Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Jan 2012 19:12 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Late last year, president Obama signed a law that makes it possible to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects without any form of trial or due process. Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities. Initiatives like SOPA promote diligent monitoring of communication channels. Thirty years ago, when Richard Stallman launched the GNU project, and during the three decades that followed, his sometimes extreme views and peculiar antics were ridiculed and disregarded as paranoia - but here we are, 2012, and his once paranoid what-ifs have become reality.
Thread beginning with comment 502005
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

DRM is just bad, whether it's free software or not. Forget the syntax sugar. But if you want to extend the definition of "free" as DRM free - I'm OK with it.

Edited 2012-01-03 20:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

shrmerl,

"DRM is just bad, whether it's free software or not. Forget the syntax sugar. But if you want to extend the definition of 'free' as DRM free - I'm OK with it."

I agree, "free" is a very vague word to begin with. The english language fails to disambiguate between all the concepts of freedom we'd like to talk about today. While I would not hold it against someone for using a definition of free which is different from mine, to me there is something decidedly unfree about DRM, which serves to control users.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

While I would not hold it against someone for using a definition of free which is different from mine, to me there is something decidedly unfree about DRM, which serves to control users.


Content providers should be free to choose to provide DRM protected content if they want to; and users/consumers should be free to choose to pay for that DRM protected content if they want to. Someone who advocates freedom would not attempt to deny other people's freedom to choose (including the freedom to choose DRM).

However, I do think that content providers should be forced (via. appropriate legislation) to make a reasonable effort to ensure that consumers are aware of any/all restrictions (not necessarily just DRM) that have been placed on their content; so that consumers are able to make an informed choice. Burying something in 3 pages of legalese does not constitute a reasonable effort.

-Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 2