My, what a circus. From groklaw: ------- DRM "Misunderstood" Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 27 2006 @ 07:11 PM EDT
I'm pretty sure I didn't misunderstand anything at all. A lot of people are confused by the DRM issue, and the problem comes mostly from the organization of the first GPLv3 draft itself. It had a section on DRM, and that section is totally irrelevant and has almost no semantic content. (In the new draft, the DRM section has been renamed to talk about users' rights instead, but it's still the same case - that section isn't actually the interesting one). The real anti-DRM thing is the new and bogus language in section 1 - the definition of "source code". That is the true change in both the previous and the current draft, and that's my personal beef. The fact that they had a separate (and largely boring) section called "DRM" was never the issue, and was (and is) a total red herring. The real problem was always the re-definition of source code. Actually, I take that back. The real problem was and is that there are lots of people who disagreed with the FSF on issues (mine was the definition of source code, while I know that some commercial entities felt that the patent language was totally unsupportable). And the FSF took that input, and then totally ignored it. So as far as I can tell, the whole GPLv3 "process" has been a sham from the very beginning. Eben and Richard talk about "discussion drafts", but it's not "discussion" if you don't actually care what the other side says. And Richard most definitely doesn't care (Eben probably does, but has no actual say in the end result). So forget about this whole "community input" thing. Input has been given, and then duly ignored. Oh, well. At least that's how I've seen it, and maybe that explains my disillusionment with the GPLv3. Linus ----- regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
