[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point of the present GeoDRM work, however some might want to demonize it on the basis of the term, is first and foremost to define a system of rights information (metadata and protocols) which lets anyone who uses geospatial intellectual property, communicate and be clear on the terms of that use. This seems to me in the end a clearer and more effective way of documenting unfairness in particular protection schemes and moving toward more fair, less proprietary systems, than cracking them and ranting about them, but that's just my preference.
Josh, I'm pretty enthusiastic about a GeoDRM that aims to systematically, clearly and unambiguously describe use-rights of geodata. I'm less enthusiastic about DRM activities that are primarily focused on building a software (and sometimes hardware) stack that enforces restrictions against the will of the user, since the usual approach to achieving this is to close and "lock" the software. As I noted after your talk at FOSS4G, the case that really gets under my skin is SENC (Secure Electronic Digital Charts) which seek to limit the data to view-only on a single hardware instance, primarily to support a particular revenue model. As you can imagine actually enforcing this leads to quite a closed system. I think it is very helpful to bring forward use cases for GeoDRM that are useful, while not ultimately requiring an extremely closed approach. Otherwise those of us a bit predisposed against DRM will always project our worse case scenarios onto the name. :-) Best regards, -- ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, [EMAIL PROTECTED] light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
