www/philosophy opposing-drm.html

[John Sullivan]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     John Sullivan <johnsu01>        06/06/13 23:27:18

Modified files:
        philosophy     : opposing-drm.html 

Log message:
        Removed error and fixed double quotes for xhtml.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/opposing-drm.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.9&r2=1.10

Patches:
Index: opposing-drm.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/opposing-drm.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- opposing-drm.html   13 Jun 2006 07:56:38 -0000      1.9
+++ opposing-drm.html   13 Jun 2006 23:27:16 -0000      1.10
@@ -61,15 +61,15 @@
 to change the software to do what you wish, has become a sham.
 </p>
 <p>
-Then came Treacherous Computing, promoted as "Trusted Computing,"
-meaning that companies can "trust" your computer to obey them instead of
+Then came Treacherous Computing, promoted as &ldquo;Trusted Computing,&rdquo;
+meaning that companies can &ldquo;trust&rdquo; your computer to obey them 
instead of
 you. It enables network sites to tell which program you are running; if
 you change the program, or write your own, they will refuse to talk to
 you. Once again, freedom No. 1 becomes a sham.
 </p>
 <p>
 Microsoft has a scheme, originally called Palladium, that enables an
-application program to "seal" data so that no other program can access
+application program to &ldquo;seal&rdquo; data so that no other program can 
access
 it. If Disney distributes movies this way, you'll be unable to
 exercise your legal rights of fair use and de minimis use. If an
 application records your data this way, it will be the ultimate in
@@ -79,16 +79,16 @@
 coming version of Windows.
 </p>
 <p>
-AACS, the "Advanced Access Content System," promoted by Disney, IBM, 
+AACS, the &ldquo;Advanced Access Content System,&rdquo; promoted by Disney, 
IBM, 
 Microsoft, Intel, Sony, and others, aims to
 restrict use of HDTV recordings--and software--so they can't be used
 except as these companies permit. Sony was caught last year installing a
-"rootkit" into millions of people's computers, and not telling them how
-to remove it. Sony has learned its lesson: it will install the "rootkit"
+&ldquo;rootkit&rdquo; into millions of people's computers, and not telling 
them how
+to remove it. Sony has learned its lesson: it will install the 
&ldquo;rootkit&rdquo;
 in your computer before you get it, and you won't be able to remove it.
-This plan explicitly requires devices to be "robust"--meaning you cannot
+This plan explicitly requires devices to be &ldquo;robust&rdquo;--meaning you 
cannot
 change them. Its implementors will surely want to include GPL-covered
-software, trampling freedom No. 1. This scheme should get "AACSed," and
+software, trampling freedom No. 1. This scheme should get 
&ldquo;AACSed,&rdquo; and
 a boycott of HD DVD and Blu-ray has already been announced
 (http://bluraysucks.com/boycott).
 </p>
@@ -103,19 +103,18 @@
 </p>
 
 <p>Facing these threats to our freedom, what should the free software
-community do?</p>
-<p>RMS: Some say we should give in and accept the distribution of our software
-in ways that don't allow modified versions to function, because this
-will make our software more popular. Some refer to free software as
-"open source," that being the slogan of an amoral approach to the
-matter, which cites powerful and reliable software as the highest goals.
-If we allow companies to use our software to restrict us, this "open
-source DRM" could help them restrict us more powerfully and reliably.
-Those who wield the power could benefit by sharing and improving the
-software they use to do so. We too could read it--read it and weep, if
-we can't make a changed version run. For the goals of freedom and
-community--the goals of the free software movement--this concession
-would amount to failure.
+community do? Some say we should give in and accept the distribution
+of our software in ways that don't allow modified versions to
+function, because this will make our software more popular. Some refer
+to free software as &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; that being the slogan of an 
amoral
+approach to the matter, which cites powerful and reliable software as
+the highest goals.  If we allow companies to use our software to
+restrict us, this &ldquo;open source DRM&rdquo; could help them restrict us 
more
+powerfully and reliably.  Those who wield the power could benefit by
+sharing and improving the software they use to do so. We too could
+read it--read it and weep, if we can't make a changed version run. For
+the goals of freedom and community--the goals of the free software
+movement--this concession would amount to failure.
 </p>
 <p>
 We developed the GNU operating system so that we could control our own
@@ -205,7 +204,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2006/06/13 07:56:38 $ $Author: ramprasadb $
+$Date: 2006/06/13 23:27:16 $ $Author: johnsu01 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>