Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The FSF, GPLv3 and DRM

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the preaching-to-the-choir dept.

whats-life-without-gpl writes "FSF has a thing against DRM. This article tries to explain why RMS isn't a DRM (Note that NewsForge is also owned by OSTG) fan and how GPLv3 is gearing up to protect against it. "

2 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Preaching to the choir? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hardly. Slashdot features some of the most anti-GPL trolls around =- they can put the Microsoft Marketing department to shame on occasion.

    *waves to the trolls* Hi! This is for you!

    1) The GPL is only ever a problem for you if you want to distribute someone else's work that they already let you use for free.

    2) See point 1.

    Gift horse, mouth, examination via the anus... all those are things that spring to mind when I hear complaints about how restrictive the GPL is.

  2. I fear a repeat of the Bison fiasco... by nweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bison (GNU's version of YACC) used to have the restriction that the output of Bison, since it was a large amount of code, was GPL. As a result, nobody used Bison except for GCC, because the liscence was untenible.

    I fear that GPLv3, by trying to force RMS's notion of "Liberty" more strongly (anti-DRM provisions, anti-closed-hardware provisions) will be a repeat: GPLv3 based software will only be used by the real FSF zealots. Everyone else will avoid it.

    Let us be thankful that Linus Torvald has more of a "tit for tat" notion rather than a liberty notion, and thus selected GPLv2 only.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr