On 19/05/14 04:00, Lee Winter wrote: > Anyone who proposes to restrict my ability to choose, for or against, > DRM-restricted property is making a proposition that I will _always_ > res/ist./ After all, it is about freedom. Mine.
I haven't seen any arguments in this thread threatening that. Firefox not supporting DRM doesn't stop you consuming DRM-encumbered content; you're welcome to use IE or chrome or something instead. > And, for the record, I > do not consider intellectual property to be morally equivalent to a > human being. Owning property has been around for million of years. And > I approve of that practice (see Locke). The distinction is that people > are not and never have been property, much as some would like to think > of other people as property. That's one distinction. Another is that people, like other property, are physical objects, where 'intellectual property' isn't (though it may be represented as such). > But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, > intellectual property is real and worth protecting. Otherwise I would > consider every GPL "protected" product to have a BSD or an MIT license. One has to be very careful quoting Stallman. Terminology, and the interpretation of it, are vitally important. I won't claim to exactly represent his viewpoint, but I believe he does respect some of what you want to consider 'real and worth protecting' - as you say, it's how the GPL works. But I doubt he'd call it 'intellectual property', or mean exactly what you mean by that. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379c437.2010...@walnut.gen.nz
