[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:59:20 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
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.
It's not like this is unprecedented: try buying any appliance built to
last 40 years. The choice is gone. You'll only get stuff that is
_designed_ to be junk after few years, at the cost of sustainable
resources.
DRM is just putting into practice for software what has been the rule
for hardware: built-in self-destruction.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- 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 <=
- 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
- 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