Skip to comments.
Free Software Foundation: Free as in "do what I say"
InfoWorld ^
| May 29, 2006
| Neil McAllister
Posted on 05/31/2006 7:19:40 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
I have to agree with most of it, except for that last bit. "DRM" is itself a euphamism that doesn't accurately describe what it is or what it does. I especially object to the use of the word "rights" in it with the connotation of protecting them, as it's often used to restrict fair use rights, not just protect copyrights of the authors.
To: rdb3; chance33_98; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Bush2000; PenguinWry; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; ...
2
posted on
05/31/2006 7:20:52 AM PDT
by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: ShadowAce
Wow, that was a quick ping.
To: antiRepublicrat
Can't stand Stallman. Can't stand the GPL. Can't stand GNU, except for the fact they have the
ed rant.
To: antiRepublicrat
5
posted on
05/31/2006 7:25:26 AM PDT
by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: antiRepublicrat
DRM SUX! Finally something we agree on! :)
To: antiRepublicrat; Golden Eagle; DemosCrash
The FSF's most recent effort -- an anti-DRM protest staged at Microsoft's WinHEC conference last week, complete with demonstrators costumed in hazmat suits -- was particularly troubling. It signals a shift in the FSF, from an advocacy organization to one that engages in hysterical activism cut from the PETA mold.
7
posted on
05/31/2006 7:28:28 AM PDT
by
Incorrigible
(If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
To: antiRepublicrat
8
posted on
05/31/2006 7:31:00 AM PDT
by
VOA
To: Incorrigible
Maybe they will have a protest outside the apple store next? LOL
To: antiRepublicrat
The article manages to ramble on and on without addressing the issue that made this revision to the GPL necessary -- to close a loophole whereby DRM and special-rights laws associated with it could be used to restrict rights that are guaranteed under the GPL (e.g. a digital signature scheme could prevent modified software from running unless the software distributor provided the key needed to produce a new digital signature).
10
posted on
05/31/2006 7:39:37 AM PDT
by
steve-b
(A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
To: steve-b
The article manages to ramble on and on without addressing the issue that made this revision to the GPL necessary That's not really the point, which is the FSF getting into moralistic activism on the subject.
To: antiRepublicrat; N3WBI3; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ShadowAce
To: antiRepublicrat
Stallman is a tool and DRM is fine I'm not happy with being told I cant make a backup of my DVD but Ill do my protesting with my wallet not by tryng to take away content owners rights.
As to fair use if they do violate it that needs to be handled in court not through laws and stupid political stunts..
13
posted on
05/31/2006 8:07:55 AM PDT
by
N3WBI3
("I can kill you with my brain" - River Tam)
To: martin_fierro
An oldie but a goodie...
Whats funny is people confuse Linux with the GPL. Linus uses the license but has little taste for Stallmans endless preaching..
14
posted on
05/31/2006 8:10:02 AM PDT
by
N3WBI3
("I can kill you with my brain" - River Tam)
To: antiRepublicrat
That's not really the point, which is the FSF getting into moralistic activism on the subject. The accusation of "moralistic activism" is based on the author's failure to understand the point (which is, as I noted, to close a loophole that would otherwise allow DRM to prevent the effective exercise of rights guaranteed under the GPL).
15
posted on
05/31/2006 8:32:34 AM PDT
by
steve-b
(A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
To: Echo Talon
DRM SUX! Finally something we agree on! :)Me too! I like finding areas of agreement!
16
posted on
05/31/2006 9:04:45 AM PDT
by
zeugma
(Come to the Dark Side... We have cookies!)
To: zeugma
:D why would I want software or a file on my computer that has code in it that I have no control over or have no idea what its doing? sheesh...
To: Echo Talon
:D why would I want software or a file on my computer that has code in it that I have no control over or have no idea what its doing? sheesh...You mean like most closed source software? I have no idea. :-)
18
posted on
05/31/2006 9:59:35 AM PDT
by
zeugma
(Come to the Dark Side... We have cookies!)
To: zeugma
Good 'ol Linux, PcLinuxOS my flavor of choice. :)
To: steve-b
The accusation of "moralistic activism" is based on the author's failure to understand the point (which is, as I noted, to close a loophole that would otherwise allow DRM to prevent the effective exercise of rights guaranteed under the GPL). If that's what Stallman wants, then disallowing DRM in his license is fine. But the FSF has gone beyond that and into activism against DRM in general. That's the point.
That's aside from the fact that I disagree with Stallman's "DRM loophole," which is basically just signed software recognized by hardware. I think Linus' sharks with laser beams can explain it better than I can.
If I buy a TiVO, the comapny does not have to give me the easy ability to run anything I want on it. I can still download TiVO's Linux and run it on other hardware with modifications. IMHO, that is in line with the spirit and letter of the GPL. Stallman wants to take the GPL a step further and force proprietary hardware to be open.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
