--- Timothy Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > Doesn't the latest GPL definition make some comment > on DRM, like > saying that any thing under GPL is, by definition, > not part of a DRM > facility?
Yes, that is the plan for GPLv3, and I absolutely I agree with this approach. However, the anti-DRM provisions of the GPLv3 will be useless if the design of OGD1 becomes LGPL, as the wiki page states: http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=OGD1 This is why I highly encourage Traversal to follow a simple dual-licensing strategy (GPL and proprietary) and to NOT license anything under the LGPL. Dual-licensing GPL/proprietary maximizes the users' freedom and Traversal's profit at the same time, by ensuring that another company can't "run off" with the design, improve it, and not give back the improvements. It is totally feasible for a hardware company to be 100% DRM-free: just look at AMD, who has very courageously left DRM out of its next-generation AMD Live! entertainment technology: http://AmdLive.amd.com/ http://eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1969837,00.asp As long as AMD stays DRM-free, all the computer that I buy will have AMD processors, and I encourage everyone who is concerned about the spread of draconian DRM to do the same. -Mark _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
