Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:42:58AM -0500, James Blackwell wrote:
> > You may not take GPLed software and use it on the Playstation because
> > Sony, a third party over which you have no control, has implemented
> > DRM measures in the hardware which will only run signed binaries. Even
> > if you publish every scrap of information you posess under an
> > unrestrictive license, you still can't do it.
> 
> This is _almost_ true. The draft doen't say 'you can't'. The draft says
> that if you do, you have to provide the tools to sign new versions.  I.E.
> you can't distribute gpled on DRM systems unless the opportunity for
> anybody to replace it exists.

You can't do that because it's an externality. You have absolutely no
means to make this happen.

> > It's punishing users for an externality. That makes no sense. The
> > people who are punished have no control or influence over the
> > matter. Sony does not care that nobody can run GPLed software on it,
> > they never wanted to anyway, so they aren't punished.
> 
> I can see your viewpoint. I'd argue that if you can't compile new free
> software for the machine, you're already locked out.

"Since users are already disadvantaged, we can fuck them over further"

-- 
Andrew Suffield

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature