On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 05:41:52AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> There a lot of people in this list, who cares very much
>> about cost ("Invariant Sections is clearly non-free"), but cares
>I don't see what that has to do with cost.
Every requirement to keep a some additional bunch of bits in
distribution, is, without doubt, about a cost, and only about a
cost.
Your liberty do not increase even in a inch, when you delete
it. But someone else's liberty may, sometimes, be reduced by your
deletion.
>> very little about liberty ("Discrimination toward DRM is non-free
>> too"). It will be coherent to call such people a free beer zealots.
>I think stating that "banning discrimination against DRM is
>non-free" is an argument trivially inconsistent with the DFSG, as
>licenses such as the GPL already, in effect, do that, given that
>the effect of most DRM systems is to prevent the recipient of an
>item from copying it on to someone else.
>However, I'm not sure that anyone here has actually made *that*
>argument.
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Andrew Suffield)
| prohibiting DRM systems is unambiguously non-free under the
|DFSG.
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Brian T. Sniffen)
| 2. The clause regarding technical measures to prevent further
|copying violates DFSG points:
|
| 6. The license discriminates against use for Digital Rights
| Management technology.
| 5. The license discriminates against the manufacturers of
| DRM-enabled storage devices.
