Henri Sivonen wrote:
Of course you know that the anti-DRM
clause makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, right?
Do they necessarily or just the ones so far proposed?
No, I think that parallel distribution (you can only distribute DRM'd
works if you also distribute editable and modifiable versions) is a fair
and workable anti-DRM clause that's compatible with the DFSG. That's
what the CC 3.0 licenses will have in them, AFAIK.
I wrote an essay about it earlier this week, and I think there can be
free anti-DRM clauses:
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/free-anti-drm/
I actually saw your essay before you posted this (vanity searches are my
secret vice). I thought you made a number of good points, but your use
of emotionally-loaded words such as "DRM-infected" made it hard to take
seriously. (I don't think infection is even a good metaphor for DRM.)
However, I've got an essay that's partially a response on my site:
http://evan.prodromou.name/Free_content_and_DRM
I think the premise of using free licenses to prevent DRM systems from
being implemented gravely overestimates the influence of Free Software
and Open Content.
~Evan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
