Negotiating Meaning From the GPL and DRM

I haven't written anything here over the last few days because I've been busy on email lists, trying to decide what I thought about the Digital Rights Management ([t:DRM]) clause within the GNU General Public License version 3 draft ([t:GPLv3]). To some, especially within the Free Software Foundation, the words 'Digital Rights Management' in that particular sequence are 'evil'.

On the flip side, advocates of DRM as we know it now say it's the best thing since they discovered sex.

In exploring the issue, and having some interesting exchanges on a variety of lists, I've come to a few conclusions. The first conclusion is that there are extremists involved on either side of the fence, and they aren't really thinking outside of their own sandboxes. There are some hints of reality in their statements and 'discussions' (where discussion is supposed to be two way...), but it's all centered around what is believed by themselves and not necessarily a thing called reality. That the GPL version 3 draft limits how a creator can derive income from something that they distribute using GPL version 3 licensed software (as the license stands) is not really discussed, and no other avenues of deriving income seem to be readily available to replace 'DRM' as a concept for making sure that creators get paid. Before anyone starts arguing that, read below completely...

It's not a simple issue. At the core, we should be wondering about what digital rights are, whether they can be managed, and how we expect people who create content to make a living. The thing that started me off on this path is just that - when a software license limits how one can do other things, such as distribute content, then right or wrong I believe that the software license has overstepped it's bonds.

As someone else wrote on one of the lists, What's the difference between DRM and bombs, and why is there an anti-DRM clause and no anti-bomb clause?

After much thought and exchanges with a few people - two particularly who I won't name, since it was private email and I don't have permission (and we'll get back to that!)- something came to light. While it's rarely discussed and poorly defined, there are deeper issues that aren't being covered... so I've been thinking about them, and will be delving into them within the next 24 hours.

What I have found is that there are more questions out there than answers, and it seems to me that the questions are being ignored. The underlying issues need to be brought to the top again, perhaps... It's not about technology or law. It's about people...