At Tue, 23 May 2006 10:46:34 +0200, Tom Bachmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Bas Wijnen wrote: > >> I'd like to encourage everyone to consider this. It sounds like a viable > >> compromise > > > > What exactly is "this"? > > > > The proposal by jonathan: > > > There are opaque and translucent banks. The difference is that > > the opaque bank will not issue a given page more than once. A > > translucent bank will, which is how the user gains access to > > the content.
Jonathan's proposal achieves technically what he wants to achieve by it. However, to me, it's a compromise in the same way that the feature to run an executable in an e-mail attachment by clicking on the attachment is a compromise between the interests of virus developers and the users. Putting "dangerous" code at the bottom of the system, and then trying to recover safety by extensions, is not good system design. I think everybody agrees with that. We do not agree on an estimation what constitutes "danger", but if you read what I wrote in Part 1, you will understand why the above does not constitute a compromise for me. Also, please pay attention to what I wrote about the GNU project in part 1. Supporting DRM is in direct conflict with the interests of the GNU project. Thus, for a GNU project, there can only be compromises with legitimate (in the context of the GNU project) interests whose benefit compensates the involved risks (again, for the GNU project). Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
