Re:DRM Non-Aggression on the Table at W3C
by TD-Linux on Thursday March 17, 2016 @01:32AM
(#11302752)
The GPLv3 solves this by not preventing you from implementing DRM, but granting you the right to circumvent any DRM implemented with the software.
Re:DRM Non-Aggression on the Table at W3C
by Sanddancer on Thursday March 17, 2016 @02:00AM
(#11302808)
I don't think that GPLv3-encumbered software would help here. About all it would do is make companies say, "download our app to watch this." keeping the status quo the same.
Re:DRM Non-Aggression on the Table at W3C
by leereeves on Thursday March 17, 2016 @05:02AM
(#11303273)
How would a copy-left license force disclosure of DRM implemented in a library distributed as a binary blob?
All you'd see in the open source code is a call to that library (just like a call to a binary blob driver from the Linux kernel, for example).
And on distribution any copy left license would do, because it is DRM ruling itself out, as transparency of the code is incompatible with DRM. That's because all DRM accomplishes is a sort of security by obscurity so there can't be generally accepted solutions that are open-source. There's no DRM in Chromium for example. But except for the browser, it's not distribution that's relevant, which is why organizations like the FSF, the EFF and Mozilla are pissed off about W3C standardizing DRM.
I wouldn't hope for any miracles by Apple, when they are single handily responsible for popularizing DRM amongst consumers, along with Trusted Computing. Their whole iTunes / iPhone business is built on top and the rest of the industry followed.