>I've been thinking more and more about how Stallman has blocked perhaps the only effective way to make companies make more open-source software: allow DRM to work properly with open-source code.
That's a feature, not a bug.
He's not interested in creating a "commons" for companies.
He's interested in having his code help users, and create an incentive for companies to create code which will help users.
If you look at it from that perspective, with DRM you might as well be closed source.
-----------
Oh. And DRM encumbered code is arguably closed source.
Imagine a license - You can copy and distribute source, compile source, but not use your compiled binaries.
That wouldn't fit either the OSS or FSF definition of Open Source/Free Software.
But that's what DRM does. It effectively says that you cannot run this software on your devise.
No it wouldn't fit their definition. Take into account that this is a legislative or a policy position Id like to see. I'm not defending this as a way of helping closed source; I'm thinking of it as a way to put an end to the open-source debate.
That idea is you would by law be forced to to distribute open-source software that's modifiable by the user. To accommodate for profit, DRM would be allowed
That's a feature, not a bug.
He's not interested in creating a "commons" for companies.
He's interested in having his code help users, and create an incentive for companies to create code which will help users.
If you look at it from that perspective, with DRM you might as well be closed source.
-----------
Oh. And DRM encumbered code is arguably closed source.
Imagine a license - You can copy and distribute source, compile source, but not use your compiled binaries.
That wouldn't fit either the OSS or FSF definition of Open Source/Free Software.
But that's what DRM does. It effectively says that you cannot run this software on your devise.