Slashdot Mirror
Debian Team Discusses GPLv3
nanday writes to tell us that Newsforge (Owned by VA Software, just like Slashdot) is running an interesting look at the, recently reported on, GPLv3 by the Debian team. From the article: "Initially, Branden Robinson says, he was worried about GPL3. 'The amount of secrecy around the initial draft process had me very nervous,' he says. In addition, after the Debian consensus rejected the GNU Free Documentation License, he was concerned that GPL3 might become equally contentious in Debian. 'I'm glad to say that my fears are assuaged,' Robinson says. 'I was impressed with both the large and small changes. In a nutshell, I like it.'"
I'm also against the DRM restrictions because I know the purpose of DRM extends well beyond music and videos. Corporations (and even some individuals) need strict control of their private data. I'm concerned that restricting DRM implmentations means entering grey area with respect to controlling data on corporate and shared computers.
Finally, restricting DRM in the GPL is as pointless as restricting "illegal" things. No media company would implement their DRM under the GPL anyway. If a DRM implementation were GPL'd, someone could modify it so the decrypted data flows elsewhere. The GPL just doesn't offer a means to control information flow in software against the user's wishes.
P.S. What's so "extreme" about a consistent view on civil liberties?
The definition of "illegal" in reference to spyware is potentially messy.
1. Illegal usage will change over time, and vary quite widely across different jurisdictions. For example something as mundane as a web proxy log may be illegal depending on the context and jurisdiction.
2. Restrictions on use in that it can not be an effective copy control mechanism.
the freedom to run the program for any purpose (called "freedom 0")
I understand the intent, however such a restriction IMAO violates a fundamental principal of free software.
It's all the content producers need to make it official that they will not be supporting Linux. No music, no movies, and what most Slashdotters will notice most, no games. My opinion is that GPL3 is a step back for those that would like to advance the adoption of Open Source by commercial producers and users. Philosophically, it's a step forward, but in practical terms, it's going to create roadblocks.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Hell, yeah. You know capitalism's the better bet when your country's education system is so rooted there are people arguing whether they can force the teaching of creationism in biology classes, the President's advocating the suspension of the Geneva Convention, refused to sign up to the War Crimes Court and advocates torture, and your nation is trillions of dollars in debt and only being held up by force of military action against any major trading partner who suggests switching to Euros ;-).
where do you think it is illegal, in Germany ? France ? China ? Phillipine ? Korea ? US law is the law for a small minority (fortunately), i think it is important for the GPL to be accurate on this.
There are times when DRM is actually a good thing. For example, when restricting distribution of personal information, confidential documents, etc. Also when used sensibly to prevent blatant abuse of reasonably priced copyrighted content, thereby keeping media available and affordable for those of us doing the RightThing[tm]. And then there's non-free software for which there is not (yet) any competitive free equivalent - if it's protected then it's also more likely to be affordable.
Given that there are situations where it can be useful, why should a free software license restrict my freedom to use this technology? So long as we're going to be force fed it anyway, why not *encourage* free software implementations?
On the other hand, the DMCA is pure evil. 'Effective technical prevention measures' I can deal with as I am confident that freedom will prevail. Criminalising the bypassing of 'ineffective technical prevention mechanisms' is insane. However this is something to be solved by lobbying and educating users, not by adding short-lived, jurisdiction-specific terms to a long-lived, globally significant license.
What is most amusing about these clauses is that I'm not convinced they have teeth - who in their right mind is going to write an open source 'technical prevention measure' anyway. In fact they're more likely to bite us - consider issues like the implementation of the broadcast flag in open source software for example. Plus existing software that matters is unlikely to be relicensed anyway (eg Linux).
Anyway, the last version has served us well for 15 years. The new version references specific laws that may very well be repealed in the next few years, and more than likely will end up being a small sample of a large arsenal of consumer-hostile legislation.
I'll be interested to see how the feedback received shapes the license, that's for sure.
For a start, it would prevent Linux distros using TPM hardware to "own" their Linux distro and ensuring that only *their" binaries are trusted -- something you can see Red Hat management already drooling at the prospect of.
I seriously doubt that. If you understand what a TPM actually can and cannot do and then think about what Red Hat would actually have to do in order to make that work you'll quickly see that it could only be done if Red Hat were willing to modify their OS to prevent you from modifying any significant part of it. They'd have to so seriously hamstring your ability to do what you want with the OS that it might as well be proprietary software. How many people would buy a Red Hat distribution if they did that? How could they possibly add enough value to convince people to accept such severe limitations? Microsoft might (might!) be able to, but only because you can't buy Windows from anyone else.
I'll tell you who'd *really* like to see Red Hat make such a move: Novell, Mandrake, Linspire, Xandros, etc.
I'm not opposed to the anti-DRM provisions of the draft GPLv3, but I've yet to see anyone describe a scenario where someone could actually limit peoples' rights by implementing DRM in GPLv2 code.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I was at the GPLv3 launch conference, and I think people are misunderstanding what was intended, and what was written (since it's pretty clear).
The DRM restriction is not intended to forbid, e.g. RedHat from signing their packages with a secret key. It's to prevent them from making a system that refuses to use packages that are unsigned or signed by somebody else.
For example, say I made a modified version of that little applet that times when your tea is ready, and put it into a special device for this purpose, and called it "Tea-vo". I then set up the OS on this Tea-vo so that it checks to see if the copy of the program that it run is signed by my company, and refuse to run any other. This means that if someone else (say, Richard) buys my device, I must give them the source code, of course, but if they compile it, my Tea-vo will refuse to run their compiled code. This reduces Richard's freedom. He's free to use the software on other hardware, but not in the intended way (i.e. on my Tea-vo device).
This is my understanding of the purpose of the DRM clause.