Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Samba author: GPLv3 has further to go
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "Some people complain a lot about the anti-DRM provisions, and I would
> | have liked to see those actually be even stronger than they are. Because
> | currently they've got some limitations in there that limits some of the
> | anti-DRM provisions of GPLv3 to only being applicable to consumer
> | products. Which means it leaves out, for example, some Samba appliances.
> |
> | "I'd like to see a future version of the GPL perhaps going a little bit
> | stronger than that and applying it to the non-consumer/enterprise
> | appliances as well" said Tridgell.
> `----
>
> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa
Samba-author-GPLv3-has-further-to-go/0,130061733,339286081,00.htm
I think the key here is not to mix up GPL and anti-drm.
A separate anti-drm license extension should be produced for certain
projects that are key to targeting drm related violators
of free software. It would only apply to certain key
projects like codecs for example so that free software
developers can use them on projects with higher than usual risks
of violators being attracted to it like a magnet.
|
|
