On 31/10/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Not it isn't. > > You failed to show either of the only 2 things needed: > > 1) That the software is not Open Source. > > 2) That the software is not DRM. > > What was stated was that there is no open source digital rights > > management. > > Your points about completion, grammar, usability are irrelevant in > > proving or disproving the given statement as they have nothing to do > > with the statement. > > > Surely "is fit for purpose and actually works now" is a requirement. And > all three fail dismally. > > Rich. >
Since when was MS DRM "fit for purpose" and when did it "actually work"? If the purpose is to protect rights holders from having their work copied and distributed. If it's purpose is to both con rights holders and users on the other hand... Vijay.
