Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
I'm sorry, Richard, but I can't pass up pointing out inconsistent philosophy. the GNU GPL is exactly Digital Restrictions Management. They are not the same, they are not even the same kind of thing. The GNU GPL is a copyright-based license. Digital Restrictions Management is a feature of hardware or software systems. DRM is wrong because it is designed to stop users from copying and sharing. Someone asked me what I would think, hypothetically, of a feature that would enforce the GPL. I explained why that would not be wrong--but, as far as I know, nobody in this discussion is seriously considering such a project. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
Would you disapprove of software which enforced, in some way, the GNU GPL? The idea is inconceivable, since the point of the GPL is that you CAN edit the source. But if this were possible, it would not be wrong. Digital Restrictions Management is wrong because it tries to deny the public the freedom it should have. It restricts the public. Enforcing such restrictions is wrong. The GPL does the opposite--it protects the public's freedom. Its requirements stop you from restricting the public, trampling their freedom. Enforcing this is protecting freedom too. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
