* Joel Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030906 23:50]: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 08:16:11PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > No, prohibiting DRM systems is unambiguously non-free under the DFSG. > > > > It just happens to be _silly_ right now. > > Er. How's that again? > > How is this significantly different than section 6 of the GPL, which > forbids you from putting any further restrictions on anyone who receives a > copy (the inherent purpose of DRM systems, presumably, being to limit how > far a copy can propagate, the antithesis of Free documentation). > > Or am I missing something glaringly obvious here? You may put any work under the GPL in a DRM. You're (only) forced to give also the source code away that you used for producing the work in the DRM. (Naturally the DRM doesn't have great importance for the GPL-work than. But it could be usefull if there is a DRM-framework that can access different works.) So, the GPL is not a tool against DRM, but for unrestricted changeability - where a DRM does not make great sense. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
