Slashdot Mirror
GPL 3 to Take Hard Line on DRM
sebFlyte writes "ZDNet is reporting that Eben Moglen, the FSF's lead lawyer and the co-authour of GPL3, has explained that DRM is 'fundamentally incompatible' with the aims of the FSF and will be given short shrift in the latest version of the free software licence, which bans the use of 'digital restrictions' in GPL3 governed software. In his words: 'I recognise that that's a highly aggressive position, but it's not an aggression which we thought up. It's a defence related to an aggression which was launched against the people whose rights are our primary concern... We don't want our software used in a way which batters the head of the user to please somebody else. Our goal is the protection of users' rights, not movies' rights.'" We discussed the new GPL on Monday.
I wonder if Sony's DRM screw-up and evidence that GPL'ed code was in their DRM software played any role in this rather firm approach.
I'm conflicted, to be honest.
As a writer, I'd like to be paid for my work. I'd rather not make it easy for people to redistribute my work without compensating me.
As a consumer, I'd like open access to the things I purchase.
Argh!
Shinma
It's good to see someone with some amount of clout taking a stand against unreasonable constraint of fair use rights. I just hope that this becomes a catalyst in a chain reaction of rebellion against DRM, which manages access in the same way that a jail manages freedom (my apologies to the /.er who I took this .sig from - cant recall his/her name).
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
So it won't be legal for someone to write a media player for someone else's media content that comes with DRM, and release this media player under GPL3? Sure, other licenses can be used for such things, but now such projects cannot benefit from other aspects of GPL3.
I demand that Red Hat immediately hand over all their private keys!
Wrong. GPLv3 says that you need to provide all keys needed to make the software functional for its intended purpose, not the keys needed to make a bit-for-bit identical package.
Thus, if your piece of software is supposed to be able to read scrambled data, you cannot hide the decryption key -- but, you are free to sign the packages to prove they are untampered binaries produced by you. In the former case, the program wouldn't work, in the latter, it just will trigger a warning from the OS which says the user is about to install unsigned binaries. No one forces the user to heed the warning, and she can disable it if she wants. No functionality is lost.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I know we all hate DRM but a lot of businesses see this as the future, if the GPL instantly cuts DRM out then the OSS community maybe limiting it's growth in the business world. I understand the GPL is a "play nice" style licence, but when you outright ban use of your software to any coompany using DRM you may well turn a lot of important areas away, so in the end you end up as a small time group instead of people who changed the world.
I like muppets.
Broaden the meaning of this question and there is no doubt - the recent explosion of news events regarding DRM, especially the Sony issue, has hardened the opinions of many of us. Perhaps the use of GPL code did not itself have an effect, but the whole mess certainly did
Using plain ol' text since 1968
Linus may stick with GPL version 2 for the simple reason that he may wish to equip Linux to be able to implement hardware-based DRM. Linus is pragmatic in the straightforward sense: many Linux users will want access to DRMed material... Hence version 2, not version 3.
Stallman is pragmatic in a more esoteric sense: the GPL version 2 has been increadibly successful. He is pitching the GPL version 3 to maximise freedom, and this blow against DRM will do exactly that. True, free software will have less penetration as a result, but the world will be a freer place for the compromise not being taken.
From a moral angle, this clause allows programmers to restrict how the fruit of their skills is to be exploited, which is naturally within their right, as long as copyright is recognised in law.
Wikileaks, no DNS
First of all, let me state for the record that I loathe DRM.
That said, I'm not sure this is a good idea. What they're saying is that there is absolutely, positively no good use for DRM, and there never will be, in free software.
To me, there's a huge difference between free software and free content, and it seems to me that this stance in GPL3 is essentailly saying that if you want to make the former, you've got to embrace the latter as well. It seems to me that it is forcing developers who would otherwise want to release their software under GPL3 to unnecessarily put restrictions (no DRM) on the content (i.e. the data) that their code may use, and I just can't see that as a good thing. What if Microsoft started programming Word so that you could never save a document that contained profanity? To me, this is pretty much the same thing. It bans the use of digital restrictions on the content? I thought the GPL was about freedom, but now it's imposing some of the very restrictions that it has traditionally railed against!
I've thought for some time that if there were some way for free software to somehow manage to be able to protect DRM'ed content without compromising the freeness of the software code itself, that organizations such as the **AA would be at least a little more willing to work with the community instead of being so hostile. I think that one of the reasons they're so belligerent right now is because even though the open source community is right about a lot of things, they're also generally insistent that the industries give away their content for free. In other words, the two sides are both extremist points of view, with no one willing to meet somewhere in the middle.
This article shows that those who wrote the GPL3 are simply digging in on one of the extremist sides, which will undoubtedly force the content industries to dig in yet further and commit further atrocities to harm consumers. The shame of it is that in the end, it is the users who will suffer. The content is owned by the content industry, after all, and if it is not conducive to them to work within the GPL3, they will simply not work within the GPL3, end of story. That means that all GPL3 software users and developers will forever needlessly be relegated to either continuing to operate within the fringe or living without popular content.
since every drm schemed is eventually going to be hacked, and therefore the protection removed, not only for the ubergeeks but for everyone through file sharing systems. Since current drm imply shady business with the OS (Sony rootkit) and rights restriction (copying music between all the devices you own etc), since DRM has been critized to assume the consumers where outlaws. Then why not make a jump. I'd suggest a DRM system based on a simple RDF file indicating what the user has the right to do with the file... this file is attached to the media content. Sure, it'll be extremely easy to crack, so easy it won't even be fun. Ethic media players would read the file and tell you, this is the 10th time you've read this file. I can't read it anymore you need to buy another lease, or buy the song entirely etc.... Maybe I'm just a dreamer... after all how many sharewares, most of whom where not based on restrictions, just on nag screens after a certain period, where registered? Well maybe it's different for music, I don't know... But after all, the current DRM situation is the same with a little more obfuscation that's it... so why not?
\u262D = \u5350
Here's an interview with Richard Stallman discussing Linus's decision to include DRM in the linux kernel.
And here's a post from linus on the kernel mailing list (thread "flame linus to a crisp") talking about DRM in the linux kernel.
So there you go GPLed DRM.
My pics.
I have the strong opinion that the word "rights" is being abused significantly by pretty much everyone inside and outside of industry. Rights to education, rights to health care, rights to fair use.
I'm not sure that the word "rights" should be used anymore, the meaning is lost.
To me, rights are something every person is born with -- inherent, God-given, natural, you call it what you want. I believe we are born as human, we have these rights -- American, Afghani, Zimbabwian. I believe the initial U.S. Constitution as very good about naming SOME of the rights that we're born with (no government can tell us what to say, which religion we practice if any, they can not search our body or our house without very specific details laid out to a public witness, they can't quarter troops in our homes, they can't make us testify against ourselves, etc, etc). These rights are the people's, all the people's, and they're not to be abridged by any government. These rights are also ours on our property to modify in respect to others (you have none of these freedoms when you are on my land).
The entire copyright issue is very complex for most people -- many loopholes and priviledges given to some but not others. I don't like unequal rules when they are put in the law. I especially don't like unequal rules that no one can understand with a lawyer. As some know here (and I really don't want to debate it on this forum), I am against copyright in every form -- I believe that once you have a physical item in your hands, you can do with that physical item what you want -- copy it, modify it, call it your own. The physical item is "protected" by inherent property rights as long as the original owner keeps it with him. It is like gold or diamonds. The minute they sell or barter away the physical item, it is now the new owner's item to do with as they please. PHYSICAL property can be protected, but intellectual property is thought, it is action, it is processing, updating and recreating.
Now we get to fair use. First, we the People give government the ability to lay down a monopoly rental to another person or corporation -- copyright. We let them control how we use a specific item, who we use it with, and what we can and can't do. This is a law, with force being used if we ignore it. Then we give "the People" the right to work around this rented monopoly, given some very peculiar reasoning. Copyright was intended to be useful for 7 years (which can be doubled) in order to further the arts -- it was not there to necessarily protect a profit or a demand complete control forever.
This is my big problem with "rights" today -- we can give them up and have to walk a very complicated path, but we also get some parts back in order to try to fix that complicated path but it just ends up being even more complicated.
If you won't agree with me that freedom is better than tyranny, how about you folks who love big government mandate a state-paid lawyer to follow around anyone who wants one, so we can live without the fear of jail or fines?
For those who aren't fond of the changes to the GPL from v.2 to v.3, why not just vet your complaints about v.3 with a structured rebuttal, and then go on developing v.2 software until it's fixed or something better comes along?
Also, there are plenty of "Open-Source" Licences. (MPL, LGPL, BSD, CopyCat, etc.) Is there something the GPL v.3 does that the others (GPL v.2 included) don't do?
-Pope Peter Porker, S.O.W., K.M.K.R., U.G.O.A., F.S.G.S.D.
...you cannot have drm in oss, it just is not possible. if your software can render it, which involves processing the drm (decrypt, etc) then you can remove the drm pretty much just as easily and since the rendering code is there for everyone to see, the is trivial to adjust the app to play to disk.
I'm reading a bit too much along the lines of "ZOMG no 1 will use teh softwares with GPL3" or "there's politics in my software!".
Here's the dish:
You don't like GPL v3? Don't use it. GPL v2 will still exist. In fact, I'm betting Linux (the kernel) won't ever be available under the GPL v3. I would be happy to use the new GPL since I enjoy such a license. If you don't like the new stuff added in, feel free to use GPL v2 software. More licenses == more choices. I don't see the problem here. BSD and GPL currently co-exist just fine. I'm sure BSD, GPL v2, and GPL v3 will do just the same.
On your last point I agree; the "or later" clause to me means that anyone could choose to distribute so-licensed software under the terms of GPLv2 or GPLv3. But IANAL and there might be some other effect.
I don't think, however, that GPLv2 expresses the FSF's political views in the same was that GPLv3 does. GPLv2 restricts only the ways that derivative works can be distributed (they must be distributed with source). GPLv3 also appears to restrict the function of your derivative works (they cannot be used for DRM). And I think it means that using GPLv3 on your own servers to facilitate DRM is also not allowed (might be wrong on that one though) which would make it an end-user license.
GPLv2 expresses FSF's views on software distribution, while GPLv3 expresses FSF's views on software function. There is a big difference, and it could cause a lot of problems in the Free Software community. I can't say I agree with the changes in GPLv3, as someone that often waffles between preferring BSD-style licenses and GPLv2-style ones.
The proposed restriction would affect software for the content encryption only, i.e. the server side of the DRM.
Suppose, someone made a GPL 2 compliant DRMed book reader. The reader comes with the source, so there is no possibility of security through obscurity, the source can be modified and recompiled. In order to read the DRMed content it must be decripted. That means a secret key has to be given to the user, and passed to the reader. The source for the reader is available and can be modified to save the key or the decrypted copy. Consequently, GPL2 is sufficient to make client-side DRM ineffective.
Client-side DRM software, at least in its present form, depends on the closed source software, on obscurity. GPL3 restriction would only affect content creation, the encryption part of the DRM.
Hardware-assisted DRM may be different, but I can't see it right now.
Something we have simply by right of being alive is something we will hold cheaply and assume will always be there, like the air we breathe.
Our rights are not God-given or inherent to ourselves. Nor are they granted to us by the benevolence of our rulers. Our rights were taken from our rulers, by force. Among all our ancestors were rebels and traitors, terrorists and pirates, mutineers and heretics and unionists and blackguards and revolutionaries and blasphemers and barbarians, and it is their struggle that we have to thank for the freedom we enjoy today. They fought against kings and barons, against tycoons and industrialists, against priests and popes, and they set themselves and their descendants free.
When you give up a freedom to the state, or to the establishment, or to the company, you aren't giving up something that is yours to give away that you've had all your life and which you got for nothing. You're giving up something bought by the blood of countless rebels over the centuries. You're betraying the sacrifices made by your ancestors.
A right we think is inalienable we will neglect and soon lose. A right we know was won by our ancestors through hardship and struggle we will defend forcefully.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
This is assuming Linus even likes the new GPL. As far as I can tell, he's not too sympathetic to RMS's values anyway.
It doesn't really matter what Linus thinks, at least not with respect to Linux. Since all of Linux is licensed under GPLv2 _only_ (not GPLv2 or later, as suggested by the FSF), Linux couldn't be relicensed under GPLv3 without the permission of every person who has code in it. Linux contains contributions from thousands of programmers. Locating all of those people (or their heirs) to acquire all the necessary permissions is impractical at best.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I absolutely hate DRM and believe that the DMCA should be repealed. I also believe there should be laws stating that no one should be able to place digital locks on material that a user has certain rights to which the locks curtail.
However, I really don't know about this change in the GPL. I thought one of the things the GPL wanted to avoid were the extra clauses about what you could and couldn't use the software for. I seem to remember people who would write "free" software with the license almost identical to the GPL but then add things like "No one in the US Military is allowed to use this software." I was under the impression that people who truly wanted Free and Open Source Software to prevail were against these kinds of restrictions...
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
To me, rights are something every person is born with -- inherent, God-given, natural, you call it what you want.
The Creator doesn't give anybody any rights. They can't be inalienable because they don't exist. Does the lamb have a right not to be eaten by the lion? The caveman by the bear? The woolly mammoth not to be slain by the caveman? Nope. Quite the contrary. The setup in the natural world is carefully designed or naturally evolved (take your pick) to confer benefit to the strong, the clever, and the ruthless. Everywhere there is competition for scarce resources.
If the whale is to have a right not to be processed by man for food and other products, it can only be because man chooses to confer and protect this right. No deity has ever done so.
The baby born with a heart defect has no right to life conferred by nature or Creator. Without man's interest and intervention, it will die quickly.
If man is to enjoy rights, it can only be because man promulgates and protects these rights.
Knowledge "wants" to be free in a metaphysical sense, but it's not going to happen without the efforts of men to undo the efforts of other men to chain knowledge.
Some of the comments are nonsense like applying this to file permissions. So before you flame the decision, read it. Excerpt from the GPL:
As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
In other words: This applies only to DRM that attempts to block copying of copyright material. Not Trusted Computing, not file permissions, not anything else.
Ok?
So.. it has come to this
Well, it's not really a change. In spirit, the GPL has always opposed DRM. DRM, like proprietary software, takes away the control and freedom of choice that an end user should enjoy, and gives it to someone else. The GPL has always stood against the effects of proprietary software, on behalf of programmers and expert users. Now, it stands against those effects on behalf of every computer user too. Companies have an ethical choice when it comes to DRM, and I do hope that the actions of the FSF will serve to highlight this.
You're an immobile computer, remember?
RMS started his crusade long before anyone heard of Microsoft when a printer manufacturer wouldn't give him the source code for a printer driver so he could fix the bugs that were preventing it from working on the computer he was using. RMS is about preventing artificial limits on a computers ability to meet the needs of its users.
Over the years the artificial limits have included the unavailability (hoarding in RMS-speak) of source code and patents. Adding DRM is the next logicial addition.
This is a boring sig
While I'm against the concrete form choosen in version 3, DRM is a real problem for the GPL, as the DMCA goes against the very spirit of the GPL.
I could use GPLed software and create a DRM program with it. Normally, everybody can modify it, right?
Well, perhaps not : as it is a protection measure, I can try to sue everybody that does modify it under the DMCA, claiming that any modification to my software lessens the protection, and therefor infringes the DMCA (IANAL, so I'm not sure if this could succeed). So, by declaring my software to be a DRM, I could basicly prevent anybody from modifying it.
Worse, not only I, but if it is a general purpose DRM system, any author of content protected by this DRM could sue you if you modify the software.
The DMCA creates a huge mess : normally illegal actions done with software (even if it is modified GPL-software) are, of course, illegal. But with the DMCA, modifying software itself can be illegal, even if no other illegal act is commited (exemple : excercising fair use rights).
So, the GPL would like to say that modifying (and using) GPLed software is never illegal in itself, only if another illegal act is commited.
Why I'm against the form choosen in the GPLv3 : it only adresses the DMCA in it's current form (and even then, I'm not sure, if it will stand up in court), but with a new law, modifying GPLed software can become illegal again. And the licence will always be behind the law.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
I think the idea of the DRM-clause is as follows: If someone uses GPL'ed code in DRM'ed product, they are agreeing that the DRM on their product is not a "strong technological protection". What does that mean? It means that they can't use DMCA to sue users who circumvent the DRM. DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent "strong technological protection". If they use GPL'ed code, they are saying that their DRM is not strong, and therefore circumventing that DRM is not against the DMCA.
It's brilliant, really.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
There are those who would utterly abolish copyright. To be honest I'm almost in agreement with them. The balance has swung over to absolutely ridiculous extremes.
* Music: Music has existed since the dawn of civilisation. Those who enjoy music enough will continue to produce it whether or not people will pay them handsomely for their efforts. If they no longer make more money in a day than a surgeon in the emergency room makes in a whole year, well, somehow I find it hard to feel sorry for them.
* Software: Some software needs can be met with open source software. More specialist "unsexy" software will again continue to be needed. Whoever needs it enough can enter into a contract with someone to develop it, under as strict a set of safety standards as is necessary for things like aircraft and nuclear reactors if needs be. Isn't the vast majority of all software written for internal use? If this software gives you a critical edge over a competitor it can be protected as a trade secret instead.
* Books: Same as music, even moreso. Anyone with a word processor can potentially be an author, although if you look at the volume of utter drivel on say fanfiction.net it might become a bit hard to sort the wheat from the chaff for a while. Again, better to have geniunely good material float to the top than have the usual pop crap pushed down everyone's throats because it's a lazy man's substitute for taste.
* News: Tricky. "the blogosphere" these days is mostly about juvenile navelgazing, and I personally would certainly not rely on it. Still, if News Corp et all fell into the dust, if something big caught on fire I imagine many people would be giving consistent reports of the fact within minutes online, as opposed to front page articles of who's fucking who in the celebrity world as we usually have (although we wouldn't see quite so many celebrities in the first place; see above).
* Cinema: There are lower barriers to entry these days thanks to powerful commonplace audio/video hardware and the obscene computing power of a medium-sized pile of desktop PC's these days. Still, this could be tricky. You would need some sort of wealthy societies to bankroll massive cinematic productions. You wouldn't get too many projects like Lord of the Rings springing up because a bunch of people down the pub with 1000 of their highly qualified mates decided it might be fun to set up tons of production equipment and render farms down in New Zealand for a laugh...
On balance though I'm having trouble seeing the benefit of copyright other than the fact that it makes a small group of people with an arguably marginal contribution to society disproportionately rich. Considering the recent abuses of the copyright lobby (DMCA and such) we do seem to be making some ridiculous "tradeoffs" as of late.