Linus Torvalds wrote:
The GPL already requires source code (ie non-protected content). So the
GPL already _does_ have an anti-DRM clause as far as the _software_ is
concerned. If you want to fight DRM on non-software fronts, you need to
create non-software content, and fight it _there_.
The point is not only getting access to the source code, but also being
able to change it. Being able to freely study the code is only half of
the beauty of the GPL. The other half, being able to change it, can be
very effectively stopped using DRM.
I agree with your position that the GPL should not be used to prevent
implementing a DRM system, but I like the fact that it's trying to
prevent DRM:ing the code itself (e.g. requiring signed binaries to run).
The effect would probably be that no one can implement a DRM system that
isn't easily broken, but that only demonstrates how flawed the idea of
DRM is.
Rgds
Pierre
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
