Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-br - Re: [cc-br] Torvalds versus GPLv3 DRM restrictions

cc-br AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons Brazil

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: <soares AT marcusvinicius.eti.br>
  • To: Creative Commons Brazil <cc-br AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-br] Torvalds versus GPLv3 DRM restrictions
  • Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:08:33 -0200

Se eu bem entendi, o Linus questiona a aplica??o da GPLv3 ao Linux, pois ela ?
uma licen?a que tenta expandir-se para outros meios digitais, mas que teria o
efeito colateral de atacar o DRM de um maneira question?vel; e agindo desta
maneira, ela poderia ser usada contra o software que ela supostamente tenta
proteger. esta prote??o, a GPLv2 conseguiu realizar bem at? agora.

Ou seja, na vis?o dele, ? melhor criar licen?as diferentes: uma para
software e
outras para outras cria??es digitais, estou correto ?

Marcus Vinicius

"Havendo suficientes colaboradores,
Qualquer problema ? pass?vel de solu??o"
Eric S. Raymond
A Catedral e o Bazar

On Sat Feb 4 2:38 , 'Omar Kaminski' <kaminski AT fgv.br> sent:

>http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl\?sid=06/02/02/1636216
>
>Legal
>Torvalds versus GPLv3 DRM restrictions
>Thursday February 02, 2006 (06:00 PM GMT)
>
>Yesterday, Tovalds offered his opinion as to where the battle over DRM
>should take place:
>
>"I would suggest that anybody who wants to fight DRM practices seriously
>look at the equivalent angle. If you create interesting content, you can
>forbid that _content_ to ever be encrypted or limited.
>
>In other words, I personally think that the anti-DRM clause is much more
>sensible in the context of the Creative Commons licenses, than in software
>licenses. If you create valuable and useful content that other people want
>to be able to use (catchy tunes, funny animation, good icons), I would
>suggest you protect that _content_ by saying that it cannot be used in any
>content-protection schemes.
>
>Afaik, all the Creative Commons licenses already require that you can't use
>technological measures to restrict the rights you give with the CC licenses.
>The "Share Alike" license in particular requires all work based on it to
>also be shared alike, ie it has the "GPL feel" to it.
>
>If enough interesting content is licensed that way, DRM eventually becomes
>marginalized. Yes, it takes decades, but that's really no different at all
>from how the GPL works. The GPL has taken decades, and it hasn't
>"marginalized" commercial proprietary software yet, but it's gotten to the
>point where fewer people at least _worry_ about it.
>
>As long as you expect Disney to feed your brain and just sit there on your
>couch, Disney & co will always be able to control the content you see. DRM
>is the smallest part of it - the crap we see and hear every day (regardless
>of any protection) is a much bigger issue.
>
>The GPL already requires source code (ie non-protected content). So the GPL
>already _does_ have an anti-DRM clause as far as the _software_ is
>concerned. If you want to fight DRM on non-software fronts, you need to
>create non-software content, and fight it _there_.
>
>I realize that programmers are bad at content creation. So many programmers
>feel that they can't fight DRM that way. Tough. Spread the word instead.
>Don't try to fight DRM the wrong way." (...)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>cc-br mailing list
>cc-br AT lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-br


---- Webmail -----




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page