[clue-tech] The Great GPL v3 Debate Thread

[David L. Anselmi]

Jed S. Baer wrote:
[...]
> This doesn't sound to me like "private signing keys" in the normal usage
> of that term. No doubt, this is part of Stallman's anti-DRM thinking,
> except that under the source code availability provisions, it'd be
> difficult to "hide" a decryption key in a GPL'd copy protection program.
> Could be I'm missing something obvious.
> 
> And, speaking of DRM, while I despise the usage of DRM as a means to
> abbrogate things such as the first sale doctrine, backups, time-shifting,
> and other distasteful mega-corp restrictions of fair use, etc., I can see
> legitimate uses for DRM, for example, to protect medical records, which
> should be kept private, but nonetheless be accessible under appropriate
> circumstances. Could be that non-DRM encryption could accomplish those
> things -- I don't know. I appreciate Stallman's point here, but is he
> throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Debian seems to consider anti-DRM language (like the GFDL has) to be 
non-free.  That seems reasonable to me--it restricts what users can do 
with the software.

I'm not sure what DRM threat RMS is trying to save us from.  I'm sure he 
thinks he's doing the right thing, but is he trying to protect users or 
trying to stick it to those who don't see IP the way he does?

Dave
_______________________________________________
CLUE-tech mailing list
CLUE-tech at cluedenver.org
http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech