__/ [ John A. Bailo ] on Tuesday 25 April 2006 16:43 \__
> Thomas Jespersen wrote:
>> "In his article, Ken Starks argues Linux could lose because of the
>> anti-Linux tactics of Microsoft, including Port25 and DRM-technology.
>> While Ken and I are both lobbying for Linux, and I think the same about
>> DRM, I don't agree that Linux will lose. I feel obliged to inform US
>> citizens about a bigger danger: The US as a country will lose because of
>> Microsoft tactics, and not Linux. Most important, they will lose because
>> of DRM."
>> I wonder what americans thinks of his theories ?
> There is nobody, nowhere, preventing anyone from implementing DRM on
Sun Microsystems are implementing Open Source DRM, unless they are still at
the stage of writing specifications and having them approved**. Personally,
I couldn't care less about DRM, but others depend on accessibility through
**They lost their head today (pun intended):
> DRM has *nothing* to do with the operating system -- can't the idiots
> who write these things understand that?
> RSA security models, which are implemented across many file types, *are*
> There are a million ways that anyone who wants to can put a DRM scheme
> into place on Linux.
> In fact, Real's Rhapsody music service already offers access to DRM'd
> media, for a monthly fee, on Linux via Firefox (http://www.rhapsody.com).
I'll lend you a tip. You can get all that stuff for free, over HTTP.
> Anybody who makes a big deal about Linux "not having DRM" is like a
> person arguing that a doorknob "doesn't have DRM". It simply is not a
> feature of that product.
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Sharks are immune to cancer
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:40pm up 3 days 1:51, 8 users, load average: 0.50, 0.76, 0.80
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms