It seems to me that the main issue here is to ensure the integrity of
content from the origin source to the end consumer. In general, the
problem also include the whole Digital Right Management (DRM) of content.
DRM has its own set of issues. I'll believe in DRM when someone
comes up with a DRM proposal that
a) protects the interests of *all* parties - not just those of the
content-provider, but also those of the public (e.g. fair use rights,
the right to parody the work, the right to make backup copies,
etc.) - thus preserving a reasonable balance between the creator's
interest and the public's interest.
b) is flexible enough to provide as much protection for "open"-style
licenses (e.g. GPL) as for "closed"-style licenses. In other words,
it should not favor the interests of those who want to make money
by controlling the use of their creative work more than the interests
of those who want their work to be used freely but want to see that
their work is preserved and protected from misuse.
until someone demonstrates a better way to deal with those issues are
resolved, DRM would only further the efforts by large media companies
to dilute the public's rights.
If we had a working DRM system (where "working" includes the criteria
above) it might make sense to make OPES depend on it. But we won't
have such a system for many years, if ever. It's not because there
aren't people working on it, it's because the problem as defined is
intrinsically difficult (and perhaps also - or so I'm told - because
the majority of people working on DRM are acting against the public
interest. I have no direct involvement myself.)
Just because I recognize that content-providers have rights that need
to be preserved does not mean that I support DRM as a mechanism for
doing so.
Keith