| |||||||||||||
Interesting statement from Eben MoglenInteresting statement from Eben MoglenPosted Sep 8, 2006 2:12 UTC (Fri) by pimlott (guest, #1535)In reply to: Interesting statement from Eben Moglen by sepreece Parent article: Transcript of Richard Stallman at the 4th international GPLv3 conference
Note that last sentence: "he keeps a right to modify the DEVICE that you don't have." So, in fact, they ARE claiming that the "four freedoms" extend to the device as well as to the software itself. I think you may be misinterpreting this statement. I read "a right to modify the device" as the right to update the GPLed software on the device. (Well, I see coriordan already said that; so I agree with him.) That said, I agree with much of what you said in this thread, and find the anti-DRM provisions in GPLv3 untenable. Here's an interesting scenario: What if software provider and the service demanding remote attestation are different entities? Eg, the device manufacturer distributes the GPLv3 media player and the media company verifies that it is a "known-good" version (according to their list). This seems a plausible arrangement. So if I hack the media player, the device doesn't "play the same songs", but the manufacturer has no power to change this and the media company has no obligation to the device owner. Who do we go after?
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||