jtd wrote:
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.
No idea of any license details but I feel that using libre software to
create softwares that prevent user access to hardwares or other
softwares is wrong. What is taken free ( libre ) from society should go
back free to it. Otherwise let them make their own closed softwares
using their own team of programmers.
Regards,
Rony
___________________________________________________________
Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
