Author should have chosen a different title.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Sep 29, 2006 11:01 AM EDT |
The GPL actually IS a compromise. It was RMS's way of using laws that he doesn't like to promote freedoms that he cares about. If RMS had his way, we wouldn't need the GPL at all. However, the law is what it is, and the GPL is a workable compromise between the world RMS would like and the world we have. |
| jimf Sep 29, 2006 11:11 AM EDT |
> the GPL is a workable compromise between the world RMS would like and the world we have. Well... At least untill GPLv3 it was... |
| dinotrac Sep 29, 2006 11:41 AM EDT |
Jimf - Hey -- It's a little too soon to play Chicken Little. We don't have the final draft yet. |
| linuxlala Sep 29, 2006 11:56 AM EDT |
I chose the title to reflect on the stance against DRM/TPM. The title was to suggest why *I* think, there wouldn't be any changes to the anti-DRM/TPM clause of GPLv3. |
| dinotrac Sep 29, 2006 1:20 PM EDT |
l-lala --- I got that, but, in truth, the GPL is very much about compromise and any "no-compromise" talk is a lot of hooey. It may or may not make sense to put anti-DRM provisions into the GPL, but an aversion to compromise is just about the worst reason I can imagine. Surrender is bad. Compromise is not. |
| Rascalson Sep 29, 2006 4:25 PM EDT |
Trading a little liberty for security Dino? |
| dinotrac Sep 29, 2006 5:00 PM EDT |
Rascalson - Nothing of the sort. Trading a little getting something done and doing some good for sitting high on my perch and congratulating myself for how untainted I am. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!