I believe that the author of a work should be able to determine how it is used, up to the limits of copyright provisions. My reasons for using GPL, LGPL, and so forth in my work are strategic. I do not (at present) subscribe to Richard's ideology. This may be because I have never heard the underlying principle(s) behind his ideology clearly stated in order that I might evaluate them.
Read www.gnu.org, it is clearly stated why users should have the freedom to share digital information like software, and songs, and why someone who wrote something shouldn't be able to dictate how you use it. A company doesn't dictate how you should use your hammer, right? Nor can your grandmother dictate that you are not allowed to put in basil in dish based on her recipie. Nor is this Richard's ideology, the right to share information existed long before him. I do not believe that the DRM technology is evil per se. I strongly dislike DRM, but I believe that an author should be able to control the use of their work within the limits and framework of copyright. The author can already do that: don't share it to begin with. What he shouldn't be allowed to do is dictate how people who he has shared that information with are supposed to handle it. I strongly dislike DRM. If we can arrive at a set of technical means that supports privacy and security without supporting DRM, I would be very comfortable with deploying a system that could not support DRM. You cannot achive privacy without trust, don't trust someone, don't share with that person. Just don't dictate what the person should do with the information you shared. _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list L4-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
