[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause
From: |
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra |
Subject: |
Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:00:05 +0000 |
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 13:59 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@1407.org> writes:
>
> > This are not good reasons. "Hack resistance, safety critical stuff
> > and etc" do not equate with DRM. In fact, DRM harms this features
> > since by design someone else controls the key. In the case of
> > computers there's a master DRM certificate root. The user is never
> > in full control of _his_ computer.
> >
> > DRM is theft.
>
> Uh, only when afflicted without your agreement. Other than that, it
> is merely crippling the quality of available choices.
(...)
> DRM is just putting into practice for software what has been the rule
> for hardware: built-in self-destruction.
Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic
computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I
disagree and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft.
Rui
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, D.C. Parris, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/02/10
- Message not available
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/02/10
- Message not available
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, David Kastrup, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause,
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <=
- Message not available
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, John Hasler, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/02/10
- Message not available
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, John Hasler, 2006/02/10
- Message not available
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, Barry Margolin, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, Gordon Burditt, 2006/02/12