Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th Aug 2006 21:03 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "With the recent release of the second draft of the GNU General Public License version 3, digital rights management is back in the news. The new draft may raise concerns about the rewording of section 3 of the license, which deals with DRM. The Free Software Foundation dislikes the term "digital rights management" and instead choose to call it digital "restrictions" management. But many people don't understand the implications of DRM on free software like Linux."
Thread beginning with comment 150970
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
HappyGod
Member since:
2005-10-19

When you buy a car, you are in effect buying a copy, and yet you still have the right to do as you please with it.

If you pay for something, be it a copy or the original - YOU OWN IT.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Technically, you can do pretty much everything you want with a book or a physical media, too. However, stories and songs are not object, but intellectual properties, which are not submitted to the same rules in most societies.

If copying a car was a trivial task, then I am pretty sure that we would have car-copying regulations, car-copying proponents, etc.

Just a note: although you might do everything you want with your car, I am pretty sure that you cannot make a verbatim copy without having trouble with the manufacturer and its army of lawyers.

Edited 2006-08-10 01:12

Reply Parent Score: 3

HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

I think that we are getting sidetracked here anyway. Cars, books, paintings etc. are not covered by the GPL.

The point is that the GPL is designed to provide end users with the right to copy and modify anything that uses the license. Whether you or I think that's right or wrong is irrelevant.

It seems to me that DRM as a concept does not fit with this license.

Reply Parent Score: 1