On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:13:54PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > [email protected] writes: > > > Possibly redundant here but there is no possible working DRM in > > effectively free software, because the goal of DRM is to remove some > > freedoms from the user. > > The freedom of the software that implements DRM is a matter of what > freedoms the recipient has. There is no contradiction between “you have > these freedoms in this work” and “this work implements DRM”. So the DRM > can work just fine in free software. > > What I think you're implying is that DRM cannot be expected to *remain* > in such software, because the recipients have explicit license to do so; > and then the DRM-free derivative will spread, again by the explicit > license recipients have to do so. >
Correct, thanks for making it explicit. > But be clear: the original, DRM-enabled work is free software and the > DRM works fine. That is, after all, what allows the chain of events > afterward. > Ok, I was just assuming it won't exist because nobody will write it because it may not remain so. Anyway, one could theoretically write it (if only to prove a point). > > I think the closest is some tivo-like scheme in which the software > > would be free but unrunable when modified. > > Yes, that's an obvious example of free software implementing DRM. > And that's why I said effectively free software, not just free software. GPL 3 was written among other reasons to help ensure the software freedom was effective, not merely rethorical in these cases. > There is *other* software on the device — the firmware, if I understand > correctly – which refuses to run modified versions of the free software. > > So the recipient remains free to modify the software (and, if they > choose, cease its implementation of DRM), but the *device* as a whole is > not free because it then refuses to run the modified software. > Yes, but possibly the content will not work in another device because it won't be decryptable or whatever, so the software won't be useful. > > It's not something we still don't have, it's something that can't > > happen because requirements are contradictory. Software freedom > > requires the ability to decode and copy the content, as part of > > freedom 0, and DRM needs to prevent it. Free software needs control to > > be granted to the user and DRM needs control granted to the rights > > holder. > > Merely being contradictory doesn't stop these requirements from being > enforcible by law :-/ > Merely being legal does not make something being produced or sold. For me there is a difference between humans (judges, etc.) enforcing law on other humans and devices enforcing law on humans. Or what does a purchase mean when the seller still controls what the item sold does after the sale, etc. > What is needed is not just a declaration that there is a contradiction, > but a *resolution* of that contradiction to give recipients explicit > freedom to exercise their rights under the law. > By resolution you mean DRM should be outlawed or DRM circumvention should be legal ? I agree. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
