used for producing the work in
the DRM. (Naturally the DRM doesn't have great importance for the
GPL-work than. But it could be usefull if there is a DRM-framework
that can access different works.) So, the GPL is not a tool against
DRM, but for unrestricted changeability - where a DRM does not make
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C