> What they should do is to create a standard open source license that all DRM must use. Instead, we now have none. There is a very simple reason for that: DRM

> What they should do is to create a standard open source license that all DRM must use. Instead, we now have none. There is a very simple reason for that: DRM and Free Software are fundamentally incompatible. So you cannot have a free software license that would allow for DRM software released under that license to restrict users (by definition: DRM violates freedom #0). > Current DRM just pick their own license and that means many are incompatible. Some is binary blobs, some aren't. Wouldn't it be better for everyone involved if there were a standard? No, it would be better if we stopped trying to play nice to the DRM conspiracy. > DRM is as warmly welcomed in a free software ecosystem as forced open sourcing would be for DRM producers. ... I don't know what definition of free software you're using. But according to mine, DRM violates freedom #0 by definition. And the DMCA means that DRM also effectively violates freedom #1 (namely removing the DRM) too.