Posted by: Anonymous
on November 20, 2007 05:32 PM
There are some odd misunderstandings here... and maybe I'm one of them, but here's my take. DRM is digital rights management (or manglement... as some would like to say... yeah me too). DRM, should only be for content... any content, not software. While you consider software content (and I imagine it is for a coder, programer ... hacker etc...) its not content, its software, its the engine and content is the gas (fuel) ... or maybe the road (where you go).
Content is the data - which could be a non executable text file... (not a script) or a song, or a movie or a database or a spreadsheet.
Software has always been controlled ... or maybe 'DRM'd' ... if not by the system itself, by the terms or license of the software... this was the original proprietary AT&T System V. Now some software, systems and tools are protected and licensed to be and stay open.... others are not. DRM has been around, content DRM is new, GPL shouldnt care about this (maybe it doesnt) and maybe you should be able to add your own proprietary DRM to GPL 3 software?
And I agree with the finished product... cell phones, cable boxes, etc... I do think its anyone rights to modify their hardware regardless of what some company may impose on you. You may even have the right to distribute the modification, however that company has no right to support you - or even to continue to support you since you've changed the product (ever so slightly or completely).
A computer is different, because it is not a finished product. There are very many blocks that make up the product and this gives it great versatility, though this can also be a weakness to some.
Anyway, this all may be moot... its almost 2008.
The BSD model seems a lot more clear. Even Apple gives way its kernel, Darwin on PPC and x86 ... so I'm not really sure what the fuss is about. I think GPL 2 is fine - from what I've read. The only issue I see with Linux is allowing DRM content to a point. I wouldnt ever advocate locking a system down like Windows Vista, the user and owner definately has rights to his or her content... even code, but code is not relivant, since that is an old non-issue IMHO.