Re: Freeness of anti-DRM

[Evan Prodromou <evan@bad.dynu.ca>]

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > 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?
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.
> I wrote an essay about it earlier this week, and I think there can be 
> free anti-DRM clauses:
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/free-anti-drm/
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:

   http://evan.prodromou.name/Free_content_and_DRM

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.

~Evan