__/ [ 7 ] on Tuesday 10 October 2006 22:54 \__
> First there was GPL, then GPL2 and now proposed is GPL3.
> The issue with GPL3 is that it extends itself into DRM
> in ways that needs to tackle the unfair uses of open source
> to facilitate DRM restrictions.
> While this is a noble cause, I think it has overeached
> itself from a GPL like license to include things that
> may not suit a GPL like license.
> Solution: Call it 'Gnu Drm Public License' GDPL or something similar
> and distinct and most importantly different.
> That way, a GPL license can continue to be GPL2, GPL3, etc.. evolving just
> a little at a time and new GNU license such as a Gnu Drm Public license
> would address the issues of DRM and if it proves popular, there
> would be GDPL2, GDPL3, etc,,, and also new GPLs can take
> on most desired and less controversial features of GDPL
> as time goes by.
I think there is the issue of license forking (more confusion), as well as
permitting a technology that cripples or annihilates interoperability to
become more prevalent. Myself -- I f**king hate DRM. You depend on a vendor
when it comes to opening and interpreting your own data - audio and video
are _only the beginning_.