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

Re: "Robinson, Nerode and other free beer zealots" was: A possible GFDL compromise

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, John Goerzen wrote:

>On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 05:41:52AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> 	There a lot of people in this list, who cares very much
>> about cost ("Invariant Sections is clearly non-free"), but cares

>I don't see what that has to do with cost.

	Every requirement to keep a some additional bunch of bits in
distribution, is, without doubt, about a cost, and only about a

	Your liberty do not increase even in a inch, when you delete
it. But someone else's liberty may, sometimes, be reduced by your

>> very little about liberty ("Discrimination toward DRM is non-free
>> too"). It will be coherent to call such people a free beer zealots.

>I think stating that "banning discrimination against DRM is
>non-free" is an argument trivially inconsistent with the DFSG, as
>licenses such as the GPL already, in effect, do that, given that
>the effect of most DRM systems is to prevent the recipient of an
>item from copying it on to someone else.

>However, I'm not sure that anyone here has actually made *that*

Message-ID: <20030906191611.GA1560@doc.ic.ac.uk> (Andrew Suffield)

|       prohibiting DRM systems is unambiguously non-free under the

Message-ID: <m27k4wgka2.fsf_-_@the-orb.local.> (Brian T. Sniffen)

|   2. The clause regarding technical measures to prevent further
|copying violates DFSG points:
|        6. The license discriminates against use for Digital Rights
|        Management technology.
|        5. The license discriminates against the manufacturers of
|        DRM-enabled storage devices.

Reply to: