Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
- To: Andrew Donnellan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
- From: Lionel Elie Mamane <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 05:39:42 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20060806033942.GA2897@capsaicin.mamane.lu>
- Mail-followup-to: Andrew Donnellan <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <20060728021949.GA4694@doctormoo.dyndns.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 12:57:11PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 7/29/06, Joe Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> The FSF is really not concerned about online games. That is because
>> there is no way to block draconian DRM restrictions while
>> aproviding a means to autheniticate an official game client. They
>> really are the same problem.
> The issue is how the GPLv3 affects a service provider's right to put
> restrictions on usage of a service,
I don't see how it does that; the service provider can still by
service, and terminate service to people that don't respect the
contract, or sue them for damages, ...
It does make enforcing these restrictions by program (rather than by
human) more difficult, or partially impossible, yes.