Re: Freeness of anti-DRM
Henri Sivonen wrote:
No, I think that parallel distribution (you can only distribute DRM'd
works if you also distribute editable and modifiable versions) is a fair
and workable anti-DRM clause that's compatible with the DFSG. That's
what the CC 3.0 licenses will have in them, AFAIK.
Of course you know that the anti-DRM
clause makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, right?
Do they necessarily or just the ones so far proposed?
I wrote an essay about it earlier this week, and I think there can be
free anti-DRM clauses:
I actually saw your essay before you posted this (vanity searches are my
secret vice). I thought you made a number of good points, but your use
of emotionally-loaded words such as "DRM-infected" made it hard to take
seriously. (I don't think infection is even a good metaphor for DRM.)
However, I've got an essay that's partially a response on my site:
I think the premise of using free licenses to prevent DRM systems from
being implemented gravely overestimates the influence of Free Software
and Open Content.