Torvalds point is a simple one and one that after a little thought I agree with. The GPL isnt' the place to fight this battle. It's out of place here. From the Linux kernel mailing list,
If enough interesting content is licensed that way, DRM eventually becomes marginalized. Yes, it takes decades, but that's really no different at all from how the GPL works. The GPL has taken decades, and it hasn't "marginalized" commercial proprietary software yet, but it's gotten to the point where fewer people at least _worry_ about it.
As long as you expect Disney to feed your brain and just sit there on your couch, Disney & co will always be able to control the content you see. DRM is the smallest part of it - the crap we see and hear every day (regardless of any protection) is a much bigger issue.
The GPL already requires source code (ie non-protected content). So the GPL already _does_ have an anti-DRM clause as far as the _software_ is concerned. If you want to fight DRM on non-software fronts, you need to create non-software content, and fight it _there_.
In short Linus believes that the attempt to reassert the commons is largely lost. After thinking about it I agree. Copyright terms are going to be extend to infinity and in instead trying to shovel back the tide; an entire seperate ecosystem needs to develop exactly like the original GPL developed the free software ecosystem. I understand what Richard is trying to do here; the free software ecosystem is pretty important here. In that regard the Creative Commons licenses are the place to start. Given that the means of production of even features are beginning to drastically decrease given Moore's law, this ecosystem is growing richer over time. Only by developing our own commons can we break the cultural stranglehold.
