From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262047AbTD0Xth (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:49:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262120AbTD0Xth (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:49:37 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.comcast.net ([24.153.64.116]:39228 "EHLO smtp-out.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262047AbTD0Xtf (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:49:35 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 20:00:23 -0400 From: rmoser Subject: Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] In-reply-to: <20030427235345.GN23068@work.bitmover.com> To: Larry McVoy Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-id: <200304272000230850.02CFBA48@smtp.comcast.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.30.00.00 (3) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20030427185037.GA23581@work.bitmover.com> <20030427235345.GN23068@work.bitmover.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Just some clarification, this thread is generating excessive traffic. Is this actually a useful topic, or are you just having a flamewar? If it's just a big argument, can you stop? Like, get your own list, put all the participants on it, and flame there. If it's relavent, then get to the point. --Bluefox Icy *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 4/27/2003 at 4:53 PM Larry McVoy wrote: >On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:51:58PM +0100, Matthew Kirkwood wrote: >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: >> >> Please excuse the aggressive trimming, but I don't think I'm >> affecting the intent of your works. > >I agree, what you did is fine, great in fact. Thanks. > >> > 1) Corporations are threatened when people copy their content >and/or >> > products. >> >> I think that the word "copy" may be a significant cause >> of artificial disagreement here. I, for one, find it just >> as misleading as "free" (is it as-in-beer or as-in-speech?). >> >> Larry -- would you be willing, in future postings of this >> nature, to distinguish "duplicate" and "reimplement"? > >A very good point, you're right. And it's worse because I use "copying" >to mean two different things depending on context. > >To clarify: in general, when I'm talking about copying, what I mean depends >on whether I'm talking about content or software programs. For content, >copying means the act of generating a new copy of the content (copying >mp3 files via Napster like services, for example). For programs, which >is usually what I'm talking about, I mean the act of sitting down and >trying to make a new program which does the same thing as the old program. > >I think some people may think that I mean redistribution when I say >copying and I almost never am talking about that. >-- >--- >Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com >http://www.bitmover.com/lm >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/