Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I suppose this is why the FSF has gone on and on about "free as in freedom", and not about the practical benefits for developers in releasing source code to the public.

I understand that Gabe does not want to play by the app-store rule, be that Apple or Microsoft. They want to be free to develop their business, their business model, free from dictated rules of a third party.

In a world where every user device is locked down under DRM, there won't be a get-out-of-jail free pass called Linux. If all obvious and commonly used aspects of computing are patented, then we won't have a Linux that can be shipped by something like Steam. Anti-DRM and anti-patent clauses, like those in GPLv3 and the Apache license are not anti-business. They are pro-freedom for companies to decide their own fate.

If we want to keep this get-out-of-jail free pass for the industry, we need to maintain it and banish DRM and patents to the dustheap. It's that simple today. It won't be that simple tomorrow.



Minor nitpick: there are no anti-DRM clauses in the Apache license and the one in the GPLv3 only refers to DRM preventing replacing of the GPLv3 software.


Thanks. I included Apache license because FSF copied the text regarding patents from Apache and copy pasted it directly into GPLv3 (they later added a trailing sentence about patent agreements).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: