Дана Monday 30 January 2006 20:43, Glauber de Oliveira Costa је написао(ла): > On 1/30/06, Karim Yaghmour <[email protected]> wrote: > > As a software license, GPLv3 can dictate the usage rules for software > > distributed under it, but it can't dictate the usage terms of hardware > > and software independently developed (ex.: DRM'ed hardware and > > proprietary user-space applications). No wording could erase that. > > And what is suggest is not "circumvention", it's just not something > > GPLv3 could cover. > > I may be missing the point here, (In case you're more than welcome to > correct me), but ... Why? Can't a software license restrict the usage > of the software? In which ways do you think the sentence "Don't use in > DRM'ed hardware" differs from sentences like "Not allowed in country > X", "Don't use for commercial purposes", and other alikes ? "Don't use in DRM'ed hardware" and "Don't use for commercial purposes" do differ from "Not allowed in country X". The first two are essentially the same (as far as I am aware, DRM has no use for F/OSS, it is made for commercial stuff). They protect the freedom of the software. The third (!country) is something different since it attacks the freedom of the software. Equivalents (or similar thoughts) would be "Don't use in DRM'ed hardware", "Don't use for commercial purposes" and "Use in any country you want". > I think > that saying in which hardware your software can or cannot run is a > pretty valid license term (without messing with the question about it > being the right thing to do here). I agree that it is a valid term. I wouldn't like to see my program running on some obscure DRM'ed hardware when I made it to be free. As far as I can see, Linus wants to allow usage of Linux in DRM'ed hardware (for ex. future mobile phones). He wants to allow usage, but he hopes that the customers would make companies disband DRM (and similar crypto/obscure/... stuff). If that is the case, I don't agree with his oppinion that the customers could do anything. Most of the "customers" have no problem with DRM, and look-a-likes. Most of the customers still use m$ win and office, and others think that os x is an free/open operating system. > Besides that, I pretty much agree with the rest of your mail. I do too, but I don't think that "To stop it, just don't buy any of it." is the solution of the problem. It would be a solution if most of the customers would do so. -- Filip Brcic <[email protected]> WWWeb: http://purl.org/NET/brcha/home/ Jabber: [email protected] Jabber: [email protected] Jabber: [email protected] ICQ# 40994923 Yahoo! brcha MSN: [email protected]
Attachment:
pgp7naLMKIJIO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
- From: Karim Yaghmour <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
- References:
- Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
- From: Thomas Horsten <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
- From: Karim Yaghmour <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
- From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
- Prev by Date: Re: CD writing in future Linux (stirring up a hornets' nest)
- Next by Date: RE: pthread_mutex_unlock (was Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow)
- Previous by thread: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
- Next by thread: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
- Index(es):
 |