Post ARGoqRhPyphq0sEcfA by cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site
 (DIR) More posts by cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site
 (DIR) Post #AR6wW6xXH4xC3GLkzA by lxo@gnusocial.net
       2022-12-29T20:56:02Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       I'm not sure what you mean by DRM-restricted software, then.  are you talking about games that refuse to run if you're not online to verify an authorization key or somesuch?  to get a key to self-decrypt parts of the program itself?if you get source code and the essential freedoms, including the permissions to modify the program, to install the modified version where the original program was supposed to run, and to run the modified version, I'd still think it's free.  the fact that the original program won't do much doesn't seem to be enough for me to conclude it is nonfree.  a program could be accidentally (rather than intentionally) defective to the point that it fell apart and crashed every time, and that wouldn't be a reason to consider it nonfree.  other undesirable and outright hostile features could be intentionally put in, say for advertising, surveillance, crypto-mining, backdooring, data leaking or ransom, and I'd still lean towards considering it freedom-respecting if the essential freedoms are there, enabling users to remove (or improve!) the user-hostile features and use whatever it becomes to serve their own will.  the FSD is not about what the software does, it's about who's in control.
       
 (DIR) Post #ARGoqRhPyphq0sEcfA by cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site
       2023-01-03T15:34:32.775631Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Malicious features are anti-features but not something that restricts one's freedom. What I'm talking about is software working only with DRM enabled (l).
       
 (DIR) Post #ARIdDNKXa0XNzPcZhA by lxo@gnusocial.net
       2023-01-04T05:44:59Z
       
       0 likes, 2 repeats
       
       I'm still having trouble putting together a concrete situation in which something like this might come about, namely, that a program is released with source code and binaries, under a freedom-respecting license, and with an anti-feature that prevents most of the program from running in certain unspecified circumstances.  it feels a bit like "spherical cow exhaling milk isotropically", something that would never occur in practice.  why would someone bother adding such restrictive code to a program if the next person could remove it and share the result with others?  or maybe I'm just lacking in imagination, and need a more concrete situation to see what you're getting at.
       
 (DIR) Post #ARIe91Ce0TpU9tPjaD by iska@mstdn.starnix.network
       2023-01-04T12:44:06Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @lxo @cyberspook Compiling on windows is painful and normies want the "official" version of the program, especially if it's a business.