Given the the availability of so much storage these days, I don't know why people who are concerned about audio quality use lossy compression at all. FLAC
compression is lossless. The amount of compression varies with the type of music. The worst performance is with some kinds of modern music where a compression factor of only about 0.7 is obtained. For classical music the compression is better. But with disks and even flash memory the size that they are, if you can really tell the difference (and how many can in a noisy environment or with crummy portable headphones or the noise-induced hearing loss that is so common), I don't see a reason (other than perhaps for streaming applications) to use lossy compression.
While I agree with the criticism of patents that are obvious, trivial, or for which there is prior art, and that the Patent Office is not being sufficiently selective, I wonder if this addresses the real problems One is that software probably shouldn't be patentable at all, as many people have argued. The other is that when an innovation is one that will have a really major and widespread impact, allowing any person or company to have a monopoly on it, at least for very long, will interefere with innovation and give that person or company an excessive advantage. This is true even if the patent is a true innovation, not at all obvious, and even if it is for hardware. An example is the transistor. In that case, the US government was wise enough to recognize what a problem it would be for AT&T to have a monopoly on such a fundamental technology and made a special arrangement that circumvented the patent system.
So, I wonder if we need a systematic way of handling cases like this, perhaps an arrangement for buying out the patent and putting it into the public domain by having the government compensate the inventors for their research costs plus some reasonable profit on top?
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was indeed once the court of ultimate appeal for Canada, but ceased to be for criminal cases in 1933 and for civil cases in 1949. Since 1949 the Supreme Court of Canada has been the highest court for all cases.
Indeed, most Commonwealth countries have now eliminated appeals to the JCPC. The provincial courts are now subject to decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada - they are not legal equals.
Here is a chart
of the current system. By way of example, in the important aboriginal rights case, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
Only certain constitutionally-based court decisions can be over-ridden by legislation in
Canada. The "Notwithstanding Clause", the relevant
portion of which I quote, applies only to sections 2 and 7-15 of the Charter. These are the sections that protect civil liberties, roughly equivalent to the American Bill of Rights. Legislation cannot, for example, over-ride the right to vote since this is guaranteed in section 3, which is not subject to the Notwithstanding Clause. In my opinion the Notwithstanding Clause is an embarassment and should be removed, but it isn't as broad as parent suggests.
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
This is pretty trivial. Zipf's Law is regarded in linguistics as a curiosity rather than a deep result. It doesn't really explain anything interesting about language. Music and language are both more and less similar than both following Zipf's Law suggests. On the one hand, as a previous poster has pointed out, language is meaningful. Music may have an emotional impact, but it isn't meaningful in the sense in which language is.
On the other hand, there are deeper similarities in the formal structure, pointed out by Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff in their 1983 book A Generative Theory of Tonal Music.
I've got no idea how much advocacy they are doing,
but there is a Thai linux group. Their
web site
includes a library for Thai language support.
There is a page (in Thai)
about the activities of the Thai Linux Working Group.
Strictly speaking, little if any RealCode was written in Pascal. The usable Pascal implementations all extended and modified the language. The standard form of the language is nearly unusable for serious work due, for instance, to the fact that the size of an array is part of its type. See Brian Kernighan's
Why Pascal Isn't My Favorite Programming Language.
I go into the bank occasionally to get rolls of quarters for doing laundry. Why we can't have ATMs that dispense the customer's selection of coins and bills I don't know. In the late 1970s I recall using ATMs in Japan that let you select the combination of bills that you wanted.
why hire somebody like this?
on
Wired on McBride
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
What I find curious is why a company would hire somebody with McBride's background. Suppose you're the board of what is now SCO. You've got a declining proprietary Unix business and need somebody who can turn the company around. Presumably you'd look for somebody with a combination of good management skills and the combination of technical and market
knowledge to figure out what direction the company should move in. McBride has none of this. From his record it looks like he wasn't much good as a manager. IKON fired him for his M&A work, which doesn't suggest that he has good market sense. He clearly has no understanding of the technology. It looks like the only thing he did well was when he was Novell's guy in Japan. I don't see why he would be attractive for SCO unless the board planned an IP scam from the outset and wanted somebody with experience in that area. If that's the case, it isnt the case that obtaining value from their IP was McBride's idea and that they discovered the alleged infringement after he came on board.
Hey there, sonny, even folks my age, and I'm over a generation younger than Bob Bemer, say 122 111 120.
The modernizers may say 52 49 50, but Real Programmers certainly don't say 82 73 80.
I'm afraid that parent has failed to understand the
article I linked to. It does indeed indicate that virtually all seed is contaminated with herbicide resistant seed. First, it says that the researcher planted 33 plots and all but one contained herbicide-resistant plants. That's 32 out of 33 plots. Second, it says that 14 out of 27 lots of seed failed the 99.75% purity test. It's wrong to think that that means that half the varieties of seed available are pure. Those are not varieties of seed, they're lots of seed collected from pedigreed plots. A researcher like the one who did the study can get his hands on seed from specific plots of land. The average farmer buys seed that is likely to mix seed from various sources.
The company that treats his seed would not normally keep any. You bring it in, they treat it, and they give it back to you. That's why it is questionable
how it is that two years later they came up with what they claim to be a sample of Schmeiser's seed.
There are a lot of Canadians, including people who have no personal connection to Percy Schmeiser, concerned about this issue. Remember, in Canada as in the US, the appellate courts generally avoid reviewing matters of fact; they generally restrict themselves to matters of law. So erroneous decisions on matters of fact are less likely to be
overturned. Overall, the Canadian legal system is pretty good, at least compared with those of most
other countries, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make mistakes. I am a Canadian citizen, so it isn't like I'm biased against Canadians or Canada. To give you a concrete example, just a week or so ago, in Prince George, BC, where I lived until recently, a former judge was conficted of multiple counts of sexual assault. He was a prominent local lawyer who was a judge for ten years. (He resigned when he was indicted.) It turns out that he had a hobby of having sex with
young, often under-age, aboriginal prostitutes
and of abusing them (e.g. beating one up badly
when she asked him to use a condom). He sat on cases involving many of the same women. He was finally exposed when one of them freaked out
when she realized who the judge was. This isn't
typical, of course, but it shows that the system is by no means perfect.
Every link I have posted says exactly what I said it did. What are you whining about? Failing the 99.75% pure test may not sound like much to you, but if you
bothered to read the rest of the article, it explains why even 1/4 of 1% contamination is problematic.
It may be true that only 40% of the canola seed in Canada is intended to be Roundup ready, but according to this report on the work of a University of Manitoba researcher, virtually all canola seed in Canada is contaminated.
Also, if the guy notices the contamination in his field and sues Monsanto for damages, what is he supposed to do in the meantime? Just hope to win his lawsuit and plant no crops? Why shouldn't he harvest his own crop and use the seed? If Monsanto is negligent enough to let it loose, why should he suffer for it? Indeed, arguably he had to use his seed else he would have failed to mitigate his damages.
From what I've read, Schmeiser had previously used
Roundup only on a test patch, but I'm not sure we know for sure. (Presumably it would be possible to find out if had bought Roundup. I don't know if that kind of investigation was done. The information available is a little sparse. Too bad there is no Groklaw for the Monsanto cases.)
this item on Schmeiser's site contains some information about the gradient I mentioned, but not in quite the form I remember, so I think I saw that somewhere else. The trouble is I read a lot on this several months ago.
According to this item on Percy Schmeiser's web site, new contamination has already taken place. And it isn't surprising. According to this article reporting the work of a University of Manitoba researcher, it is no longer possible to buy seed that is free of contamination.
Issue not unique to GMOs
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Although there may be other reasons to be wary of genetically modified organisms, the problem here isn't unique to GMOs. It arises in any situation in which the public good requires the release of proprietary information. This can happen with chemicals, and probably with various mechanical and electronic devices. For example, back in the 1960s
my father, a neurologist, handled a case in which a farmer had been overcome by the fumes of a farm
chemical (a pesticide, I think) and needed to know what was in it in order to treat him. The manufacturer refused to tell him, claiming that it was a trade secret. Fortunately, my father was able to get the state government to act. The attorney general called the president of the manufacturer and told him that if he didn't provide the information he would do everything in his power to make sure that that company never did business in the state again.
Re:Percy Schmeiser in his own words
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It is nearly impossible for a private citizen to obtain a handgun permit in Canada other than for target shooting or collecting, but long guns are permitted. As of a few years ago, you need a federal firearms permit to possess long guns. It isn't too hard to get. I have one, and three rifles. For defense in a rural situation a handgun wouldn't be that great anyhow since even if you know what you are doing they aren't accurate at any distance. For dealing with trespassers a shotgun loaded with buckshot or salt would probably be the best choice. Your aim doesn't need to be very accurate and the chance of killing someone is low.
Yes, but there's more to it than this. First, Schmeiser took seed from the contaminated crop and used it to plant the subsequent year's crop. It is the second year's crop that was 95-98% percent Roundup resistant. A farmer is entitled to use his own seed. It was not his fault that Monsanto's seed
contaminated his field.
Second, Schmeiser didn't use Roundup on his crop.
He therefore derived no benefit from the fact that his crop was Roundup resistant. This is undisputed. It is why the Supreme Court of Canada
overturned the award of damages and legal fees to Monsanto in spite of its ruling that Schmeiser infringed Monsanto's patent. This is explicit in the court's ruling. You can read Supreme Court of Canada decisions here.
Schmeiser showed that the percentage of Roundup resistant crop in his first crop was gradient in exactly the way that would be expected if it was contaminated by seed from a passing truck or other farmer's field. That is, it was highest near the road and fell off with distance.
Indeed. And to make matters worse, the US Attorney General, John Ashcroft, lied about this and claimed that the guy had entered the US in order to harm the US, when the US government knew from the outset that he was merely in transit to Canada.
I'm disappointed not to see responses from the Conservatives (I keep typing "Reform" and having to
backspace) and the NDP, though maybe it isn't fair to expect them to respond so quickly. The Liberal response is even more disappointing though. You'd think that they could manage to answer all of the questions. It's pretty pathetic.
Folder structure should be simple and as shallow as possible..
I'm amazed by this statement. In my experience the problem is usually just the opposite. Unix novices or MS Windows users tend to put everything in their home directory, or at any rate have a very
shallow directory structure. A well articulated directory structure can make it much easier to find things and to keep related work together. Want to bring the project you're working on with you? If its all in one directory, tar it up you're ready. It's a real pain if it consists of N files in a larger directory. And large numbers of files in the same directory are hard to grok, whether in a shell or in a file browser window, unless they're all of the same type.
If other people find a shallow directory structure
better for their work, fine with me, but the idea that deep directory hierarchies are intrinsically bad is ridiculous.
Actually, I do almost all of my filesystem navigation in shell windows. Its much easier and quicker. And one reason I don't like file browsers is precisely because I don't like having the new directory replace the current one in the window.
That makes it real fun to move a file from a subdirectory into the parent, for example. So other things being equal, a spatial file manager would probably be preferable to me.
I agree with parent up to a point. Much of the time there's no point telling people they should prefer something else. But it is also true that people can be very resistant to new things out of bad habits or because they don't understand the benefits of the new approach. In this case, it seems to me that its a good idea to introduce spatial behavior but it should be easy to turn it off. And easy doesn't mean using gconf. It should be possible to do this from within Nautilus, and not several levels down in preferences. In fact, I can imagine that I would want to switch back and forth frequently, so a button right on the toolbar
would be handy.
I'm sure that the torture was encouraged if not ordered by higher-ups, but I've seen nothing to suggest that the photos were in any sense official.
The photos seem to have been taken by individual soldiers recording the good time they were having at work.
Actually, the Abu Ghraib photos were taken by soldiers acting in their private capacity and distributed privately. They weren't liberated from government computers.
Still, its true that the government has some photos, documents, etc., that they wouldn't want circulated. However, I'm not sure that DRM is what they need to keep those documents safe. What DRM allows you to do is to publish files and control exactly who sees them, who can reproduce them, etc. Confidential government files aren't supposed to be published at all. Presumably the proper way to secure them is to encrypt them and keep them on systems isolated from the network, to which only certain people have access, with logging of file accesses and so on. In other words, you want a secure OS.
In the even the government did need DRM for purposes like this, presumably it could be added as a module that was not released. I don't see that there would be any need to demand that GNU software incorporate DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the the availability of so much storage these days, I don't know why people who are concerned about audio quality use lossy compression at all. FLAC compression is lossless. The amount of compression varies with the type of music. The worst performance is with some kinds of modern music where a compression factor of only about 0.7 is obtained. For classical music the compression is better. But with disks and even flash memory the size that they are, if you can really tell the difference (and how many can in a noisy environment or with crummy portable headphones or the noise-induced hearing loss that is so common), I don't see a reason (other than perhaps for streaming applications) to use lossy compression.
While I agree with the criticism of patents that are obvious, trivial, or for which there is prior art, and that the Patent Office is not being sufficiently selective, I wonder if this addresses the real problems One is that software probably shouldn't be patentable at all, as many people have argued. The other is that when an innovation is one that will have a really major and widespread impact, allowing any person or company to have a monopoly on it, at least for very long, will interefere with innovation and give that person or company an excessive advantage. This is true even if the patent is a true innovation, not at all obvious, and even if it is for hardware. An example is the transistor. In that case, the US government was wise enough to recognize what a problem it would be for AT&T to have a monopoly on such a fundamental technology and made a special arrangement that circumvented the patent system. So, I wonder if we need a systematic way of handling cases like this, perhaps an arrangement for buying out the patent and putting it into the public domain by having the government compensate the inventors for their research costs plus some reasonable profit on top?
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was indeed once the court of ultimate appeal for Canada, but ceased to be for criminal cases in 1933 and for civil cases in 1949. Since 1949 the Supreme Court of Canada has been the highest court for all cases. Indeed, most Commonwealth countries have now eliminated appeals to the JCPC. The provincial courts are now subject to decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada - they are not legal equals. Here is a chart of the current system. By way of example, in the important aboriginal rights case, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
Only certain constitutionally-based court decisions can be over-ridden by legislation in Canada. The "Notwithstanding Clause", the relevant portion of which I quote, applies only to sections 2 and 7-15 of the Charter. These are the sections that protect civil liberties, roughly equivalent to the American Bill of Rights. Legislation cannot, for example, over-ride the right to vote since this is guaranteed in section 3, which is not subject to the Notwithstanding Clause. In my opinion the Notwithstanding Clause is an embarassment and should be removed, but it isn't as broad as parent suggests.
This is pretty trivial. Zipf's Law is regarded in linguistics as a curiosity rather than a deep result. It doesn't really explain anything interesting about language. Music and language are both more and less similar than both following Zipf's Law suggests. On the one hand, as a previous poster has pointed out, language is meaningful. Music may have an emotional impact, but it isn't meaningful in the sense in which language is. On the other hand, there are deeper similarities in the formal structure, pointed out by Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff in their 1983 book A Generative Theory of Tonal Music.
I've got no idea how much advocacy they are doing, but there is a Thai linux group. Their web site includes a library for Thai language support. There is a page (in Thai) about the activities of the Thai Linux Working Group.
Strictly speaking, little if any RealCode was written in Pascal. The usable Pascal implementations all extended and modified the language. The standard form of the language is nearly unusable for serious work due, for instance, to the fact that the size of an array is part of its type. See Brian Kernighan's Why Pascal Isn't My Favorite Programming Language.
I go into the bank occasionally to get rolls of quarters for doing laundry. Why we can't have ATMs that dispense the customer's selection of coins and bills I don't know. In the late 1970s I recall using ATMs in Japan that let you select the combination of bills that you wanted.
What I find curious is why a company would hire somebody with McBride's background. Suppose you're the board of what is now SCO. You've got a declining proprietary Unix business and need somebody who can turn the company around. Presumably you'd look for somebody with a combination of good management skills and the combination of technical and market knowledge to figure out what direction the company should move in. McBride has none of this. From his record it looks like he wasn't much good as a manager. IKON fired him for his M&A work, which doesn't suggest that he has good market sense. He clearly has no understanding of the technology. It looks like the only thing he did well was when he was Novell's guy in Japan. I don't see why he would be attractive for SCO unless the board planned an IP scam from the outset and wanted somebody with experience in that area. If that's the case, it isnt the case that obtaining value from their IP was McBride's idea and that they discovered the alleged infringement after he came on board.
Hey there, sonny, even folks my age, and I'm over a generation younger than Bob Bemer, say 122 111 120. The modernizers may say 52 49 50, but Real Programmers certainly don't say 82 73 80.
I'm afraid that parent has failed to understand the article I linked to. It does indeed indicate that virtually all seed is contaminated with herbicide resistant seed. First, it says that the researcher planted 33 plots and all but one contained herbicide-resistant plants. That's 32 out of 33 plots. Second, it says that 14 out of 27 lots of seed failed the 99.75% purity test. It's wrong to think that that means that half the varieties of seed available are pure. Those are not varieties of seed, they're lots of seed collected from pedigreed plots. A researcher like the one who did the study can get his hands on seed from specific plots of land. The average farmer buys seed that is likely to mix seed from various sources.
The company that treats his seed would not normally keep any. You bring it in, they treat it, and they give it back to you. That's why it is questionable how it is that two years later they came up with what they claim to be a sample of Schmeiser's seed.
There are a lot of Canadians, including people who have no personal connection to Percy Schmeiser, concerned about this issue. Remember, in Canada as in the US, the appellate courts generally avoid reviewing matters of fact; they generally restrict themselves to matters of law. So erroneous decisions on matters of fact are less likely to be overturned. Overall, the Canadian legal system is pretty good, at least compared with those of most other countries, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make mistakes. I am a Canadian citizen, so it isn't like I'm biased against Canadians or Canada. To give you a concrete example, just a week or so ago, in Prince George, BC, where I lived until recently, a former judge was conficted of multiple counts of sexual assault. He was a prominent local lawyer who was a judge for ten years. (He resigned when he was indicted.) It turns out that he had a hobby of having sex with young, often under-age, aboriginal prostitutes and of abusing them (e.g. beating one up badly when she asked him to use a condom). He sat on cases involving many of the same women. He was finally exposed when one of them freaked out when she realized who the judge was. This isn't typical, of course, but it shows that the system is by no means perfect.
Every link I have posted says exactly what I said it did. What are you whining about? Failing the 99.75% pure test may not sound like much to you, but if you bothered to read the rest of the article, it explains why even 1/4 of 1% contamination is problematic.
It may be true that only 40% of the canola seed in Canada is intended to be Roundup ready, but according to this report on the work of a University of Manitoba researcher, virtually all canola seed in Canada is contaminated.
Also, if the guy notices the contamination in his field and sues Monsanto for damages, what is he supposed to do in the meantime? Just hope to win his lawsuit and plant no crops? Why shouldn't he harvest his own crop and use the seed? If Monsanto is negligent enough to let it loose, why should he suffer for it? Indeed, arguably he had to use his seed else he would have failed to mitigate his damages.
From what I've read, Schmeiser had previously used Roundup only on a test patch, but I'm not sure we know for sure. (Presumably it would be possible to find out if had bought Roundup. I don't know if that kind of investigation was done. The information available is a little sparse. Too bad there is no Groklaw for the Monsanto cases.)
this item on Schmeiser's site contains some information about the gradient I mentioned, but not in quite the form I remember, so I think I saw that somewhere else. The trouble is I read a lot on this several months ago.
According to this item on Percy Schmeiser's web site, new contamination has already taken place. And it isn't surprising. According to this article reporting the work of a University of Manitoba researcher, it is no longer possible to buy seed that is free of contamination.
Although there may be other reasons to be wary of genetically modified organisms, the problem here isn't unique to GMOs. It arises in any situation in which the public good requires the release of proprietary information. This can happen with chemicals, and probably with various mechanical and electronic devices. For example, back in the 1960s my father, a neurologist, handled a case in which a farmer had been overcome by the fumes of a farm chemical (a pesticide, I think) and needed to know what was in it in order to treat him. The manufacturer refused to tell him, claiming that it was a trade secret. Fortunately, my father was able to get the state government to act. The attorney general called the president of the manufacturer and told him that if he didn't provide the information he would do everything in his power to make sure that that company never did business in the state again.
It is nearly impossible for a private citizen to obtain a handgun permit in Canada other than for target shooting or collecting, but long guns are permitted. As of a few years ago, you need a federal firearms permit to possess long guns. It isn't too hard to get. I have one, and three rifles. For defense in a rural situation a handgun wouldn't be that great anyhow since even if you know what you are doing they aren't accurate at any distance. For dealing with trespassers a shotgun loaded with buckshot or salt would probably be the best choice. Your aim doesn't need to be very accurate and the chance of killing someone is low.
Yes, but there's more to it than this. First, Schmeiser took seed from the contaminated crop and used it to plant the subsequent year's crop. It is the second year's crop that was 95-98% percent Roundup resistant. A farmer is entitled to use his own seed. It was not his fault that Monsanto's seed contaminated his field.
Second, Schmeiser didn't use Roundup on his crop. He therefore derived no benefit from the fact that his crop was Roundup resistant. This is undisputed. It is why the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the award of damages and legal fees to Monsanto in spite of its ruling that Schmeiser infringed Monsanto's patent. This is explicit in the court's ruling. You can read Supreme Court of Canada decisions here.
Schmeiser showed that the percentage of Roundup resistant crop in his first crop was gradient in exactly the way that would be expected if it was contaminated by seed from a passing truck or other farmer's field. That is, it was highest near the road and fell off with distance.
Indeed. And to make matters worse, the US Attorney General, John Ashcroft, lied about this and claimed that the guy had entered the US in order to harm the US, when the US government knew from the outset that he was merely in transit to Canada.
I'm disappointed not to see responses from the Conservatives (I keep typing "Reform" and having to backspace) and the NDP, though maybe it isn't fair to expect them to respond so quickly. The Liberal response is even more disappointing though. You'd think that they could manage to answer all of the questions. It's pretty pathetic.
I'm amazed by this statement. In my experience the problem is usually just the opposite. Unix novices or MS Windows users tend to put everything in their home directory, or at any rate have a very shallow directory structure. A well articulated directory structure can make it much easier to find things and to keep related work together. Want to bring the project you're working on with you? If its all in one directory, tar it up you're ready. It's a real pain if it consists of N files in a larger directory. And large numbers of files in the same directory are hard to grok, whether in a shell or in a file browser window, unless they're all of the same type.
If other people find a shallow directory structure better for their work, fine with me, but the idea that deep directory hierarchies are intrinsically bad is ridiculous.
Actually, I do almost all of my filesystem navigation in shell windows. Its much easier and quicker. And one reason I don't like file browsers is precisely because I don't like having the new directory replace the current one in the window. That makes it real fun to move a file from a subdirectory into the parent, for example. So other things being equal, a spatial file manager would probably be preferable to me.
I agree with parent up to a point. Much of the time there's no point telling people they should prefer something else. But it is also true that people can be very resistant to new things out of bad habits or because they don't understand the benefits of the new approach. In this case, it seems to me that its a good idea to introduce spatial behavior but it should be easy to turn it off. And easy doesn't mean using gconf. It should be possible to do this from within Nautilus, and not several levels down in preferences. In fact, I can imagine that I would want to switch back and forth frequently, so a button right on the toolbar would be handy.
I'm sure that the torture was encouraged if not ordered by higher-ups, but I've seen nothing to suggest that the photos were in any sense official. The photos seem to have been taken by individual soldiers recording the good time they were having at work.
Actually, the Abu Ghraib photos were taken by soldiers acting in their private capacity and distributed privately. They weren't liberated from government computers.
Still, its true that the government has some photos, documents, etc., that they wouldn't want circulated. However, I'm not sure that DRM is what they need to keep those documents safe. What DRM allows you to do is to publish files and control exactly who sees them, who can reproduce them, etc. Confidential government files aren't supposed to be published at all. Presumably the proper way to secure them is to encrypt them and keep them on systems isolated from the network, to which only certain people have access, with logging of file accesses and so on. In other words, you want a secure OS.
In the even the government did need DRM for purposes like this, presumably it could be added as a module that was not released. I don't see that there would be any need to demand that GNU software incorporate DRM.