On Thursday 26 October 2006 16:46, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > even i know that. I was talking about the importance of a license > being clear and simple. Which creative commons is and gpl v3 is > not.
You cant have a simple licence. There will be too many loop holes. The complication is because u dont want to turn away business. Thus u can drm the content but not the content player. U can encrypt provided u provide a mechanism to remove the encryption in it's entierity or provide the keys. In short providing the software but no mechanism for using it on hardware is not allowed. Or providing hardware (reprogrammable), an intermediate layer (interpreter for eg) which is closed and designed by u, and gpl software which cannot run without the interpreter is not allowed. Your example in a previous mail is what is being referred to. BIG FAT WARNING: i too am still trying to understand this thing. And the more i think of it the more convinced i am of it's neccessity. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
