On 10 Oct 2002 at 18:29, David A. Desrosiers wrote:
That would be an incorrect assumption. In fact, in my meeting with
the CEO of a company found to be violating the GPL with Plucker source code
(with our FSF-appointed attorney present), I came up with a method, which
was agreed-upon,
I'm sorry, Richard, but I can't pass up pointing out inconsistent
philosophy. the GNU GPL is exactly Digital Restrictions Management.
They are not the same, they are not even the same kind of thing. The
GNU GPL is a copyright-based license. Digital Restrictions Management
is a feature
Would you disapprove of software which enforced, in some way, the GNU GPL?
The idea is inconceivable, since the point of the GPL is that you CAN
edit the source. But if this were possible, it would not be wrong.
Digital Restrictions Management is wrong because it tries to deny the
public
Bill Janssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry, Richard, but I can't pass up pointing out inconsistent
philosophy. the GNU GPL is exactly Digital Restrictions Management.
I repeat: the GPL is enforced by the courts, not by software. Surely it is
not even digital?
MJR
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 06:47:35PM -0700, Bill Janssen wrote:
I call it privacy, myself. Password-protection would also be
interesting, but it's something else. I don't want to have to
remember the passwords for documents.
With Michael addons it is jut a privacy option now.
Overridable.
--
I'm sorry, Richard, but I can't pass up pointing out inconsistent
philosophy. the GNU GPL is exactly Digital Restrictions Management.
The only difference is that you believe that the restrictions it
enforces are good, and that some other set of restrictions -- poorly
specified by the phrase
This will hopefully prevent the use of these functions for DRM related
purposes while keeping their intent.
I really wish you would stop calling it DRM, because that's not what
it is. It is encoding a userid into the document header, which much match
the userid on the Palm device
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 08:38:09AM -0400, David A. Desrosiers wrote:
Exactly. If the document does not belong to them, such as my online
financial bank statements, then they have absolutely no reason to see it.
Will you distribute your bank statement to other people?
If you do, you will
I have never used documents with owner ID protection and today when I
tried it out for the first time it didn't work. The zlib uncompress
function fails to uncompress any document that uses the owner ID
protection.
Is that with your updated zlib? It worked here in tests, with b12.
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002, Michael Nordström wrote:
It shouldn't be that complicated to create a desktop tool that can
remove the user ID protection (if you know the used user ID:) and
create an unprotected document.
Actually, all the necessary tools are already available.
$ explode
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 06:21:58PM +0200, Michael Nordstr?m wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002, Nicolas Huillard wrote:
Except if a modified version of the viewer uses another kind of key : the
device's serial number, an s/key one-time-password, etc... AND the modified
viewers remains closed
DRM should not exist in any software, or any hardware. DRM is theft!
Would you disapprove of software which enforced, in some way, the GNU GPL?
Bill
___
plucker-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It shouldn't be that complicated to create a desktop tool that can
remove the user ID protection (if you know the used user ID:) and
create an unprotected document.
explode will in fact do that.
Bill
___
plucker-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002, Guylhem Aznar wrote:
With the FSF, an article on slashdot and a lawsuit, the company will go
down in flames really fast.
The lawsuit part is not that easy unless you have a lot of cash to
spend ;-)
/Mike
___
plucker-dev
I have never used documents with owner ID protection and today when
I tried it out for the first time it didn't work. The zlib uncompress
function fails to uncompress any document that uses the owner ID
protection. The ultimate share denial implementation, i.e. no one
can use the documents
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 10:56:18AM +0200, Michael Nordstr?m wrote:
he/she really want to beam the document. Selecting Yes will beam
the document, i.e. we leave the decision in the hands of the user
and not to a setting in the document.
That's excellent. You provide a sufficient protection in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This will hopefully prevent the use of these functions for DRM related
purposes while keeping their intent.
I really wish you would stop calling it DRM, because that's not what
it is. It is encoding a userid into the document header,
-Message d'origine-
De: Michael Nordström [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: mercredi 2 octobre 2002 17:00
À:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet:Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
To summarize, using the owner ID protection as a share denial (DRM)
solution will not work
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Intellectual property is _property_, just as material objects are.
Unfortunately, no. And this is the crux of the problem, in fact.
You cannot say that intellectual property is property, just like a
house, or a boat, or a car. If
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:01:45PM -0400, Dennis McCunney wrote:
Shouldn't they be removed altogether? Preveting copy is
encouraging DRM. DRM should be flushed down the toilets.
Won't happen. There are too many folks who are trying to make a living on
intellectual property, and want
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
That's just protecting privacy. Fine with me. You are not distributing
that doc to other people and removing their freedom to share it.
Exactly. If the document does not belong to them, such as my online
financial bank statements, then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If it prevents DRM to be implemented and later commercially exploited, it
may have its place.
Impossible, it's Open Source, we can't prevent anyone from doing
anything they want to the code on their own. Just as you can't prevent
someone
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Guylhem Aznar
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 05:53:15PM -0400, David A. Desrosiers wrote
23 matches
Mail list logo
