As many FOSS licenses exist and are widely deployed in commercial software. The Linux kernel will not be licensed under GPL3. Therefore GPL3 is in no way "crucial to the fate of ... the FLOSS movement generally." Whether GPL3 succeeds or fails it will have no impact on the vast majority of existing FOSS. However, you continue to imply that all FOSS will stand or fall with GPL3, which isn't even final yet.

This is a lot like President Bush's strategy of mentioning Saddam and Al Qaeda in the same sentence so many times that many people now believe there was some connection between the two. But I guess if you repeat innuendo enough times it becomes the truth, at least to the gullible.

I know you're having endless fun trying to link IBM with Richard Stallman, but the connection just ain't there.

Incidentally, Draft 3 of GPL3 is fairly straightforward to me, and I went to a lowly Tier 2 law school. I guess Harvard isn't all it's cracked up to be.

How do you figure that the ability to deploy DRM is indispensable to content creators? All the recent trends have been in the opposite direction, with major DRM schemes getting repeatedly cracked, and EMI offering its music in DRM-free formats. It's not obvious that DRM is even *helpful* to content creators. It's certainly not indispensable.

Tim, reread JDelong's statement, and your statement. Focus on "the ability" as it pertains to *indispensable*. That means that artists have more options in how to disseminate their works, whic his invaluable in new business models.

You say that its not obvious DRM is even *helpful* to creators, but to support your position you say its not *indispensable*. Again, I wonder if you're talking to yourself, or speaking in riddles.

Noel, I suggest you look up the word "indispensable" in the dictionary. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Can you just tell us what your position is instead of telling more riddles.