Slashdot Mirror
Linus on DRM
Thread on LKML:
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds
To: Kernel Mailing List
Subject: Flame Linus to a crisp!
Ok,
there's no way to do this gracefully, so I won't even try. I'm going to
just hunker down for some really impressive extended flaming, and my
asbestos underwear is firmly in place, and extremely uncomfortable.
I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux!
There, I've said it. I'm out of the closet. So bring it on...
I've had some private discussions with various people about this already,
and I do realize that a lot of people want to use the kernel in some way
to just make DRM go away, at least as far as Linux is concerned. Either by
some policy decision or by extending the GPL to just not allow it.
In some ways the discussion was very similar to some of the software
patent related GPL-NG discussions from a year or so ago: "we don't like
it, and we should change the license to make it not work somehow".
And like the software patent issue, I also don't necessarily like DRM
myself, but I still ended up feeling the same: I'm an "Oppenheimer", and I
refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for
whatever you want to - which very much includes things I don't necessarily
personally approve of.
The GPL requires you to give out sources to the kernel, but it doesn't
limit what you can _do_ with the kernel. On the whole, this is just
another example of why rms calls me "just an engineer" and thinks I have
no ideals.
[ Personally, I see it as a virtue - trying to make the world a slightly
better place _without_ trying to impose your moral values on other
people. You do whatever the h*ll rings your bell, I'm just an engineer
who wants to make the best OS possible. ]
In short, it's perfectly ok to sign a kernel image - I do it myself
indirectly every day through the kernel.org, as kernel.org will sign the
tar-balls I upload to make sure people can at least verify that they came
that way. Doing the same thing on the binary is no different: signing a
binary is a perfectly fine way to show the world that you're the one
behind it, and that _you_ trust it.
And since I can imaging signing binaries myself, I don't feel that I can
disallow anybody else doing so.
Another part of the DRM discussion is the fact that signing is only the
first step: _acting_ on the fact whether a binary is signed or not (by
refusing to load it, for example, or by refusing to give it a secret key)
is required too.
But since the signature is pointless unless you _use_ it for something,
and since the decision how to use the signature is clearly outside of the
scope of the kernel itself (and thus not a "derived work" or anything like
that), I have to convince myself that not only is it clearly ok to act on
the knowledge of whather the kernel is signed or not, it's also outside of
the scope of what the GPL talks about, and thus irrelevant to the license.
That's the short and sweet of it. I wanted to bring this out in the open,
because I know there are people who think that signed binaries are an act
of "subversion" (or "perversion") of the GPL, and I wanted to make sure
that people don't live under mis-apprehension that it can't be done.
I think there are many quite valid reasons to sign (and verify) your
kernel images, and while some of the uses of signing are odious, I don't
see any sane way to distinguish between "good" signers and "bad" signers.
Comments? I'd love to get some real discussion about this, but in the end
I'm personally convinced that we have to allow it.
Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private
keys in the binary. You can sign the binary that is a result of the build
process, but you can _not_ make a binary that is aware of certain keys
without making those keys public - because those keys will obviously have
been part of the kernel build itself.
So don't get these two things confused - one is an external key that is
applied _to_ the kernel (ok, and outside the license), and the other one
is embedding a key _into_ the kernel (still ok, but the GPL requires that
such a key has to be made available as "source" to the kernel).
Linus
What is this "h*ll" ?
Is it where all the naughty puntuation marks go when they die?
graspee
What Linus is saying makes complete sense to me. I think the
Kernel level of Linux is the wrong place to make a political
stand like that. What has made Linux successful, and what will
make it ultimately *the* OS is it's an
Evolvable System
The fact that people can use Linux for whatever they need to is
what makes it such a compelling system. The fact that you can
tinker with it, change the source, in short make it work for you
is what makes Linux successful.
He also makes a good point, there is a difference between
allowing DRM and forcing everyone that uses the OS to use DRM
(as M$ want). There are some times when DRM is very legitimate
(Goverment Top Secret Docs, Litigation Confidential information
etc), and there are the times when I consider it to be
un-ethical (most other situations I can think of).
I have to say way to go Linus. Keep the system evolvable.
Ultimately isn't it a catch 22 anyway? If he prohibits DRM,
isn't that sort of like saying "this is my software and you
can't do XX with it".
Doug Tolton
"The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
Slashdotters are very confused. What to hate? Who to love?
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
Technology, encryption, reverse engineering, mp3's, drm, sniffers.. they arne't inherently evil. It's the usage and if they go against your morals, ethics and general desires, if they are good or not.
Laws which put their use at all, as forbidden or not, is what should not be put into law. It's how they are used.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
"There, I've said it. I'm out of the closet. So bring it on... " -- Linus Torvalds
Things are so much more interesting out of context...
Linus Not God, Says God
In a shocking announcement cast down from the Heavens today, it was announced that Linus Torvalds was not, in fact, God.
Anthony Macewell was chosen to receive this information, as he worked on his PC:
"It was kinda freaky", Anthony said, "Linux booted, and just when I was expecting it to fsck everything, my computer burst into flames and I was surrounded by a host of angels. I don't remember that ever being a feature of Red Hat."
The angels, their appearance accompanied by a flawless four-part harmony, left Anthony a delicate manuscript, explaining that he should make sure that it was delivered to the Linux community.
The manuscript reads:
"For the attention of the Linux Community: Linus Torvalds is not God. God is currently very busy in creating various new planets and overseeing the forthcoming apocalypse on Earth. He has not had the time to develop any mortal Operating Systems, and is not likely to do so in the near future. He will continue only to endorse white robes and comfortable sandals."
The reaction from the Linux community has been varied. The slashdot.org community has reacted by having a circular discussion, with any idea other than "Linus is God, and Linux is the best thing ever for anything", being slammed down by angry, frothing, Linux advocates. A crusade to burn all the non-Linus believing heretics has been launched, in the form of a new website with a flashy domain name, which will predictably close within two weeks due to a lack of interest.
A spokesperson for Microsoft commented, "Well, we never believed that Linus existed anyway. It takes more than a couple of sightings near burning bushes to convince us, you know. We'll continue to worship Windows as we always have done. Lots of people have faith in Windows, no matter how much it lets them down, so it must be right."
Why do I h8 apple?
Once again Linus leaves it up to the one thing that makes linux beautiful: Choice.
Are you secure enough in your masculinity to run 'man touch'?
I'm an "Oppenheimer", and I refuse to play politics with Linux
Is that "Oppenheimer" as in the head of the most politically motivated science program of all time?
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
Seems reasonable to me though. You don't have to compile it in to the kernel you use if you don't want it. He's just offering a choice. For this one, I will accept that he is in fact remaining neutral politically.
It's Linus' optimism. See, RMS insists that if you don't tell people what they can't do with software, that they'll do the worst. Linus assumes that people will do whatever they feel like, and the more they can do, the better, because you can't easily stop a movement. You can stop a man.
Go Linus. I'm not a DRM fan, but I am a fan of you ideology.
This was all a practical joke..!!
..and he said... "Watch them all support DRM now!..and he snickered again.."
It was Bill Gates snickering with a Linus puppet on his hand!
I said "Hey Bill! Whatchya doin'?"
I think it's interesting that it takes the "leader" of the OSS movement to put the brakes on some overboard reactions by slashdotters and many others. Too often we relate some issue as being a Microsoft invention and thus evil when all along it's been incorporated in a different form in our favourite OS. Perhaps we can learn a lesson about this and start applying it to other organisations (RIAA, MPAA, etc.)?
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
why does allowing binaries to be signed make DRM "ok". maybe i don't understand DRM (which is likely...)
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
This is exactly why I like Linus. Unlike certain nutjobs, he's rational enought to know that one should always use the right tool for the job.
When ideals get in the way of actually achieving your goals they are doing more harm than good for the cause.
That comment made me wonder if RMS actually holds a grudge against Linus for not conforming to his standards of "purity".
The owls are not what they seem
--if you are going to do that, why would you even put the key in there? What am I missing?
Seems to me that drm violates the spirit of gpl, but I most likely still don't understand it. If some company wants to make a drm enabled kernel,and deploy it, then it can be cracked shortly if they follow the gpl? Or what? I don't get it obviously. This is like missiles, anti missiles, anti-anti missiles, ad absurdium.
new distro, the yossarian distro
Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private keys in the binary
Can someone explain what's he talking about here ?
AFAIK, You sign someting with your private key and ppl. can use your public key to verify the integrety of the message.
Also if you want encryption, then u encrypt with the receivers public key so that only he can decrypt it with his private key
No where in this process is the private key required to be disclosed.
So what am i missing here ? or is he talking of some totally different keys ?
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
There is nothing horrible about the idea of DRM, its mearly what people are going to do with it. And before any blows my head, just remeber this is that same argument put forth to defend openbsd only yesterday( was it yesterday, I'm loosing track of time at the moment.)
I like that I can trust software to be what it says it is, I think its a step in the right direction to protecting againt trojans etc..
I dont want to be forced to do it though for every little thing that somebody thinks I need permission to run. If certain DRM can be applied to the linux kernal that make computing safer (and by that I mean actually safer, not MS safer or somebody else thinking their making me safer by imposing rules on me), then go right ahead.
Just make sure I can remove it should I wish.
"Enlightenment is your ego's biggest disappointment." --Yoginanda
I've taken this position from day 1 (as soon as I was able to comprehend it)
Linux needs some DRM infrastructure, though it's use is to be discouraged. It is not tech's place to play politics. Linux will need DRM to be used everywhere, as it can today as soon as MS makes it availible for the studios to use.
I stand behind Linus here.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
It's hard to argue with that logic, especially when you step back and take a look at why Linux was so wildly successful over the past three years.
If the GPL is all about freedom, it's also about freedom of what you can do with it (ok you can't include it in close source software without releasing that source, but that's to protect it from being non-free).
If some third party wants to take the kernel source and add DRM to it, they are free to do so. I'm also free to not use their kernel and keep compiling my own from Linus' tree.
Linus does have a point.
After reading such blasphemous utterings, I propose we de-canonize St. Linus, the Farseer, and henceforth refer to him as "Linus, that puny piece of RIAA excrement".
My favorite kind of story: it may not be true, but it should be.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Maybe not now, but later.
Look, you put out a set-top media box running embedded Linux. Assuming it is the multimedia grail (online video/audio playback & capture) it will do more than GPL/opensource codecs. It will NEED to handle WMAs and other proprietary formats that may include a time-locked DRM.
Do I like blanket DRM? No, I want to be able to make backups of my DVDs, CDs, and other purchased materials.
What I don't have a problem with is a box that will D/L the movie I want to watch and store it for a max of 48 hours in a "digital Blockbuster" scenario. And that will eventually happen as digital cable set-top boxes will include hard drives for local caching and they will require DRM on that hardware.
Same thing goes for more and more Point of Sale stations. Signed binary data will be more and more necessary. I'm waiting for the day software compares my signature with the one stored on the credit card's chip. And I'm all for it.
I'll be honest; I want them to be able to choose linux. The other option is that everything becomes Windows. Do you really want every credit card terminal, ATM and terminal to be Windows because it is the only thing that supports DRM?
I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
Signing the Kernel sources or even the Binary...No problem....
Making the Kernel Compliant so that it will refuse to let certain media types run because the OS/System doesn't have the secret key to that media type...NOT OK...
The Preblem is in the furture inorder for some media types to run in the future to run public/private key stuff is going to hace to happen...however how can that happen in an OS kernel whose source code is public...the private key is then exposed to the world, which the media people who want this crap will never stand for...it could be wrapped up in a shared lib...but that violates everything OSS stands for...
DRM for the kernel to run on hardware which requires a signed binary is OK, I suppose although how do you control that since if I complie up my own kernel I need to sign it somehow to get it to run on my protected hardware, which means I have the ability to sign any binary to make it run on protected hardware...including a virus...and also I don't see myself spending 100's to 1000's of dollars to aquire the right to make binaries that run on my own computer....which is really where this discussion ultimately heads...
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
No-one commenting so far seems to have a clue what this is all about, so here goes.
Imagine someone builds hardware that will only run binaries signed by the manufacturer (current example: X-box, future examples: who knows)
Now imagine someone makes a version of Linux with functionality limited in some way -- think DRM, and gets that version signed by the hardware manufacturer so that it will run on the controlled hardware.
Now, as a user of that version of Linux, you have all your GPL rights to obtain, modify, and redistribute the source. But, since only the exact original signed binary will actually run on the hardware, those rights are (arguably) worthless.
Linus is saying that this is permissible, or at least that it is not his job to try to prevent it.
Now at least the flames can be on-topic...
A witty saying proves nothing.
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
You don't want morals? You don't want politics?
Don't use the GPL
Ah... I see. Apparantly the only way you can have morals is to use the GPL. Righto.
And, apparantly, Linus's refusal to go off the deep end on zealotry means that he's "wimped out". Got it.
It must be nice to view the world in black and white... so easy, so simple... so naive and foolish.
Linus is making the right call here... there are valid reasons for DRM-like policies. There are lots of invalid ones too. But if you want it to be free, then it needs to be free. Trying to contort the GPL or other free license to fit your world view is bullshit, and it undermines the entire point of the license.
That just makes me want to click it more!
> On the whole, this is just another example of why rms calls me "just an engineer" and thinks I have no ideals.
Perhaps what the world needs is more engineers and artists, and less flaming zealots. I think Linus has been, and still is, getting it just right. In fact, I think his statements above and the way he views this issue is 100% in the spirit of the GPL. The code is supposed to be free, remember? This includes free to be used in unspeakable ways, so long as the source is always included and freely redistributable. You can't claim freedom for only the ideals you like, that's tyranny.
Then again, IANAL.
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the other thing is the other DRM that the alliance of music, media and software industry wants to produce.. where every content is digitally signed.. where you can not change the operating system on your hardware anymore etc... this are extremly bad things for linux and free software... we have to stop this whereever we can.. or else in a few years we will not be able to do anything useful on linux anymore...
mond
Is this some kind of new precedent?
"Don't click through, it's reproduced below"
Apparently the Slashdot editors have changed their position on caching pages to prevent overload (the "Slashdot effect")
Will this be a permanent change, I wonder? And how did Michael get around those pesky US copyright laws? Did he actually wait for Linus's permission before duplicating his email?
If the checksum doesn't match, the binary changed, and the app won't run. Seems pretty sane.
Also, windows XP comes with "Driver Signing" which is basically an extortion bid to squeeze money from hardware suppliers (and perhaps to divert some of their cash from development of drivers for other OSes). Though fundamentally, it is not a bad idea to have some sort of check that the driver you just downloaded is in fact "blessed" by the manufacturer, if only for warranty purposes.
Checking checksums or signatures even does NOT equal DRM. As Linus said, this is something you can choose to use. Root gets a say in it (though in corporate environments it might still suck if you're not root).
DRM is not meant to be optional, it is meant to enforce license conditions ('rights'). Not security. Not integrity. Not trust. Making the possible impossible based not on security or convenience, but on a shrink-wrap license.
Checksums GOOD.
Signatures GOOD.
Digital Rights Management BAD.
It's NOT the same thing, folks.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
I would agree with Linus' statement that there is nothing wrong with DRM. From a non-political point it makes since. Java allows signed applets, and webstart clients. This just provides the user with a way to determine if the code is okay or not. However I feel that if DRM is allowed to be implemented that M$ will skew us all forcing the hardware developers to only allow their signature. The idea is fine, and actually good, but the implementation will be like the US government. A good idea, but when money gets involved the jerks come out of the woodwork to skew everything. my $.02 -Shawn
Well, duh... you check to see if the evil bit is set. I thought we had that all figured out now.
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
Granted, abuse of copyrights is a huge issue right now, but the basic concept of securing them in a digital age isn't the devil incarnate.
While Linus dosen't want to take a political stand on the issue (completly understandable, he's mearly protecting the sole reason for the existence of OSS) I think the GPL will clearly protect itself.
If you are required to publish the source of your work, even if you use DRM with linux, the source of that DRM must be released, which kinda cancels it out dosen't it? Making it pointless.
I'm not 100% sure on this, but putting DRM on anything GPL'd is a waste of time, cuz a DRM is only good if it's closed source.
Posting useless rant since 2003.
- Microsoft takes code, generates a secure hash, and encrypts that hash using it's private key, generating a digital signature.
- The digital signature is embedded in the work.
- When the work is loaded by the X-Box, it decrypts the digital signature using MS's public key. Then, it generates its own hash and compares it to the one it got by decrypting the signature. If they are the same, the code is legit, otherwise, abort!
So, you see, there is no private information embedded in the X-Box. It's all public keys.OK, I agree with what Linus is saying here - he is just a codehead and is not going to tell you what you can or can not put in your build. Cool, but we are still just talking about the technology.
The problem today is not the technology -- "IT IS THE LAW, STUPID!"
If Microsoft puts some crazy stupid DRM in the next version of Windows, it might be the final straw to get something else to the desktop (be it Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Linux, or something else). As long as people have the freedom of choice, M$ can only go so far before they loose the customer base.
The problem is the DCMA and the baby-DCMAs popping up at the state level. If the government makes DRM *MANDATORY*, you loose your choice. I can very easily see the RIAA and MPAA requiring that all OS's require DRM in the very near future. Think about it.
Ah, but do they really? I don't think there's anything in the GPL stipulating that an end user cannot modify a compiled binary. Why couldn't you just put a big static array of zeros in the code, and supply a secondary (closed source) program which overwrites those zeros with an actual key? You couldn't distribute pre-keyed binaries (since they wouldn't correspond to the source) but you can allow the end user to run a quick command to insert the keys into the binary him/herself.
You'd just make it a part of the installation process, like installing the boot loader. 1) Install kernel 2) Twiddle some bits in kernel 3) Install bootloader.
It seems like there would be no GPL violation since the binary you distributed was directly compiled from the source you distributed; the user just happened to run a command which overwrote a portion of that binary.
Burn him!!! Burn the witch!!!!
But seriously. Options, even the sometimes-unpleasant ones, are always GOOD.
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
Well I don't see why anyone shouldn't be allowed to do this. I also don't see why anyone would want to use this under the GPL. One would think if someone didn't want people to tinker with something they made they would release it under a different liscense.
If used in any OSS projects I'm quite sure it would kill the popularity/success of said project very effectively.
-Derick
Since I've already replied to three messages this way, and a lot of people seem to be missing the point ...
Okay. First of all, DRM is NOT synonymous with "digital copyright protection", okay?
Second. Linus is NOT saying "DRM is good" or "copyright protection is the shiznit". He in fact says in the message that a lot of uses for DRM he doesn't like.
Third. An example of what this article is actually talking about is cryptographically signing a regular, run of the mill built-by-Linus kernel image, somehow providing the signature along with the image at boot, and refusing to load it if the signature doesn't match. Since you don't modify the kernel itself, the GPL has no scope here, so it's obviously not prohibited under the terms of the GPL.
Fourth. This does NOT allow magically modifying the kernel image, nor does it allow magically allow copyright protection in the kernel, nor does it allow hiding private keys in the kernel, etc.
READ THE ARTICLE. Turn off your Slashdot "omg wtf it says drm so it's bad, lol" meme. Linus is not selling your souls to Jack Valenti here.
The kernel and initrd on the DirectTivo are signed, and the boot ROM will only load a signed kernel. (The initrd checks the root partition for modifications.)
They do this because you can get DirectTV without paying by tweaking the software. (They currently do not do this in their standalone units.)
Imagine the following:
1) Someone makes a BIOS that will only boot a signed kernel, where the person with the BIOS password gets to pick which signatures are valid.
2) My company buys a bunch of workstations with this BIOS.
3) Our IT guys build a kernel that's tweaked for our company. They sign the kernel, and set the BIOS to only boot kernels with their signature.
This is wonderful. It means folks can deploy Linux within an organization without having to worry about umpteen zillion different kernels being installed by the workers. It means you can deploy at a university in such a way that students can't make their own boot floppies to get by the access controls on your public machines. It's a Good Thing.
Now, imagine this:
4) A set-top box designer uses this BIOS.
5) They set the BIOS to only boot kernels with their own signature, and don't give the BIOS password to people who buy the set-top boxes.
6) They refuse to sign any kernels that anyone else makes, and refuse to sign any kernels with dynamic module loading turned on.
This, I think, actually violates the GPL. They're distributing a Linux binary, and they're not giving you any way at all to modify it. You can't tweak the kernel you run on your own hardware that you bought with your own money. I think this would only comply with the GPL if you could boot your own signed kernels that the system would use. The fixed signature ends up being an important part of the running binary, and you're not given the "source code" you need to compile that part of the binary.
So, I think some uses of signature do not fall outside the scope of the GPL.
...how DRM ever actually *CAN* be integrated into Linux in a useful and reliable way. Any kind of code-signing / authentication mechanism will ultimately depend on a signed kernel, and since you have the kernel source you can do whatever you like with it, including spoofing the "Yes, we're running DRM" responses. Even if it comes down to a hardware chip, the kernel will still be perfectly capable of intercepting calls to this chip and spoofing a "Yes, we're running DRM" reply. If the DRM-protected content is dependant upon mechanisms implemented on the client in order to restrict usage, then having total, source-level control over those mechanisms completely negates the security they provide.
Maybe I've missed something here, but client-side security never works in the end. And in the case of DRM-on-linux, I don't see how it can even get off the ground....
Well, there's a big difference between allowing people to digitally sign binary builds of the kernel, and actually supporting DRM directly.
Personally, it seems almost irrational to want to keep people from signing copies of the kernel. It's almost a free speech issue, people should be able to sign whatever the hell they want.
I think the real issue is restrictions people place on others, the TCPA/Pallidum DRM systems of which code signing is only a small part. I think I would hate to see Pallidum style 'locks' on the runtime environment in the 'official' version of the Linux kernel. If that does happen, I'm sure it will fork like mad, though.
I guess what Linus is saying is that if some companies want to make locked up, DRM'd systems using the Linux kernel, it's OK with him.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
You may not know this, but in kde 3.1 the kde developers added a beta DRM system to stop you from doing certain things like launching unauthorized programs, reading certain programs or changing certain settings.
In the 3.2 release the DRM framework will be complete, and will be a tool released so the restrictions can be easily mandated by the administrator.
So if you want freedom, run twm @ 640x480!
It will start innocently enough with one of the major PC manufacturers coming out with an extremely inexpensive PC. This PC will be bear three things. The first will be that this PC will have superior performance to any machine currently available. The second will be that it will have a DRM enable operating system that is much better than its predecessor (both performance and stability). The final item will be that the hardware will be DRM enabled and will be more advanced than anything currently available.
The hordes will eat this machine up and it will become the most popular system out there. They will love it and see nothing wrong with it. It will run just like their old machine only faster and more stable. It will run their old software and new DRM enable software transparently. The difference is that the DRM software will be copy protected and the users will be almost guaranteed to pay for it. The majority of people will not notice since most people pay for their software anyway. The hordes will drive the market to a DRM enabled system, the ultimate lock-in.
On the other side of the fence, the 'free alternatives' will be not be able to get the new hardware to work with their 'Free alternative'. They will boycott the manufacturers, but their boycott will not change things. They will not see the market for non-DRM enabled hardware and will, most likely, be locked into DRM for fear of being excluded from the much larger DRM market. Eventually, the 'free alternative' will only work on older hardware with older software. The 'free alternative' will not be able to run the latest and greatest DRM enabled software or media.
The free alternative will eventually die off due to the fact that it can't run the latest and greatest hardware and software.
It's coming to a neighborhood near you...sooner than you think.
-"The early bird catches the worm, but the late bird sleeps the most"
I think a lot of people here are reading too much into Linus's statement "On the whole, this is just another example of why rms calls me "just an engineer" and thinks I have no ideals." I do not believe that Linus is (a) making any reference to RMS position on DRM; or (b) suggesting that this is an issue over which they have a difference of opinion, just that he is saying he is infavour of _not_ letting ideals get in the way of his engineering.
Further, RMS must support rights management, since the GPL is a rights (or lefts) based device. That the management of rights over the digital domain should be excluded from the principle seems counterintuitive to me. Even when one acknowledges that Digital Right Managment is such a misleading name for the idea, Digitial Freedom Restrictions would be much better, RMS still has to be in favour (perhaps not, because I am sure he would recognise the pain of the implementation) since the GPL effectively restricts ones freedom to use GPLed stuff as one pleases.
This is why I disagree with him (RMS). Copyleft still relies on the existence of property in ideas (or the manifestation of those ideas, the "output of intellect" as I like to call it) and it is the existence of property in these things that is broken (IMHO) where there is no property the vendor of the thing is perfectly entitled to do what they like to DRM their thing, but they are subject to the normal vagaries of competition law and that will become an increasingly powerful (despite the recent microsoft case) avenue as industry consolidations increase. But by the same token the punter is entitled to do what they like with what they are given when they make the purchase and no amount of fannying about with "license" based restrictions will do any good (when there is no propoerty that is).
From my perspective there is only one valid
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
Nice one Linus, drag in the hated figure of RMS to rally the troops around to support your position and make sure that this becomes a personality grudge-fest instead of a discussion about the principles involved.
Easy steps to win an argument in the GNU/Linux community:
Who gives a rat's ass what RMS says about your ideals. The question is what are your ideals? The continued existence of GNU/Linux above all other things?
OK, so how do you justify that? Just stating your position doesn't justify it.
That's a dishonest position: when you do anything you impose your moral values on other people. The decision to not "impose your moral values" is in itself an imposition of your moral values on me. Everything we do and don't do has an effect on everyone around us. Specifically allowing the spread of DRM into GNU/Linux allows the propagation of content which has none of the fair use rights that content has had in the past in other media. Your decision not to oppose this (which it is your right to make blah blah etc) is a decision to allow something which you "don't agree with" to occur. You've made a choice with concrete effects in the real world.
Then don't make political pronouncements on political matters and pretend that you're not doing that.
Reply to oncoming flames: no, I can't code to a hundredth fraction of Linus.
- Stop doing business with a programmer who works against your interest.
- Shop around for whatever programmers you want, based on price, quality, or
whatever.
- Recover from a programmer getting run over a bus or going out of business
or "reprioritizing their corporate strategies" or something like that. When
you run GPLed software, you don't have to worry
about being "orphaned" anymore, as long as you are willing to put in the time
and effort and expense to do something about it. (I have to say that as an
ex-Amiga user and a former OS/2 user, I am very sensitive to and
grateful for how the GPL solves
this problem. Think about what happens to the user of "dead" products. It
really, really sucks, and you don't want it to happen to you.)
This gives users a strong incentive to choose GPLed software. GPLed software is worth more than software that can't be maintained or supported. I am not speaking as an ivory-tower theoretical religeous "zealot" -- I'm speaking from real-life experience directly derived from has happened to me when software that I used, rotted. This is real and it matters.But binaries that can't be loaded without the right signature, take all that away. The main advantages of Free Software -- from a user's point of view -- are nullified by it. If your computer's BIOS won't load your OS because the signature is wrong, it's no different than not being able to build the software at all, due to it being linked against a proprietary library or due to you not having the include file that contains the define for a secret key, or due to you not having the source to anything. You can't maintain the software that you use. It might as well be proprietary software -- it's no different to you.
Linus isn't thinking in these terms, and Linux is his baby, so while it may make sense for me to talk about the purpose of the GPL in general, it is of course wrong for me to talk about the purpose of Linux's license specifically (even though that license happens to be the GPL). Apparently Linus didn't choose the GPL because he thought it was perfect, but because he thought it was best, or good enough or something. And as a developer he still gets the advantages of "open source" even though the users of his work are apparently destined to lose the advantages of "free software." (I guess this paragraph isn't saying anything that everyone doesn't already know; I'm just acknowledging the difference between Linus' values and many Linux users' values.) It makes me wonder: why didn't Linus choose the BSD license instead? It seems that it would serve his interests just as well.
(Well, I'm off to vacation. No more arrogant noise outta me for about a week -- well, at least not here on Slashdot. See ya.)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
DRM is like the discussion on gun control. (Guns don't kill people, people kill people.) And putting a nice fat elk on the dinner table is always a good thing for us meat eaters. DRM is the same way -- Linus is talking (in my opinion) about a useful purpose for something (that in the wrong hands) can cause a lot of damage.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
... if one of the leaders of OS community admits to be Oppenheimer should Bill Gates admit being a Cllosedheimer.
If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
At least in the U.S., the cable-company owns the set-top box, so they don't have to give the source to any customers, because they're not __giving__ the kernel in the first place. They're just letting someone use their computer.
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
Let's say I want to operate karlandtanya's streaming radion station. You can play music but you can't copy it. I believe this is possible becasue I don't believe in the existence of analog recorders. Hardware is cheap, but commercial OSs are not. So I choose to use GNU/Linux for the OS.
I want to prevent you from copying the digital stream I send you. How do control functionality and still respect the fact that you have the right to hack GPL software?
I sell a subscription to my service. I give you the OS and software. The box (and its Fritz chip) remain mine, but you are allowed to use it as long as you are a subscriber. I threaten to sue you if I find out you've changed my hardware in any way.
The OS I give you is "karlandtanya's Orwellian GNU/Linux". The distro comes with a binary kernel that I've signed. I also give you sources for everything, including a key-response program (which is compiled into the kernel) and (just to show I'm sincere) the source for the server side of the system. But I don't give you my secret key.
You immediately untar the sources, recompile the kernel and install. You don't make any changes to the source or any configuration.
You boot the box I loaned you. The Fritz chip won't let it boot. My hardware can only be used to do what I want it to you. "That's fair.", you say. "I paid for the subscription, not the box."
Because you are very clever, you have another very similar box, but without the Fritz chip. You build and install all the packages in karlandtanya's Orwellian GNU/Linux on your hardware and boot it up.
Next, you log onto my site. The site initiates a secure handshake with the key-response program built into your kernel. But when you built your kernel, you did not use my secret key. So the binaries cannot verify against my server. The site denies you access.
Now comes the interesting part:
Now, you and 10,000 of your friends take me to court for GPL violation.
Plaintiff: "Since I cannot compile a working binary from the source you sent me, you did not release the source code. You are in violation of GPL. You must release the source, replace the OS with a non-GPL OS, or refund our money."
Defendant: "Yes, I did release the source code. And it works. I just didn't give you my secret key."
Plaintiff: "No, you did not release the source. Since I cannot build exactly the same binary that you sent me, part of the source must be missing."
Defendant: "Yes, I did release the source. The binaries you generated function exactly the same as the ones I gave you. Part of their function is to verify that they were created using the same secret key as the server they are trying to connect to."
Judge:...
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Just taking the other side to promote discussion.
Linus' pet operating system would not even exist, and have a strong ethical footing supporting the "goodness" of that existance, were it not for RMS' philosophical views. While this does not represent a "debt", per se., decent people generally respond to kindness (yes, the GPL is an act of kindness), by reciprocating.
Uh...Linus does. Stallman and Co. handed him lots of code to use. In return, he did the same, and now "GNU/Linux" has the best kernel around.
OTOH, I don't think that Stallman should be trying to push his ideology on Linus any more than Linus should be trying to do so to Stallman. The difference is that Stallman tries to do exactly that with Linus, and Linus doesn't do so to Stallman.
May we never see th
He then founded Be Inc, made the BeOS, then sent that down the toilet.
"Internet Appliances". Ha.
I'm curious ... Linus says that you can't put private keys in the binary ... but what about loadable modules? After all, non-open-source kernel modules are allowed anyway, so it seems like you can essentially get anything you want into the kernel already.
Or is there some reason why that's not relevant? (I admit, I don't really know exactly how DRM's supposed to work.)
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Gates: VERY BAD!
Gates is the worst of the worst. He's bad, and competently so.
Ellison: BAD!
I think Ellison is fine. Yes, he's arrogant, immature, and runs a big company with tight licenses...but he also spends his days having fun taking swipes at Gates. He wins because he's a lesser of two evils. If Gates weren't around, he'd probably be a bad guy.
McNealy: BAD!
Doesn't seem to be particularly bad or good, in my book. Some good things, some bad things.
Carly (HP): VERY BAD!
She's bad, but incompetently so. Reminds me of AOL execs -- sure, they fall into the bad category, but they're far less dangerous than their MS competitors, so I'll root for them just as the underdog.
IBM CEO: What day is it?
IBM's happening to be nice ATM, but...
Linus: See above
Linus is great.
ESR is great too...sorta like Linus. The emphasis is on engineering.
RMS is a jerk, but I suppose that you have to have an extremist to lead a movement.
May we never see th
Under a strict interpretation of the GPL, signed binaries would be illegal to distribute, unless you distribute the private key that you use to sign them (making the signatures worthless, obviously). Here's my reasoning.
... However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed..." The source for this hash is the program that does the hashing and the signing (probably exempt by the second sentence) and of course the private key used to sign it.
Let's assume you're using a standard signing algorithm like RSA, which signs a hash of the message (the binary).
Such a hash is a derivative work -- it's created directly from the binary through a hash function. (This is the biggest stretch of the argument, but at least in a mathematical sense this is very accurate. Note that it is not simply a re-expression of the work, but really reassembly of the bits in the original copyrighted expression).
A signed hash is a derivative work of the hash of the binary, for the same reason.
Therefore, the signature has to be distributed under the terms of the GPL as well. That means that if you give it out, you need to give the source to it as well. The source code is defined in the GPL: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
Of course, this is a little tongue-in-cheek. But I think it's important to remember the clause in the GPL that requires you to provide not just source code but all of your build tools. Imagine if you created a new wacky language extension to C, (like a new primitive called do_my_secret_stuff) then used that to compile a program and gave out only the source code in C_with_secret_stuff? Those clauses are in the GPL for a reason, so don't forget what "source" means!
Digital rights management is just that -- digital rights management. It is designed to prevent me from making fair use of MY software, music, DVDs, whatever.
I think what Linus is talking about is an entirely different applications of essentially the same technology. He's talking about signing as being a good thing, so that we -- the users -- can verify, for example, that the latest kernel release was actually released by Linus, and not some poser. This is good and fine. If we want to be able to verify such things, we simply install the appropriate verifying software, with internalized or modularized support in the kernel; alternatively, we can add/remove that verifying feature from the source.
In other words, *we* have the option to have these things, which would allow us to verify that the latest kernel release was actually signed by Linus (doesn't GPG do this?)
However, DRM and digital signing can never work in a GPL'ed system unless the person controlling the computer wants them. You're welcome to put a DRM-scheme in any GPL'ed (say) CD-player, referring to an external closed key. I, however, if I don't like that, can remove that from the source, thus have the program not even request such a key. Likewise with signing. This does not mean that DRM and signing are useless on GNU/Linux. It just means that they can't* be imposed against the administrator's will. The administrator of the computer can still use them -- if (s)he wants -- to verify that updates are signed by individual's they trust. And they can still use them to ensure that ordinary users on those machines (if said machines are corporate) can't use them to violate copyright laws, which would create liability for the corporation. However, the administrator can also choose *not* to use them.
I also don't see how RMS is the counter-point in this case. RMS has had ample opportunities to include anti-commercial, antiÐadvertising, and patent-fighting terms into the GPL. He has refused. I e-mailed him asking about the Open Software License, which has a clause in it that would terminate the right of anyone to use that software if they brought a patent lawsuite against any other under an OSI-approved license with the same clause in it. I suggested he put such into the GPL to ward off patent lawsuites. He refused, stating that there was already something in the GPL preventing stealth patents from infecting GPL'ed programs.
I don't think it's enough, but his worry is that such a clause would make the GPL a EULA, regulating the user's actual *use* of the software. I also don't see anywhere where RMS or anyone else in the FSF has said that the GPL bans DRM and signing, nor that it should be modified to do so. As it happens, I think that such a clause should be included in the GPL, because patents are a major problem for ALL software developers. If developers had to do exhaustive patent searches before writing code, nothing would EVER be produced. I think, however, that anyone who wants such a clause can simply add it to the GPL in their own modified version of it.
* The worrysome case, however, is with things like requiring DRM by law, or by hardware code. There are nazi ideas floating around to make it legally required for all software to use DRM. This may not directly affect any FS/OSS projects, as they can simply move abroad. However, one should not understimate the power of multinational corporations to get the WTO to penalize nations that don't agree to the US' draconian IP laws. Furthermore, hardware initiatives like Palladium would prevent GNU/Linux from running on hardware at all.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
As i'm not one to just jump into the foray of "yes yes, praise the almighty Linus" there is only one valid reason I see use for DRM and that's the binary signing but as it was pointed out it depends on who's doing the signing. The functionality which makes most sense for DRM already exist in the application arena with checksums/md5sums/etcsums and I just don't see how having DRM in the kernel is really going to change much. Maybe, for local networks, private industry inhouse situations where security is end all, be all it'll allow for tighter integration (ie: with hardware) and one less security issue but I mean this is such a small niche that it becomes retarded, again it can be done with software, ids programs etc and it's not like you can't write a module to monitor file checksums etc. Really the same problem exist, who's signing what.
It seems a little redundant to me really and whenever Microsoft talks about DRM they are talking about media as in video, music etc. 90% of people don't check checksums now all of a sudden they are going to start checking who signs their binaries? So here are a couple of questions that remain.
Is DRM really protecting the consumer?
Who's going to sign my binaries? ie: Project maintainer? Microsoft? Redhat?
If Joe Q Hacker signs my binary what's to stop it from running? I mean in all reality Joe Q User isn't going to check that it's safe or even care.
Is this protecting me as the computer user?
Feel free to answer the questions or point me in the direction of some documentation but as of now I think DRM is pretty retarded and is just going to be more stuff I don't waste time compiling, all it does is add another level of exploitation that already exist, this is just spelling it out and making it easier to exploit platforms that use DRM. Also, correct me if i'm wrong.
What the media content providers want to ensure is that you, the human being, can hear/see the content, without there being a way for you to actually copy it to allow others to hear/see that content, or even for you to hear/see it at some later time frame or more than a specified (e.g. paid for) number of times. Whether we agree with their right to do that or not, that is a general description of their goal (or at least for many of them).
No protection will be perfect, of course. If you can hear it, you can record it from a microphone. If you can see it, you can record it from a camera. But as we know from past articles on Slashdot and elsewhere, even these techniques of copying are targets of efforts to prevent recordability. If you succeed at such recording, perhaps at least these methods will have forced a degradation of quality in that recording (e.g. while working to strip out any watermarking, you also damage the quality).
What the content providers particularly loath, however, is the ability to have direct access to the content digitally. If you have that, you can copy that as is, and play it back at a different time or place or in front of a different audience or multiple times. The primary means of preventing this is encryption. But at some point it has to be decrypted. At that point you then find the content in the clear. One aspect of DRM is to deploy a "sealed box" wherein the decryption can take place, yet the user cannot get access to the clear content. Windows can potentially do this due to its closed and proprietary nature. It won't be perfect, but most people will not have any idea how to bypass DRM. There is the potential to distribute software to do it that anyone can use, but certainly we can expect DRM in cooperation with Windows itself to make it hard for unsigned (by Microsoft) software to have access at the level needed to get at the clear content. For example, Windows with DRM will probably refuse to allow you to install your own sound card driver since that is one place where the clear content will be going through.
Linux could certainly have DRM code integrated into it. But because it is open source, and you can build your own kernel, this is a much harder black box to implement. From the point of view of content providers, Linux is a hazardous environment (so is BSD).
Linux supports loading modules which might be available only in object form. There are such modules already available commercially, such as for certain video cards. Some of us love them (because the cards are awesome) or hate them (because the modules are buggy, perhaps with new kernel versions, and cause crashes that would otherwise not be the norm in Linux). But when it comes right down to it, we can add new code to the kernel to work around all the interfaces the module is using. For a device driver, the hard aspect will be seeing what it actually does with the device at the register level. But a DRM black box would be something quite different, since it would need to be able to use existing sound card or video/TV card drivers. That opens the potential to wedge a tap in between DRM and the drivers (or even replace the driver with your own), which Linux would allow and Windows would not so easily. And don't think the media content providers don't know this (they have been getting a lot of hard technical lessons the past few years).
But it can still be possible to have DRM with Linux. One approach is to put the DRM directly in the device driver. That would help, but wouldn't be perfect since other code can be present in the kernel to get cozy with what the DRM is doing. The big problem is getting all the device manufacturers to make a Linux driver.
Perhaps the best (from a practical perspective, were the content providers ever to realize this) way is to put DRM directly in the hardware. That's about as sealed up as you can get. I'll explain how this can work in terms of music in an encrypted MP3 format, but you can extrapolate it in terms of other media or
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
This whole "debate" is like saying you can't sell hammers because we think someone will use them as a deadly weapon. BIOS support for signed boot images would be a good, useful thing - don't confuse this "hammer" with the malicious intent with which it may be used.
Imagine being able to tell your bios not to load a kernel (actually, boot loader is probably more accurate), unless it was signed by you. Then you've just guaranteed that even after a system break-in, you can at least start from a known clean kernel.
Doing this in hardware, designed so that there is no way for the running OS to overwrite the BIOS' copy of the key, is the only way to make it safe.
And, yes, I would personally USE it. I would LOVE to be able to tell the bios not to load a version of grub I didn't install, and I'd love to then also be able to tell grub not to load a kernel that was modified without my knowledge. While we're at it, I'd like to be able to extend that to all of my kernel modules, and from there even to certain key system binaries used during run-time.
In other words, allowing the bios to offer security checking really DOES allow for the possibility of ENDING the requirement that you wipe and re-install an OS (or even an application) after a successful break-in. It provides a very much needed "guaranteed safe starting point" for building additional security.
Should bios makers embed a microsoft key in every bios - absolutely not. Should bios makers provide a straight-forward way of letting system owners install their own keys? YES, PLEASE, YES!!!
So what APIs should the bios offer to the OS? Certainly nothing that allows the key to be read or overwritten, but it would be nice if it would provide a "check and approve or reject" API so running applications could determine whether other files are clean before loading them. As long as this all starts from a single trusted source (system reboot checks boot loader, which checks everything it loads (including the files used to make future checks)), this is THE CURE for lots of current security problems.
- You have the right to sign your binaries.
-
Anything you sign can and will be used against you in a public forum.
- If you are under the age of 18, anything you sign can be used against you in a juvenile flame war for a juvenile offense and can also be used against you in an adult flame war if the forum admin decides that you are to be flamed as an adult.
- You have the right to talk to an attorney before signing any binaries.
- You have the right to have your attorney present during the signing.
- If you cannot afford PGP, OpenPGP will be provided to you without cost, before or during signing, if you desire.
- Do you understand these rights?
-AdamWhat, like one of his usual windy manifestos? I can assure you I've not, and am rather happy with the fact. One time I was about to when I realized there was some paint drying, and that immediately stole my attention. That guy gives new meaning to "Quixotic."
That said, which part of what I said was wrong? He fits the zealot part, that's for sure. And he has, in the past, received money for writing code. So he doesn't seem to have a problem with the code for $ thing.
Can you name one person who is actually on record arguing that open source software should not be permitted to exist?
....
....
....
They are not on record. And I won't actually name one of my co-workers. But Yes.
There are others who have been far more public however. There was one Jim Allchin a couple years ago. He didn't come right out and say it, but he dances around it and implies it quite well.
From a cnet article here.
Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating-system chief, Jim Allchin, says that freely distributed software code such as rival Linux could stifle innovation and that legislators need to understand the threat.
That, as well as programs such as music-sharing software from Napster Inc., means the world's largest software maker has to do a better job of talking to policymakers, he said.
''Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer,'' Allchin said. ''I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business.''
''I'm an American, I believe in the American Way,'' he said. ''I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done enough education of policy makers to understand the threat.''
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
I disagree with Linus. Although my belief doesn't really matter because I am not a kernel hacker, I do expect that many Linux contributors may disagree as well. Unless all the contributors agree with his position, the potential is there for one of them to make the legal claim that distributing a DRM-signed GPL'd work for use in a DRM machine without providing the private key as part of the source code is a violation of their copyrights (traditional and/or DMCA). In this case, unless Linus is willing to play politics and fight his way through a lawsuit to prove his position, then regardless of his beliefs or the legal correctness of those beliefs, there will be no DRM-signed Linux. I also predict that he would lose, if he chose to fight in court.
An "external" DRM-signature that allows verification of the origin of a particular piece of code is perfectly fine UNTIL that signature's presence is enforced by the hardware as a condition for exectuion. At that point, the signature becomes functionally part of the instructions to the machine that enable the whole to be executed, and I believe that because the DRM machine is requiring the presense of both in order to execute that they are a combined work in the context of use on that machine.
This signature, when enforced by hardware, also becomes part of an overall technological protection measure within the meaning of the DMCA. The DMCA requires the "authority of the copyright holder" to get access to a work protected by a technological protection measure (TPM). Nothing in the GPL authorizes the removal of a TPM, so if Linus unilaterally places a TPM on his copy of Linux (which the DRM-signature is) then he needs the authority of all the copyright holders to access the protected copy, which would include running it on a machine that enforces DRM. No text in the DMCA supports the position that if unprotected copies exist means that access to a TPM protected version is allowed.
Putting TPMs on other people's work without their approval results in a TPM protected work that no one can use. The GPL does NOT provide DMCA access rights either (it provides copying and modification rights but not TPM-access rights).
He says that Open Source "cite only short-term practical benefits as the reasons for what they do." while Free Software "embodies the firm philosophy of the free software movement" which means ensuring that the software, including future versions, forks and derives will remain free.
All Free Software licenses are Open Source licenses, but far from all Open Source licenses are Free Software licenses.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Er...no. This is saying "if you use the GPL, lots of morals and politics come along with it". It doesn't say "the GPL is the only moral license". It say "the GPL is a moral license".
...but the GPL is just a tool. A legal tool.
So what.
The author of the license (RMS) is making a claim that his license is a moral one. I disagree. He's entitled to his opinions, as I am entitled to my opinions.
IMO, The license simply establishes the rules of a contract for community software. The way I see it, it's a moral less system, which just happens to be less vulnerable to commercial exploitation than other systems.
I like the GPL. I think it's an extremely empowering tool for building standards and charity.
"Tools and technology are neither good or evil. People are good and evil."
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
If someone creates a version of the Linux kernel that only runs signed binaries, and the GPL forces them to release their source, couldn't someone simply hack their kernel to run unsigned binaries? It wouldn't even require any reverse engineering.
It seems to me that the GPL is inherently at odds with DRM, as DRM depends heavily on being proprietary and obfuscated (and this still doesn't stop people).
No, of course not. I'm simply using extreme examples to illustrate that there are ethical issues worth considering. Because of the disruptive effects of open/free software, it should be examined from an ethical context.
For the record, if you have state funded healthcare, the rich, not the poor, pay for it disproportionately. So you're never going to be in a position where your taxes take enough money to leave you vulnerable to 'medical needs not covered by the "free" program'
Funny. That's exactly how my father died: he paid so much in taxes he could not afford essential surgery (about US$25,000 to US$50,000 with a 30% mortality rate -- his situation was grave), nor even the insurance that would cover it. Canada, of course, had the excuse that there were no qualified Canadian doctors to perform it, so, "Sorry, you die.".
I'm told they do send some people to the U.S. for care, now, but many still die that could be saved if they had bought real insurance and not the government bogus crap that was shoved down their throats as part of their taxes.
Avoid state healthcare like the plague!
You could've hired me.
I think it's Finnish for [GNU/]Hurd.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
RMS is a superb engineer too. And if he used that as the centerpiece of his work, he would have a level of respect far beyond what he has today. He is to the GCC what Linus is to Linux.
The problem is I think that Linus sees himself as a software engineer while Stallman wants to engineer a society (not to be confused with the security term of social engineering). I think that Stallman sees himself more as a role model and teacher while Linus sees the centerpiece of his work being the software he helps to build.
I agree-- RMS is the one picking the GNU/Linux debate for *stupid* reasons. And that detracts from the images of his real software accomplishes.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Yes, you can make hardware that will only run signed binaries, and thus close that hardware to tinkering. Infact, making such hardware has already been attempted, it's called a console.
m plain_and_stop();
In essence, the bootloader of such hardware does the equivalent of:
if (valid_signature(kernel))
boot(kernel)
else
co
This is nasty, if you are running on such hardware, than the ability to change the kernel in any way you like brings you nothing: if you change anything, even something completely trivial, the signature will no longer be valid, and your new changed kernel will not boot.
Linus is rigth though, this is clearly allowed under the GPL. And furthermore, it very likely CANNOT be forbidden even if we would want to.
A Signature is (or atleast it can be) a separate document saying the equivalent of: "I, Bill Gates, testify to the fact that the kernel with sha1sum=b7a7bf03dcafd4d48001d6a2a6fd2ceaefa4cc1e is trustworthy and can be booted. signed(bill_g)"
There is no way for the GPL, or any other legal document to forbid the above document from existing. The signature above is clearly not a derived work of the kernel, but rather a commentary upon it. (namely a commentary on the trustworthiness) The only info derived from the kernel is the sha1sum, but the only function of this is to make it clear which kernel you are talking about. (much like mentioning the ISBN-number of a book you are reviewing)
Furthermore, there is also no way you would be able to forbid hardware from acting on the existence (or absence) of such a signature. Afterall there is no law saying that "hardware *must* boot all code."
Now, what *would* be nasty would be new laws *requiring* hardware to implement signature-checking. Such laws would essentially make it forbidden to make user-modifiable computers. The way the US is moving at the moment, I would not be too surprised if such a law is introduced and passed in the next few years.
Am I the only one that see it or didn't Linus just take a stand on DRM?
:)
What he said was that you can't hide encryption keys in the binary, but it's perfectly okay to have DRM as long as the key are published as part of the source.
What this means is: "You can't distrubte a (Hollywood) DRM'ed Linux kernel"
Yes, he says DRM is allowed, but only good DRM. The kind of DRM I'd like to have on my computer, so that I'm in control.
Typical Hollywood, pipe-dream DRM relies on me not having access to the keys. Linus has just said that this isn't allowed. The only type of DRM you can have is the type of "DRM" that SSH already enforces for me. People with the right keys can get stuff and those without it can't, and I can change the keys.
I wouldn't mind at all, having bullet-proof DRM that I had the keys for. (And knew they couldn't be changed on me.) It would actually be a bit reassuring. Say you keep your journal on your PC. It would be nice to have some DRM on your system to keep someone from just posting it to the net.
The DRM he's saying is allowed is very simlar to the "DRM" we already have on our systems: Unix file permissions.
The whole point of Hollywood DRM is to take root access away from the person sitting in front of the computer. He's just said that any keys compiled into the kernel would have to be published, and since the only way to have tough to crack DRM is at the kernel level (or below), that can't be done.
Yay Linus for satisfying the both the idealists, and those who just want to bitch about OSS zealots, and that god Linus isn't one of them.
Life is too short to proofread.