Torvalds Explains Dislike For GPLv3

Joe Barr writes "Linus Torvalds explains in three recent posts why he doesn't care for the DRM restrictions in GPLv3, and he has never been one to hold back. From his commentary: 'I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are trying to show others that co-operation and openness works better.' NewsForge has the complete text of all three posts available." We discussed his initial reaction to GPL3 at the end of last month. NewsForge is a sister site to Slashdot.

Comments

DRM is the antithesis of openness

[toby]

Just a thought.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[afeinberg]

No, you're wrong.

DRM can be a mechanism for protecting legitimate rights that copyrightholders have. I'm sorry, but in order for the market to work and content to move into the digital age and away from physical media, there has to be DRM. Now, there should be provisions for expiration of DRM concurrent with copyright and whatnot, but there is nothing wrong with reasonable use of DRM for protecting intellectual property in a manner consistent with appropriate precedents and law.

Linus is taking a stand against the moral crusaders who don't seem to get that we don't live in academia. Good for him.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Zeinfeld]

Linus makes the point that trusted hardware is not DRM. He then says that trusted hardware could be used to enforce a creative commons license by saying 'this content can never be encrypted'.

I think that Linus is probably wrong there, if you have restrictions such as the one he suggests they would interfere with the types of creative commons use we assume today.

But trusted hardware is not very much good for copyright protection DRM in any case. That is break once run anywhere, just the same as the CSS scheme in DVDs

The real value of DRM is in implementing operating system features like 'check this machine does not have a trojan' or controlling circulation of private documents.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[grahamm]

The real value of DRM is in implementing operating system features like 'check this machine does not have a trojan' or controlling circulation of private documents.

So why is the only DRM that we ever hear about that which 'protects' entertainment media distributed by the large corporations?

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[xtracto]

In order for the market to work and content to move into the digital age and away from physical media, there has to be DRM.

I agree with you completely. I do not understand people that are totally anti-Rights-management. The problem is the way companies are using the DRM tool as a lot of them see it as a way to squeeze more profit from their customers.

But you have to see DRM with a broader view, it is about the management of rights in information, as the world continues to depend more on digital information there is an inherent *need* in controlling who can an who can not access that information. It is not only about music and movies. It is about documents and all other kind of digitally representable data.

The people that rant about the right management technology usually has no idea how to control information, I am totally against the way CORPOPRATIONS are using DRM technology (I was the first to compile a list of Sony Rootkit CD's when it started) but seriously, the technology is not bad, it is corporations abusing it to get more power.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Lussarn]

DRM is mostly used to create incompabilites to lock out competitors and not to protect intellectual properties. Look at FairPlay. Companies get sued to left and right for trying to be compatible with the iPod.

It has been pretty much proven that no fair DRM can be made. Not by a company anyway.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[CoughDropAddict]

Now, there should be provisions for expiration of DRM concurrent with copyright and whatnot

Yeah, but there never will be. That's the problem of DRM.

DRM lets content producers legislate arbitrary terms. Copyright law becomes pretty much irrelevent, because the software dictates the terms, and DMCA gives those terms the force of law.

DRM completely eliminates the balance of Copyright law, because it gives content producers, who have an incentive to control every possible aspect of how their work is used, a blank check to do so.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Znork]

"I'm sorry, but in order for the market to work and content to move into the digital age"

I'm sorry, but in order for the market to work, and chairs to move into the digital age, there has to be chairs rights management so nobody can copy a chair at home.

Oh, wait, that's not 'the market'. What you actually must have meant was 'for monopolists to allow humanity to move forward and reap the benefits from the digital age, they must retain the ability to enforce artificial scarcity in the interest of keeping revenues up in a situation where the laws of supply and demand would otherwise eradicate their ability to profit at their current levels of inefficiency'.

That's pretty much the opposite of 'the market'.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Mr. Slippery]

I'm sorry, but in order for the market to work and content to move into the digital age and away from physical media, there has to be DRM.

If market can't work and content can't move into the digital age without taking away freedom, then tough tittie; let the market fail and/or content stay on physical media.

But your claim is off; it's not that the "market" will fail, it's that current parasitic stakeholders will fail. No tears from me; RIAA and MPAA delenda est. Music and storytelling are not going away as human activities, and people will exchange valuable consideration to keep them going.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Hell O'World]

but in order for the market to work and content to move into the digital age and away from physical media, there has to be DRM

I have always had such a strong reaction against DRM that any future with DRM has always seemed distopian to me. I tend to think that eventually the entire concept will be discredited, because customers will choose with their dollars products that can be played on all their devices, and artist will choose to ally themselves their customers. It is just a matter of people seeing what the geeks already know; that there is power in not getting locked into a single system.
However, there are such strong interests fighting for DRM, that I also admit that it's possible that in the end, that the future will require some sort of DRM. But if I am to concede that possibility, it then becomes clear to me that new laws are needed, protecting the user's rights. If copyright holders are to be allowed to use a technical solution for protecting against unfair use, then they must be prevented from hindering fair use.
 
there should be provisions for expiration of DRM concurrent with copyright and whatnot, but there is nothing wrong with reasonable use of DRM for protecting intellectual property in a manner consistent with appropriate precedents and law.

I agree with this, but there is a lot of hand waving in that "and whatnot." Society has a lot of work to do hammering out exactly where the boundaries between fair and unfair are. It's not even clear to me that a fair technical solution is possible. How would software know your intentions when you copy that file? Are you just making a backup for your own use, or are you going to sell it?

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[AdamWeeden]

What you're arguing though is that the concept is prudent, but the implementation is rife with abuse, and thus the concept should be abandoned. This is the same argument the RIAA used against file sharing.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[arivanov]

While I do not care a lot about content I do care about system integrity and security. These can be managed using DRM as well. On a non-DRM system there is always a doubt that something in the lower layers have been compromised.

While DRM will not eliminate the doubts about an executable or a module completely, it makes the creation of a system where integrity starts from the hardware platform and goes all the way to the user interface much easier. As a result, if used correctly and in conjunction with proper hardware support it will lead to more secure systems.

In a few years even the fridges will start asking for an IP. Getting working security in a world like this without DRM all the way to the hardware level is a utopia. Utopias are nice, provided that you do not have to live in them. In that case they quickly start to suck.

I agree with Linux on this one. DRM interfaces in the Linux kernel and userspace are beneficial for the overall security and development of the system. Removing them for purely political reasons is outright stupid.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Jeremi]

I do not understand people that are totally anti-Rights-management.

Because to the extent that your computer is an extension of your mind, DRM is a "restraining bolt" that determines what you can or cannot say or think about, and its application is almost entirely in the hands of a powerful few. Even if it was never abused (and that's a huge if), the idea of somebody else having the final say over what you are allowed or not allowed to think is a disturbing thought.

(Analogy: imagine someone had invented a pill that kept people from thinking about molesting children, and that they wouldn't let anyone move to their town unless they agreed to take that pill. Would you feel comfortable agreeing to that, even though it was for a good cause? What if you knew the pill could easily be altered in the future to, say, force people to vote for a particular political party? Remember, once you've moved to the new town, you'll have to either accept any additional pills they decide to require in the future, or pack up and move to another town again... which might be very inconvenient for you, especially if there are no longer any "pill-free" towns nearby)

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[yo_tuco]

"...seriously, the technology [DRM] is not bad, it is corporations abusing it to get more power...."

That's right. And let's hope that we, as consumers, can vote with our dollar if it's abused. But my glass is half-empty perspective tells me the consumer is going to get screwed. Time will tell.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[maxume]

Oh, wait, that's not 'the market'. What you actually must have meant was 'for monopolists to allow humanity to move forward and reap the benefits from the digital age, they must retain the ability to enforce artificial scarcity in the interest of keeping revenues up in a situation where the laws of supply and demand would otherwise eradicate their ability to profit at their current levels of inefficiency'.

This is why laws requiring DRM are bad. The other side of it is that 'the monopolists' can do whatever the fuck they want. If they want to show thier content behind security screened doors, that's thier choice. I don't really understand who you are referring to here(microsoft?), but there isn't any way for somebody to have a monopoly on content creation, unless of course, you are this guy...

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Waffle Iron]

I'm sorry, but in order for the market to work and content to move into the digital age and away from physical media, there has to be DRM.

Not really. A more appropriate action would be to develop a different way to pay content creators than trying to map the analogy of physical items made out of molecules onto abstract concepts made from pure information.

This whole scheme was a kludge when it was invented a couple of centuries ago, but it worked OK so long as there were only a couple of printing presses in each city. It really started getting strained when technologies such as photocopiers and tape recorders became available to the public. It almost broke down totally with the availability of hard drives and the Internet to transmit copies. Now, with the world moving towards the sale of content with no media at all, the concept is becoming absurd. There's no physical media left at all on which to map the physical property analogy.

Trying to simulate the physical object mapping with pure encryption and software algorithms is like trying to hold together jello with rubber bands. It's not going to work unless the government takes away your right to own a general-purpose computing device without encrypted links to your monitor and speakers. I assert that the freedoms that give you the right to own unhindered computer hardware are more important than the economic benefits that content producers would get from unbreakable DRM schemes. I don't care if the amount of content created and the number of producers the economy supports would be significantly decreased. Locking down every information handling tool available to us is just not worth it because the same DRM tools that content creators use to ensure payment will undoubtedly also be used by governments and private parties to monitor, snoop and control all of the information that we use.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[plover]

I am totally against the way CORPOPRATIONS are using DRM technology

Yet they're the only ones who want it or have need of it. There are no "legitimate" end-user applications of DRM that wouldn't be better served by access controls, encryption and/or tamper-proof hardware.

As a private owner of computing resources, you may have need for security. Fine. That's what encryption is for. Need to restrict access to a hard drive? Use access control mechanisms. Need to prevent spies from copying data? Epoxy the USB ports shut (that's what certain agencies do.)

But trying to control "some" usage of a document? There are really two choices: use application level controls, such as turning on a NO-PRINT flag so your co-workers can't print it and sell it to the competition (and accept the risk that someone might figure out a way around the flag.) Or really encrypt it, and give only trusted users access to the decryption keys (or to the one secure machine with the file on it.)

DRM is just a shell game. It makes you think that you've encrypted it, but it's little more than turning on the NO-PRINT flag.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[rufty_tufty]

/me remembers the days when you didn't need firwalls
When I was starting Uni firewalls were just staing to become widespread at my uni. I hated this because I was used to the concept of every unix machine having a guest account you could log into and use.
It was (for my peers) part of the ettiquette for being on the internet that you did make your machine accessable.
Now we take for granted that you lock your machine down very carefully.

I see a similar change in approach now, we're used to freedom, but there are people out there who abuse this and therefore undesirable security is needed.
I see DRM in the same field as Firewalls, Spam filters, locked machines, etc. Unfortunate and undesirable, but a necessity in this big bad world.

If I notice someone is abusing the DRM I will vote with my wallet the same as I have always done. If the worst comes to the worst I'll just be stuck using old machines without hardware control - If I can't buy that anymore - I'll build my own with an FPGA.
I don't see an issue as long as we make sure there remains an alternative. GPL and friends provide that alternative.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

As long as the DMCA stands, all DRM must be considered bad, because it is legislative power in the hands of DRM programmers and the content control cartels.

DMCA + DRM is so bad, that as long as the DMCA exists, DRM must be fought vigorously.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[FireFury03]

I do not understand people that are totally anti-Rights-management.

Because DRM is used in a way that is _too_ restrictive. i.e.:
1. Why shouldn't I be allowed to import a DVD from another region? Maybe it's never going to be available in my region, or maybe it's a lot cheaper if I import it. Yeah, the manufacturers have problems with me buying it from a cheaper region but they don't hesitate to make people redundent because they can employ people to do the same work cheaper elsewhere. If the manufacturers want to exploit the global economy, why do they have the right to prevent their customers from doing the same?
2. Why shouldn't I be allowed to play a DVD using FOSS software? IMHO a mainstream distribution format should not require me to buy specific hardware or software in order to read it - I have legitimately bought the media and a licence to the content, I shouldn't have to pay more money to use it.
3. Even if DRM is only used to prevent you breaking the laws, I worry about this since many people legitimately believe that a lot of laws are bad laws - people should be allowed (to some extent) to be able to use their own moral compass to decide what's right. A good example is the broadcast flag - why should I be prevented from making a video recorder to allow me to time-shift TV shows for my own use? Recording TV shows and then watching them a few hours later doesn't create any adverse effects for anyone so from what I can see the broadcast flag will simply restrict what I can do with the content for no good reason - currently I can ignore such bad laws but if it's actually enforced through technological means I can nolonger make a moral choice for myself.

This is really about trust - why should I trust someone to get the restrictions placed on content right?

The trust issue also applies to things like software signing: being able to lock a machine down so it can only run trusted software on the surface looks attractive - no more malware. But how do I trust the certification authority? e.g. if a machine will only run software that Microsoft certifies as trusted then I have these problems:
1. Why should I trust that MS's definition of "trusted" is the same as mine. For example, Windows Media Player and IE7 both "phone home" - presumably MS thinks that's trustworthy behaviour but I certainly don't.
2. What are the legal implications if MS accidentally signs some malware? If there's no penalty then it seems software signing is useless.
3. Why should I trust that MS won't use software signing to stop 3rd parties producing competing software - what happens when they refuse to sign OpenOffice for example?

Essentially, a certification authority needs to be trusted - what do I base that trust on? In my experience, large companies and governments are both untrustworthy (from the consumer's point of view).

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[rjstanford]

You know, that's probably the single best anti-DRM post up here right now... and could probably be used successfully to challenge the DMCA if it could be kicked up high enough to the SCOTUS. Kudos. Making it illegal to exercise constitutional rights (because we're all pretending that theoretically copyrights will expire) is almost certainly an indication of an unconstitutional law.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[rjstanford]

I tend to think that eventually the entire concept will be discredited, because customers will choose with their dollars products that can be played on all their devices, and artist will choose to ally themselves their customers.

Unless the DRM is being pushed by a consortium (or single entity) that provides what most people want. Witness the iTMS DRM. Most people accept it, because those songs can play in iTunes and on their iPod - the leading technology. Less people are accepting of the MSFT approach because of the success of the iPod.

Now think about it - what if Word documents were all DRMd and could only be opened (legally) on Windows machines? If this had happened 5 years ago... would most people have complained? What would that have meant to the success of OSX, a large part of which is due to the availability of Office, without which many people won't consider it?

As long as 85%+ of the people are satisfied, the remaining 15% "voting with their wallets" won't have a significant impact and will tend to marginalize themselves.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[FireFury03]

That is possibly the best analogy for DRM I've heard - if I had mod points, you would get them.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[DerekLyons]

I'm sorry, but in order for the market to work and content to move into the digital age and away from physical media, there has to be DRM.

Not really. A more appropriate action would be to develop a different way to pay content creators than trying to map the analogy of physical items made out of molecules onto abstract concepts made from pure information.

The problem is; copyright has nothing to do with physical items. Copyright is about protecting ideas - not about protecting physical objects, never has been, never will be. It works the same today as it did when books had to be re-typeset by hand, you cannot copy (legally, except in limited circumstances) what does not belong to you.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[biglig2]

This is to my mind why this argument is one of the most important there is at the moment. In the grand scheme of things, of course, whether or not you can play a Celine Dion CD is not critically important.

But I believe there is a good chance that sooner or later we'll have 3-D printers of such quality and ability that the marginal cost of physical artifacts drops to near zero, just like it has for music now. And when that happens we'd better have some of the economics of 0mc goods worked out, or else it's going to be nasty. When you can copy chairs over the internet just as easily as you can copy MP3s, the world is going to be a radically different place...

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Overly Critical Guy]

And piracy is the antithesis of creativity and production. You all just hate DRM because you want to continue pirating the fuck out of everything. Mod me down, but it's my belief. I know this article has next to nothing to do with piracy, but that's where this anti-DRM mindset comes from. You've been told by the Slashdot hivemind for years that it's bad and wrong, so that's the position you take. Five years ago during the Napster suit, everyone here said content holders should stop suing P2P apps and enforce existing laws against individual infringers. Five years later they're trying to do that, and now that's wrong too. You just want to freeload off someone else's work, consuming their content while never paying them a dime. That's all this anti-DRM stuff comes from--not wanting to have to return to those dark days where you had to pay for stuff.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Overly Critical Guy]

I'm sorry, but in order for the market to work, and chairs to move into the digital age, there has to be chairs rights management so nobody can copy a chair at home.

What the FUCK? You can't make a digital copy of a chair and give it to others on the Internet so that they also don't have to buy that company's chairs. If you could, then there would be chair rights management to protect the people who designed and manufactured the chair.

What you actually must have meant was 'for monopolists to allow humanity to move forward and reap the benefits from the digital age, they must retain the ability to enforce artificial scarcity in the interest of keeping revenues up in a situation where the laws of supply and demand would otherwise eradicate their ability to profit at their current levels of inefficiency'.

So an artist putting out a song protected with DRM is now magically a "monopolist?" It's not "artificial scarcity." Apparently "natural availability" to you means rampant, widespread piracy on Bittorrent? Funny, I just thought he was a guy trying to ensure people can't rip him off on Kazaa. But your argument is typical--distract the issue by scapegoating unnamed corporations and monopolies as the real evil so that people are unable to recognize the truth that what they're doing is immoral and wrong.

Do you believe John Carmack should not be paid a single dime for Doom 3? Should we be able to just pirate the fuck out of it? Would you fault him if he said "Enough" and put DRM restrictions so that the illegal pirates couldn't rip him off anymore?

That's pretty much the opposite of 'the market'.

Funny, that's what illegal piracy is.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[QuestorTapes]

>> In order for the market to work and content to move into the digital
>> age and away from physical media, there has to be DRM.

Perhaps in the generic sense of "digital rights management", i.e., some combination of technological and legal mechanisms for managing the legitimate rights of those people who create, own and distribute digital content.

But that's not what "DRM" is used to mean, by many content owners. To them, "Digital Rights Management" is about forcing on consumers -one- unbelievably restrictive, poorly engineered, legally questionable mechanism for protecting -and substantially extending- their already overbroad perception of what their "rights" are under the law.

> I agree with you completely. I do not understand people that are totally
> anti-Rights-management. The problem is the way companies are using the DRM
> tool as a lot of them see it as a way to squeeze more profit from their
> customers.

Very true. But many of the Anti-Rights-Management folk have leftover -legitimate- suspicions of anyone defending rights management. Like a man who's been beaten up by crooked cops once, he will -always- be suspicious of cops. The fact that they are good cops doesn't change this.

Until the good cops start cracking down on the bad cops, we can't even -begin- to deal with the suspicions.

> But you have to see DRM with a broader view, it is about the management
> of rights in information, as the world continues to depend more on
> digital information there is an inherent *need* in controlling who
> can and who can not access that information.

That's not completely on target, I feel. There is a need to enforce the legitimate ownership rights to information. This is not precisely the same as "controlling who can and can not access that information." Rights management law and technology needs to take into account the right of consumers to have permanent unencumbered (not unrestricted) use of digital content they have purchased.

That means when technology changes, I need to have recognized my absolute -right- to transfer the content to another form. That means when the company that produced the content folds, I need to have recognized my absolute right to engineer my own solutions for transferring and utilizing this content (and have third-parties engineer the same). I need to have recognized my absolute right to -refuse- to accept future contractual licensing changes on content I have already purchased. I need to have recognized my absolute right to be informed prior to purchasing, the licensing terms of the content, in simple clear terms.

And content providers and software and hardware manufacturers are fighting like mad to avoid respecting any of these rights.

> It is not only about music and movies. It is about documents and all
> other kind of digitally representable data.

> The people that rant about the right management technology usually has
> no idea how to control information,

Well, to be fair, most people who -support- DRM technology usually have no idea how to control information, either.

> I am totally against the way CORPOPRATIONS are using DRM technology
> (I was the first to compile a list of Sony Rootkit CD's when it
> started) but seriously, the technology is not bad, it is corporations
> abusing it to get more power.

Unfortunately, they will continue to abuse it until (A) the rights of consumers and the responsibilities of corporations are clearly enumerated in the law, and (B) DRM technology is mature enough to rely on. We aren't even close to that point. It requires methods for accurately and independently auditing the software and hardware end-to-end. That ain't happening; not in DRM, not in voting, automotive, medical, or any other hardware and software where we have a need for verification and reliability.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[FireFury03]

but there is nothing wrong with reasonable use of DRM for protecting intellectual property in a manner consistent with appropriate precedents and law.

The problem here is that many laws are written by the very corporations who are using DRM. At the moment I have the ability to ignore a law (and risk the consequences) if I believe it to be a morally bad law. DRM removes that ability and forces my moral compass to be aligned with the moral corruptness of the lawmakers who were bought out by the content producers.

Infact this all rather reminds me of a police state.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Overly Critical Guy]

I have always had such a strong reaction against DRM that any future with DRM has always seemed distopian to me.

That's because for years, geek sites like Slashdot have tried to create this imaginary world where corporations are giant evil organizations the control the world (like in their favorite science-fiction books). The want you to think DRM is some sort of evil slavery with people getting carted away by DRM Gestapo and whipped for copying and sharing information.

In reality, lazy freeloaders are using the Internet today to distribute content so that others don't have to pay for it. Let me repeat--the basis for piracy is to distribute someone else's hard work so you don't have to pay the creator for it and that you don't get caught for doing it. It's completely ripping off the person who made the content, so those content owners build in copy restrictions so they don't get ripped off. People who buy the content are unaffected; only pirates are the ones bitching because they are no longer able to freeload content without having to pay for it. So to distract from the fact that piracy is immoral and wrong, pirates paint these evil fictional futures that resemble their sci-fi books, where "The Corporations (tm)" control everything and DRM is some great evil.

All this talk from people in the so-called OSS community on Slashdot about how evil DRM is and how great piracy is, when piracy is the exact opposite of the "everybody contributes something back" mentality of OSS. When you have the source code to Linux, you can tweak it and give back to the community. When you rip off System of a Down's latest album, you're not giving anything back. You're just make sure System of a Down doesn't get paid that day. That's not free as in speech; it's free as in loading.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Waffle Iron]

It works the same today as it did when books had to be re-typeset by hand

That's exactly the problem I'm talking about.

Copyright is about protecting ideas - not about protecting physical objects

But it's currently implemented in terms of mapping to physical media. It controls copying the information from one instance of media to another. The problem is that computers with hard drives can instantly create thousands of these new copies, so attempting to regulate this action is almost impossible without taking away computers' general ability to copy.

If people want to protect ideas, they should come up with a scheme to do it that doesn't depend on keeping track of all the ephemeral copies that may be in computers. The costs of accounting for that (in terms of user restrictions, lost rights, government interference and abuse) aren't worth the economic benefits to content creators provided by tracking all those individual copies.

You can get on your high horse and say "The content belongs to the creator, so the current system must be preserved as-is". However, I can get on a higher horse and say that the current system is unfair because I can buy a physical copy and view it over and over again without the creator getting one more cent. In a perfect world, the creator would get compensated each time somebody enjoyed their work. The current system is a very crude approximation of what would really be fair. However, that ideal system is currently unworkable and unenforceable, so nobody attempts to impelement it, and we use the less fair current system. Well, the current system is rapidly becoming unimplementable, too. I'm saying that we should shift to another system not focused on the hopeless goal of managing countless billions of individual copies without ruining everyone's computer systems.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Nugget]

So why is the only DRM that we ever hear about that which 'protects' entertainment media distributed by the large corporations?

Because you get all your news from Slashdot?

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Arker]

I'm sorry, but in order for the market to work and content to move into the digital age and away from physical media, there has to be DRM.

All that's required for the market to work is for it to be allowed to work. DRM is just another flailing attempt by those addicted to monopoly rents to prevent the market from working.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[DrXym]

I agree with you completely. I do not understand people that are totally anti-Rights-management.

The problem with DRM is not DRM per se but the odious way it is implemented. There is no common architecture for DRM. Every player from Microsoft, Real, Apple, Intel, Adobe, Sony et al. all want to inflict their own wretched DRM system onto us. Frequently that DRM restricts data by time, or ties it to a computer, or requires a special player / reader. It's just one big bloody mess and it means the market is shattered into dozens of competing factions, all of whom are trying to foist their tech onto people for whom proprietary tech is repellant.

What is worse is that digital content is not significantly cheaper than it's physical real world counterparts, yet it is laden with all kinds of restrictions on how you can move it around, even to other devices you own. Look at iTMS- $10 for an album when a real physical CD hardly costs much more. Yet you can resell your physical CD to someone else. Or lend it to a friend. You can't do that with your downloaded tracks.

If DRM were an open architecture which used water marking and other passive techniques to tag content without restricting it, I am sure most people would be quite happy to use it.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[xtracto]

Rights management law and technology needs to take into account the right of consumers to have permanent unencumbered (not unrestricted) use of digital content they have purchased.

And here, we have [as consumers] a big problem. You see, you have NEVER purchased digital content, you have only been *licensed* to do certain things with it, the problem is that, the companies are getting greedy and are trying to reduce the actions you can do with their *license*.

An example of this subtle difference would be, when you *buy* a program, when you really buy it, the programmer will provide you the program and sometimes the source code.

When I was in the University I made some applications for buisnesses, one of those was a restaurant managements system. I SOLD the system to the person, beware, I DID NOT sold the source code, but the PROGRAM. I provided a copy on a CD with installer and all other things. Of course the system was made speciffically for that restaurant.

If, my client wanted the source code it would have been a different price. And, I COULD have licensed the application to him to run JUST on the restaurant he wanted when he asked. But, because I sold it, he IS able to install it wherever he wants, anytime he wants and he can do anything he wants with the system.

You have to realize that the application (software) is separated from the hardware. In most commercial applications nowadays what you pay for is a LICENSE.

The same thing happens with music, although you may be buying a CD, what you are really doing is buying a license that allows you to do certain things with the intelectual property. Read what your booklet say, something like "the license does not give permission for rental or public broadcasting".

So, with the digital media you do not need hardware, they will just give you the "information" but again they are not SELLING it to you, they are just giving you a license to do certain things with it.

That way, when you subscribe to Napster you get a license to listen to the music WHILE you are subscribed, when you go to iTunes you get the license to listen it whenever you want but you can copy it certain amount of times.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Anonymous Coward]

"there is an inherent *need* in controlling who can an who can not access that information"

That one simple snippet represents a view of the human race and the world in general that frankly both scares and disgustst me. There is no such thing as an "inherent" need to control access to information. It's a political choice about what kind of society you want to live in.

And I for one still hope to one day live in a society where a small group of people cannot determine for the rest of the world what knowledge they can or cannot have access to.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[geekee]

No one's forcing you to buy DRM'ed products. A computer is a tool, not a constitutionally protected right.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[mightybaldking]

There is a further side effect of the pill. It stops you from having sex with your spouse in any manner other than the missionary position, in bed. Woman on Top, on the couch, is an infringing use for which a secondary license must be purchased.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Just Some Guy]

Because to the extent that your computer is an extension of your mind, DRM is a "restraining bolt" that determines what you can or cannot say or think about,

I think you (and the people who modded him "Funny", too) misunderstood him. Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) can be a bad tool for companies to use against their customers, but could actually have legitimate uses for those customers themselves. I think companies would like the ability to use Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) so that, say, their customer database couldn't be copied off of their LAN. A doctor's office would like the ability to keep medical data from being accessible to non-employees. Etc., etc., etc.

GPG is an extremely handy tool, but it only implements security, not Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). I can send my accountant an encrypted accounts file, for example, but have to trust that he won't redistribute it. With ideal DRM, I don't have to trust him.

Still, I'm not pro-DRM by any means. Just sayin' that I can see applications where you and I could benefit from it, too.

PS: I plan to keeping referring to DRM as Digital Restrictions Management until Google sees it my way. Any assistance is appreciated.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Anonymous Coward]

as the world continues to depend more on digital information there is an inherent *need* in controlling who can an who can not access that information

Why? DRM is all about making information less useful in the name of "intellectual property"? Why should we accept that notion? Intellectual property is nothing more than someone's thoughts. Why do we allow an author to place their work into the public view, and then simultaneously assert a right to restrict what other people do with that information?

If an author wants to maintain control of their information, they can keep it to themselves. But once they share their thoughts with others, they lose control. The author has no right to control the actions of anyone else's mind.

Of course, the GPL presently does purport to restrict downstream users. It does not impose new restrictions, but it refuses to release the restrictions that copyright law places on works unless the user complies with the terms of the GPL.

Nonetheless, it is not hippocritical for the GPL to do this. The GPL is a pragmatic reaction to restrictions created by copyright law. The true answer is to repeal copyright entirely, so there are no restrictions to be licensed away in the first place. On that happy day, the GPL and all other licenses will become irrelevant.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[QuestorTapes]

> And here, we have [as consumers] a big problem. You see, you have NEVER
> purchased digital content, you have only been *licensed* to do certain
> things with it, the problem is that, the companies are getting greedy and
> are trying to reduce the actions you can do with their *license*.

Agreed. And even if we are only purchasing a license, the license terms are never clearly specified.

> An example of this subtle difference would be, when you *buy* a program,
> when you really buy it, the programmer will provide you the program and
> sometimes the source code.

Except, of course, where the vendors are trying to sell you a "license" to use the program for a time.

> The same thing happens with music, although you may be buying a CD, what
> you are really doing is buying a license that allows you to do certain
> things with the intelectual property. Read what your booklet say, something
> like "the license does not give permission for rental or public
> broadcasting".

No argument. The nasty part is they are trying to restrict it to a license to play the content on a specific type of hardware. Oh, and if we lean on the hardware vendors to switch to something new in five years, we want to remove your right to play it on newer hardware.

IMHO, one of the big problems is that the big content providers want to write the laws, create the technology, and if it makes it impossible for the consumer to get a fair shake, so what?

One of my biggest gripes is that they want to change the business model to a rental/leasing model, without dropping the price to consumers. I'd be fine with leasing something instead of buying it (or an unrestricted license). But damn if I'm going to pay the same premiums. Knock the prices down between to 10% to 20% of the price for the unrestricted license. Quit trying to write the contract so it looks like a sale when it's really a very limited lease.

Thanks for your comments.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[zotz]

"I can send my accountant an encrypted accounts file, for example, but have to trust that he won't redistribute it. With ideal DRM, I don't have to trust him."

Sure you do, he can still let someone else sit in front of the machine. Can't he?

all the best,

drew

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Anonymous Coward]

"Copyright is about protecting ideas"

If that were true then then plagiarism would be illegal. Framing it in
such terms is propagandistic bacause it makes copyright seem noble. The
information-as-property analogy does the same thing. Both are a conflation
of monopoly publishing rights with ownership of information in order to
address changing markets. There's nothing noble about it.

Copyright is a restriction of ideas, not a protection. In that respect
it's like a tax or tarif. It restricts freedom of expression and the free
exchange of ideas by granting a temporary publishing monopoly, for a
perceived and perhaps specious public benefit.

It only made sense (if at all) when the means of publishing were limited.
When that contraint was removed by progress, "content" producers shifted
to the "protecting ideas" argument to extend their publishing monopoly to
markets where it didn't originally apply, or else to protect a market
endangered by obsolescence. This goes far beyond the original justifications
for copyright. To gloss over this fact is intellectually dishonest.
(std. IANAL disclaimers apply)

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[rrao]

Insightful. But you sound like a noobie here. Don't u know that we at slashdot never need to be concerned with 'pills'?

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Just Some Guy]

I guess you were never too keen on the term "ideal", were you?

Yes, ideal DRM is impossible, blah, blah, and so on. Yes, I know that. The idea behind hypothetical scenarios is that you can discuss things that don't exist to weigh their pros and cons without having to actually build the thing.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[swillden]

I do not understand people that are totally anti-Rights-management.

I'll support DRM as soon as I see an implementation which enforces not only the restrictions defined in copyright law, but all of the exceptions to those restrictions as well.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[xtracto]

one of the big problems is that the big content providers want to write the laws, create the technology, and if it makes it impossible for the consumer to get a fair shake, so what?

One of my biggest gripes is that they want to change the business model to a rental/leasing model, without dropping the price to consumers. ease.

They can not write the law per se, they can (and are doing very well) use the law to their benefit. The creators of the "intelectual property" can license it in whatever way they want. It is up to the CONSUMER to agree to acquire the product they are offering.

I think the reantal/leasing model has been *always* here, in fact it is different, it is called licensing, I do not know the exact terminology but they are three diferent things (to buy, rent and license).

When the records where sold on tapes, the companies did not cared about the cassual copy, distribution. They only cared for the FOR PROFIT illegal distrution. But now that it is very easy to make mass distribution, and that people are doing it for free, it has become a problem. There is where DRM comes into play but the great problem is to define the line of where does the rights of the licenser [spell?] ends and where the ones of the licensee.

Honestly, I believe we are just at the beggining of this rights management issue. After some time (years), all the distribution companies provide their content online. And they will compete against each other in the quality they use (for example, the quality of the iTunes music is quite low for me, against the allofmp3 store).

And then, as you said, they will offer less and less prices and strange schemes. I have always tought that those programs like napster or yahoo music that allow you to download and listen while you are subscribed have more value because at the end you will *break the law* personally, after you unsuscribe and continue listening. But there is where DRM comes, they *need* to provide a way do not let you break the law BUT to allow you your Fair Use. This is the balance that will make companies compete.

Anyway... I am tired and have to finish a "£!$"!@ paper for a close deadline... I hope my comment makes some sense

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[swillden]

Copyright is about protecting ideas

There are two *huge* errors in this very short statement. This one statement embodies exactly what is wrong with copyright today: Very few people understand what it is and what it's for.

The first major error is that copyright has nothing to do with _ideas_. Ideas specifically cannot be copyrighted, even under the current screwed-up law. Only expressions can be copyrighted. The difference is crucial, because copyright is supposed to promote widespread sharing of ideas.

The second major error is that copyright is not about _protecting_ anything. The purpose of copyright is to encourage and facilitate distribution of materials to enrich the public domain. To a lesser extent, it also exists to encourage production, but the main focus was distribution. Copyright (as we know it) was created in a time when distribution was difficult and expensive, and there needed to be some way to arrange compensation or stuff just wouldn't be published.

That's what copyright is *about*... building a legal structure that encourages expressions to be published as far and wide as possible so that those expressions will enter the public domain, thereby paying society back for all the money society invested in creating and preserving the author's fictional "right" to control publishing.

Today, distribution is no longer difficult or expensive, precisely because the materials no longer have to be bound to a physical object. Given that the primary problem that copyright was intended to address has disappeared, we need to give serious consideration to whether or not copyright even makes sense any more. Is there really value to society in paying all that money to enforce these fictional rights?

Originally, the value to society was the encouragement of the production and distribution of works. Today, the distribution part of the equation has virtually disappeared, leaving only the production aspect. Copyright law does encourage production of new expressions which (someday, maybe) will enter the public domain and enrich society. So there is value, still, but it's smaller than it was. Society, therefore, should correspondingly expend *less* effort to enforce copyrights, which means we really need to roll back the scope of copyright protection.

Current copyright law is no longer consistent with the primary goals of copyright, which are all about benefitting society, and not at all about benefitting creators of content. That's a problem we need to fix, not exacerbate by throwing DRM (which allows publishers to avoid the Fair Use, term expiration and other limitations encoded in copyright law) on top of already-unbalanced copyright law.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[slashdotjunker]

(Analogy: imagine someone had invented a pill that kept people from thinking about molesting children, and that they wouldn't let anyone move to their town unless they agreed to take that pill. Would you feel comfortable agreeing to that, even though it was for a good cause? What if you knew the pill could easily be altered in the future to, say, force people to vote for a particular political party? Remember, once you've moved to the new town, you'll have to either accept any additional pills they decide to require in the future, or pack up and move to another town again... which might be very inconvenient for you, especially if there are no longer any "pill-free" towns nearby)

The answer for me and millions of people (probably including you) is yes. Floridation of the water supply. A chemical agent for a "good cause". This is a real world issue that people still debate today. However, the general populace could care less.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Jeremi]

No one's forcing you to buy DRM'ed products.

Sure, and even if DRM became the norm, nobody would force you to buy DRM'd products. You would still be free to go through life without access to 99% of the information that was out there.

The catch, of course, is that most people would be seriously inconvenienced if they were denied access to 99% of the information that was available to everyone else, so they would end up opting to accept the DRM. And thus the content producers would effectively gain control over 99% of the population out there.

A computer is a tool, not a constitutionally protected right.

Agreed, but free speech is a constitutionally protected right, and DRM is potentially a clever technological means of subverting that right, at least whenever computers are involved (i.e. most of the time, these days).

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Knuckles]

People who buy the content are unaffected

Not true. Exactly the people that buy the content are affected.

If I as a regular customer buy a DRM'ed CD, I can't easily make a copy for my car. If I am a pirate, it's a non-issue to record a non-DRM CD over the analog out of the DRM'ed one, and people copying/buying from the pirate are not restricted either.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[MichaelSmith]

Locking down every information handling tool available to us is just not worth it because the same DRM tools that content creators use to ensure payment will undoubtedly also be used by governments and private parties to monitor, snoop and control all of the information that we use.

Thats a good post. Thanks for that.

When I read Dune for the first time I wondered how they got to the point where computers were illegal and terrorists had to resort to mechanical timers on their weapons.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[ngm]

People who buy the content are unaffected; only pirates are the ones bitching because they are no longer able to freeload content without having to pay for it.

Except that that's not true. People who buy the content are affected. We are being prevented from exercising our fair-use rights. Prior to CSS being broken I could not backup the DVDs that I had legally purchased, nor could I copy them to a hard disk in a media center computer so that might access them all through a menu rather that having to fetch the approprate DVD from it's case. Frankly, I'd prefer not to be wasting a whole lot of shelf space in my living room for storage of DRM'd media. I could go on about the ways in which I am affected both directly and indirectly, but the above is enough to illustrate the point.

There's a war going on between content producers and the pirates and the people who buy are getting caught in the middle as the content producers treat everyone like a potential criminal.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[oliderid]

Let's leave the "philosophical" level and go back to the pragmatic level.

DRM is aimed at protecting intellectual rights on content.
Who will use it? Disney, Hollywood companies, music companies and so on.

Is it their right?
Yes. Nobody should be forced to sell easy to copy stuff. All they have to is to provide what has been agreed in the contract.

Who cares?
Only those who watch/listen to them for free.

What do we (the geeks) want?
P2P ad nauseum. We want to download MP3 and DivX as usual. No control.

Where is the problem?
Some of us fear that we won't find any DivX/MP3 compliant hardware player on the market. Or that the new format will be so heavily dependant on the hardware that it will impossible to decypher.

Does it make sense?
No.

Why?
Because there is a market for non compliant DRM hardware.

If US/European companies won't take it, I bet everything I guest that the right answer will come from China. They have a long history at fixing commercial holes like this one.

Second...No matter what they do, until they found a way to put DRM in our eyes and ears, their product will have to produce sound and lights. They can be easily reproduced.

My Conclusion:
Linus is right. We should stick to our code, a pragmatic approach will help us to "infest" their commercial machine and be at the right place to provide the neccessary alternatives.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough. So, we recognize that "ideal" DRM needs to control the every thought and action of everyone who is exposed to it, forever. So, "ideal" DRM is is pure, absolute evil. I suppose there's a sliding scale back to less ideal, and therefore less ideal forms of DRM. From my personal point of view, it never crosses the good/evil axis onto the good side.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[DerekLyons]

That's what copyright is *about*.

You haven't a clue what you talking about.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Zeinfeld]

So why is the only DRM that we ever hear about that which 'protects' entertainment media distributed by the large corporations?

Because very few people actually bother to find out what is really going on.

When Brian LaMacchia gave a talk on Palladium at MIT RMS didn't bother to show up till late, then at the end gave a long harangue that demonstrated only that he had not listened to a single word of the talk.

Trusted computing is not a very good copyright enforcement mechanism, it is as good as anything else that is going to be around and that is going to probably allow computers to do the same sort of stuff that dedicated media devices are allowed to play etc.

Trusted computing is a much better solution for the problem 'how can I know that this machine has not been tampered with', in other words to answer the Thomson paradox.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[swillden]

You haven't a clue what you talking about.

Yes, I do.

Gee, isn't this fun?

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[zotz]

'I guess you were never too keen on the term "ideal", were you?'

In fact, I also truly enjoy hypothetical scenarios. I get in quite a lot of trouble because of this in fact.

Oh, I like the term ideal just fine. Do you posit that DRM would allow you to control the premises of your accountant? Or do you have deep enough pockets to have him and the rest of his team stay on your site for the duration?

In my years of experience, which includes going on numerous audits, that is not how things work. Your data generally goes back to the Accounting Firms premises for at least some of the workup.

So, again, how are you gonna control who he lets sit in front of his machine back at his office?

Are we talking DRM which includes human body detection and more besides?

Or are you just talking your in house accountant and not the auditors. And while we are at it, how do you propose to have this DRM control what the IRS or other relevant taxing authority can do with your figures? Do you think they are gonna allow that?

I just don't see it. If I am missing something obvious, or we have a misunderstanding of definitions, I am all ears.

all the best,

drew

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[fishbowl]

>because the software dictates the terms

I'm not so sure it's the software that does the dictation, as much as it is the NP-complete problems that protect the cryptography.

The strategy may backfire badly if the crypto does not manage to outlive the copyright term.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Lussarn]

This is the same argument the RIAA used against file sharing.

Companies aren't citizens. They shouldn't be treated in the same ways and shouldn't be compared by the same standards. So my argumentation isn't like RIAA suing filesharers.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[arose]

Trusted computing is a much better solution for the problem 'how can I know that this machine has not been tampered with'

If, and only if, you are the only person who has the private key.

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Alsee]

I do not understand people that are totally anti-Rights-management.

Well lets see if I can explain it to you.

I have no objection to anyone using any DRM scheme they wish. What I have an objection to are stupid-ass laws to that say INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE go to PRISON.

End of story. I defy you to reject my position. I defy you to explain why innocent noninfringing people SHOULD go to prison. Explain to my why a 7th grade girl SHOULD go to prison for extracting 10 seconds of video from a DVD to include in her multimedia classroom "book report" on a movie.

Explain to me why I SHOULD go to prison for giving that 7th grade girl the computer instructions on how to get that video into her multimedia presentation.

The simple fact is that DRM doesn't work unless there is exactly that law to prevent companies from popping up providing tools and services to bypass/remove DRM to be able to make perfectly legal uses.

So please, either explain to me why there SHOULD be a law to imprison innocent noninfringing people or admit that it is unjst and unacceptable for a law to say that innocent noninfringing people go to prison.

And if you can't justify such a law imprisoning noninfringing people, well without such a law DRM simply doesn't work. Too bad. You can't imprison innocent noninfringing people just to get some DRM scheme to work.

So no, I have no objection to DRM. I just have an objection to expectations that DRM schemes will actually work. I just have an objection to laws saying that noninfringing people go to prison.

there is an inherent *need* in controlling who can an who can not access that information

Then why the heck are you turning to DRM? DRM is about granting people authorized access to information, and then trying claim ownership and control over that person's property. It is about some absolutely bizzare expectation that their property is not their property and that it will not be designed or modified the way the owner wants and that it will not do what the owner tells it to do - even if what the owner wants it to do is perfectly legal - even if what the owner wants it to do is Constitutionally protected such as educational use or criticism or parody.

The people that rant about the right management technology usually has no idea how to control information

Security. Normal computer security techniques. And security has absolutely no connection to DRM. Security is securing a computer for the owner and it is about denying unauthorized people access. DRM is about attempts to "secure" a computer against it's owner and attempting to control people who have been granted authorized access.

the technology is not bad

If you are trying to imply "the technology" means pro-owner security, then of course security is not bad. However we are not discussing security. As I said DRM is completely different than security. There is no legitimate DRM technology. Attempts at DRM - as opposed to security - are inherently bad.

-----

But forget all that. Just answer my one question from earliey. Just explain to me why there should be a law that says innocent NONINFRINGING people goto prison, wxplain to me why we should not pass the DMCRA which simply fixes the DMCA to says that noninfringing people shall not go to prison. The DMCRA which would (incidentally) make all DRM worthless.

-

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Alsee]

No one's forcing you to buy DRM'ed products.

No, and there would be no problem if it were merely an issue of DRM'ed products.

The problem here is the evil law that attempts to get DRM to actually work. An evil law that says innocent noninfringing people go to prison.

To go back to the other poster's analogy of the anti pedophila mindcontrol pill, we are talking me buying a house and then facing a law that says that I go to prison if I live in that house and I do not swallow the mind control pills, and which imposes prison sentences even longer than from the crime of child molestation, even though I have not molested any children.

And you're saying that I should not have bought the house, or maybe that I should not live in the house and that I should return the house when discovering that it comes with mind controll pills.

I have no objection to anyone using any DRM scheme they like. I simply have a problem with a law that imprisons innocent noninfringing people for making perfectly legal and Constitutionally protected use of their property, and which imprisons innocent noninfringing people for providing products or survices - or even fricking instructions - to make noninfringing use.

Of course without such a law DRM schemes happen to be useless. Without such a law anyone and everyone can bypass or remove DRM in order to be able to make noninfringing uses. Without such a law the free market would immediately provide products and services to assist people in making their perfectly legitimate and absolutely noninfringing uses. Products and services to bypass or remove DRM.

So either explain to me why innocent noninfringing people SHOULD be imprisoned, or agree with me that such a law is unjust and unacceptable and oh.... too bad... DRM simply won't work.

Pardon me, but I kinda thought that here in the US we not imprison innocent people simply because it is a more convient approach than trying to catch and prosecute actual infringers.

-

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Alsee]

I plan to keeping referring to DRM as Digital Restrictions Management until Google sees it my way. Any assistance is appreciated.

Well the last result for define:DRM comes up with:

The acronym DRM can stand for: *Digital Rights Management, also called Digital Restrictions Management...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRM

Grin.

I think companies would like the ability to use Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) so that, say, their customer database couldn't be copied off of their LAN.
A doctor's office would like the ability to keep medical data from being accessible to non-employees.

If the company wants to prevent files from being copied off of their own machines then it has nothing to do with DRM. That is ordinary security. That is programming your own computer to do what you want it to do, that is instructing your computer not to do what you do not want it to do. That is not a DRM task at all.

DRM is about attempting to deny people the ability to control their own property. It is about the hopeless and absurd notion that people cannot or should not be able to control what their own computer is, that they cannot or should not be able to modify it, about what their computer cannot or will not do, that it cannot or will not do what the owner wants it to do, about what it will or will not do if the owner tells it to do.

I can send my accountant an encrypted accounts file, for example, but have to trust that he won't redistribute it. With ideal DRM, I don't have to trust him.

Aside from the completely fictional notion of "ideal" DRM, you could certainly expect for it to be illegal for him to do certain things, but where do you get the bizzare notion that you could somehow physically control his property and make it physically impossible for him to be ABLE to do certain things? You give him him information, and somehow the mere fact that he knows those bits (or has a copy of those bits) magically can or should control what physical property he has and what his physical property can do and that he be physically incapable of modifing his physical property to do what he wants it to do?

It is nonsensical that giving someone information can or should somehow magically restrict what physical property they have and somehow magically remove their physical ability to do certain things. It is nonsensical that giving someone information would somehow remove physical abilities.

Murder is illegal, and if we could somehow make people unable to commit murder that would certainly be a lot easier than trying to catch and prosecute prople who actually commit murder. But it is nonsensical to expect people to somehow be unable to commit murder.

Copyright infringment is illegal, and if we could somehow make people unable to commit copyright that would certainly be a lot easier than trying to catch and prosecute prople who actually commit murder. But it is nonsensical to expect people to somehow be unable to commit copyright infringment.

-

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Alsee]

There is no law imprisoning people if they do not drink the fluoridated water supply, no law imprisoning people if they filter out the fluoridation before drinking it.

-

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Alsee]

DRM is aimed at protecting intellectual rights on content.

Well having GPS locator beacons implanted in everyone's skulls can be aimed at fighting bankrobbery. That does not make it acceptable to imprison nonbankrobbers for refusing the surgical implantation.

It doesn't matter what it's "aimed at" if it requires an evil law to imprison INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE in order to get the system to work.

Nobody should be forced to sell easy to copy stuff.

Agreed. I say they are free to use any and all the DRM they like.

Who cares?
Only those who watch/listen to them for free.

Bullshit.

Pardon the frank language, but it is invalid and unacceptable to pretend that the other side must be wrong and that their arguments must be nonexistant or invalid simply by SLANDERING them and assming they are all evil.

Ah yes, anyone who opposes the Patriot Act is anti-American and just wants to help the terrorists. And everyone who objects to some bizzare new "child protection" law is a pedophile and is defending pedophiles.

Yep, the other side is "evil" and therefore we can mentally ignore what they are actually saying because we already know that they are eeeeevil and therefore must be wrong anyway.

No.

The problem here is that there is an obscene law. An obscene law that attempts to get DRM to work. An obscene law that says INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE go to PRISON.

Maybe I am wrong. Perhaps you'd care to explain to me why a 7th grade girl SHOULD go to prison under the DMCA for extracting a 15 second clip from a DVD to include in her classroom multimedia project? Perhaps you'd care to explain to me why I SHOULD go to prison under the DMCA for providing her a product or a service or some computer instructions to do it?

If you agree that such a law is unjst and unacceptable, then we are in full agreement and the issue is closed. The simple unaviodable fact is that without exactly that law DRM becomes worthless. Without exactly that law the free market will immediately provide products and services and instructions on how to bypass or remove DRM for perfectly legitimate and legal porposes whenever it gets in the way of any legitimate legal use.

So publishers would be free to use all the DRM they like, but there would be absolutely no reason to expect it to actually work.

My Conclusion:
Linus is right.

No, Linus is wrong. He (and you) either missunderstood or missrepresented the new GPL3 clauses.

The original purpose and operation of the GPL did two things. One, it said that anyone receiving the code also had to receive all of the legal rights required to make modifications and to use it. Well one new clause simply addresses the new DMCA issue which threatens to deny exactly that right. The new clause simply says that people receiving the code are also receiving any DMCA rights required to modify that code. It simply says that people not be imprisoned for modifying GPL code. It's the exact same principal that the GPL has always stood for. The second thing the GPL says is that the full source code must be provided. That people receiving the GPL software must be provided the ability to modify and compile the software. (1) The right to modify and (2) everything required to make such modifications. Well the second new GPL clause simply says that the full source code must be provided, and if some specific key is required to be able to create a functional compiled program, then thay key is part of the source.

End of story.

It's not thet the GPL3 is attacking DRM. It's that the notion of trying to enforce DRM in GPL software is self contradictory. The very purpose and functon of the GPL is that people receive the legal right and the ability to modify the software. You are perfectly free to write DRM in GPL code, but you cannot expect to legally prohibit people from modifying that code, and you cannot expect to keep part of the source code secret in s

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[Alsee]

You are wrong and stupid becuase...

Oh wait, apparantly I don't need to give any reason.

-

Re:DRM is the antithesis of openness

[westlake]

Because there is a market for non compliant DRM hardware.
If US/European companies won't take it, I bet everything I guest that the right answer will come from China.

OEMS do not ship product to rust in containers on the L.A. docks because they will never clear customs. The Chinese solution is pure fantasy.

The real question

[s20451]

Torvalds sees openness as a tool, not as an end.

The real question is, should software developers impose their value system on end users or hardware manufacturers?

Given that developers and other intelligent people disagree as to what the right value system for software should be, my answer would be "no".

Re:The real question

[Lussarn]

FSFs arguments aren't really bad either. They just want you to be able to change the code which is under GPL in products. By wrapping GPL code in DRM and use DMCA to protect it there is legaly a whatertight hole to not let users change the GPL code in the products. This was probably not the intent of the author of said GPL code and thats why DRM is added in GPL v3. And why it's probably welcomed by most developers.

Re:The real question

[Lussarn]

whatertight hole... Need some sleep...

Re:The real question

[Mr. Slippery]

The real question is, should software developers impose their value system on end users or hardware manufacturers?

No one's "imposing" anything, unless you want to claim that a COTS developer who charges $50 for for software package is "imposing" their value system on end users.

As always, if you don't like the terms of the GPL, you are free to find other software. The GPL (present or future) is just a means of advocating for certain values. Should developers of free software advocate their value system to end users and hardware manufacturers? Yes! Advocating freedom, openness, and quality is a good thing.

The profession of software development is threatened by DRM (an attempt to take general purpose compuing machines out of the hands of the public) and by software patents (an attempt to make mathematical ideas into artificial private property), and we should use whatever means are at our disposal to advocate against these evils. The new GPL could be an excellent means to do so. (Note "could"; I'm not trying to judge the specifics for the moment.)

Re:The real question

[plover]

If the code that you wrote under the GPL was digitally signed by a manufacturer and put in a "Trusted Platform" machine (let's say a router), the GPL (v2) clearly states that they must make your code available, along with any modifications to your code.

That's it. The GPL grants you the further rights to take that modified code and change it any way you like. But it does not grant you the right to install that modified software back on that same machine.

This is no different than if that manufacturer took your GPLed code and burned into a ROM or blew it onto an FPGA and then soldered it into the router. Just because you wrote it doesn't mean the manufacturer has to give you provisions to alter it on their machine.

The answer is purely economic -- don't buy a trusted platform based machine. Don't buy an OS that supports trusted platforms (Vista.) Don't allow friends, families or your business to buy trusted platform machines. If you're in a position to purchase hardware, get "no hardware enforcement of digital signatures" written as a requirement into your RFQs.

GPL v3 is not a business friendly license. It will restrict development unnecessarily, and drive manufacturers away from using GPLv3 code. Look at how well Linux has done in embedded devices (the slug as well as many other Linksys appliances.) These restrictions will likely drive those manufacturers to alternate sources of software, or limit them to only GPL v2 versions of the code.

Re:The real question

[lp-habu]

The real question is, should software developers impose their value system on end users or hardware manufacturers?

And the real answer is that no one should impose their value system on anyone else. Ever. Under any circumstances.

You can refuse to do business, or even associate, with those who do not accept your value system; and of course everyone else has the same right. Simple, really.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS started Free software because of an incident involving a buggy printer, and not being able to fix the driver.

with DRM'ed hardware that problem reappears:
1) buggy GPL'ed driver
2) you fix the driver
3) oops, you can't actually install your fixed driver

Now do you see the problem?

Re:The real question

[ignorant_newbie]

>And the real answer is that no one should impose their value system on anyone else. Ever. Under any circumstances.

and, of course, by telling us what we should never do you're not trying to impose _your_ value system on us at all, are you :)

sigh. if only people would spend more time working on their own problems and less telling other people what to do.

Re:The real question

[Lussarn]

There is one big difference. If you protect with DRM and use DMCA it may very well be illegal to change to code. With a ROM it's tough luck to change it but it's not illegal and you can if you want to change the ROM chip.

But it does not grant you the right to install that modified software back on that same machine.

Of course not, but it shouldn't be illegal to do so. Even if it's practically impossible.

Re:The real question

[AigariusDebian]

GPL has never been designed to be a business friendly licence. It has been designed to protect user rights. And that is exactly what it is doing. Businessmen found another way to restrict user rights and the GPL v3 found another way to protect them.

If you want a business friendly licence, go with BSD.

Re:The real question

[GuidoW]

It is part of my value system that people must not murder other people.
Now, is it immoral to impose this value system, or this part of my value system, unto others?

Re:The real question

[lp-habu]

>And the real answer is that no one should impose their value system on anyone else. Ever. Under any circumstances.

and, of course, by telling us what we should never do you're not trying to impose _your_ value system on us at all, are you :)

Nope. Not at all. You're free to do as you like. And I'm free to believe as I will about you and act accordingly. Very simple, indeed. I impose nothing on you, and reserve the right to resist your imposing anything on me.

Actions have consequences.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

"The GPL grants you the further rights to take that modified code and change it any way you like. But it does not grant you the right to install that modified software back on that same machine."

Correct, that's covered by basic property rights. I own my machine, it's property. Nice attempt to impose the fantasy concepts inherent in IP back into meatworld BTW.

Re:The real question

[Zeinfeld]

That's it. The GPL grants you the further rights to take that modified code and change it any way you like. But it does not grant you the right to install that modified software back on that same machine.

But this is probably what you want with an embedded device. I do not want it to be possible for a hacker to compromise my WiFi router by reprogramming it with malicious code.

There are plenty of sources of cheap, unrestricted hardware. I would much prefer a definition of openess in terms of what you can do with the device. For example, I cannot control my Dish PVR from the Internet. Access to the source code allowing me to rewrite the code so that it supports this function is good. A built in, documented capability to accept programming commands via an RS232 or USB port is better.

The answer is purely economic -- don't buy a trusted platform based machine. Don't buy an OS that supports trusted platforms (Vista.) Don't allow friends, families or your business to buy trusted platform machines. If you're in a position to purchase hardware, get "no hardware enforcement of digital signatures" written as a requirement into your RFQs.

That is not how Palladium works, as this article explains.

All Palladium does is to restrict access to certain pieces of data (i.e. encryption keys) so that they are only available to certain programs whose executeable has a specific hash value that run in a protected part of the O/S. It does not secure the boot path as most people seem to assume, that is simply not practical.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

If you Don't want end users messing with the code on your device, Don't Release it under GPL! There are other licenses for such things.

Re:The real question

[plover]

If you protect with DRM and use DMCA it may very well be illegal to change to code.

No, that's not even permitted by the GPL v2 today. The GPL explicitly states that they have to provide the source code, plus any changes they've made to the GPL'd code. You further are explicitly granted the right to take that code they've given you and modify it yourself. It does not address anything about where you can then run that code.

Trusted Platform plus DRM are basically trying to be the software equivalent of burning the code to RAM. That makes it the virutal equivalent of a hardware issue, and has almost nothing to do with the software running in that hardware. GPL v3 is trying to say "no no, don't let my code run on a Trusted Platform machine." Well, what's going to happen when every motherboard sold contains a trusted platform chip? GPL v3 code will be quietly squeezed out of existence.

GPL v2 works fine. It doesn't need tampering, and it doesn't need to arm-wrestle with the Trusted Computing issue.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that developers and other intelligent people disagree as to what the right value system for software should be, my answer would be "no".

Your answer is to forbid developers to freely license their software?

Re:The real question

[deong]

> It is part of my value system that people must not murder other people.
> Now, is it immoral to impose this value system, or this part of my value system, unto others?

Yes. Society may collectively decide that as a whole they agree with your morality in this instance and legislate it, but for you to impose your wishes upon others simply because they are yours is exactly what the parent post was referring to.

If, given a real debate on the issues, a consensus arose that DRM is "good", one wouldn't really be able to complain. *I* may not like it, but in a representative democracy, *I* don't have sufficient power to enforce my will. Or at least that's the theory. In practice, our representative democracy mostly represents the interests of the representatives. (Ahh...alliteration). A consensus need only arise amongst the few who can ensure eternal campaign revenues, and their interests predictably deviate from that of the general public in certain areas. Hence the Sonny Bono Practically Infinite Copyright Act, DMCA, and scores of other laws that are so popular around these parts.

Re:The real question

[plover]

Correct, that's covered by basic property rights. I own my machine, it's property.

Yes. But that doesn't mean the manufacturer has to give you a way to install the changed code. He doesn't have to provide socketed ROM chips, he doesn't have to give you an RS-232 jack, he doesn't have to give you anything. If you want to change it, you are likewise free to break out the soldering iron and figure it out for yourself.

But take that one step further. The manufacturer has every right to try to make it tough for you to change the software. He can embed the chips in epoxy. He can put tripwires inside the chip cases that will erase the chips if the case is broken. He can even add another epoxied-shut crypto chip that verifies the signature of the ROM chip.

And NONE of that has anything to do with the GPL. And it shouldn't. You want a nice, changeable machine? Don't buy one with a crypto chip embedded in epoxy, and don't support the manufacturers who resort to these tricks.

Re:The real question

[lp-habu]

Actually, yes. It is. You are free, however, to take action against those who would attempt to murder you, or members of your like-minded community. And if your value system permits you to do so, that could include lethal action. That is not the same as imposing your values on the others; simply defending your own against theirs.

If there were a society which included murdering each other in their list of acceptable entertainments, that would be their business as long as they didn't try to include you in their group (which would, of course, be attempting to impose their moral values on you).

Re:The real question

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

The content and control cartels attacked us with the DMCA, making it illegal to exercise our rights to use and modify our hardware and software as we see fit.

We must fight back - if you are in a fight, are being attacked, and don't fight back, you will lose.

The GPL v3 fights back - it is illegal to use GPL code in a product where it would be illegal for one to replace that GPL code with a modification.

The GPL v3 only makes it illegal to have DRM because it is illegal to bypass DRM.

Without the DMCA, these provisions would have never come about in GPL v3. If people could bypass DRM without breaking the law, people would use code to circumvent code. You can't use code to circumvent law (or code protected by law) or you are breaking the law. Therefore we use law to circumvent law - stop them from using the DMCA and our code at the same time - they can't use our code against us and make it illegal for us to use and modify our code as we see fit.

DRM and the GPL v3 may not be incompatible 100%, I believe the language says it can not be part of an "effective protection" system under the DMCA. If the GPL allowed use of DRM, but only on condition that such DRM would not be illegal to circumvent under the DMCA (e.g. the DRM writer automatically gives a license where any circumvention is authorized with respect to the DMCA) there would be no argument one could make against that. Breakig such DRM and infringing copyright would still be a copyright infringement.

Re:The real question

[_Sprocket_]

These restrictions will likely drive those manufacturers to alternate sources of software, or limit them to only GPL v2 versions of the code.

Or manufacturers who have already reaped the benefits of adopting Linux will levy requirements to their suppliers that forbid "trusted" features in their hardware. This in turn will ensure that there is always a product line available to not only other Corporate interestes (who tend to drive these markets), but hobbiests and hackers... some of who may even be busy working on the Next Big Thing.

Re:The real question

[dusik]

"...he doesn't have to give you an RS-232 jack,..."

That's right. He doesn't have to give me jack.

On the other hand, I don't have to give him jack either for it, as long as there will continue to be platforms with no DRM. And the possiblity of that not happening is what personally disturbs me, and I think we need to do everything we can to not let that happen.

The GPLv3 is intended to do that, but a lot of intelligent people are pointing out that it will probably have the reverse effect. There isn't going to be an easy solution, but I think the most important deciding factor will be the public's awareness of the issue. If everybody realised that it's not benefitting them, the companies wouldn't be able to do this to their customers. It really comes down to who people listen to and believe, and the question is how many people with real public credibility will be pushing against DRM. Maybe Google can help?

Re:The real question

[dzfoo]

>> That's it. The GPL grants you the further rights to take that modified code and change it any way you like. But it does not grant you the right to install that modified software back on that same machine.

It might not grant you that right expressly, we have discovered, but this was always the intention of the GPL: to allow you access to execute your modified version.

(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)

So in essence, some hardware manufacturers have discovered a loophole. And so the GPL is been modified to compensate for this.

This means that if TiVo, Cisco, Sony, Apple, or any hardware manufacturer wants to lock their boxes up with DRM that prevents anybody from modifying their code, fine, they are within their rights -- as long as they write their own software, from scratch, or license or buy it from a third party who accepts such terms. They will not be able to use GPLv3'd software for this.

>> The answer is purely economic -- don't buy a trusted platform based machine. Don't buy an OS that supports trusted platforms (Vista.) Don't allow friends, families or your business to buy trusted platform machines. If you're in a position to purchase hardware, get "no hardware enforcement of digital signatures" written as a requirement into your RFQs.

But why is the onus on the user or developer -- possibly even the guy who originally licensed the software? Consider reversing the roles in your statement: The answer, to hardware manufacturers, is purely economic -- write your own code, or if you must use software licensed under the GPLv3 (because you are lazy, because it is easier, because it is better, because it offers faster time to market, etc.), do not impose DRM on the users of your product.

This sounds pretty radical, but it is just as radical as saying that you can only use GPLv2'd software in your commercial applications if you distribute your software under the GPL license. The user/distributor of the GPL'd software has a right to do virtually *anything* he wants with it -- except limiting the rights of those who use his derivative work. This, according to the GPLv3, includes hardware manufacturers.

The bottom line is that nobody has a God-given right to use software that is not their own -- not developers, not hardware manufacturers, not users. And those who use licensed software, must abide by the license's stipulations, or not use such software at all. This goes the same for open source licenses like the GPL, as for potentially more restrictive ones like, say, Microsoft's.

    -dZ.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not secure the boot path as most people seem to assume, that is simply not practical.

It doesn't have to, since that's what the forthcoming TPM hardware and BIOSes will do. Palladium/Vista just extends the "trust" and DRM up into the operating system, and into applications. BTW: Linux distributors like Red Hat are *already* (quietly) working on Microsoft secure audio path-style kernels, which require lock-down and signing to work.

Re:The real question

[dusik]

Hey! Stop telling me to work on my own problems! You don't have a right to do that! ;)

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to be clear then, you are in favor of the following scenario right?:

You (and a couple friends?) put in about 1000 hours creating some awesome firewall software that does things no commercial software does. A hardware vendor picks it up, makes changes, generates a signature and burns keys into their firewall appliance. Without keys you can't interact with the hardware. Without keys, even though you have the modified code, you can't use the changes they made.

The vendor now benefits considerably from your programming work, however, you are not allowed to reap the benefits that you expected to when you released your code as GPL code. You don't even have the option of improving the software or fixing bugs on that vendor's hardware even if you bought it and have the ability to modify the firmware.

The vendor continues making improvements to your code, but again, the majority of them are useless without the right keys. Eventually the vendor is making $2-4B dollars a year using software that is 98% your work yet you don't get to enjoy any of the benefits of modifications to the code you wrote.

Does that just about sum up the position you are supporting?

Re:The real question

[AJWM]

This reminds me of a story from the British reign in India, when the Brits were trying to put a stop to the local practise of suttee, burning a widow on her husband's funeral pyre.

Some locals complained that this was part of a deeply held religious belief and long tradition, and the Brits had no right to interfere.

"Not at all", the local governor said. "You believe that it is alright to burn a woman on her husbands funeral pyre. Very well. It is our belief that anyone who tries to burn a woman alive should be hung from the neck until dead. You follow your beliefs, and we'll follow ours."

Re:The real question

[dusik]

Any such society, of course, won't last very long :)

I think "survival as a group" must be a big factor in which values we end up with as a society, just based on the we-are-still-here principle.

Re:The real question

[oakgrove]

If a hardware manufacturer makes some device and it just so happens the software he wants to run on it is licensed under the GPL, the manufacturer, if he chooses to use it, has no choice but to re-release any changes he makes to it to his customers also under the GPL.

Legally, he doesn't have any choice in the matter. So, its not really an issue of worrying about it when it comes time to redistribute the code but when you are deciding upon what code to use in the first place.

Re:The real question

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

The manufacturer has every right to try to make it tough for you to change the software. He can embed the chips in epoxy. He can put tripwires inside the chip cases that will erase the chips if the case is broken. He can even add another epoxied-shut crypto chip that verifies the signature of the ROM chip.

He can even have you convicted of a felony, put in jail for 5 years, and/or fined up to a half million dollars. (BTW, it is likely that as a term of probation or parole that you be prohibited from using computers - this is quite standard in "hacking" cases.)

He has that right "legally" (the DMCA is unconstitutional - but that doesn't help you if the courts ignore that fact), but do you think he has THAT right morally/ethically?!?

Being able to get the government after you is far more dangerous and evil than putting epoxy on a chip, etc.

Re:The real question

[rjstanford]

So in essence, some hardware manufacturers have discovered a loophole. And so the GPL is been modified to compensate for this.

Well, what if someone makes a piece of hardware that runs on GPLed software, and has that software burnt into write-once memory? Admittedly, most people prefer to be able to reflash their firmware, but what if for reasons of budget, simplicity, et cetera, they decided not to? That would potentially include a lot of low-end devices.

Even with GPLv3 there's no guarantee that modifications you make to the software that comes with your device will run on that particular device. What it does guarantee (although so does GPLv2) is that you can take their code, modify it (or not), and use it in your own device, selling it as a competitor if you so choose. But nothing in v3 supports this any more than v2 did.

Re:The real question

[mpcooke3]

The answer is purely economic -- don't buy a trusted platform based machine. Don't buy an OS that supports trusted platforms (Vista.) Don't allow friends, families or your business to buy trusted platform machines. If you're in a position to purchase hardware, get "no hardware enforcement of digital signatures" written as a requirement into your RFQs.

For every 1 person like you there are 100 people like my mum.

You try and explain to my mum that she can't buy any of the PCs in the shop because it's important she buys a system that won't play "normal" music and videos.

Re:The real question

[dzfoo]

>> Well, what if someone makes a piece of hardware that runs on GPLed software, and has that software burnt into write-once memory? Admittedly, most people prefer to be able to reflash their firmware, but what if for reasons of budget, simplicity, et cetera, they decided not to? That would potentially include a lot of low-end devices.

Good point, but I suppose that the difference would be that you *can* change the code and execute it -- albeit with difficulty (say, by changing the chip) -- and you are not legally restricted, which is the problem with DRM: its not that it is hard or difficult or virtually impossible to run modified code, is that if you circumvent the DRM they'll throw the DMCA book on you.

    -dZ.

Re:The real question

[Dare nMc]

technicalities, that don't really change your point:

> He can even have you convicted of a felony,

a) Not unless the manufacturer happens to be a District Attorney, or similar. He can only ask that you be investigated, and provide information on what he thinks you did wrong.
b) not if you own the machine, did the work yourself, and didn't tell anyone how you did it, and don't try to make a profit fron that circumvention in any way.
(DMCA anyway allows individuals to hack away all they want, for research, etc.)

Re:The real question

[angulion]

Isn't this *exactly* what GPLv3 do for you?

You can refuse to do buissnes & associate with companies using DRM by *choosing* GPLv3.
If you do not care about DRM, you can choose GPLv2, like Linus (for the kernel).

Re:The real question

[baadger]

4) original author of signed/DRM'd driver sees said fixed version
5) original author ports your fixes to original release and gives you credit
6) original author signs/DRM's new driver
7) original author releases new code

The GPL is not incompatible with this scenario at all. Signed drivers is the only way to get a stamp of approvable by someone offering you warranty for a product. If you buy a piece of hardware that comes with a signed Windows driver and your machine meets all the apparent requirements and yet it doesn't work, you're entitled to a refund (IMO). On the other hand, if you've meddled with the driver, then perhaps not.

The problem of course is when you can't use unsigned drivers if you accept the risks and losses.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see a problem. You talk about hardware which you are not allowed to modify, that's it. If you want hardware where you can run any kind of code, buy such hardware. But don't expect it from hardware which is explicitely crippled when you have been aware of that dirty trick when bying it. Your argument makes as much sense as those from crackers, downloading a shareware tool and justfying the crack creation with: I downloaded it so it my natural right to use it like I want.

Re:The real question

[Dare nMc]

>The vendor continues making improvements to your code, but again, the majority of them are useless without the right keys. Eventually the vendor is making $2-4B dollars a year using software that is 98% your work yet you don't get to enjoy any of the benefits of modifications to the code you wrote.

I see no complaints/difference GPL 2-3 in your post, the last step I would dislike greatly:
when he locks the software so tight into hardware, that no one can verify GPL compliance. so that he can add spyware hooks/whatever into your code, and claim that this product is better than a competitor because it is open source quality (whatever that means).

then with DMCA, if you do hack through his protections, and find the offending assembly bits, you cant expose them, without tripping over the DMCA.

Re:The real question

[Just Some Guy]

Just because you wrote it doesn't mean the manufacturer has to give you provisions to alter it on their machine.

You misspelled "your", as in "my machine that I bought and paid for".

Your argument seems to be, then, that the hardware manufacturers have the right to use my software as a selling point for their devices, then restrict my ability to use my own software as I see fit. To be honest, any manufacturer that avoids GPLv3ed software because it wouldn't allow them to do that is a hopeless sociopath that we're better off without.

Look at how well Linux has done in embedded devices (the slug as well as many other Linksys appliances.)

Exactly. They made the WRT54G an open system, with the exception of some device drivers that they probably couldn't legally release, and it's sold them hundreds of thousands of units. They are a prime example of a company who understands that openness translates directly into sales, and I congratulate them for it.

Re:The real question

[lp-habu]

Certainly, but don't complain that you are left out. You are doing it by choice.

Re:The real question

[Turo T Lamminen]

And when the corporation that makes the product has discontinued it or gone out of business and can no longer sign binaries, how exactly are you going to do that?

Re:The real question

[Turo T Lamminen]

What about manufacturers colluding not to produce modifiable hardware? Sure, someone might still make it but without volume it's going to be expensive. Or if the government makes modifiable hardware illegal? Remember, the **AA and MS are lobbying for exactly that.

Re:The real question

[B'Trey]

If you want to change it, you are likewise free to break out the soldering iron and figure it out for yourself.

No, you're not. Not if you live in the US, anyway. Doing so is illegal under the DMCA. You can go to jail for breaking out your soldering iron or your data probe or your debugger on hardware that you purchased and own.

That's why some people feel that GPL 3 restrictions forbidding the code to be run on such hardware is appropriate.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes, because everyone today still wants to use a Voodoo 3 card or dot matrix printer, right? Buy new hardware you cheap ass. You're like a damn woman holding onto more shit from over 20 years ago, as if reliving some fond memory from a dusty piece of green fab...

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

Torvalds sees openness as a tool, not as an end.

Torvalds is wrong.

Re:The real question

[Pantero Blanco]

"Yes. Society may collectively decide that as a whole they agree with your morality in this instance and legislate it, but for you to impose your wishes upon others simply because they are yours is exactly what the parent post was referring to."

So, a German in WWII that tried to help Jews avoid their completely "legal" extermination (their society collectively agreed on it!) would be wrong for trying to impose his don't-kill-Jews morality on other Germans?

I, for one, don't worship "democracy". If the government decides that something wrong is right, or that something right is wrong, and I can't fix it through the democratic process, I'm more than willing to "impose my views" on the majority. I'd probably go through a reasoning process to determine my method of imposing those views and how much I'm willing to risk over the issue (eg, I'm not going to die so that someone can smoke weed, but I'd risk my life to prevent something like the Holocaust).

Re:The real question

[Turn-X Alphonse]

This is no different than if that manufacturer took your GPLed code and burned into a ROM or blew it onto an FPGA and then soldered it into the router. Just because you wrote it doesn't mean the manufacturer has to give you provisions to alter it on their machine.

I bought it, I paid for it with my own money so I own it. If I wish to rip it apart or change what the function is, then it's MY choice and I'll be damned if a company will tell me other wise. It's like saying Intel must pick what OS I use and anything else is against the rules.

Re:The real question

[lhand]

GPL has never been designed to be a business friendly licence.

You say that like it's true. It isn't.
GPL is very business friendly. It is not so much software business friendly, but were I a manufacturing plant operator, I'd like to be able to improve and share the software that runs my business. If my associates agree to do the same we can get something that's better for all of us. It's like sharing better steel formulations to build bigger rooms with which to do our work, which is not making better steel. We all benefit.

Re:The real question

[10101001 10101001]

The GPL grants you the further rights to take that modified code and change it any way you like. But it does not grant you the right to install that modified software back on that same machine.

Well, no. You clearly don't understand the GPL. The GPL is wholly a distribution license. This is because copyright is fundamentally a distribution regulation law (excluding performances, which are hard to extrapolate to software); the GPL never included a provision for use because of this and this fact is even clearly spelled out in the GPL; it's also the reason that the GPL almost certain is legally binding but EULAs probably are not. The fact is, once you gain any software, you have a fundamental right to use, modify, etc your copy. This was tested by book publishers by in the early 20th century and set the foundation of "First Sale Doctrine". While many only remember how such stated a right to resale of a copy of a work, what was also established was a right to use the software.

This, then, isn't a privilege and no act of gov't can revoke it. Disregarding that, the US Government has set up the DMCA which clearly allows a person to violate this right by making it illegal to circumvent a protection to use a product. So, the GPL v3 has clearly spelled out further protections to compensate for this because relying on the current law to non-circumvent rights is apparently too much to ask of modern governments. The only real problem, then, is that people will still be sued under the DMCA for "finding out" that someone stole code, since one has to first establish they've violated copyright to prove that the original author's license prevented the DRM from being legal in the first place. Overall, DRM complicated the situation when it comes to pointing out when people steal code. Perhaps the real reason for TCPA, then, is to allow for proprietary companies to fraudulently copy from each other (and open source) without anyone being able to tell.

Re:The real question

[vandon]

Ah, yes, because everyone today still wants to use a Voodoo 3 card or dot matrix printer, right?

That's exactly right. Why do I need to buy a brand new $600 video card when my old Voodoo3 card works great in my Gentoo box. I've also seen many businesses that still use dot matrix printers to print on tri-copy carbon paper forms.

Re:The real question

[TheCrazyFinn]

Incorrect. Without Keys you can't use their changes ON THEIR PLATFORM. Nothing is stopping you from using those changes on a different platform.

Re:The real question

[spuzzzzzzz]

GPL has never been designed to be a business friendly licence.

GPL is very business friendly.

(emphasis mine)

You didn't address the parent's point -- that GPL was made to protect the freedoms of users, not to help businesses make profits. It's a useful side effect that some businesses benefit from the same freedoms that users do, but that isn't the point. If there were an essential freedom (like lack of DRM, in the FSF's opinion) which would be bad for business then you can be sure that the FSF will protect that freedom in their new license.

Re:The real question

[Knuckles]

excluding performances, which are hard to extrapolate to software

Ha! A solution to the old problem of running GPL'd code as a network service on a public server! :)

Re:The real question

[Rick BigNail]

Like killing abortion doctor?

Not that I disagree, but you have to willing to draw that conclusion.

Re:The real question

[slashname3]

I can see one of the following outcomes of this GPL3 fight.

Because of the DRM restrictions companies opt not to use GPLed code of any type and systems which use DRM to lock the code that can run become the mainstream platforms available. GPLed systems are dumped by companies since they won't be able to get hardware that meets RFP requirements.

Or, hardware companies never implement DRM in hardware allowing use of any GPL version of software with most developers opting for version 2 GPL.

Or an alternative to GPL licensing becomes prevalent such as BSD licensing or another license similar to GPL but without the DRM clauses.

Microsoft is hoping the first option is reality since they would end up being the primary OS permitted to run on most hardware with a lock in that would be impossible to break.

Personally I hope the third option arises with a new licensing option that gets back to the original free software concepts. Then we just need the license holders to dual license past work under the new option.

Re:The real question

[wakejagr]

4) original author of signed/DRM'd driver sees said fixed version
5) original author ports your fixes to original release and gives you credit
6) original author signs/DRM's new driver
7) original author releases new code

The problem with this is that it isn't really open. In function, this is no different from the source code not being available, because you have to rely on the company to enact the changes. Your four steps are a good way to work within a less-than-ideal system: it's a compromise. The problem of course is when you can't use unsigned drivers if you accept the risks and losses - ok, I guess we agree in the end.

Torvalds has a good point that DRM really deals with content, and people should release content under some sort of creative commons license that prohibits DRMing the content. I agree that this is a good idea, but I think being able to prohibit code from being used in DRM set-ups is a valid option.

Re:The real question

[Just Some Guy]

Oh, you forgot:

3.5) original author releases Happy Open Device 2000 and abandons Happy Open Device 1000 to the scrapheap of obsolete hardware

If they're so antisocial that they won't even allow you to fix the hardware you own, what makes you think they'll suddenly be warm and fuzzy and give you free patches to download?

Honestly, people. How many times do we have to learn this lesson before it sticks?

Re:The real question

[mewphobia]

4) original author of signed/DRM'd driver sees said fixed version
5) original author ports your fixes to original release and gives you credit
6) original author signs/DRM's new driver
7) original author releases new code

There are a few problems with this scenario. Firstly, how do you test your driver to see that it actually works? Maintenance is the largest part of the software lifecycle.

Suddenly, the burnden is on the manufacturer to test your patches. Or at least sign all your test releases. Most manifacturers don't care. Driver writing pays big money, they can't afford to pay someone to go through your code. And even if the manifacturer is good to you, how long will they support their products? 5 years? What then? Expect them to release the key?

I'm not saying I have the solution, and I somewhat agree with Linus's stance - a hardware version of tripwire is a good thing for security. What I am saying is that you can't rely on developers of hardware to work with you. I can really see vendors using this as an advantage by having a no patch policy and telling you to buy the upgraded model for $4000 more.

Re:The real question

[rjstanford]

Good point, but I suppose that the difference would be that you *can* change the code and execute it -- albeit with difficulty (say, by changing the chip) -- and you are not legally restricted, which is the problem with DRM: its not that it is hard or difficult or virtually impossible to run modified code, is that if you circumvent the DRM they'll throw the DMCA book on you.

But that's (technically) not the fault of the DRM. After all, if you were willing to desolder/replace the chip in the first case, why not allow that in the second case? Or better yet, just run the GPL software on some different machine... after all, if I develop software on my machine and put it out on my FTP site, you don't have permission to download it, modify it, then upload it and run it on my server...

Its a tough little mental problem. Then again, that's what makes it an interesting edge case.

Re:The real question

[mrchaotica]

But that doesn't mean the manufacturer has to give you a way to install the changed code.

Right, and since he refuses to play nice, we'll simply refuse to let him use the code in the first place by licensing it with GPL v.3!

THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT!

Re:The real question

[mrchaotica]

Read-only memory is not the same thing as encryption and remote attestation, which actively prevents you from installing the code.

It's like the difference between letting someone drown because you lack the means to help, and giving him cement shoes, tying his hands behind his back, and pushing him into the deep water.

Read-only memory is only an unfortunate circumstance; DRM and Treacherous Computing is malicious!

Re:The real question

[jonwil]

In the other case, it is probobly possible to build a new rom file (using the GPL'd code), unsolder the existing rom and replace it with a new one.

But with trusted computing, you cant replace the code at all without the key you dont have.

Re:The real question

[CherniyVolk]

[AC Wrote]
    1) buggy GPL'ed driver
    2) you fix the driver
    3) oops, you can't actually install your fixed driver

    Now do you see the problem?

[baadger tried to counter]
    4) original author of signed/DRM'd driver sees said fixed version
    5) original author ports your fixes to original release and gives you credit
    6) original author signs/DRM's new driver
    7) original author releases new code

    The GPL is not incompatible with this scenario at all.

baadger, don't be so naive. The step AC assumed you'd understand is that he had to debug his fix. If you can't execute the code then there is no debugging. So, your step four will NEVER be acheived, becuase a "fix" will not be "known to work". The quality of the Open Source software will take a hit, becuase the "author" would be burdened with overly required to verify integrity instead of delegation and end-user appeal. I point to Rob Malda's age old patch for AfterStep 1.x that allowed for pixmaps to be displayed in the root menu. It was a good, noticable, while before AfterStep released their own version that did this natively. It was common convention for AfterStep users to download Rob Malda's patch at the same time they were downloading AfterStep.

In your world where it's assumed that one person on the AfterStep team had the ability to sign the keys, this scenerio wouldn't have been possible.

If it's possible... I think the best way for the Open Source Community to fight DRM hardware is to make it as transparent as possible from the end-user to the developer. Key tables if need be referenced by GCC... anything. I don't even want to know if my laptop has DRM hardware in it. I change, modify code as I wish, recompile and it works. Somewhere in the process, GCC just automatically signs it, or the kernel takes no concern of key requirements to execute logic, but only takes concern when initiating the DRM'd hardware. There's always a way... always. I don't want to have to ask for a key, I don't want to see it.

Re:The real question

[rtb61]

To reach a bit further with that idea, DRM restrictions on the operating system, which restrict it's effective universal application are a bad idea. While DRM restriction on an open source media player GPL licence are appropriate. The same idea can be extended to any open source software used to access media.

No one is going to incorporate DRM in the Linux kernel, as they have to supply the full details and everybody will just replace it with a non DRM kernal (if you are going to install some additional harwdare to prevent that, then you might as well have all the DRM in that bit of hardware).

Microsoft's delusion of being able to control everybodies computer all of the time and being paid a licence fee for every bit of hardware, software or even media that goes into any computer, well the genitals of microsoft should just stop playing with themslves. But that thought has lodged to deeply in the mind open source software supporters, that future history has already been eliminated. We just need to work through todays current problems and not get to lost in solving possible problems tommorrow.

The DMCA is bad and more should be done to tackle that bad law directly rather than futz about on the edges of it. Technically speaking all existing trade secrets are even worse and should no longer be recognised, imagine companies being able to keep secrets about the products they sell to consumers, so they can no longer make an educated choice.

Re:The real question

[ralatalo]

no!. GPL restricts your abilility to add restrictions... and restricting their ability to modify the code is certainly one of the resticted restrictions. So... the person wrapping the GPL source in DRM would be violating the GPL if they were required to give you the source under the GPL.

Re:The real question

[masdog]

Unfortunately, every manufacturer will support the TCPM in the near future, if they don't already. So unless you want to be stuck with old machines that will be hard to maintain, you'll have to upgrade at some point. Computers don't run forever, and if you don't have replacement parts available, you can't keep them running.

Its possible that with TCPM, homebrewed operating systems, including customized versions of the *nixes, will not be allowed to boot. This seriously undermines my PURCHASE of the hardware. I doubt this provision of the DCMA will hold up on a purchased (but not licensed) item, and here is to hoping that someone challenges it soon.

Re:The real question

[SleepyHappyDoc]

Alternately:
(4) Original author MIA since silly flame war on irc
(5) No one else has the ability to sign the driver, and original author has taken his marbles home.
(6) ???
(7) No profit. :(

Seriously, an oligarchy usn't the same as a democracy, or even a meritocracy.

Re:The real question

[kz45]

The vendor continues making improvements to your code, but again, the majority of them are useless without the right keys. Eventually the vendor is making $2-4B dollars a year using software that is 98% your work yet you don't get to enjoy any of the benefits of modifications to the code you wrote.

Does that just about sum up the position you are supporting?


When you release software under the GPL, there is a very high probability that someone will take your code, make money from it, and not release anything back into the community. This is the chance you take.

When I first heard about the GPL, I thought it was a good idea. A community of programmers working together to create applications. It seems like it has turned into a way to trap corporations and businesses into having to release their source code.

I don't know why any company in their right mind would want to use software licensed under the GPL in their products. It forces you to give your product to your competition on a silver platter. I think as FSF decides to sue more and more companies for violations, there will be an even greater resistance to free software in the business world. It's starting to become more of a liability than anything else. Businesses don't care about the spread of free source code. They care about their bottom line, which is greatly improved if work that otherwise would cost a large amount of money hours has a $0 price tag.

As a software developer, I don't care if a corporation uses my GPLd code in their apps without re-releasing it. It's still free in my mind.

The vendor continues making improvements to your code, but again, the majority of them are useless without the right keys. Eventually the vendor is making $2-4B dollars a year using software that is 98% your work yet you don't get to enjoy any of the benefits of modifications to the code you wrote.

it sounds now like you would be bitter that someone else is making money from your code.

Think of DRM as a dictatorship and the GNU as communism. As both start to get closer to their true selves, they both become just as restrictive. The GPLV3 is starting to show this.

Re:The real question

[dzfoo]

>> Read-only memory is only an unfortunate circumstance; DRM and Treacherous Computing is malicious!

But that is my point! Its one thing to not be able to execute a modified version because of technical, economical, or physical limitations, and it is anothing thing to actively prevent this from occuring and wrap all sorts of legal sanctions around it. _That_ is the difference between writing on write-once/read-only memory and DRM, and the loophole that the GPLv3 is trying to cover.

This *intent* to limit the rights of users of your derivative work runs contrary to the spirit of the GPL.

        -dZ.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

Righteous.

"We"

[truthsearch]

By "we" is he referring to kernel developers? Because we all know RMS is a crusader trying to press his beliefs onto others. I think the creators of the GPL are trying to be much more influencial than Linus ever was. Linus mostly wants a great OS and community of developers. RMS wants complete reform (or removal) of IP laws. Different goals will get different reactions, and here's where they start to clash.

Re:"We"

[RingDev]

His quotes in TFA sound as if he's not against IP law reform/removall, so much as he is against the way they are doing it.

You don't strong arm the postal carrier when your neighbor puts up a fence. Why should software developers be strong armed over content providers decisions. If you want to fight DRM's, fight the people who are creating them, fight the people who distribute them, don't fight the people who are trying to make your software more effective.

-Rick

Re:"We"

[dzfoo]

>> If you want to fight DRM's, fight the people who are creating them, fight the people who distribute them,

and fight the people who are implementing it on their devices.

>> don't fight the people who are trying to make your software more effective.

No, good heavens, of course not. Only those who are locking it up with DRM on their devices, because I will argue that limiting the rights of its users does not make my software more effective.

      -dZ.

Re:"We"

[ConceptJunkie]

Linus is a reformer whereas RMS is a revolutionary?

He's right on the money

[MustardMan]

He hit the nail on the head (can I think of any more cliches?) with that one. The point of opening the source should be to cooperate, not force people to do it your way. Version 2 of the GPL only forces people to not abuse your kindness. If we try to use our licenses to force our beliefs on others, where exactly does it end? With all the backlash in this country towards the religious right trying to legislate their own morality onto everyone else, you'd think the extremely liberal like Stallman would learn a lesson from that and NOT try to force his own sense of right and wrong onto everyone.

Re:He's right on the money

[Anonymous Coward]

NOT try to force his own sense of right and wrong onto everyone.

But N.B. that's exactly what I"P" laws do. I don't believe it's valid to consider information "owned". Ownership of each individual physical copy of an information pattern, sure. But that should be it. Yet people, particularly in the USA, seem to believe it's valid to effectively "own" ALL copies of some information pattern, and that that right should trump even physical property rights, and that you're somehow "stealing" if you, e.g. make your computer perform the same calculation as someone else's computer.

Unlike physical property, information is non-rivalrous: we can both make our computers perfrom the same calculations without interfering, but we can't both have the same physical computer at once. The essential difference is up there with Fermions vs. Bosons. The I"P" gits seem to want something like requiring everyone to pretend Bosons are Fermions. People pushing I"P" are the aggressors and seeking to impose their twisted and hellish morality upon everyone else, we're fighting a desperate defensive action.

Re:He's right on the money

[MustardMan]

The ends don't justify the means. The DRM folks are abusing the legal system and a corrupt government to get their laws pushed through - fight them by getting out the word, getting people to vote, and challenging them in court. Using strong-arm tactics when you're the weak one is both ineffective and foolish. It makes you look no better than the people you're fighting.

Re:He's right on the money

[crawling_chaos]

So you have no problem with the public release of your cell phone records? After all the company maintains a copy of the information pattern, so nothing in reality has been stolen by your definition.

I think we all believe that there is some form of "intellectual" property. The real arguments are over how well the analog to physical property fits, not that it is a total mismatch. Otherwise, your position declares that privacy is also an attempt to pretend that Bosons are Fermions, as "information wants to be free."

Re:He's right on the money

[chowells]

"If we try to use our licenses to force our beliefs on others, where exactly does it end?"

They still have the right to write their own software which is not subject to the GPL v3. Stallmann is not trying to force his own sense of views onto anyone, they are still perfectly capable of writing their own if they don't like the it. And software developers can still licence their software under the GPL v2 if they wish.

Re:He's right on the money

[Caiwyn]

Right on! I think it's fair to say that with GPL3, the open source crowd is stooping to the same tactics that closed-source entities sometimes use to force their will upon end users. Some may see this as fighting fire with fire, but it's the community who gets caught in the crossfire. Restrictions on how the software is used would mean fewer hardware vendors supporting Linux, and as far as end users are concerned, this is no different than Microsoft telling you what you can and can't do with their software. Torvalds is right to resist GPL3 -- it could very well destroy the momentum that the open source movement has built up.

Re:He's right on the money

[fitten]

How about the rights of the content creator? If the content creator ("right" or "wrong", it doesn't matter) wants money from anyone who plays copies of his music, for example, are you saying that he doesn't have that right?

I'd agree 100% with anyone who says that copyrights need to evolve (mostly be a lot shorter in our new digital world) but I don't agree that our digital world should remove the rights of content creators to want to be compensated for their content (for a short time anyway). To me, the best thing to be arguing about is how long that the copyrights should be. I think it should be more than one year but less than five, personally, but I'm not sure where in between.

Just to keep it on base... remember that the GPL (all versions) use copyright law to prevent just anyone from taking the GPLd code and using it however they want (including in closed source products which they then sell). Getting rid of copyrights completely removes any power that the GPL may have and all OSS code is then effectively BSD licensed or it has to become closed source. The same copyright laws that deal with music and copying mp3s is what OSS uses to define GPL. You can't have one and not the other. Which would you rather lose?

Re:He's right on the money

[Goaway]

GPL v2 is already too forceful for me to want to use it. I don't want to force other people to use the same license as me, nor am I interested in forcing them to release their source code. Thus I release things into the public domain, and thus I also can't integrate GPL'd code.

Re:He's right on the money

[Rakishi]

Cell phone records? I want his credit card number, bank account numbers, SS number, name, dob and so on. Maybe even his passport info for good measure.

And since the information is free and cannot be restrained, according to him, I can use all of it any way I want since I now own that copy.

Re:He's right on the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Version 2 of the GPL only forces people to not abuse your kindness.

Companies are starting to build computers that only run binaries "signed" by them... in that sort of world, Free software is meaningless. All the GPL v3 says is that you cannot take GPL v3 code, and force others to only run *signed* binaries of that compiled code. They must have the freedom to modify the code and still run it for the original purpose.

Torvalds is just spouting the bullshit told to him by him paymasters at OSDL -- IBM, HP -- who are all slavering at the prospect of completely locking down computers and ensuring that they control what kernel is run and what it does. With GPL v2... they can do that. Torvalds started out by claiming some nonsense about mot revealing "his" private key... now he's suddenly trying to claim the high ground in a freedom argument by making a free set of nonsensical claims.

Re:He's right on the money

[JohnFluxx]

Stop trolling and spreading FUD. Public domain code can integrate with GPL'ed code as long as you don't try to then put the GPL'ed code in public domain as well. And code which integrates with GPL'ed code only needs to be GPL compatible (public domain is).

Re:He's right on the money

[NichG]

Personally, the main thing I ask out of the GPL and other OSS licenses is simply to prevent others from taking that code and making it illegal for me to distribute it and binaries generated from it (or modifications of it). As long as distribution, reverse engineering, etc aren't illegal, I don't see the GPL as being nearly as necessary as it is today. Actually forcing the person to distribute the source and binary together is an added effect, but it's largely secondary in my eyes to simply keeping actions involving the code and program from being contraband.

DRM essentially threatens the most important part of the GPL (in my eyes that is) without harming the weaker part. Now the binaries can be distributed but you can't run them if you don't have the user-specific key to unlock the DRM around the binaries. On the other hand, if it were legal to circumvent DRM, I hardly think that any such methods would prove practically effective. So I'm game for taking my chances in a world where someone can't use a license to levy legal threat against me using the information I have access to any way I want, even if it means I can't use a license to prevent people from obfuscating that information and making it harder for me to actually use it as I'd like.

Re:He's right on the money

[rufty_tufty]

What if some smartarse comes up with a way to use DRM to make sure the GPL is never violated?

All in favour?

Re:He's right on the money

[dylan_-]

Well, I'm not him, but I would have a problem with the release of my phone records, but not because I own that information (as a matter of fact, I don't). It's because the phone company has then breached our confidentiality agreement. If I told you, as a secret, "John's having an affair, but don't tell anyone", I'd be pissed off if you did tell, and if you'd signed a contract saying you wouldn't I could sue. But if someone else wrote "John's having an affair" on their website, I couldn't claim that I somehow *owned* that information and there would be nothing I could do about it.

This is why I don't like the phrase "Intellectual Property" as it groups together very different things. I support the idea of abolishing copyrights and patents, but I think Trademarks are a good idea.

Re:He's right on the money

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we all believe that there is some form of "intellectual" property.

Nope. Huge swathes of the law AREN'T property law. It's entirely possible for laws not to be expressed in terms of "property" and "ownership", no matter what GWB would have you believe.

Anyway, no, there is no problem with the public release of my cell phone records, unless the company had contracted with me to keep them secret (contract law, for example, is not property law. I'm not against contracts stating secrecy is required.).

Nor is there intrinsically any problem with the world knowing my credit card number: the fact the authentication system for credit cards is clearly misdesigned is no reason for the law to be perverted to allow it to work.

Nor does freedom of information mean that I am _required_ to _disclose_ information to you. I support physical property rights over individual copies of information: the only way for you to get a copy of information from a truly private, secret copy I held would be to violate my physical property rights.

Freedom of information includes the freedom not to reveal information.

Re:He's right on the money

[dylan_-]

Cell phone records? I want his credit card number, bank account numbers, SS number, name, dob and so on. Maybe even his passport info for good measure.

Get your computer to generate all the numbers from 0 to 10000000000000000000000 dumping them to a file (actually, *don't*, but theoretically). There you go: you now have my phone number, my mobile number, my credit card and account numbers, and my ip address in decimal. Do what you like with them....or are you going to claim I own bits of that file? That you've just breached my copyright?

And since the information is free and cannot be restrained, according to him, I can use all of it any way I want since I now own that copy.

No, you can use it any *legal* way you want. If you happened to find out that entering my phone number in your bank's security system disabled all their security, and you steal all their money, you'll find that the judge won't find "but it's his phone number! He gave it to me!" a convincing excuse.

As for the other guy's SS number, bank accounts, etc...you do realise it's not illegal for you to be in possession of that information, don't you? Of course, if you were to use that information to pretend to *be* him....well....I suggest you consult a lawyer about that first...

Re:He's right on the money

[geminidomino]

I find your lack of reading comprehension disturbing.

GrandParent said: Thus I release things into the public domain, and thus I also can't integrate GPL'd code.

To which you reply: Stop trolling and spreading FUD. Public domain code can integrate with GPL'ed code as long as you don't try to then put the GPL'ed code in public domain as well.

Since he intends to release into the public domain, he can't use GPLed code, which is what he said. He didn't say anything about people then putting his PD code into their GPL projects since, from what he said, one can assume he WANTS them to be able to do so, as well as being able to use his code in BSD, PAL, or proprietary projects, which is why he releases under public domain in the first place.

Where is the trolling and FUD?

Re:He's right on the money

[Mateo_LeFou]

I'm trying to find my feet in this argument but

Companies are starting to build computers that only run binaries "signed" by them... in that sort of world, Free software is meaningless.

Isn't Linus saying that our beef is with the computer-builders? We need to just not buy those damn things. I was just-about persuaded by his Red Hat example. The software works; if you want the option, you can require signed binaries, as a way of being assured that the software is & remains the same as what RedHat provides/supports. For that you'd need DRMy hardware that could do this...

if you want freer hardware, this option isn't available. Isn't Linus saying most people should decline this option? Make the DRMy hardware very unpopular?

the fun and ugly thing is going to be when Vista forces 90% of users to buy DRMy hardware, if I understand correctly.

Re:He's right on the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't Linus saying that our beef is with the computer-builders? We need to just not buy those damn things. I was just-about persuaded by his Red Hat example. The software works; if you want the option, you can require signed binaries, as a way of being assured that the software is & remains the same as what RedHat provides/supports. For that you'd need DRMy hardware that could do this...

The GPL v3 doesn't take any position on whether hardware DRM (aka Trusted Computing, TCPA etc) is in the machine (aka, the hardware builders). It just says that *if* the GPL v3 software is signed any part of its use is dependent on a code key, that key must be made available. Torvalds doesn't seem to grasp this.

As someone else put this earlier: Stallman started his drive for Free software when he couldn't fix a printer driver. If you have the source for the driver, you can fix it. In a hardware DRM world, you can have the source but it still won't work because you can't digitally sign the binary and the hardware won't run it... or at least, if it does run it, it won't work as it did because it will no longer be a "trusted" application. It's stopped being Free software, and the person who controls the keys has taken ownership of it. For example: suppose Dell ships a trusted machine running *their* signed Linux kernel. It is now proprietary in every way... the signing and enforcement of signatures does an end run around the GPL v2.

The kernel on the machine plays a vital role in this, since it the piece of software that brokers access to the hardware. Along with the BIOS, getting the Linux kernel onside against computer systems that lock the computer against you (without the key for the hardware you have paid for) is critical. If you believe that the GPL's original aims of ensuring that the kernel always remains open are right, then the GPL v3's requirement to make sure you have the necessary information to recreate the app and still have it work are no different. Either Torvalds doesn't understand this (he's a smart guy... so it's possible he just hasn't thought it through)... or he's just saying what IBM and the other companies paying his wages at OSDL want him to say. Without a GPL v3 license, the Linux kernel is just theirs for the taking when TCPA is widespread.

Re:He's right on the money

[m50d]

Version 2 of the GPL only forces people to not abuse your kindness.

V3 does exactly the same thing. It's just applying it to people who put your code in their hardware as well as people who put your code in their software.

Re:He's right on the money

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Why do you have a right to impose a confidentiality agreement on that information, though? You don't own it -- you've said so yourself. It belongs to the "community". The instant you start talking about information you don't want to share, you need to ask if other entities might also have information which they legitimately don't want to share. If they do, then you have to ask if they have any rights to enforce those desires.

Re:He's right on the money

[YU Nicks NE Way]

No, you don't get it. Red Hat wants to be able to guarantee that you are actually running what you think you're running when you boot your system. You may think that there are no root kits for Linux, but, if you do, then you're wrong -- and the only way to protect a system against that is to implement a TCM at some level or another.

Re:He's right on the money

[honkycat]

You first say

Actually forcing the person to distribute the source and binary together is an added effect, but it's largely secondary in my eyes [...]

and then go on to say

DRM essentially threatens the most important part of the GPL (in my eyes that is) without harming the weaker part. Now the binaries can be distributed but you can't run them if you don't have the user-specific key to unlock the DRM around the binaries.

The source code provisions of the GPL (the part you see as secondary) prevent the problem you raise in your second paragraph. If I have the source code to an application or driver, it doesn't matter whether the binaries are distributable -- I'm free to build my own version. If that version won't run on my processor (because it's got DRM built in), then I've got the source and I can build it for an unhindered processor.

Re:He's right on the money

[Chandon Seldon]

Nondisclosure agreements have nothing to do with rights. They are a contract protecting a secret. If there were no copyright laws, movie companies could implement a policy where you needed to enter into a nondisclosure agreement to buy or rent their movies. You'd need to actually sign a physical contract for each movie, probably with a witness - if this process weren't really blatant, the contracts would probably be unenforcable.

All such a contract would be able to specify would be a liability for the person signing the contract, "If you disclose a copy of this movie you will pay $10,000" or whatever. If anyone ever got a copy of the movie without signing the contract, even if it was due to someone else breaking their contract, they could distribute it all they wanted - the secret would be out.

Re:He's right on the money

[Chandon Seldon]

Close, but not quite.

If I write a program that uses GNU Readline (A GPLed library), I can release the source of my program to the public domain. I can also release a binary version of my program - but to do that I must release full source code under the GPL.

Here's the trick: I can release my program under the GPL, and note at the same time that I'm releasing it into the public domain. That doesn't make GNU Readline any less GPLed, but it does mean that anyone who choses to use my code can use it as if it were public domain as long as they continue to obey the License of GNU readline (i.e. any derivitive work of my code that still uses GNU Readline must be offered under the GPL in addition to any other GPL compatible distribution terms such as public domain or the modern BSD license).

Re:He's right on the money

[khallow]

And we can always reverse engineer GPL v3 code. Seems a waste of effort though.

Re:He's right on the money

[James_Aguilar]

All laws force someone's sense of right and wrong onto other people. It's pointless to talk about trying not to do that -- that is inherently what a law is.

Re:He's right on the money

[JohnFluxx]

You are wrong. You can release all the source code. The readline stuff will be under the GPL, and your code would be public domain. There's no problem.

Re:He's right on the money

[Chandon Seldon]

I'm pretty sure that's what I said.

Re:He's right on the money

[Alsee]

No, you don't get it.

Red Hat wants to be able to guarantee that you are actually running what you think you're running when you boot your system.

Great example! Because that is perfectly compatible with GPL3!

the only thing that is prohibited by the GPL3 is for someone to take *my* code that I placed under the GPL3 and modify it and redistribute it with incomplete source code such that I am denied the right or ability to use my own code and your additions to my code.

The only time this GPL3 issue comes up is if it is impossible for me to take that code and modify it and have it still *work*. It is perfectly fine for my system to notify me that it is modified, or for my to use my own key to certify my own code, but what is *NOT* acceptable is to redistribute code that is impossible to modify, to deny people the right or ability to modify and use.

the only way to protect a system against that is to implement a TCM at some level or another.

TCM? I don't know what that is supposed to be an acronym for, but I assume you are referring to the Trusted Platform Module and/or Trusted Computing.

And while you're right that you need certain capabilities that happen to be included in that, you do *NOT* need the Trusted Computing Groups system, you do *NOT* need a system that is designed as a weapon against the owner of the computer, you do *NOT* need a system designed to be secure against the owner, and most of all your example is perfectly compatible with the GPL3.

Being able to guarantee that you are actually running what you think you're running when you boot your system is not an argument in support of the Trusted Computing Group's malicious anti-owner design, and it is not an argument against the GPL3.

-

Re:He's right on the money

[Alsee]

Isn't Linus saying that our beef is with the computer-builders? We need to just not buy those damn things.

I don't know where Linus' confusion lies, but your suggestion doesn't work. The issue is that someone can utilize the new computers to essentially violate the GPL. They can take someone else's software, and then add all sorts of new new code and new functionality to your code, but they can design it to *only* run on the new anti-owner computers and design it such that it is impossible to modify the code by leaving out a critical part of the source required to compile it - the unique crypto key. It doesn't matter if I "just not buy those damn things", I am still denied the ability to use those new derivatives of my GPLed code.

The fuction of the GPL is that I will allow other people to use my code on the condition that I am ensured an equal legal right and practical ability to use other people's modifications to my code. This is merely closing a loophole by which people might try to keep essential elements of the sourcecode/compilation secret to deny me exactly what the GPL is designed to ensure cannot be denied to me. That I cannot be denied the use of derivatives of my own work.

-

Re:He's right on the money

[NichG]

I realize that and I was attempting to point it out with my second paragraph. My point is that I'm willing to take the risk that I cannot defeat a technological measure over the risk of jailtime or large fines should I succeed or even attempt to do so. From my point of view it's better that information is not restricted by law than that I'm guaranteed the ability to force people to not use my information in a way that restricts my later access to it via technological means.

Re:He's right on the money

[Alsee]

Version 2 of the GPL only forces people to not abuse your kindness.

And no different for the GPL3 draft.

If we try to use our licenses to force our beliefs on others

GPL3 draft is not trying to force anything that was not intended by the original GPL.

One of the new so-called "DRM" clauses simply says that distributed code *does* come with all legal rights required to be able to make modifications. In particular it addresses the right to make such modifications in relation to the DMCA.

The other new so-called "DRM" clause simply says that if you take *my* GPL3 code and create and distribute a derivative, that you must supply the complete code needed for me to compile functional modifications. That you cannot supply incomplete code and deny me the ability to modify and use derivatives of my own work! If your modifications to my code cannot be compiled to a functional state without some specific key, then that key is a part of the source code for compiling that code.

It should be blatantly obvious that under the GPL you must grant people the legal rights for making modifications, and it should be blatantly obvious that under the GPL you cannot distribute incomplete source to prevent people from being able to compile it properly.

It is DRM which is in conflict with the original intent and operation of the GPL. DRM is about denying people the right and ability to make modifications. The notion of doing DRM in GPL software is simply stupid and self contradictory. You can do DRM in GPL3 code, but the GPL explicitly guarantees the right and ability to modify it. You can do DRM in GPL3 code, you simply can't expect DRM to work while granting people the right and ability to modify the code.

-

Re:He's right on the money

[Anonymous Coward]

What if some smartarse comes up with a way to use lobotomies to make sure that speed limits are never violated?

All in favour?

Aside from being nonsensical and impossible to do what you suggest, no. It would still be a rotten idea. I think you'll find very few DRM opponents hypocritical and irrational enough to even pause before rejecting any suggestion of using DRM to try to enforce the GPL.

Re:He's right on the money

[honkycat]

I apparently misunderstood what you were saying, though I'm still not sure I get it. When you refer to "binaries" in your original post, do you mean the binary executable the results from compiling GPL'ed code, to a binary piece of content like a song or video, to both of these, or to something else entirely?

Are you saying that you'd prefer an environment that offers no legal protection to either "side"? In other words, are you advocating the removal of all copyright on software (disarming the GPL software producers) in exchange for the removal of laws that require respect for access controls to content?

Re:He's right on the money

[honkycat]

Under the current GPL, they'd be required to release *all* their source code but not the key that would allow that code to run on the DRM-enforcing CPU. You get all the code, but you may not be able to trivially build it to run on their hardware platform. You're still free to recompile and run it on a DRM-free CPU.

I'm assuming here that the only purpose of the key is to authorize the CPU to execute the code. If it's locking up other functions -- such as access to a library only available on the DRM CPU -- then the source code is not completely available. As long as the issue is only one of getting your code to run on the particular hardware platform, I don't see the problem.

If I ported a piece of GPL software to a platform that is supported only by commercial compilers, should I be forced to divulge the source code to the compiler? Sure, you can't build your own version that runs on the platform without it, but I don't see that as something impeding the freedom of the GPL software.

Re:He's right on the money

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the issue is only one of getting your code to run on the particular hardware platform, I don't see the problem.

You don't see a problem with being not able to run the executable resulting from the GPLed source? Interesting logic... bizarre, but interesting. What exactly do you think the point of the source code is? Print it out, grease yourself up and roll around in it?

The whole reason behind Free software is that you are free to modify it and use it for the original purpose. I suppose the one good thing about this GPL v3 fuss is that it serves to flush out the people who just don't understand the level of control that stuff like TCPA actually represents and possibly educate them before it's too late.

Re:He's right on the money

[NichG]

Since the discussion here is about the GPL then binaries in terms of compiled code is the most in-context case. But I wouldn't mind extending that to any sort of data in any shape or form.

Your second paragraph states my position accurately.

Re:He's right on the money

[honkycat]

Ok -- thanks for clarifying. Now that I understand, I see that your position is coherent.

In fact, I think I generally agree, although perhaps not in detail. I think that copyrights, even for software, are valuable (though the terms of enforcement *must* be reduced to something reasonable). The GPL is a fair license for people who *choose* to release their software freely, but I am not convinced that the laws should be changed to make it effectively mandatory. However, this is a position that I reconsider frequently and I have sympathy for arguments on both sides.

You're absolutely right that laws that criminalize circumvention of DRM are ridiculous. Given the existence of copyrights, violating a copyright should be a crime, but to criminalize activities that simply could contribute is going too far. It might make enforcement more difficult, but I don't see how stifling innovation in the name of profit protection is consistent with the moral foundations of copyright law.

So, I guess I'd like to see the second part of your bargain without the first part, as it hardly seems necessary. I imagine you'd be happy with that arrangement, too.

Re:He's right on the money

[NichG]

Well any progress is progress. Reducing copyrights is a much more achievable short-term goal than eliminating them. The reason I don't like copyrights in general is that it makes certain forms of communication between two parties a crime against a third, even if that third is not explicitly involved in the interaction. Allowing people to control the distribution of what amounts to ideas means allowing people to use the law to ban ideas, restrict ideas, etc. I don't agree that control of one's creation is defensible from a moral perspective (at least from mine...) because it interferes with what to me is a deeper right of free communication.

In the long run I can't see that as being beneficial to the growth of science and the arts, even if it does encourage some people to produce things when they would otherwise not. My background is in academia, and you really do see a lot of research and ideas being produced and then made more or less freely available (journal publication models really need to be revamped, but look at arxiv and citeseer). So I'm not at all convinced that copyright is necessary to promote innovation.

Basically what I hope to see in the coming years is so much 'amateur' but freely available content that commercial production of content which centers around its restriction becomes so unprofitable that those companies go out of business or at least that the market becomes reduced. We've seen it happen partially in the opensource movement - its not really that non OSS companies have gone out of business or lost all their customers or anything that drastic, but on the other hand you can have a fully functioning operating system with most of the supporting software you'd want or need without shelling out a computer tax. You can see it sort of happening with some forms of music (the tracker community is quite active, for instance, but there's not as much quality amateur music with vocal elements from what I've seen). We've seen a few scant examples with video - Star Wreck is the main one that comes to mind.

My main fear is that some of these licenses may go from things which encourage the growth of that community to things as bad as copyright in stifling that growth once the community becomes sufficiently large. Look at some of the license compatibility quarrels in OSS. It prevents good programs from being made because of the legal hurdles, not even necessarily because the authors wanted to prevent that specific usage. When you have projects with a thousand authors, it becomes impossible to go and ask every author 'hey, want to let this other project use our code even though they have an extra attribution requirement and don't require no-encryption?'.

And of course anything like a license will have loopholes and tricks which people can exploit to apply force to others even if its against the original purpose of the license. This isn't so much an issue with standalone programs - the author can put whatever license they want on it. But it is an issue when a choice of license is forced because the author incorporates some external code.

Anyhow, just my thoughts on the whole copyright issue.

Re:He's right on the money

[Alsee]

I'm assuming here that the only purpose of the key is to authorize the CPU to execute the code.

Would the market ever accept PCs that couldn't run unsigned code? Of course not! The people pushing Trusted Computing are not stupid. The Trusted Computing system and the Trusted Computing plan is infinitly more insidious than that.

The idea that the new trusted Computing PCs will not run unsigned code is not only false... it is a very dangerous myth. Technically knowledgable people who believe that particular myth generally ignore the threat of these new DRM PCs because they know the market would never adopt that sort of machine. They don't bother opposing the new system because they assume there is no need to. They mistakenly think that the system cannot succeed.

The new Trusted Computers can run any and all old software. The old stuff still works. That's why people can and will buy the new computers.... there's no reason not to. The new computers can do anything the normal old computers can do.

The issue is that the new computers are "enhanced". They have something extra - an optional DRM mode. If you don't turn on the handcuffs, it's just a plain old computer. However the new software and the new file types and the new websites only work if you turn on the optional handcuff mode.

If code is written to use the new DRM stuff, it won't work on a normal computer. If you try to remove the DRM stuff from the code, it doesn't work any more.

If it's locking up other functions

That's closer... but more precisely it can actually modify the functions preformed by the hardware, and thereby modify the operations preformed by the rest of the code. It becomes a part of the definition of what processing rest of the code preforms on the data. It becomes part of the source to compile and run that source to be able to preform the processing it is supposed to preform on the data it is supposed to process.

Imagine there were a secret key that redefined the "+" symbol so that instead it add the first number plus the second number. 3+4 would then give 11, not 7. Imagine we have a program to read, color-process, and output JPG files. And imaging that secret key is used and that program designed to use that modified "+" operation to load process and output JPG files. The program is designed to read and process JPG files with this 3+4=11 rule. Someone then gives you the source code and leaves out that secret key redefining how "+" operates. So now you try to make some trivial modification to the code and recompile and run it. When your code sees 3+4 it produces 7... the wrong value. Every + insturction now produces the wrong value. The compiled program now incorrectly loads the JPG files and it incorrectly modifies them. Either the program will just plain crash, or it outputs random garbage. The program is incapable of working for its intended purpose.

And it is impossible for you to examine this source and figure out how to write your own code capable of reading and processing JPG files. If a JPG file contains a 3 and a 4 representing the length of some data, there is no way for you to be able to figure out that 3+4 means the data has a length of 11. It is impossible for you to write a program working with a JPG file to increase the length to 13 because it is impossible for you to know you need to output 3 and 5 to the file to set the length to 13.

Of course in reality the problem is vastly harder than that. A smart programmer could probably resolve that simple example fairly quickly. What we are talking about here are processors doing cryptographic transformations.

You're still free to recompile and run it on a DRM-free CPU.

Sure. And what happens when you try to use it? At best it simply outputs random garbage. At worst it chokes and crashes the moment it tries to read the data.

You are being given deliberately incomplete code. You are being given code that deliberately cannot be modifie

Re:He's right on the money

[honkycat]

I agree that trusted computing is an insidious, scary thing.

However, none of this has much to do with the GPL, IMO. If I have the full source code to someone's DRM-enabled software and my CPU can operate in non-DRM mode, I can simply remove the calls to the DRM routines and the software will operate. If it won't, then the call to the CPU DRM rouine is really an external library.

As for re-defining programming languages to obfuscate the meaning of code... Remember that they cannot take away the already free source code that they got via the GPL. All they can do is add to that. If they add an obfuscated JPG decoder to your graphics library and you can't get that to run, you're not any worse off because of that. Further, any piece of their code that is derived from GPL code needs to be shared. If they really just added a line to your code that calls a separate non-derivative library, then I'm not sure what grounds for demanding access to their work the original author has. The GPL v2 explicitly states they're not trying to contest ownership of independently developed code.

But really, your example of redefining "+" is hardly plausible. Something analogous to that could be done with CPU opcodes, sure, but under the GPL the source code must be published. According to v2 of the GPL,

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

This precludes them from taking their source and running it through an obfuscator into some wacky format for a special hacked compiler before they share it. Unless you think all the evil closed source programmers are going to write in a dialect of C with redefined operators. If so, I don't think we'll have to worry about those poor programmers actually developing anything worthwhile enough to want to backport it out of a DRM system.

I know your example was not intended as a real-world system, but I have trouble imagining a system for doing this that would actually work. Remember, it's got to both make it prohibitively difficult for someone who has the source code to reverse engineer and allow authorized users to actually get work done. If you have information about a practical such system, please share.

As for other people writing closed-source software that will only operate on a DRM-enabled CPU, well... what they do with their time and effort is their business. I think it's unfortunate, but it's their choice.

Re:He's right on the money

[Anonymous Coward]

However, none of this has much to do with the GPL, IMO. If I have the full source code to someone's DRM-enabled software and my CPU can operate in non-DRM mode, I can simply remove the calls to the DRM routines and the software will operate. If it won't, then the call to the CPU DRM rouine is really an external library.

But you will no longer have access to your data... because the application is no longer signed and "trusted". It may run, but the hardware can actively prevent it from accessing data which was previously created. Even if the hardware allows it to run at all, your programme is no longer any use. You really need to read up on this stuff before you go any further. Like most people you clearly just don't understand what the hardware represents. Do you really think that people are up in arms about nothing? Trusted Computing is designed to allow every bit of data (be it code, music or word processing documents) in a PC to be owned by someone, and the hardware will enforce access restrictions on it -- applications that have not been code signed, and verified by the owner of the data that they follow the rules will not be allowed access to it.

More specifically, Trusted Computing means that GPL v2 software can be made de facto proprietary with ease. The GPL v3 is written in such a way that ensures any code signatures needed to recreate the full behaviour of the programe must be made available to the person using the software. In other word, Evil Megacorp can't lock you out of your own software and data.

Re:He's right on the money

[Goaway]

So basically, anyone who wants to use my code in a way not compliant with the GPL has to re-implement GNU Readline. So I am essentially still under the GPL, for everyone who doesn't have the resource to go around re-implementing the GPL'd parts on a whim.

This is not what I want. I want people to be able to use my program for anything they want. I don't want to force them to jump through hoops. I want them to use my code, if that's what they want. It would make me happy.

Re:He's right on the money

[Alsee]

I usually keep things at a basic level becuase most people aren't programmers, but you sound like you have the background for a more technical explanation.

One of the things the Trust chip does is take a hash of the software. It can also include any crypto signature or public key in that processing. If you modify so much as a single line of the code it generates a completely different hash. The chip uses the hash and any signature or public key or whatever to generate a crypto key. If you change so much as a single line of the software the chip denies you that crypto key, and instead generates a completely different (and useless) key. Some of the new software commands are to transform data input or data output based on that key. The operation preformed by those commands is based on that key. The operation preformed is based on the exact program with the exact hash, plus any other signature or public key.

I can simply remove the calls to the DRM routines and the software will operate.

By altering the code you alter the hash. by altering the hash you alter the internal crypto key generated by the chip. By altering the that internal key you alter the logic operation preformed by the commands bound to that key. If you alter (or remove) logic operations, the software can no longer preform processing it was designed to do.

If you remove the "DRM calls", assuming the software doesn't crash, the software will only "operate" in that it will do something - in particular it will preform garbage processing. If the original program took a certain file type and adjusted the color levels or something, your modified program would take that same data input and instead output useless scrambled noise. The program will no longer work. With the DRM calls removed those crypto-transformations inside the chip will be removed.

redefining "+" is hardly plausible

That is exactly what is happening, but it's new operations that get dynamically - and secretly - modified and defined inside the chip.

running it through an obfuscator

They aren't doing that. The data gets transformed on reading, the cleartext program runs, and then the data gets transformed on output. It is the logical equivalant of doing a cryptographically powerful transform on the software and running that directly on the file.

You can't get at and analyze that transformation because it is locked inside the chip.

The source code is useless for figuring out how to read, process, or modify that filetype. It is useless for figuring out how to communicate with other software that talks that data type.

Actually it's even more complex and technical than that. I glossed over certain points to put it in terms of a single feature of the new system, just in terms of Sealed Storage. There's also another part of the system called Remote Attestation. Remote Attestation basically means the chip spys on you and tells other people on the internet exactly what hardware and software you have, and it is impossible for you to control or modify that spy report (other than to destroy it), and that internet connections can and will be refused unless you send a spy report and it list "approved" hardware and "acceptable" software. And I don't think even the current version of the GPL3 draft can do squat about that. The software will not work... you will not be able to connect to other machines over the internet... unless you are running the exact unmodifed software with the exact unmodifed hash. The chip makes it impossible to go to a website and claim that you are running the approved unmodified DRM-enforcing software when you are actually running a modified and recompiled program. Either you send no spy report and the connection is refused, or the chip sends a cryptografic spy report with thge modifed hash of your modifed software, and again the connection is refused. The source becomes useless because it will not work.

-

Digital Rapacity Management

[digitaldc]

We are not crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are trying to show others that co-operation and openness works better.

Well this shows what happens when people worship differently.

Linus worships a benevolent God, looking out for the best in a cooperative humankind.
The DRM people worship only one God, the Almighty Dollar.

Re:Digital Rapacity Management

[Zwets]

...and RMS and company worship a vengeful god, who will rain fiery death on the evil proprietary DRMed software.

:-p

Interesting comments

[drsmithy]

'I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are trying to show others that co-operation and openness works better.'

Given the prevailing attitudes towards hardware vendors from a driver development perspective...

Re:Interesting comments

[davFr]

First Torwards did not want to "give his private keys because of GPL v3", which was a completly mislead and misleading interpretation of the GPL v3 DRAFT.

Now Torwards thinks that anyway DRM is not so bad that it seems.

What's next? Will he describe free culture advocates as a "modern-day sort of communists"?! :o)

Both moral and legal rights

[Anonymous Coward]

In the EU at least, a developer is entitled to the full protection of copyright law including the moral right to be identified as the author of his/her work, and the legal right to approve or deny any right of use of his/her software to hardware manufacturers. Torvalds INAL.

We the people

[Anonymous Coward]

have a right to purchase or not purchase. If we don't purchase, then no DRM!
 
Just a thought...
  --AC

Re:Translation

[Mr. Underbridge]

Translation: "I feel that we do not have the muscle - as open source software developers - to force hardware manufactures to bow to our DRM demands. They'll just laugh at us."

Don't put words in his mouth. Linus has never been the crusader that RMS is, and as he says in the article, doesn't want to be either. He claims that he doesn't feel like using software licensing and copyright as a weapon to fight political battles. I don't blame him, either. He seems to have meant precisely what he said. Since Linus isn't much prone to doublespeak or pulling punches, I'm tempted to believe him.

GPL3 is a tipping point for the FSF. If they go that route, they will lose all corporate support, which they think they don't need but in fact very much do. GPL3 goes way too far. So if they want to marginalize themselves...go right ahead.

Re:Open

[boy_of_the_hash]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that there is some inconsistancy between computer security and letting random corporations have total control over your computing enviroment?

There's a diff between leadership & followship

[postbigbang]

Linus' philosophy doesn't bridge the gap between us vs them (coders vs hardware engineers), but it does help content owners deal with their own cesspool of problems.

I applaud his choice; it's not quite an RMS sort of view, but close: let the idiots deal with their issues. We'll let the software do its job.

Fairly simple, eh?

Re:Translation

[ovit]

Translation: "I feel that we do not have the muscle - as open source software developers - to force hardware manufactures to bow to our DRM demands. They'll just laugh at us."

Translation: "I'm a dumbfuck who puts words in peoples mouths."

    td

Re:Speaking of money...

[symbolic]

Money wins much of the time. I don't see this as an issue of forcing anything, but merely ensuring that the playing field remain somewhat hospitable to open source development. I think Linus' view might be appropriate for the process of development, but I think RMS is focused more on the environment in which that development takes place. In effect, Linus is asking that we place a great deal of trust in the commercial sector, trust which I'm tempted to think is entirely misplaced. There have undoubtedly been some shining stars, but these are the exception, not the rule. In essence, open source needs to protect itself against those who insist on playing in a more non-cooperative environment simply because it offers them greater advantage.

I suppose ....

[Lee_in_KC]

... RMS could always go looking for another kernel for his crusade.

Bravo Linus, for showing us that one need not have a GPL tatoo to enjoy the benefits of Linux.

Re:I suppose ....

[david.gilbert]

That might happen. It would be interesting if that substitute kernel turned out to be Solaris.

Re:I suppose ....

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think this is about linux? The GPL is GNU's license.

Torvolds could go find another crusade for his kernel.

Re:I suppose ....

[Mr. Underbridge]

... RMS could always go looking for another kernel for his crusade. Bravo Linus, for showing us that one need not have a GPL tatoo to enjoy the benefits of Linux.

Actually, I've heard that Hurd is shipping soon, bundled with Duke Nukem Forever. And I'll close with a reading from the Gospel according to Linus, 1993:

"If the GNU kernel had been ready last spring, I'd not have bothered to even start my project."

Classic.

Re:I suppose ....

[Urusai]

Hurd may not be ready, but I hear FreeDOS is ready to pick up the slack.

Re:I suppose ....

[Al Dimond]

This is a great comment, and it illustrates something important: RMS and the GNU project have always had revolutionary goals. They created the GPLv2 (I don't know what v1 was like) and it resonated with a lot of people that had all kinds of different goals. The goals have always been different but people haven't had to think about this until now that GPLv3 is trying to more completely express the GNU project's crusade.

It is very likely that the GPLv3 will fail to resonate with a lot of the GPLv2's supporters. It's interesting that Linus, for example, talks about RedHat and trying to create a secure system through signed packages and modules. It does look like the GPLv3 will forbid this type of system. RMS has said that he doesn't care about creating "the best" operating system or a "secure" operating system, just a free one. If RMS "takes all his toys and goes home" by forbidding the new versions of GNU tools to be placed under such a system he might inspire a massive fork of the entire body of GPLv2-licensed GNU tools. Many members of the FOSS community have seemingly already appropriated GNU code and licenses, originally written with Stallmanesque goals, to create the "best" or "most secure" operating system they can. Until this point they've been able to collaborate with the Stallmanites despite this. Maybe they'll have to consciously make their own crusade now, as parent says. That could either be a fun, rousing and productivity-sapping discussion, or just a bunch of people agreeing to put aside their differences and share under GPLv2 or some similar license.

Re:I suppose ....

[WindBourne]

Zero chance of that. Sun is a strong proponent of DRM. In fact, Sun once moved towards open system when business was bad for them. Once business became good, they shutdown the open work that they did. For the last 4 years, business has again been bad for them, so they turned again to opening of the OS code (and whatever code they think does not have the market share). Once business is good again (assuming that it does happen), they will do whatever they can to shut that door again. At this time, Sun is only making sounds about the V3 so as to get sound bytes.

If they really believed in openness, they would open Java. They will not, because they believe that C#, mono are not making inroads against them. By the time they realize that it is not just those 2, but all the scripting languages that are eating at their share, it will be too late.

Re:I suppose ....

[Lee_in_KC]

RMS has said that he doesn't care about creating "the best" operating system or a "secure" operating system, just a free one.

And that's probably why Stallman is making what he makes a year, and Linus is making what he makes. You might as well take the moral high road if you're eating Ramen every night. It makes it all feel more noble.

Re:I suppose ....

[Harry Coin]

Yeah, I'm sure Linus just hates the GPL.

Linus: Even with 20/20 hindsight, I consider the linux copyright to be one of the very best design decisions I ever did ...

I'm so glad that you can enjoy the benefits of Linux without regard for the license that makes it possible without any cognitive dissonance.

Software licensing

[lcam]

Microsoft licenses their software with a license they agree with. Nobody can force them to agree to a license they don't want to agree too. Why should Linus or anyone?

Maybe because they feel that the progress being made is not accessible to them if they don't agree?

DRM seen the way he explains certainly seems simple. I am not up to date on the issue to argue any point.

Re:Translation

[Zwets]

GPL3 goes way too far. So if they want to marginalize themselves...go right ahead.

Marginalize themselves? Why? GPLv2 is still available for those who want it, but others might decide the GPLv3 is for them. Of course, perhaps few projects will adopt GPLv3 because of cross-licensing issues, but that's another story..

Re:If Linus thinks..

[LiquidCoooled]

Because the BSD license is more like public domain.
Once you release something with BSD, anyone is allowed to utilise and build your openly created code into a closed proprietary product.

The GPL is a lets all get together and make it better license. It allows you to stand upon the shoulders of those before you and create a better system whilst keeping that openness for the next generation.

So....

[Anonymous Coward]

...any chance of relicensing Linux under BSDL? :)
</humor>

What's The Big Deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

People seem to forget that, simply because GPL3 is coming out does not mean that GPL2 is going away. GPL2 is permanent! GPL2 Lasts forever. Sure developers can choose to use GPL3 if they want but, the fact that they used GPL2 does not require them to use GPL3.

Linus doesn't like GPL3 in its present state, for good reason. He has stated that he will, for now, stick with GPL2. What's the issue? GPL2 has been good enough for Linux for the past ten years, there's no reason it should have to move to GPL3.

Re:What's The Big Deal?

[TrekCycling]

The big deal is that if GPL3 gets a lot of negative press the decision makers, the pointy haired bosses who you often have to REALLY do a hard sell on the virtues of Linux will read some article in Business Week about how terrible the GPL is, making no distinction between versions. And then once said pointy haired boss finds out that the GPL is "bad" he/she will be less likely to go for it.

Similarly, hardware manufacturers may be concerned that Linux will eventually move to it and see it as risky. So in many ways it's guilt by association.

Finally, I'm curious what this does with all the tools that the FSF maintains. I mean, aren't most of the regular unix userspace tools maintained by them? Wouldn't this license possibly get slapped on those GNU tools?

Re:What's The Big Deal?

[Megane]

Finally, I'm curious what this does with all the tools that the FSF maintains. I mean, aren't most of the regular unix userspace tools maintained by them? Wouldn't this license possibly get slapped on those GNU tools?

The userspace tool and kernel licensing don't interfere with each other. What this means is that, for instance, the HD-DVD organization couldn't create a DRM-aware version of 'cp' or 'tar' with the capability to copy an HD-DVD movie to your hard drive while slapping new DRM on the copy. But since the kernel is GPLv2, they can still write an open-source kernel module which will translate on-the-fly, without having to release the encryption keys it uses.

Re:What's The Big Deal?

[rk]

The versions as they stand now are GPLv2. If that ever became a hairy enough issue for somebody I suppose a non-FSF fork could develop for the software in question, all based on the GPLv2 version. RMS and Co. can't go retroactively changing the license on you.

Re:What's The Big Deal?

[gg3po]

What's The Big Deal?

People seem to forget that, simply because GPL3 is coming out does not mean that GPL2 is going away. GPL2 is permanent! GPL2 Lasts forever. Sure developers can choose to use GPL3 if they want but, the fact that they used GPL2 does not require them to use GPL3.

I think the big deal will be that (if I'm reading things correctly) the GPL2 to GPL3 transition appears to be forward compatible (because of the "or any later version" part), but not backward. If the leaders of a project choose to go with GPL3 with all new releases, you will still be able to fork the old GPL2 version and develop it, but you will have to fork, and you won't be able to accept any patches from the official GPL3 version, because it will have additional restrictions which GPL2 prohibits. This could create something of a split in many of the projects that are currently staples of the Free Software community. I don't think this is all that bad, however. We may actually be ready for a split -- something to seperate the wheat from the chaff, if you know what I mean.

Re:What's The Big Deal?

[jj110888]

No!!! The software license only lasts as long as the copyright, to ignore the expiration of copyright is part of DRM

Then again, copyright is lasting longer and longer, but still

Re:Translation

[hal2814]

"he doesn't feel like using software licensing and copyright as a weapon to fight political battles"

I might've been a little strong-worded and put some words in Linus' mouth (mostly for entertainment value) but it's really easy to take the above stance when you'd lose if you did use software licensing to fight political battles.

I'm not convinced.

[SalsaDoom]

Hi there,

I'm not convinced here. Everyone is crying about their IP these days, but I honestly don't see a lot of real damage being done to business. Piracy of books and movies just don't seem like a real problem to me, most people don't know you can play divx files on their TV, and lack the technical understanding how to do so anyway. Books... even reading ebooks on a laptop rapidly becomes a literal pain in the neck. Books are best on paper.

But I do see a ton of potential for abuses with DRM, and you know if there is potential there is always abuse. The plain and simple fact of DRM is.. its a mechanism designed to restrict what I do with my own stuff. DRM is more then just stuff to prevent people from pirating movies, it'll be hardware soon -- when you buy a piece of DRM hardware, understand that you will -never- -own- that item, it'll belong to the company who made it unless you can crack that DRM away. Consequently, if you can just crack the DRM away, it becomes useless and only a hinderence to the legitimate owner.

Frankly, the pirates are going to crack this stuff anyway, just like they've always done. There are smart people on both sides of this fence, only, the illegal side of the fence has -way- more guys on it, with a lot less things to take up their time.

It seems to me that no matter what argument anyone comes up with, or talk about protecting peoples copyrights, etc, the fact is DRM will make my computer -less my computer-, and give some remote company control over something I *purchased*. Its not about protecting copyrights, its about control. Linus is my homeboy forever, but he is wrong about this one, he just doesn't see the big picture.

IMO anyway. :)

Re:I'm not convinced.

[TheCrazyFinn]

One should note that the most successful eBook vendor, Baen Books, uses absolutely no DRM, and the most successful online music vendor, Apple, goes out of it's way to provide an easy method of circumventing the DRM (It's 4 clicks).

DRM doesn't sell well in the marketplace.

Re:Open

[ovit]

Don't even try to understand...
I'm sure many orders of magnitude more neurons have been fired trying to understand his post than he employed in writing it...

No more hacking?

[r0ckflite]

Just a quick question. Does this mean that device manufacturers that make (I don't know) routers using linux kernel could DRM their routers so that you can't hack them anymore? There seems to be a community out there that likes to rebuild the software on these devices to make them better. With DRM these coders would be out of luck?

I don't see that as a positive step.

Re:No more hacking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you see allowing any random person "hack" your router as a "positive step"?

Re:No more hacking?

[Znork]

Yep, that's exactly what the restriction in the GPLv3 is intended to prevent. It's hardly a philosophical change of direction, more like a clarification. The GPL has never been intended to allow freeriders who want to use and benefit from GPL code while at the same time preventing others from doing the same thing.

Re:No more hacking?

[r0ckflite]

yes I do. If I want to buy a $75 router and open it up and change the software and teach it to make coffee, well I paid for it. All analogies are suspect but... if I buy a car and want to turbo charge it, or put in an alarm system or put in airshocks fine.

And to stop your next argument: I could make my PC do the same things as this router, DDOS attack, etc... so locking down the $75 router is not protecting me or you from terrorism.

Re:No more hacking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to tell that no-talent ass clown that his banner is ugly!

However, what's the question here?

[Nicopa]

Martin Fink tells it like it is:

The question is not why you should migrate to GNU GPL v3, but why not?

Re:However, what's the question here?

[heinousjay]

Because it's more of a political manifesto with ideology I don't like than it is a software license.

Re:However, what's the question here?

[Tony Hoyle]

How about having to ask hundreds perhaps thousands authors of bits of code that's under v2 only, probably only being able to contact a fraction of them, and being faced with the prospect of having to cleanroom his own kernel to change to license that he doesn't agree with anyway?

I think that's plenty reason why not.

Re:However, what's the question here?

[Anonymous Coward]

"bits of code" couldn't possibly be put under any license anyway, the same way that me posting a short quote from a movie "You talkin' to me. You must be talkin' to me" etc couldn't possibly be a copyright violation... you'd need to have written a substantial chunk to have any say.

Re:However, what's the question here?

[Blakey Rat]

That "whooshing" sound? That's the joke flying RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD.

Thanks for playing, though.

Re:However, what's the question here?

[Just Some Guy]

Don't worry: some of us got it. You're not the only one who can't figure out what the heck Martin Fink is trying (or not!) to tell us.

Re:However, what's the question here?

[Nicopa]

I find it very amusing how that statement can be applied to pretty much everything under the sun. And so it doesn't have any meaning at all... =)

Uh, I shouldn't be off-topic... er... Go GPLv3! Go!

I'm so so clued up on this DRM stuff but

[mab]

Does it mean that one day I buy a new computer boot up my Ubuntu install disc and get an error saying "cannot install unsigned programme"?

is this how it works?

Re:I'm so so clued up on this DRM stuff but

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, yes, quite possible. See TCPA for further info

Re:I'm so so clued up on this DRM stuff but

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly most updates are currently digitally signed.

Re:I'm so so clued up on this DRM stuff but

[mab]

What I was really asking is if the hardware would refuse to install the operation system because the install disc had not been signed by the hardware manufacturer

Re:Open

[Joebert]

I'm suggesting that I would consider it a double standard to rely on openness, while at the same time building any kind of method for restricting access into a system.

From my experience *nix users seem to be proud of their security, yet they like to have an open enviroment.
Seems a bit of a paradox if you ask me.

Enough with the ``forcing morals on others" stuff

[hahiss]

Look, GPL3 does not force ``our" morality (in whatever sense of ``our" is relevant) here on anyone; nobody is compelled to use the license OR to use software released under such a license. This is not exactly like sending a perv-squad to take down adult shops or sending Christian soldiers off on a crusade in the middle-east or sending young people to blow themselves up in crowded buildings. . . . Heck, it isn't even like that whack-job Jack Thompson.

(As an aside, there IS frequently plenty good reason to force our morality on those who don't agree. If the come walking into my town to commit genocide, I will impose my morality on them by either (i) appealing to their rationality or (ii) using force.)

Torvalds is not a moral leader

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have been nice if Linus, being such a prominent figurehead in the community, would also be a moral leader. Sadly, it looks like this is not the case. His strengths are in programming and organization. This does not necessarily make him somebody to look towards for moral direction. This is not meant to put him down in any way. He should be praised for what he provides the community: technical leadership. But we should not look to him for moral leadership merely because of his technical skills.

The DRM clauses in the GPL3 are in the same spirit as the GPL2 requirements that require compilation tools to be included with the source when they are not commonly available. Most people may not be aware of that clause given that most source is distributed in commonly used programming languages.

From his comments, it appears that if Linus were starting to write the kernel today he would choose a BSD style license over the GPL. (Not a bad thing necessarily, but users of the license, while just as generous as those who use the GPL, do not care to protect their users from being taken advantage of in the future.)

Re:Torvalds is not a moral leader

[dfghjk]

So you're saying Linus is morally weak because he doesn't support GPL3?

Re:Torvalds is not a moral leader

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's making a valid point.

DRM is here. Half (at least) the industry wants it. The concept behind DRM is fundamentally oposed to "open" source. thats the point.

Hardware supporting and requiring DRM'd code is going to be here. Fighting it is a loosing battle. Linus is pointing out that a license for software isn't going to fight it, at least not effectively.

The end result of DRM is that there are going to be 2 secions. DRM hardware and software, and non-drm hardware and software. OSS is going to fall into the latter.

The battle to stop DRM isn't going to be won by a license stating that all DRM related code must be released with the program. Its going to be won by the end user who purchases the non-drm hardware. Hence the comment "user.. think with their feet".

Trying to force hardware vendors to bow down to the OSS community isn't going to work. The only way to get hardware vendors on the OSS side is to show them in the market that "open" platforms are viable.

Re:Torvalds is not a moral leader

[Anonymous Coward]

> Fighting it is a loosing battle.

Now you know how us Grammar Nazis feel...

Re:Torvalds is not a moral leader

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying Linus is morally weak because he doesn't support GPL3?

Not at all. In this case, and others (notably the BitKeeper fiasco), Linus has shown that he's not influenced much by the moral implications of his choices. His stance is often amoral. His concern is with the development of the kernel rather than moral effects of the same. He's avoiding (as most of us do in some cases) bringing moral complications into his decision making process when it comes to kernel development. His behavior here is no worse than most people's so there's no reason to put him down in any way. However, his "pass the buck to the hardware manufacturers" position is not one of a moral leader. He wants others to behave correctly with respect to DRM, but he doesn't want to involve himself in encouraging that correct behavior. I have no problem with this. I simply fear some people will look at this and think, "If it's good enough for Linus, it's good enough for me." I think we should strive for more.

Oh my fsckin' $DEITY ...

[hummassa]

You are wrong.
DRM does not work. Ask PSP hackers (*)

Alice is the content creator.
Bob is the content consumer.
Eve is the eavesdropper.
Alice sends the encrypted content to Bob.
Bob has the key to decrypt the content, so he can see the plaintext.
Eve cannot see the plaintext -- but wait, Eve is just another split personality of Bob. So, yes, Eve has the key and can see the plaintext.

(*) Not crackers -- PSP hackers want to install software they themselves developed onto hardware they bought with their own money: if people will take advantage of their hacks to play copied games, it's a collateral. I, myself, want to make linux work on my playstation portable -- that I purchased with MY money. I didn't sign any contracts or NDAs with Sony. I just went to the store and I have the right to install whatever software I want in the fscking thing. If -- and only if -- I install "irregular" software/contents in MY hardware is the concern of the mentioned software/contents creator.

Re:Oh my fsckin' $DEITY ...

[biglig2]

That should read "DRM can not work". (Not being a grammar nazi, making a point).

And of course this has the interesting side effect that DRM increases "piracy".

Bob wants to put the new Celine Dion CD on his iPod
Alice's DRM stops him.
Bob googles around for a way to get round this restriction, and discovers Bittorrent
Bob downloads Celine just to get it on his iPod
Bob notices her entire back catalogue linked on the same page

Morality is the antithesis of greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

"DRM can be a mechanism for protecting legitimate rights that copyrightholders have. I'm sorry, but in order for the market to work and content to move into the digital age and away from physical media, there has to be DRM."

Protecting from what? Everyone who pirates is doing it in the best interests of the IP holder. We love our content creators and would never do anything to hurt them, or show disrespect. Besides, as everyone on slashdot knows. Content creators don't "create", they "borrow" from the commons. Everything they bring forth is just a rehash of what's already out there (just look at Linux for example). Nothing new is added, and therefore shouldn't be protected, not even if the person in question is a pirate who "creates". Right?

DRM *can* be good

[egarland]

One of the points he made which is very important is that digital signing of content is important for the way open source software works. If RedHat has to supply the keys used to sign Fedora Core 6 with the OS, the signature is completely useless. The anti-DRM provissions of GPL V3 would not only lead to less places you can use open source software, it would also make that software worse.

I also agree with the idea that, while DRM is evil, it's not software developers place to fight it and in fact there is no *need* to fight it. The proprietary vs open thing will soon be smack the content creators around just as badly as it is smacking the software creators around now. The more quality content that is available for free, the harder it will be for the content houses to insist that you not only pay for content, you also have crazy limits on what you can do with it.

There should be a fund and an organization dedicated to fostering tallent and helping them develop creating creative commons licenced works. I'd like to see all the National Endowment for the Arts money going to something like this for a few years. Better yet, I think there should be a tax on RIAA/MPAA producs used to fund it.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[_xeno_]

If RedHat has to supply the keys used to sign Fedora Core 6 with the OS, the signature is completely useless.

Then you'll be glad to know it doesn't. The section on giving away keys says you only have to do that if the software won't run without your private key. If Red Hat created a system where you could only install their signed RPMs, then they'd have to give away the private key under the GPLv3. As long as you're allowed to install unsigned RPMs or to install RPMs signed with your own key, their private key can be kept private.

There are basically two anti-DRM clauses. They essentially say "the source you provide must be usable" and "modified versions must be able to read the same files as the original." So you can create DRMed files with GPLv3 software, but any modified version of the software must be capable of reading the file. (So it won't be a very useful DRM program, but...)

Re:DRM *can* be good

[TheRaven64]

Redhat would not be required to supply the keys used to sign FC6. If, however, code that ran on FC6 would not run unless signed, then they would have to provide keys that could be used to sign code.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[arevos]

I wouldn't class code signing as DRM. Code signing doesn't stop the user from using unsafe code if they really want to, whilst DRM is designed to restrict what the user can do.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[Tony Hoyle]

..which is bad enough.

Redhat want to sign their kernel as 'official' redhat releases, so the'll boot on a DRM crippled BIOS. I don't see why they should have to release their private key to anyone who wants to compile their own kernel.. their issue is with the BIOS manufacturer (and DRM in general) not with Redhat.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[coofercat]

Someone more legally minded than me may shoot me down for this, but I understand that Linus' comments about Redhat are a misunderstanding of the GPL3. From TFA:

Notice how the current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat would have to distribute their private keys so that anybody sign their own versions of the modules they recompile, in order to re-create their own versions of the signed binaries that Red Hat creates. That's INSANE.

This is not what the GPL3 says at all. It says you must distribute keys IF your code won't work without them. In the Redhat case, that's not true at all - you can download and install unsigned (or third party signed) code all you want. Redhat signs stuff so you can be sure it came from Redhat and not Fred in His Shed - that is ALL.

From TFL:
Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output.

The GPL3 does not try to take code-signing capability away from anyone. It states that you must give away keys if it's impossible to make a working program without them. I'll give an example:

Say there's a crypto program that uses modules, and is not open source. If you write modules, they have to be signed by one of a series of keys before the program will use the module.

If you tried to release a GPL3 module for this product, you would have to also put your keys with it because without the keys, a third party cannot produce a working module.

The GPL3 really says that if you're using DRM, you have to let other people use it too. There's a double-edged sword here: At the moment, you could release your (non-working) module as GPL2. Of course, it's useless, except for anyone else who has the keys. It's unlikely the owner of the crypto program would release keys for anyone to use (and so distribute) as that (as stated by Linus) makes the use of DRM pointless. In short, you're unlikely to be able to use the GPL3 for such situations.

My personal view (as if it matters) is that the GPL3 will fail because (a) people don't understand it and (b) no commercial vendor is likely to use it if they have to give everything away to do it. Using GPL2 + secret keys means you get all the benefits of open source, without giving away your competitive edge.

Of course, GPL3 might gain ground because version 3's got to be better than version 2, right?

Re:DRM *can* be good

[spitzak]

That's not DRM. You are quite capable of running your modified version of the software without RedHat's keys. Anybody else would be able to run it as well. All it means is that when they look at your version, they can tell it is not RedHat's approved version, which is the entire purpose of their signing.

Now if RedHat made their own Linux box that refused to run the software without the correct signature, and provided this copy of Linux with it, that would be DRM. Under the GPL3 they would have to provide some way for you to sign your own modified copy.

I'm a little confused about this, though. If RedHat made a new Linux box with the Linux software in ROM that was soldered to the board and imbedded in a block of epoxy, it would be pretty much impossible to replace the software then, as well. And nobody sees anything wrong with this as it may be a very sensible and practical construction method. I think the GPL3 is trying to remove artificial restrictions to replacing the software.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'd trust Linus about what the GPL3 says more than some random guy on Slashdot. Has it occurred to you that he's probably right? He's almost certainly looked into this far more than anyone on Slashdot has.

> The GPL3 does not try to take code-signing capability away from anyone.

Define "code signing" - true, you can still sign your packages, as long as you distribute the signature separately. (If you distribute it with the binary, then it becomes a "modified version", and you have to distribute the private key, making the thing worthless.) You just can't do anything USEFUL with the code signing.

If you try and make it so that your system authenticates packages - and this is a very good thing since it prevents worms and viruses - you have to distribute your private key under the GPL3. Which makes the entire thing worthless, since then anyone can create packages that do anything, making your security system worthless.

Imagine a system were every binary had to be digitally signed in order for the kernel to run it - you'd have a system that's immune to rootkits. Too bad that's disallowed under the GPL3. If you ever let anyone else use that system, you'd have to give out your private key to the world! Great plan.

Face it, Linus knows what he's talking about. RMS has always been a liberal nut, I think almost everyone on Slashdot knows that. He's trying to force his views on "freedom" out into the world via the GPL3, and those "freedoms" severely restrict the ability to run systems the way you want to run them.

When the GPL3 comes out, I expect that most programs will remain GPL2 - and you'll see more and more use of the Apache and BSD licenses. RMS's personal views belong on his blog, not in software licenses.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[roystgnr]

Imagine a system were every binary had to be digitally signed in order for the kernel to run it - you'd have a system that's immune to rootkits. Too bad that's disallowed under the GPL3. If you ever let anyone else use that system, you'd have to give out your private key to the world! Great plan.

Why on earth would anyone else want to use your private key with that system? You haven't described a kernel that's immune to rootkits, you've described a kernel that won't run any program its vendor hasn't blessed. If what you want is a kernel that's immune to rootkits, you don't have to give out any keys with your system at all - the people who install it will generate their own public/private keypair.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[k12linux]

Digital signatures != DRM. The signatures indicate authenticity but there is no managing of rights or control going on.

Signed RPMs are perfectly usable even if you don't have the keys. You can't verify that they are legitimate RPMs but they CAN be installed.

You also can freely generate your own RPM signatures and distribute the public key for them. So even if the RPM installer refused to use unsigned RPMs it wouldn't preclude the original developer from modifying the GPLed code and distributing their changes. All with absolutely no need to distribute private keys.

The tricky part would be if all keys are locked away somewhere and there is no way for the user to add keys from 3rd parties. That would be a real problem as Red Hat could now start selling DRM protected systems which could only install Red Hat's version of any RPM. This would completely lock out anyone else even these programmers who wrote the GPLed code contained in the RPMs.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[m50d]

(b) no commercial vendor is likely to use it if they have to give everything away to do it.

The same applies to the GPLv2. Commercial vendors will use it because they have to, because the code they want to use is under it.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[marcosdumay]

The last iteration of GPLv3 that I read leads to the conclusion that RH may be oblied to publish its private key if it publishes signed binaries. That can only be concluded by a very litteral interpretation of the licence, and is against the preambule, but it is the exactly situation that lawyers love to take advantage of.

But this problem will probably (had?) be fixed on the next iteration. Remember, it is a draft, it is expected to have bugs. And oblying a distributor to publish his key even if he doesn't distribute DRM hardware himself is against the objectives of the license (and FSF as far as I know).

Re:DRM *can* be good

[egarland]

Digital signing of binaries is the *only* way you can create an open source DRM solution. Otherwise anyone could come along and modify the code to ignore the DRM rules and expose the yummy DRM'd insides. Being able to setup your own solution that signs using different keys is besides the point.

The idea is to stop someone from taking control of open source software by only allowing signed, authorized-by-them versions of that software to access the content. If you are writing the software from scratch and expect it to be signed and DRM'd you'd simply not use GPL3 as it's license. This limitation would only apply to imposing controls on already existing open source software. But this is precisely what you want to do with digital signing of binaries for security reasons.

The proposed changes would make it illegal lock down a system to only run signed binaries if those programs are licensed under GPL3.

Think about it: I create uber-secure-linux (or uber-secure-new-os) that requires uber-secure corp (tm) to sign all binaries before they were loaded and executed I'd be breaking the rules to load any GPL3'd code. Even if uber-secure-new-os said that in order to read and write from the /system folder (or /etc /var /usr and /bin) you needed to be signed.. nope, you don't have access to the same files (if I am interpreting things correctly, I haven't read the draft GPL3 carefully enough, someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

This is a problem.

It seems unlikely that you can make everything you want people to be able to do with DRM illegal and everything you do want people to be able to do, legal.

Even if you could.. Even if this wording accomplished that goal, is this really a good idea? Is it appropriate to say what OS's what environments, what users can run GPLd code? I could see where it could possibly make some sense but in the case of the Linux kernel, it seems like a bad idea.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[gg3po]

Using GPL2 + secret keys means you get all the benefits of open source, without giving away your competitive edge.

I think you've hit on the main difference between the Open Source and Free Software movements:

GPL2+DRM = Open Source ideal of many eyeballs makes good software, freedom being irrelevant.

GPL3 = Free Software ideal of putting freedom first, good engineering being just a welcome after-effect.

There you have it folks. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve...but as for me and my house, we will serve Freedom.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[Crispy Critters]

"Then you'll be glad to know it doesn't.

I have read Linus, and the GPL3 draft, and lots of posts here, and I have not been able to find any explanation for Linus's statements about private keys. No one has posted any quote from GPL3draft that justifies that claim.

Sure, people can make up ways of using keys and signing that would violate GPL3draft. But there is little reason anyone would ever make such arcane, useless modifications.

Imagine some crazy company embedding a public key in all their compiled programs so that their distro can only run programs they have compiled. This contradicts the spirit of every version of the GPL, and there is no reason not to forbid it. On the other hand, allow users to turn off this checking or let them run code they have compiled themselves (either by recompiling the kernel to change keys or by letting them "sign" binaries for their own machines), and you are in compliance with the GPL3draft. What is wrong with that?

There are a lot of people who are perfectly happy as long as their Linux software remains free-as-in-beer. I can see why they might object to such changes in the GPL, because they can imagine a circumstance in which it would make it harder for them to get software for no charge. For anyone who cares about bug fixing, recompiling, or modifying their software in whatever fashion, tweaking the GPL to preserve that ability is only a good thing.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[Chandon Seldon]

That won't come up with PCs. Motherboards will come with BIOSes that support a DRM mode and a "Legacy Mode", and Linux will run in Legacy Mode.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[Chandon Seldon]

Here's the trick:
With most "good DRM" systems, the system adminstrator has the keys. He's only doing in-organization distribution - so under the GPL he doesn't even need to provide source code to users.
"Bad DRM" generally looks different - X number of 3rd parties conspire to prevent you from using your own computer how you want to.

Uber-secure-linux, for example, would be implemented with a kernel option called uber-secure. When activated, the uber-secure security policy (only modules signed by uber-secure corp can be run) would apply. Anyone who could reboot the computer could disable the option and get normal Linux. If you were going extra-nuts, there would be a jumper on the motherboard that would disable/enable "insecure bootup". There's no real reason why the person in physical posession of the computer should be restricted from using it.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[spitzak]

Better still, a user could modify uber-secure-linux so that it runs both the original uber-secure-signed items PLUS things signed by their own key. This would still not require knowing the uber-secure signing key, and they could still reuse the protection to make sure only their own stuff or uber-secure stuff is run. Or they could edit out the uber-secure key so only their stuff will run. Or they could edit out all the protection so everything will run.

The difference from DRM is that the user can do this. It does not matter if uber-secure-company says "that machine is not secure". They can do that, certainly, but if you are uninterested in whether uber-secure cares, you can still make the modifications.

Re:DRM *can* be good

[Anonymous Coward]

"Using GPL2 + secret keys means you get all the benefits of open source, without giving away your competitive edge."

Using GPL2 + secret keys will not give you all the benefits of open source. Some of the key benefits of open source are:

• random interested parties contributing fixes and new features (this won't happen with secret keys if the interested parties can't use/test their modifications without your help. In practice, software developers who have to go through a central entity for every single code change will never get anything done, nor want to if they're doing it for free.)
• goodwill and patronage of users who want the ability to alter their own software (for this group of people, GPL2+secret keys is almost as bad as completely proprietary code)
• cooperation in an environment where you can freely modify and use other people's software, while they freely modify and use yours (this is more of a long-term generalized benefit, and you can certainly game the system by taking and not giving in return, but nonetheless the more people who give the greater benefit every participant receives)

Re:DRM *can* be good

[Anonymous Coward]

It does if the code has to be signed by the manufacturer of the device you just bought before it can be installed. Who says the manufacturer has to allow a user override option?

Re:DRM *can* be good

[arevos]

It does if the code has to be signed by the manufacturer of the device you just bought before it can be installed. Who says the manufacturer has to allow a user override option?

In which case, the device has DRM. But code signing is not DRM in itself, because it doesn't by itself deny the user anything. The signed RPMs of Redhat aren't DRM, because you have the option of installing unsigned packages.

Cryptographic signing is not DRM, anymore than strong encryption is. They can be used in DRM, but they are not, themselves, DRM systems.

I agree, he is a nice guy. The world isn't

[SmallFurryCreature]

The biggest difference between Linus Torvald and Richard Stallman is that Linus is an optomist and Richard is a pessimist.

Linus seems to walk in world all his own. Somehow he seems to think that we can vote with our dollars to force the hardware makers to cater for our non-drm needs. Right.

Has he got some other figures on linux use? It is already hard enough to get hardware makers to support linux besides closed source software like windows. But for hardware makers to develop non-drm hardware for just the linux market is insane. Linux is Linux because it runs on cheap easily available hardware. Specialist hardware or worse having to make you own would kill Linux fast.

What he maybe doesn't get that DRM isn't a analog state. It is binary. You either have it or you don't. Oh, and at the moment, we don't. We got a sorta DRM0.1 at the moment. FULL DRM will be a beast few can imagine. Certainly Linus doesn't seem capable. Stallman is capable.

FULL DRM means that ALL hardware and ALL software in your entire computer will be DRM aware. Hardware DRM will not work with NON-DRM software and/or NON-DRM hardware.

For DRM to realize its full potential EVERY piece of your computer must be DRMed. The motherboard, the CPU, the memory, the buses, the cables, the monitor, the speaker, etc etc. It cannot have a single open piece of hardware because the moment you have that the entire DRM chain becomes useless. It is the old argument against DRM that you will always still be capable of capturing the out put of any DRM device. As long as you can hear/see it you can recapture data no matter how it was protected before.

Que the old story of Vista requiring DRM monitors. if you don't then you could simply hookup a DVI cable to the output and put in a video capture device and instantly avoid any DRM measure.

Will Vista really do this? probably not, as I said before we don't have full DRM yet. We probably won't have it in Vista either. But it is coming unless we stop it now.

It is difficult to constantly be paranoid and think that behind every wintel move there must be an evil scheme but can we afford to be wrong?

Then there is Linus defence of DRM namely signing RPM packages. Well yeah, signing them makes it secure but what is that saying again? He who trades his freedom for security soon will have neither? Something like this.

We could have the security of knowing who wrote the software we run OR we can have the freedom to write and run our own software. Not both. Your choice.

Re:I agree, he is a nice guy. The world isn't

[rufty_tufty]

Don't you think it'll be linke the fight against software patents?
No matter how many times we beat them and say no, they'll try and get another bill through in 6 months time because it is in their commercial interest.
They will never stop, they will never give up because it is in their interest. Nothing we can do will ever stop this fight except to give in.
Not that we should give in, but it's like the fight for any freedom - constant vigelence

Re:I agree, he is a nice guy. The world isn't

[Eli Gottlieb]

"[It] can be fought, and I'll be teaching you how, but it takes real strength of character, and not everyone's got it. Better avoid being hit with it if you can. CONSTANT VIGILANCE!" - Mad Eye Moody

Re:I agree, he is a nice guy. The world isn't

[2short]

"We could have the security of knowing who wrote the software we run OR we can have the freedom to write and run our own software."

Personally, I'm not seeing a lot of threat to my freedom to write and run my own software. All computer makers everywhere are going to stop letting independent developers write software for there hardware? I'm not too woried about that businaess model taking over.

Knowing who wrote the software running on my computer, on the other hand, is a constant concern. It's not sacrificing essential freedom for a little safety, as Franklin was rightly opposed to. It's maintaining the freedom to run my own software instead of getting rooted and locked out by five tons of malware.

Linus gets the heart of the matter: The only difference between DRM and security is intent. The GPL v3 and the DMCA make the same mistake from opposite sides of the issue. They put legal restrictions on technical capabilities to try to force an ethical debate. In either case, the restrictions will cause all manner of headaches for unintended targets, and won't do squat to accomplish their intended goal.

You want to fight DRM? Great! I'm with you. You want people to put confusing restrictions on their software licenses that will prevent using their code for legitmate security purposes? No thanks. You don't think the installed Linux base is sufficient that hardware makers won't just stop making hardware that will run it, but you think the likely adoption rate of GPLv3 is going to do the trick? The DRM restricitons in GPLv3 and DRM itself have two things in common: They won't work, and they'd be a bad idea if they did.

Re:I agree, he is a nice guy. The world isn't

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

All computer makers everywhere are going to stop letting independent developers write software for there hardware? I'm not too woried about that businaess model taking over.

It will be illegal for them not to do that.

Look at the CBDTPA/SSSCA bills.

Re:I agree, he is a nice guy. The world isn't

[metamatic]

The biggest difference between Linus Torvald and Richard Stallman is that Linus is an optomist and Richard is a pessimist.

And apparently the BitKeeper fiasco wasn't enough to get Linus to see the error of his ways.

Re:I agree, he is a nice guy. The world isn't

[2short]

Legislators passing bad laws for money at the behest of the Entertainment industry certainly happens, and will undoubtably continue. Legislators doing so when the law in question would obviously crash the entire Tech sector, then watching it happen, not so much. DRM locking down your computer and making it useless no matter what you do is not going to happen. Perfect DRM, that lets you play some peice of content, but never copy it, is impossible. Everybody knows this. The entertainment big wigs certainly know this. Hence they will not bother. They will make it take some effort to copy it, and will make it illegal to go to that effort. And I don't care. I don't need their stinking content. I just want to be able to do what I want with my own content. If I can't do what I want with content I make, then neither can the zillion small businesses that make up a vast amount of the economy, and with whose ability to operate legislators will not screw.

Well said

[squoozer]

I thought, when I first heard that Linux wouldn't support GPLv3, that he was simply throwing his teddies out the pram at something that was even written yet. No I hear his reasoning though it sounds like a very good call. GPLv3 sounds like it is loosing sight of what it really set out to achieve. OSS has reached a point where a lot of tech companies are seriously considering using it if not actually already using it. I can't help feeling that the power might have got to RMSs head a little. I'm not a big fan of Linus in particular but he does do a fairly good job of "keeping it real" something that people in powerful of infulental positions seem to lose sight of.

Re:Well said

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary, you have lost sight of something. The GPL has NOTHING to do with OSS. It is Free Software, not OSS.

Free Software is all about improving things for all people by maintaining our freedoms and liberties. It is philanthropy in the truest sense of the word. Note that this does not prevent making a profit, even an obscene one. It simply prevents leeches (something that anti-welfare conservatives should love).

OSS tries for this, but stops short of actually preventing leeches from being a drain on our society. It pays lip service to the idea of freedom, but fails to ensure that freedom is maintained and not hijacked. OSS is all about convenience and expediency. Now, those are certainly attractive attributes and the reason that so many people, individual and corporate, flock to OSS. But in the long term, OSS cannot provide us the protections we need, as Free Software can do.

Then show me a REAL FUNCTION DRM system! Just one!

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer: There ain't one. In order for the content to be of ANY use to the user, it has to be exposed to him one way or another and that's where he can leech it off into a non-DRM system. Maybe it imposes a slight loss of quality but that's a one time thing. All copies from there will have exactly the same quality as the original un-DRMed version.

Now you could say: "But circumventing DRM is illegal!" Sure it is. But so is unauthorized copying of copyrighted material (fair use excluded). So what's the difference? None.

Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet.

Re:Translation

[Mr. Underbridge]

I might've been a little strong-worded and put some words in Linus' mouth (mostly for entertainment value) but it's really easy to take the above stance when you'd lose if you did use software licensing to fight political battles.

Or...perhaps it's not something he actually believes in anyway? This isn't inconsistent with his prior positions.

Forcing?

[m50d]

They always have the choice of not using our code. If Torvalds feels it is unfair to force hardware manufacturers to open up, isn't it equally unfair to force people writing derivatives of Linux to open up, and it should be placed in the public domain?

Re:Forcing?

[KilobyteKnight]

If Torvalds feels it is unfair to force hardware manufacturers to open up, isn't it equally unfair to force people writing derivatives of Linux to open up, and it should be placed in the public domain?

No.

It's the difference between telling people what they can do with what you create, and telling people what they can do with what they create.

Re:Forcing?

[m50d]

Because building a machine that runs a program is creating something, but writing a GUI for the program isn't?

Expediency vs Principle

[gvc]

It is commonly argued here that RMS and FSF are out-of-touch crusaders to be marginalized when considering how really to get software written. I disagree.

Torvald's kernel and the community that support it are quite remarkable, and I wish to take nothing away from them. However, they would not exist if not for gcc and a host of other tools that themselves would simply not exist were it not for Stallman. He was savvy enough to see the creation of these tools; part of this savvy manifested itself in the GPL which demands quid-quo-pro from users of free software.

Now you can imagine a world in which we all just gave away our efforts, and you can imagine a world in which this benevolency resulted in a societal revolution in which open-source (but not necessarily free) software thrived. I can never prove that such a world might not have evolved, but the world as it actually exists has been heavily shaped by Stallman's efforts.

Stallman is certainly not irrelevant in the history of software. I would hesitate to dismiss him as irrelevant to the future.

Re:Expediency vs Principle

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the current system of IP law changes its direction, I think the Linux kernel will INEVITABLY either change its license to GPL3 or fall to a kernel that does. Sun has talked about switching OpenSolaris to GPL3, and if they do that, OpenSolaris might just become the kernel of choice to anyone who is concerned about the intrusion of DRM into our computing experience.

Re:Expediency vs Principle

[dfghjk]

Being relevant to the future doesn't make him right nor necessarily relevant to the future and claiming free software wouldn't exist today without gcc is absurd. BSD exists today after all. It could be argued that Linux has done more to make Stallman relevant than anything Stallman has done himself. Most ppl are interested in the software, not the ideology. That appears to include Linus.

Re:Expediency vs Principle

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun has talked about "dual licensing"... which takes away nothing, since you could still use the CDDL and happily run it on a locked down Trusted Computing system for which the keys remain firmly under the control of Sun Microsystem.

Re:Expediency vs Principle

[Chandon Seldon]

BSD exists today after all.

What compiler do the BSDs use again?

Re:Expediency vs Principle

[nathanh]

It could be argued that Linux has done more to make Stallman relevant than anything Stallman has done himself.

You are confusing cause and effect. The Free Software movement didn't really explode onto the scene until the Internet became ubiquitous and affordable. It is no coincidence that Linux took off at exactly the same time as cheap dialup came into homes. Free software depends on 1000s of programmers from all over the world collaborating on a single project; that's not possible without the Internet. The Internet was the cause (actually one of many causes) and Linux was merely the effect.

I think the web browser was the next significant catalyst for the Free Software movement. It allowed the creation of web-based tools such as blogs, bug trackers and sites like Sourceforge. Those collaboration tools allowed Free Software to evolve from very programmer oriented environments (ksh and emacs) to much richer more complex user oriented environments such as GNOME and KDE. Once again, Linux was merely the effect.

The third significant catalyst was infusion of money from commercial interests. When the failing UNIX companies noticed that fighting amongst themselves had allowed the (at the time) pathetic Microsoft operating system to steal 90% of the market, and then they noticed that their own software was kind of crappy, and then they noticed that GNOME and Apache and GCC and BSD and Linux were much better products, it was inevitable that they'd jump on the Free Software bandwagon. Afterall, most UNIX companies are primarily hardware companies, the software is often merely an enticement to buy their hardware. Free Software allows the companies to work together with less chance of any single company deviating their product line until it is incompatible, as happened with UNIX.

I've been trying to figure out what the next catalyst will be, though predicting the future is obviously difficult. I think there needs to be a simpler way for users to contribute. At the moment it can be quite difficult to "enter" a project. For example I know there's a bug in the GNOME 2.13.90 background SVG rendering. I tried to download the necessary components to fix the bug but I was overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of stuff I need to get; it's too difficult for the casual developer to offer bugfixes back to projects. I see an analogy to how the web used to be, where you needed significant knowledge of HTML and Javascript to offer a "bug fix" to a website. That all changed when Wikis came along; suddenly anybody could simply click Edit and fix the mistake. I think the Free Software movement needs something equivalent to Wikis - in the sense of making it far easier for the casual developer to make changes - before it can progress to the next phase.

Most ppl are interested in the software, not the ideology.

Free software could not exist without the ideology, so whether they are interested in it or not, the ideology is still important.

Sometimes...

[DesScorp]

...I think Linus is the only Human in the OS leadership. He seems to have a remarkable amount of common sense. Too bad it isn't rubbing off on his compatriots...

Re:Translation

[Mr. Underbridge]

Marginalize themselves? Why? GPLv2 is still available for those who want it, but others might decide the GPLv3 is for them. Of course, perhaps few projects will adopt GPLv3 because of cross-licensing issues, but that's another story..

Exactly, GPL2 exists already. However, I suspect all the GNU software will become GPL3, which will probably cause either 1) reimplimentation by others, or 2) adoption of equivalent tools licensed in other ways (such as BSD). That would be some serious marginalization.

Basically, I think that a lot of coders and all companies will reject GPL3, and tools licensed with it. Could end up similar to another X11 style fork if they're not careful.

Why would they have to give away their keys?

[radarsat1]

Okay, call me dense, but I really fail to understand why he thinks the GPLv3 is forcing people to give out their private keys??

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but I was under the impression that GPLv3 says that "source code must be made available, including any encryption keys required to get it". Doesn't this just mean that any encrypted information needed to get the system running need be provided? How does this imply that people need to give away the keys they used to SIGN the code? Authenticating the code has nothing to do with its availability.

I don't understand why Linus seems to be confusing digital signing with DRM.. (yes, DRM uses digital signing techniques for implementation, but that doesn't imply that digital signing IS a form of DRM... only that DRM is a form of digital signing..)

- confused.

Re:Why would they have to give away their keys?

[jevvim]

I don't understand why Linus seems to be confusing digital signing with DRM.

I read Linus's statement as a what-if, not a this-is. It would be possible for Red Hat to add a private kernel patch that does 'driver signing' like Windows does to protect users from loading 'untested' drivers on their system. Red Hat would have to provide the source code to the system under the current GPLv2; they would have to distribute the public key used for signature verification but would be allowed to keep their private key. This would allow others in the community to create their own 'driver signing' system, with their own key pair, or to modify the existing Red Hat code to defang it or allow loading unsigned modules while marking the kernel as tainted (as loading a proprietary-licensed kernel module currently does).

Under GPLv3's DRM provisions, though, it appears that Red Hat would also have to distribute their private key as well. (GPL v3 Draft, Section 1: "Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you") Distributing the signing key would completely eliminate the effectiveness of their 'driver signing' program, since any J. Random Hacker could sign their just-compiled kernel module and sign it, even if it's horribly broken and will crash systems on load. This removes Red Hat's ability to do a value-add for people who want to contract with them (which is separate from their right to use the software), while it doesn't harm others in the community (we can still recompile the kernel without the 'driver signing' and distribute it). This is limiting the ability of developers to innovate, simply because it does certain things that approximate what a DRM system does. As Linus said, baby and the bathwater...

There will be systems where a GPLv3 license may be quite useful; for instance, I would love to see programs and projects that provide audio and video encoding functions (such as Ogg) adapt GPLv3, so that their code cannot be taken and used as the base of a DRM-restricted media format. (GPL v3 Draft, Section 3: "No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure", would explicity allow circumvention of any added DRM, since the DMCA only covers "effective technological protection measures.") Those programs are much closer to the 'content creator' class that Linus described in his posts, and I hope those developers will feel it is moral for them to prevent their code from being used in a DRM-restricted system.

Re:Why would they have to give away their keys?

[radarsat1]

Thanks, good explanation. Some points to ponder, for sure.

Alan's Comments

[TheRaven64]

Ping Wales have an interview with Alan Cox on the subject. I know of two people who have tried submitting this, but it's been rejected both times.

Re:Alan's Comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I wonder why - maybe because the interview was contentless?

He maybe possibly likes the GPLv3 and doesn't like DRM.

There, I just summarized the entire thing.

Re:If Linus thinks..

[ignorant_newbie]

> The GPL... allows you to stand upon the shoulders...

It's always interesting to see people depate BSD vs GPL in theoretical terms, while completly ignoring how both actually work in the real world.

The most prominant BSD licensed products (Free, Open and Net ) all happily share between themselves, thus effectivly standing on each other's shoulders. What they don't do is waste time on stupid license discussions, or being worried about what someone else might do with their code.

The GPL world, otoh, spends it's efforts on discussions like this one... and I can't find a single instance of people standing on each other's shoulders.

(not that i think linus should switch licenses. afterall, it's his software. he can license it any way he likes.)

He is right but...

[slo_learner]

We need someone to figure out how to get around the chip fab barrier. None of us hobbiests can build a fab plant, so there is the possiblility that chip producers will get together one day and essentially destroy the ability of OS software to run on newer hardware. In this scenario, the elite, the privy to secret hardware handshakes could continue to modify and release code that no one else could modify because only they have the secret keys to the hardware.

This might require a larger conspiracy than some of us are comfortable with, but consider the track record of the US government over the past 6 years, and get comfortable with conspiracy.

One doesn't even require a tinfoil hat to imagine that this will happen and is happening in certain segments of the hardware market. Although porting to another platform is facillitated by having source, what happens when some of the key logic is hard coded inside proprietary hardware?

I just hope that hardware doesn't become the achilles heel of OSS.

Re:He is right but...

[lowen]

Use an FPGA, such as a Xilinx Virtex Pro, instead of a CPU. It is slower, but open. Xilinx VP2's even have twin embedded PowerPC 405 cores, and Linux is the preferred OS for them.

Yes, they are more expensive. But if volume goes up, Xilinx will make more, and the price can go down.

With the FPGA you can really get control of what's going on.

Re:He is right but...

[CrazedWalrus]

Nah.

First of all, the question is: How does the hardware know which OSs to allow? Does it simply check to see if the boot disk (installation CD/DVD) is signed by SOMEONE? Or does it need to be a SPECIFIC someone?

In the first case, then the distros could simply sign their discs appropriately, and it's business as usual. Bits go into the kernel/necessary software to work with/around "trusted computing".

In the second case, who determines which OSs to allow? In other words, this would require that motherboards are shipped with the public keys/signatures/whatever of EVERY manufacturer of EVERY allowed operating system on a ROM (EEPROMS kinda defeat the purpose). Who gets to decide? Who holds the keys to the 'key list'? Certainly not Microsoft, since it would be an obvious and glaring conflict of interest. So it would have to be some third party, who would have some sort of process for addition to the lists, and who would need to maintain at least the illusion of impartiality.

In the event that AMD and Intel both went this route (unlikely, due to competition), I think you'd still see VIA and other x86 manufacturers holding back. Their mini-ITX motherboards are generally used for appliances and by hobbyists that stand a pretty high chance of requiring linux, bsd, or some custom OS for the project. For example, VIA already makes complete x86 motherboards and processors (Eden, I think it's called?) that run in excess of 1GHz, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind the influx of money from disenfranchised Intel/AMD customers for R&D.

Point is, if Intel and AMD shut out FOSS OSs, they'll find that there's suddenly a 3rd and 4th major competitor in the market who doesn't. They'll also find that they've shut out every business that runs FOSS in the data center, and given up lots and lots of server sales. Remember -- it's gonna cost business DEARLY to take Linux applications and convert them to ANYTHING else. Sun would get the Sparc x86 sales, since they've committed to supporting Linux, and would require AMD to give them un-TC-ified chips or would switch to VIA or some other non-TC manufacturer.

Don't worry. FOSS isn't going anywhere because of Trusted Computing. You'll still be able to install the Penguin somewhere. Like any business, if they tell their customers that they are no longer welcome, those customers can vote with their feet. And that includes all of the business who run Linux in their data centers, too.

Sorry for rambling. I just think there are a lot of reasons that this is never gonna happen (shut out FOSS, I mean), because too many people already depend on it for their businesses, if nothing else.

Proprietary Linux

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I think Linus might change his tune if and when companies begin releasing de facto proprietary version of Linux on closed hardware platforms.

It's simple really. A hardware company, say Dell or Apple, build DRM systems that only allow binaries that are digitally signed to run on their systems. They then proceed to pilfer GPLv2 code, sign it to run on their system, and then never give out signatures to any FOSS people.

Dell sells a PCs, servers or Laptops running "Dell Signed Linux". Sure they give you the source, but they don't give you the keys. Linux becomes a closed OS on DRM platforms, with only the big companies able to turn the now useless source into working binaries. Cue the "Proprietary Linux" club, which will begin to look an awful lot like the Unix club.

Re:Proprietary Linux

[Tony Hoyle]

Firstly, Dell can do what they damned well like with their own hardware, where you or I agree with that or not.

Secondly.. what's the alternative? Go to GPLv3 and *guarantee* that Linux will *never* run on Dell hardware in the future. Nice own goal.

Re:Proprietary Linux

[MikeBabcock]

Who the !@# marked that insightful?

The behaviour described would be stupid and uneventful.

Option A:
Dell does this, keeps up to date with GPL'd code they're basing their distro on and releases source patches (sans signature key data) to users.

Result:
User gets working Linux desktop on Dell hardware but can't make their own modifications to it and run it on that hardware. Casual users don't care, hard core users get pissed.

Bad business decision probably.

Option B:
Dell "pilfers" code, doesn't maintain it, leaves users with laptops and desktops that will only run 2 year out of date software they can't update.

Bad business decision again; users revolt.

There is no good reason for a company to do this unless they're simply 'evil' and it won't buy them any good will from customers or anyone else, nor would it have any effect on Linux as a product on the whole.

Re:Proprietary Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

No they CAN'T! They can *not* distribute free software licensed with GPLv3 on their hardware IF that hardware is protected by DRM. Read the grandparent post again. There is in fact companies that already *today* misuses Linux like that. Axis for example. They make surveillance IP cameras using Linux and other free software which they have heavily modified to suit their needs. But for users of their cameras that fact is irrelevant because the only way to modify the binary code is to download signed firmware from their ftp site.

It is blatant abuse of the provisions in the GPL version 2. One of the concrete effects of their protected hardware is that it makes it very hard for competing software companies to release products compatible with Axis cameras. Yes, you can modify their source code and even compile it with gcc. But unless you can remove their hardware protection you can't run it. In effect, this makes the Axis-provided source code as useless as if they hadn't provided it in the first place.

Re:Proprietary Linux

[junklight]

yup - that old successful Unix club that has done so well commercially in recent years.

Re:Proprietary Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

old faithful

Re:Proprietary Linux

[rjstanford]

BUT - Any modifications that Dell makes to Linux, optimizations and whatnot, get released back to the community who can then take it and run it on non-Dell platforms to their heart's content. What is problem? You end up with an enhanced version of Linux that won't run on Dells without paying them.

The other alternative - if you take it as a given that Dell is releasing hardware that will only run signed binaries - is that you end up with an unenhanced version of Linux that also won't run on Dells, even if you offer to pay them. And this is better how exactly?

If Dell releases machines that won't run unsigned copies of Linux, then it doesn't matter if those copies of Linux were released under GPLv2, GPLv3, BSD, or any other license. You won't be able to run them. With that as a standard assumption (for this thread) across both sides, you can compare the different benefits and losses of making Linux available to them under a compatible (ie: GPLv2) license, or not, for the people who are not running their machines.

Re:Proprietary Linux

[g2devi]

It's my understanding that under the GPLv3, Dell wouldn't need to give you the keys.

However, they would need to give you the keygen program that would allow you to create your own keys. That allows you to gain the benefits of DRM (i.e. protect yourself) without the harm (i.e. be locked out of your own system by someone else).

As a side note, I see the key issue as basically equivalent to the library linkage limitation of the GPLv2

Under the GPLv2, I could take your app and create a long key (say 1MB) that was actually an encrypted proprietary library that contained it's encryption key as it's header. I would modify your GPLv2 app to be dependent on the long key so that it could not run unless it had this "encryption key" (which was really a library).

Re:Proprietary Linux

[Eil]

Uh, if Dell gives you the complete source code to their Dell Signed Linux (unencrypted, as it must be under even GPLv2), then all of the requirements of open source software have been fulfilled. It doesn't matter that the Dell system won't then run the non-signed code. It's still open source software. If you don't like the hardware then you know what? DON'T BUY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Sheesh. People act like this is a new thing. Since the 80's video game console manufacturers have been doing everything possible to make sure that unlicensed software (games) don't run on their computers (game consoles). The X-Box came out years ago and is both based on general-purpose PC architecture and contains the first widespread implementation of DRM, yet nobody raised a stink about it. I wonder how many staunch RMS supporters buy video games for themselves or their children, blissfully ignorant that they're supporting DRM?

Re:Proprietary Linux

[Mbaumgartner]

This isn't going to happen. The reason Linux etc took off as a popular server OS was because they were open.

Some people want to use Linux because they can modify it, if you take that ability away, then everyone who bought it because they can modify it would flat out not buy from you. There always has been, and always will be choices on hardware makers. If Dell started doing that, don't buy a dell.

The reason this won't happen for servers is because most server sales go to people with IT who want the ability to modify the living crap out of their OS.

The reason this won't happen on desktops is because for $60 plus parts your friend's son's roommate will make you a desktop with a free OS.

This has all been tried before and failed. The sky is going to fall if we don't get some god damn load bearing licenses! This argument of freedoms being plowed into the ground are pretty weak because there is so much history of companies trying and failing at this. If this kind of hardware lock-in crap worked, Apple would be where Microsoft is right now.

This is also a very far cry from being MS'esqe.

But guess what, if it ever did come to that...Linus could say "oh ok, i'll upgrade to gpl 3".

In the end though there are only two stances on DRM for this debate. Either you're cool with other people using their hardware to enforce using software that has been approved, or you aren't. Linus obviously hasn't got any problems with TiVo like systems using Linux without allowing you to modify it on their hardware. The reason he likes GPL2 is because it forces you to share. If TiVo made some groundbreaking changes, then it's open source and everyone gets to use those changes, and Linux is better because of it. There are good reasons for it too. If I were making a specialty hardware device I wouldn't want people going in and tinkering with it, then whining to me about it not working because they decided to hack it. GPL3 dRM controls are just flat out bad for making money off OS products

Stallman did a good thing by releasing GPL3 with the DRM sections though. I don't think the "crusader" analogy is really correct, I think it's a matter of preference. Now people can choose. It seems to me that Linus considers the FSF's position to be more in line with social views on freedom, and less in line with his own views on how to improve software development.

Re:Proprietary Linux

[batkiwi]

If you'd RTFA, you'd see that Linus mentions this EXACT scenario, and in fact supports it. As long as any changes they made are released (as they must be) under the GPL, then you can run their changes on other hardware.

Any bets

[hey!]

on how long it will be before Linus starts punctuating his pronouncements with words like "Dagnebbit!"

This is hypothetical anyway

[l2718]

As Linus (and many others) have been saying for a long time, it will be impossible to release a GPLv3 kernel anyway. Copyrights to submission to the Linux kernel (mostly licensed under GPLv2 not v2 or later) have been retained by thousands of developers and companies, many of which will prove impossible to track down many years after the fact.

This means that this discussion does not pertain to the kernel -- we are simply discussing Linuss opinions on software licensing in the abstract. I happen to agree that some of the new clasues are problematic, but is Linus really an authority on licensing?

Regarding signed code, I understand why the FSF wants to say if the program only runs signed code, or only works with signed data, you have to provide means to sign code and data to the program, but I think thats taking it too far. The users of the program have the source code -- they can always make a derivate version which accepts code signed by them. I thought this freedom to modify was a central part of free software. The DRM clause is even worse. They attempt to say DRM effected by the program can be freely circumvented. But this is silly -- the legality of circumvention depends on the laws of the country where this happens. For example, in the US Im sure a judge will rule that whether the program ëffectively controls access should be determined objectively independently of any claims by the authors of the software. I simply fail to see how a software license can make a legal determination on the behaviour of derivate works when this behaviour was not present in the orignal program.

he doesn't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart guy, but can't see the big picture outside his own specialist niche. This isn't a dig, it's an observation,and I have seen it many times with brilliant people I know. If the software patents and DRM goons had had their way back before he wanted to build a minix/unix replacement, he wouldn't have been allowed legally to do most of what he did. Heck, we would barely have affordable functioning home computers either.
I really like the idea of a new GPL that goes farther than the last one in making sure freedom and openness becdomes the norm and not the exception. If we can't get rid of software patents, we can use the fact they exist against that concept. It's sad but you can't remove the legal aspects to coding, so might as well use what ammo and tools are available to counter the threat that patents and DRM clearly are.

Re:he doesn't get it

[maxume]

Patents and DRM aren't threats in and of themselves. Patents are, for the most part, a good thing. They are intended to reward entities that advance the state of the art. Granted, the current US patent system is a mess and software patents are often stupid, but foregoing the concept of a patent system just because it doesn't work at the moment is a baby with the bathwater thing.

DRM is okay. It lets content creators/owners market thier content in new ways. DRM laws are insane. If microsoft wants to do something stupid like sell operating systems that only work on hardware with certain features, that's thier business. A law requiring all hardware to have those features is a horrible thing. Without the law, there will be hardware that lacks DRM.

I understand that drm without 'trusted platforms' won't ever really work, but I would rather argue against the 'trusted platform only' laws than whine that someone is dumb enough to think that selling less is better than selling more(I would buy unrestriced 192kb mp3's in half a second flat, and so would 2/3 of slashdot).

Re:he doesn't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a dig

No, it's a Slashdot.

It's About Balance

[gurutechanimal]

Look, the way I see it, it's about balance. There are currently great forces amassing against Open/Free ways of doing things. The enemies of "freedom" (to borrow a term from W) have no problems buying politicians and laws to make their way of doing business the only way to do business. Closed/DRM advocates will and are currently using the full force of the legal system to do away with anything they perceive as competition and a threat to their "right" to vacuum up profits and exert total and complete control.

This is why GPL3 is important. It provides a counter-balance to the what's coming (if it's not already here). We can all bitch and moan about how our freedom to tinker/code/etc is being infringed on ever day by soul-less corporation, but then get all feaked out when we come up with a license to combat those infringements.

The other side pushes very, very hard. GPL3 pushes back. The other side does not play nice with Open philosophy. GPL3 helps us gain traction against this. If you are not thinking in terms of "them and us", GPL3 does look like it's imposing an ethical and moral code. But, given what we're up against, that's OK by me.

There needs to be balance. Our side doesn't have an army of lawyers, lobbyists, and MBA's. ALl we have is our philosophy, our ideal, and respect for the efforts of the community.

Re:Enough with the ``forcing morals on others" stu

[Jugalator]

Look, GPL3 does not force ``our" morality (in whatever sense of ``our" is relevant) here on anyone; nobody is compelled to use the license OR to use software released under such a license.

Hehe, that's correct. You're free to use the license or not. You can just as well release your work as public domain if you wish. Or protect it with a super restrictive Microsoft-style license where you're barely allowed to even run the software.

But what's being discussed, and why you see all "forcing morale on others stuff" is that you indeed do this if you decide to use GPLv3, which is what the article is basically about; the why's of why Linus don't really like it. And the reason is a lot about forcing morale on others.

Feel free to stray from the topic at hand (implications of GPLv3 and thoughts about it) but be aware you may go off-topic..

If you can't agree to the license...

[jaymzter]

Linus has not disguised the fact that he is more in the Open Source camp than the Free Software camp, yet he chose to license Linux under a Free Software license. Now, and I'm being honest here, he's bitching about the the folks he got into bed with. If you don't want to use GPLv3 (which isn't even out yet), then don't, that's your choice. But don't spit on the folks that got you where you are, and protected your software.

Re:If you can't agree to the license...

[jeffc128ca]

As I read Linus's comments he's not spitting on them. He's just saying not my cup of tea, thanks, I'll pass.

People who see this as him insulting the GPLV3 advocates are usually the idealouge types who can't stand people not wanting to march in lockstep with them. The us or them types. Linus is simply a different strokes for different folks kind of guy.

I think it sounds better like...

[gQuigs]

"I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the moral right to enforce our rules on" ... on paying customers. He is talking about DRM right?

How are DRM and OSS supposed to work together?

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood that suggestion that there is somehow the possibility of making an "Open Source DRM". How is that supposed to work?

Either you can modify the software which makes it Open Source. Then you can modify it to leak the content so the DRM doesn't work.

The other option is that you are forbidden to modify the software. Then the DRM may work (it can still be circumvented for example through the so-called analog hole but that's an intrinsic flaw of DRM itself) but the software is no longer Open Source since you aren't allowed to modify it.

So, which one is it? I always suspect the "Open Source DRM" advocates to advocate the latter which means they are not arguing for any "Open Source DRM" because in that case you may as well go proprietary.

Short Sighted

[zephos]

Although Linus makes very good points I think he doesn't understand the pernicious nature of those who would want DRM technology.

Granted as a software creator I should have the ability to do whatever I want and the F/OSS community should only have domain over what they create. However, we are _not_ an independent community. Without hardware vendors the software we create is worthless.

If the almighty Microsoft decided to lock out hobbiests and allow only those paying into a "partners" program to have their software signed as running on windows and neither the OS nor the underlying hardware allowed for execution of unsigned code then the F/OSS would run into problems.

Granted "we" as a community could buy other hardware, but with the _vast_ market share of Microsoft it would be difficult [as it is to get drivers now] to convince vendors to spend the time, energy, and $$$ to develop F/OSS friendly hardware.

I think Linus is a bit niave in thinking that larger software vendors won't make backdoor agreements with larger hardware vendors to use DRM technology to remove competition.

I mean they've used every other tactic they can think of, why not hardware DRM?

Re:Short Sighted

[Zphbeeblbrox]

Because Microsoft can't lock "all" hardware vendors into DRM. All it takes is one company to see an opportunity to compete with $BigNameHardwareVendor. There will always be a market for DRM hardware and there will always be a market for non-DRM hardware. I can pretty much guarantee you that as long as there is OSS there will be non-DRM hardware to run it on. That's the way free market economies work. That's also why using DRM to protect content will never work. Someone somewhere will offer non DRM hardware.

We live in a world economy. Just because US companies (for example) may be forced to implement DRM doesn't mean Taiwanese companies will. That very fact is what made it possible to use GPG software to encrypt your data at more than 256 bit encryption. They tried legislating a restriction on exporting encryption larger than a certain limit. But in the era of the internet and a world economy it was an unenforceable restriction and ultimately dissappeared. If a country ever does go this route they will only accelerate the the demise of their hardware manufacturing sector. The market for non-DRM hardware will always be larger than the market for DRM restricted hardware. At least that's my prediction anyway.

Re:Short Sighted

[rufty_tufty]

Judging how much everyone but microsoft (IBM, Sun, Apple, etc ) is in the unix camp in general and normally in the Linux camp (aboviously not Apple) - do you really see a lack of hardware for Linux to run on? Add into that ll the people who run Linux on embedded systems and...

I may be blind, but I can't see the day when it is impossible to buy hardware that Linux will run on.

Maybe I'm an optimist, maybe I misunderestimate the stupidity of PHBs and bribability of journalists...

Re:Short Sighted

[zephos]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there will always be a market for open source friendly hardware. I think just looking at HP printers and their Linux capabilities illustrates how if one plays nice it can booster sales from the GNU community.

My point is that _a lot_ of $BigNameHardwareVendors will agree to terms because they otherwise lose an overwhelming percentage of the market. More importantly as Linus himself argues that such hardware can be favorable to open source companies like Redhat.

In the end some companies may play nice but such a move would be harmful to the hobbiest crowd because we aren't large enough to drive the market on our own and Windows users are. So in the end we will only be an after thought and thus our hardware will never be as robust or varied because we cannot be monitarily equal to Windows. [Least not yet]

Re:Short Sighted

[maxume]

I think Linus is a bit niave in thinking that larger software vendors won't make backdoor agreements with larger hardware vendors to use DRM technology to remove competition.

As long as they don't make backdoor agreements with *every* hardware vendor, present and future, it won't matter. If there is a market for drm free hardware and no drm free hardware, somebody is quite likely to start making drm free hardware. People are greedy, trust in greed.

Laws mandating drm in hardware, on the other hand, are a big problem and much effort should be put into stopping them.

Re:Short Sighted

[Zphbeeblbrox]

I think you understimate the market OSS has. We aren't "only" a hobbiest group anymore. I make a living off of it myself. And the numbers are growing. Even if we never outnumber Closed Source market segments we are becoming a segment with significant purchasing power that should not be ignored. And the acceleration of DRM Adoption I have a feeling will drive even more into our market segment. After all Microsoft's licensing and DRM policies were what drove me into the Open Source market. And that was quite a while ago before they were even close to the level they are now.

The answer is marketing the value of non-DRM not fighting the technology that makes DRM possible.

Re:Open

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you work in marketing... That's a pretty fucked up way at viewing openness...

DRM is not inherently evil

[Chris Snook]

Some police departments are using DRM in cameras to prove that photographic evidence has not been tampered with. This is just one of many, many examples people benefit from limiting the capabilities of the user. If you've ever worked in IT, you know how dangerous users can be. Imagine never having to remove gator from someone's computer again, while still giving them privileges to manage their own system.

An anti-DRM software license is just as stupid as RMS deliberately making su insecure because he was mad that he couldn't root a box.

Re:DRM is not inherently evil

[JackDW]

Some police departments are using DRM in cameras to prove that photographic evidence has not been tampered with.

Why does that need DRM? Surely a digital signature would be just as good. RMS isn't opposed to using signatures and encryption - he's just opposed to technological and legal measures to prevent the user getting access to the keys!

If you've ever worked in IT, you know how dangerous users can be. Imagine never having to remove gator from someone's computer again, while still giving them privileges to manage their own system.

That sounds like an issue with the security of the operating system: users being able to install stuff without approval from IT. Can't see how DRM would do anything to help with that.

Could... Linus be talking for his employers???

[mikers]

I mean, OSDL and whoever funds OSDL... IBM and friends. Maybe they don't want GPLv3? Follow the money.

Markets ultimately correct these silly drm attempt

[jeffc128ca]

DRM will come and go. It's not the real threat you think it is. I have now been programming and dealing with hardware for about 20 years now. Just enough time to see the same things happen over and over again. Many makers will use DRM to lock you into bying there stuff. Consumers will get pissed off and stop bying that stuff.

I used to fret and worry about IBM locking down PC hardware so customers would end up locked in an IBM world. Remember that bus that IBM made, microchannel or something, that was suppose to be better than ISA. IBM was going to charge big time for board makers in liscence fees to make cards for these slots. Well along came a small company called Compaq and gave consumers what they wanted. Over the years I have watched this same scenerio play out over and over again with HD interfaces, Video cards, data file formats, you name it. Each time the open market solution natuarly won.

The consumer market wants cheap and hassle free solutions whether they have the DRM label or not. If John Doe can't plug his USB key and save a file in 10 seconds without sacrificing serious money he will go to a providor that will. Linus is right, vote with your dollars. In the ever competitive hardware market, where margins are as thin as tissue paper, some one will be there to cater to what you want.

Computer hardware and software is ultimately a buyers market. Let the market punish dumb hardware and software makers that restrict your use.

drive-by argument

[Lord Bitman]

I disagree.
I believe that anyone who uses GPL'd code I write for their device should provide an "allow untrusted code" button.
Requiring a digital signature is a secure and good thing to do. Disallowing a consumer to say "okay, but my own signature is okay too."(allowing a suitable number of secure hoops being jumped through) is a bad thing to do.

This isn't about requiring you to give out your private keys, this is about allowing the device to accept a different public key from the one originally shipped. I think this is where the confusion lies.

Other arguments about 'this is not the place to fight this battle' are valid and correct. I disagree, partially, but they are valid, and as the option exists to simply stay with GPLv2, nothing wrong with them.

Saying "you can't use any means, be they based in anything including (but not limited to) software, hardware, physics, or the law, to restrict the ability of others to create copies of the GPLd item they have recieved, or the ability to modify the GPLd item in order for it to operate in any manner different from its original purpose." Is fine by me, and the purpose of the GPL.
Saying "you can't modify this program in such a way that it attempts to put restrictions on another program" is entirely contrary to the GPL, and in that GPLv3 is bad.

so: Saying you can _always_ legally "circumvent" a GPLd program is good, but saying you can't even try to make something which can then have reason to be circumvented is bad. So long as no means (be they yada, yada, or yada..) are employed to attempt to make circumvention /through modification of the program/ difficult. (okay to make it difficult to circumvent an unmodified program, not okay to make it difficult to take out the ALLOW_PIRACY=FALSE).

And that is why saying "you need to allow people to use their own keys" is a good thing. If you deny people the right to modify the software they have recieved, it is no longer GPL.

Anti-DRM provisions

[ajs318]

Has anybody here actually read and understood the anti-DRM provisions of GPLv3, or are you all just spouting off?

Section Three -- the anti-DRM provision -- basically says that any work covered by the GPLv3 is not to be construed as a copy-prevention measure. In other words, if some mis-worded legislation makes it onto the statute books -- specifically legislation which apparently makes an act illegal, ignoring that a copyright holder might well have given permission for such an act -- GPLv3 3 is there to make it quite clear that the copying is being carried out with the blessing of the author.

It also ensures that if software subject to GPLv3 is recorded on some medium which attempts to restrict copying, that any user who is forced to bypass anti-copying restrictions in order to perform a legitimate act for which permission had already been granted, has a legal defence for doing so.

Which of the above don't you agree with?

Re:Anti-DRM provisions

[C_Kode]

Anyway you word it it comes out the same way. It's an ultimatum. If you want to use our software; you pretty much have to give up your copyright legal protections. The problem is; owner rights and users rights. The current standards are all or nothing. How do you manage the middle ground in a digital world? To this point; You can't.

My thoughts arn't exactly with Linus, but they damn sure arn't anywhere near RMS.

Re:Anti-DRM provisions

[msuarezalvarez]

It's an ultimatum. If you want to use our software; you pretty much have to give up your copyright legal protections.

Note the "if" you used... How does one cope with such an ultimatum? Well, trivial: you just do not use our software!

"If you want to use our software, you pretty much have to give up your copyright legal protections" and "You pretty much have to give up your copyright legal protections" are completely different statements!

Re:Anti-DRM provisions

[arose]

If you want to use our software; you pretty much have to give up your copyright legal protections.

Actualy you only have to give up a part of DMCA and only in the specific case when you include GPL3ed code into your copy protection mechanism. You still get all the standard copyright protections for yourself and your grandchildren.

Re:Anti-DRM provisions

[ajs318]

No, it's not like that at all.

Basically, what GPL3 says is that copying a work which is covered by GPL3 will never be subject to action under the US DMCA {or other analogous legislation elsewhere in the world}. However, all remaining provisions of the law still apply. This means that if a GPL3-licenced Work is distributed on some medium which unavoidably includes copy-protection measures, you are not breaking the DMCA et am by doing any act necessary to copy that GPL3-licenced Work.

Suppose you wake up one morning in the future and you find that the only way to get a program that you wrote to work on somebody else's computer which they want you to do involves bypassing a technological protection measure ..... perhaps the latest generation of storage devices associate themselves with a specific machine {so what you saved on the card won't load into any other computer except the one it was saved from}, or are bought with pre-installed, digitally-signed software; and in order to get a program you saved on your PC to run on someone else's PC, then you would have to fake a digital signature. This is exactly what Microsoft, the MPAA and RIAA want to see in the long run.

The DMCA is essentially flawed because it is based around the presumption that a copyright holder will never, ever give permission for anyone else to copy their Work {which, of course, is what the GPL was founded on; it gives explicit permission to copy a copyrighted Work, subject to conditions that amount to you not abusing the privilege}. It even seems to prohibit decrypting an encrypted message even if you are the rightful intended recipient of that message. That is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin explaining; but it would be foolish {at least in the USA, where the law is taken much more seriously} to rely on the Police and/or the Courts not to enforce unjust laws. GPL3 section 3 is an attempt to provide for such a case.

It's an ultimatum. If you want to use our software; you pretty much have to give up your copyright legal protections.

The Microsoft EULA is an ultimatum: if you want to use our software, you have to {at least pretend to} give up your Fair Dealing / Fair Use rights. I happen to value those rights, and wouldn't sign them away even if that were legally possible, so I don't use software which comes with such a restrictive licence agreement. If you as a developer don't believe in users' rights, then surely the logical thing to do is not to base your work on software which comes with a licence guaranteeing users their rights.

The problem is; owner rights and users rights.

What problem? Software doesn't have owners. To be owned, something must be capable of being destroyed. I think you mean the creator's right; which is this: The creator of a Work has the right to have their name associated with that Work, including all derivatives based on non-trivial portions, for the duration of living memory. GPL3 provides for this. Users have four rights: the right to ENJOY the use of the software without artificial restriction being imposed by its creator; the right to STUDY the software; the right to SHARE the software with their neighbours; and the right to ADAPT the software to the requirements of their particular situation. GPL3 provides for this also.

The only people who could possibly have any quarrel with any version of the GPL are those who want to take someone else's Work, which they have already decreed should be shared with everyone; and build a closed-source, non-shareable, proprietary product out of it, so only they benefit. Which is exactly the kind of behaviour the GPL seeks to prevent in the first place!

Re:If Linus thinks..

[LiquidCoooled]

So what about the modifications and improvements Microsoft might have made inside the tcp stack?

Can I just pick up those and carry on using their real world tested improved versions?
If it was released under a gpl license then it wouldn't be a problem because it would all be in the open.

* I know Microsoft has lots of dirty code, but not everything they do is evil and having to reverse engineer to find the modifications is wasteful in both time and resources.

You are right about the BSD variants openly sharing code, but thats more due to good sportsmanship and an informal gentlemans code than anything. Nothing (as far as I know) prevents me from taking a branch from one of them and creating a "Secure-BSD" and locking the code and my modifications away and not give the source away.

Fighting DRM

[Peter H.S.]

I agree with Linus that the GPL is the wrong place to fight DRM.
If you like me and many others, think that DRM imposes problems for both individual persons and the way we want to run our societies, then you must fight DRM at the _real_ battlefield, namely the political process that makes the laws governing your society.
_WE_ know why DRM is a bad thing, but does the politicians? the voters? your friends?
You need to sharpen your thoughts about why you think DRM is a bad thing for our society, and then act upon it.
Fighting DRM is a political battle, not a technical.

We may not be able to gather enough political support to outright ban DRM, so let us instead follow the anti-tobacco crowds lead, and bit by bit; a law here, a ban there, make DRM product manufactureres life difficult and expensive.

Eg. enforce a DRM escrow: the content providers must guarantee, not promise, not try, but guarantee, that a DRM free version is available when the copyright expires.
And since DRM products enjoys not only the strong copyright protection, but also protection from DMCA laws, then it is only fair, that the duration of this state guaranteed monopoly is shortenend somewhat.

Be imaginative; think of all the little scenarios where DRM could be a problem, and work for small, concrete laws that expells DRM for that scenario, or at least makes it more expensive.

Make a "lex Sony rootkit"; make DRM dealers responsible for their actions in a way that actually hurt them.

Make sure that all DRM products are marked as such in a clear way, perhaps like on cigarette packets; "Warning, this product contains DRM, that may be harmfull for your personal freedom";-)

Make a "Lex ipod", that guarantees everybody the right to use their bought content on _all future_ appliances.

--
Regards
Peter H.S.

Re:Fighting DRM

[m50d]

You could apply the exact same argument to say the GPLv2 is not the place to fight copyright.

Re:Fighting DRM

[Peter H.S.]

You could apply the exact same argument to say the GPLv2 is not the place to fight copyright.

Yes exactly! I really like the GPL. It actually means so much to me, that the majority of the software I use is under the GPL-(licence) (Linux/GNU/KDE).
For some it may not matter, but for me there definitely is a strong feel-good-factor in knowing that the source code for my OS is available without tainting restrictions.
I really don't like DRM, not because it hamper my attempts to get some easy warez, but because DRM restricts my personal freedom in an unacceptable manner, and will have nasty consequences for our cultural and historical heritage for years to come.
This does not means that I am against copyright. Actually, the GPL _depends_ on copyright, even though it extends it in a generous manner.
So no. The GPL, be it version 2 or 3, is not the place to fight against copyright.
I am actually a strong supporter of copyright. The specific copyright laws however, could really need a revision.

--
Regards
Peter H.S.

Re:Fighting DRM

[m50d]

Fighting against copyright, as applied to computer programs, is exactly what the GPLv2 is about. Sure, it's problems with the specific laws rather than the whole concept - but the same is true of the anti-DRM provisions in GPLv3.

Re:Fighting DRM

[Peter H.S.]

Fighting against copyright, as applied to computer programs, is exactly what the GPLv2 is about.
No it is not; it is about freedom and control; freedom to have access to the source code, and controlling that that everybody have access to modifications to the source code. Both aspects actually _depedends_ on copyright laws to give any meaning, without it, anybody could take a GPL program and convert it to a closed source, propertiary program, and claim that they wrote it too.
Copyright, in its original sense, that the author of an work has the right to control his work, including whether he wants to distribute freely or not, is a good thing indeed. There are however severeal issues with current copyright law one should look into; the extremely long expire dates, abandonware etc.

--
Regards
Peter H.S.

Re:Fighting DRM

[m50d]

No it is not; it is about freedom and control; freedom to have access to the source code, and controlling that that everybody have access to modifications to the source code.

It's also about the freedom to distribute your modified version or even plain copies of the original - something that copyright normally prevents. Sure, there are other aspects to it, but this is a large part of what the GPL is about.

Both aspects actually _depedends_ on copyright laws to give any meaning, without it, anybody could take a GPL program and convert it to a closed source, propertiary program, and claim that they wrote it too.

Yes, but by the same token anyone could redistribute a proprietary program, and modify it if they had sufficient ingenuity. I think that with the exception of the right to be identified as an author, RMS would be happier with no copyright applied to computer programs than with the current situation.

Copyright, in its original sense, that the author of an work has the right to control his work, including whether he wants to distribute freely or not, is a good thing indeed.

I don't think it is for computer programs. There's no need for large amounts of capital to start producing them. Copying a program isn't the act of a ruthless profiteer, it's a completely natural thing to do. I think preventing the free distribution of computer programs without the author's permission is an overall bad thing.

Re:Fighting DRM

[Peter H.S.]

Ups. hit submit instead of preview. Sorry about the many typos.

--
Regards
Peter H.S.

Re:Fighting DRM

[Peter H.S.]

Yes, but by the same token anyone could redistribute a proprietary program, and modify it if they had sufficient ingenuity. I think that with the exception of the right to be identified as an author, RMS would be happier with no copyright applied to computer programs than with the current situation.

I can guarantee that Mr. Stallman much prefers free (as in freedom) source code and copyright laws, than free (as in beer) binaries if copyright laws didn't exist.
Without copyright law, every GPL licence would be a BSD licence; everyone could take the source code, (perhaps modifying it) and publish binaries without source code, while even claiming that they wrote the program (don't even have to acknowledge the author).

I don't think it is for computer programs. There's no need for large amounts of capital to start producing them...
Well, I do think that you are in the wrong here. Having even just 5 programmers on the payroll for a year, plus office expenses is a serious cash layout according to my wallet

Copying a program isn't the act of a ruthless profiteer, it's a completely natural thing to do.
I kind of agree with you here; copyright laws are not "natural" laws like normal property laws. Copyright laws are in fact an unnatural monopoly, but that doesn't invalidate it as a law; think of it as a two way contract; the author gets control of his work, and propably earn more money, the society perhaps get some works because of this. We, the society, grant this monopoly, but we get something for it.

I think preventing the free distribution of computer programs without the author's permission is an overall bad thing.
Ruthless people and corporations don't care about moral peer pressure. We need laws with consequences to deal with this kind.

Re:Fighting DRM

[m50d]

I can guarantee that Mr. Stallman much prefers free (as in freedom) source code and copyright laws, than free (as in beer) binaries if copyright laws didn't exist.
Without copyright law, every GPL licence would be a BSD licence; everyone could take the source code, (perhaps modifying it) and publish binaries without source code, while even claiming that they wrote the program (don't even have to acknowledge the author).

But in the same way, every program at all would be under a BSD licence. The GPL involves giving up some freedoms, in order to ensure more programs have the four freedoms he considers most important. It would be better if they had said freedoms anyway.

Well, I do think that you are in the wrong here. Having even just 5 programmers on the payroll for a year, plus office expenses is a serious cash layout according to my wallet

Sorry, what I mean is once the creation has happened, producing copies requires very little effort, unlike say a book which can be fully written but will still require a lot more funds (arrgh, my grammar good today) to publish.

Re:Fighting DRM

[Peter H.S.]

But in the same way, every program at all would be under a BSD licence. The GPL involves giving up some freedoms, in order to ensure more programs have the four freedoms he considers most important. It would be better if they had said freedoms anyway.

Without copyright laws, then only GPL and GPL-like OSI-licences would revert to a BSD-licence situation, all the proprietary, closed source software would still be closed source, binary only.
Well, perhaps we just disagree fundamentally about the ide of copyright, personally I really don't think that copyright laws as such are a problem, and IMHO GPL software actually benefit from the idea. DRM however, can easily turn into a nasty problem for our society, and by the same time take away essential freedoms from me, without giving anything in return.

--
Regards
Peter H.S:

Re:Fighting DRM

[m50d]

Without copyright laws, then only GPL and GPL-like OSI-licences would revert to a BSD-licence situation, all the proprietary, closed source software would still be closed source, binary only.

Yes, but it would still be redistributable, modifiable, and reverse-engineerable if it was worth the effort. Sure, it's a tradeoff, but I think on the whole we'd be better off.

GPL2 not 3 for Linux is quite strategic

[stanwirth]

If Linux were released under GPL3, then nobody with a DRM box could run Linux on it. But by allowing Linux to run on DRM hardware, if something doesn't work because of DRM, then the HW manufacturers are the bad guys, and DRM at fault -- not those nice OSS people who just want to help everybody.

It also gives us all ongoing opportunities to observe misapplications of DRM technology (spyware, malware attempts) by providing a nice platform. While finding ways of actually thwarting lawful applications of DRM would be wrong, if there's an unlawful misapplication of DRM that's easily observable (because Linux runs on the thing) and possible to thwart...Cool!

So I have to say that Linus has it right, both in spirit and in strategy wrt to the kernel. And there's nothing stopping anyone from writing GPL3 applications that run on it -- but only if you get a non-DRM box. Which is another way of strategically opposing DRM -- allow your OS to run on it, but let it break half the apps, so people have a reason to not buy DRM hardware.

And he says as much, too.

Re:GPL2 not 3 for Linux is quite strategic

[Alsee]

If Linux were released under GPL3, then nobody with a DRM box could run Linux on it.

Gahhh! How is such missinformation getting modded to 5? Your statement is false.

The GPL3 draft does TWO things.
(1) It says that along with the program I must receive the legal right to modify and use it. In particular it says that I receive any rights required under the DMCA/EUCD to be able to legally modify and redistribute it. In otherwords it simply says that I not go to prison for modifying and redistributing GPL code.

(2) It says that anyone redistributing GPL code must include all of the source code required to be able to make functional modifications to it. In particular if someone takes my GPL code, I cannot be denied from using and modifying derivatives of my own work! In particular if it is impossible to modify and compile code into a functional state without some unique key, then that key is a part of the source required to compile that code.

It is the same old GPL operation as always, simply (1) updated to address a new legal issue that might be abused to deny the legal right to modify the code; and (2) updated to address a new loophole that might be abused to distribute incomplete source to deny people the ability to modify the code.

-

Re:If Linus thinks..

[PitaBred]

KDE and Qt. There's your single example of shoulder-standing. Hell, anything compiled with the GNU compilers. Any other silly statements?

Re:If Linus thinks..

[wurp]

and I can't find a single instance of people standing on each other's shoulders

Uh, say what?!? What about Linux (based on Stallman's work), mplayer (based on libavcodec, which uses X264), and basically every other GPLed software in existence? Looking at popular packages, it's hard to find GPL'd work that *isn't* standing on some other GPL'd product's shoulders!

More examples: CVS (based on VCS), SVN (based on CVS), Gimp (based on tons of image processing libraries, e.g. libpng)

It's possible that there is no CVS code in SVN (although I'd be surprised), but I would be astonished if the SVN developers weren't reading CVS code for ideas.

God bless Torvalds

[Hosiah]

He's so level-headed in a field of holy-men-with-a-mission-from-$DIETY as far as the eye can see. I may not always agree 100%, but it's well worth it just to hear him point out from time to time that we do not, in fact, have to commit ourselves to Jihad.

DRM in linux

[nazsco]

torvalds is already implementing DRM in the core of the linux kernel.

it will prevent you using non GPL modules, prevent you from running non GPL program and finally prevent you from listening to non-GPL bands.

And what is your complaint?

[Changa_MC]

Who's forcing you to do anything?

Let's say I release a webbrowser under the GPL. If you write your own browser, I have no control over you at all! Even if you use my libraries, released under the LGPL, you can do what you want with your source.

It's only if you modify my program and release it back into the wild that you have to release the source. Surely that's not unreasonable? It's my source, if you take it, I expect something small in return. I could charge you money instead, but I'm altruistic and am telling you to pass on the favor to other young hopefuls like yourself.

Information doesn't want to be free, but I want my information to be free: I don't want you taking it and hiding it.

Re:And what is your complaint?

[Nugget]

I could charge you money instead, but I'm altruistic and am telling you to pass on the favor...

But see, there's the problem. Many developers would prefer to be much more altruistic than that. When I write open source code I don't just want to restrict its usefulness to people who use just a single license. I want to maximize its utility to a much larger population. Thus the GPL is too restrictive for my tastes.

Releasing code to the public domain or using a BSD license helps all programmers. Releasing code under the GPL helps other programmers who are using the GPL. I'd rather see my code available to everyone else, too, like the apache developers and the x.org developers, and the mozilla developers, and yes even the Apple developers and the Microsoft folks.

In my mind, that's a whole lot more generous, altruistic, and (dare I say it?) *free* than the GPL which is a bit coercive in practice.

Re:And what is your complaint?

[Changa_MC]

Releasing code under the GPL helps other programmers who are using the GPL.

Anyone on earth can live with the GPL for one progect, it's not as painful as you imply.

And programmers working for Oracle or Microsoft or Apple who want to take my software to sell it should be paying me in some way. It would be nice if BSD could force Apple to open Aqua to developers, but since their license has no teeth, they can't. Sure, Linux is less free than BSD, but it's much more free than OS/X.

It's home users I care about, and GPL grants them the right to see the code they are running. I don't see a need for me to be generous to miserly mid-level developers.

Re:And what is your complaint?

[Nugget]

Speaking as a developer who has code in FreeBSD which Apple is using, I couldn't disagree more. It would be horrible if the BSD license tried to enforce that sort of thing and I sure wouldn't have contributed my work to the project if it were under such a terrible license. You seem to think that I and the other BSD developers have been cheated, or that Apple has somehow done something we didn't expect and don't like. You couldn't be farther from the truth. When I produce open source code I want for it to be useful to as many people as possible. I want to contribute it for the world to use. I have no interest at all in wrapping it up in a restrictive license (like the GPL) that tries to make sure that it's only useful for other people who agree to use the same license I did.

I can't stand how the GPL is designed to "enforce freedom" which sounds like quite an oxymoron to me.

Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Concern]

Not.

He's thinking about the near future, where most interesting new hardware would have a chain of trust that requires you to have secret keys to get your programs to run on it, and you will never get those secret keys.

You modify that source code to your heart's content, suckers, because it's written against this prison platform (and it's probably not really useful anywhere else) and if you change it, it won't load.

WTF is the point of the GPL then? Where is the freedom?

Leaving aside the fact that DRM itself is nonsense (it is), impossible (it is), and inherently repugnant and evil (it is), DRM is directly incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, that's all.

The GPL itself has a "no secret sauce" provision. You're not really staying free if you can keep to yourself some secret that the code actually needs to work. This is just formally and explicitly extending the same line of reasoning for the most likely way it's being violated.

I really can't understand why people don't get this. The corporate world on a whim thinks it might be more profitable to take away all your freedom to tinker. They're probably not even right about that.

You just all roll over? Sure, I'll help. No, I don't need to get paid.

RMS is saying, look, this is bad shit, and I want no part of building this prison. Anyone who feels like I do, here's a license you can use. Don't be a sucker.

Linus doesn't want to use it, fine. I think he's an idiot for not getting it, but no one is being "pressed." We're all free to do what we want. Stallman can't press anybody. And that's the point. he's fighting so that you can't be "pressed" by others.

"Pressing." LOL! All this hate against RMS and the FSF is so barbarous, and so sadly ironic, frankly...

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Arker]

Linus doesn't want to use it, fine. I think he's an idiot for not getting it

He's not an idiot. I do agree that he's not getting it here, but he's far from an idiot. I hope he does get it, sooner than later - and on the other side, I think some of his criticisms indicate areas where the current text is less clear than it should be, and the FSF should find it helpful for that.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[dasnov]

Linus doesn't want to use it, fine.

As it has been said many times before, it doesn't really matter what he thinks of the liscense. Linux will allways be GPL v2 and there is not much he can do to change that (even if he wanted to). So I am not sure why anyone even cares about his opinion on this, I certaninly don't.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[ajs]

All of your arguments against DRM make sense, but they're arguments against DRM, not against open source software that implements hooks for DRM hardware. The GPLv3 would, for example, rule out allowing a company to ship a Linux distribution on a hardware platform that required the software to use secret keys in order to run, even if the code that had the hooks were open source. This does not hurt the hardware vendor, but does hurt the open source project which will be passed over by anyone who needs to interact with that platform.

Linux became the default choice for many business server and embeded applications because it DID NOT make these kinds of arbitrary decisions about the rightness or wrongness of the use to which you put the OS. That menas it might be used to kill people (which I find much more problematic than DRM) or to sniff out file sharers or to record international phone calls, but that's something that you fight outside of the tool. The tool is just a tool and improper uses should be sanctioned by dealing directly with those uses, not invalidating the tool.

Put another way: if the Linux kernel COULD be put under the GPLv3 tomorrow and WAS, I expect that we would all be using FreeBSD in not so very long. That really doesn't make the statement about DRM that I think Stallman was trying to assert.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Overly Critical Guy]

RMS also actually believes that commercial software is evil and that all software should be "free," but it should be HIS definition of free. He wants to define it and bend everyone to that. I take very little of what he says seriously as he strikes me as the kind of zealot I often find around here, arguing emotively instead of reasonably. Torvalds is far more grounded which is why he gets the respect. So while you play crusader and ramble on about "the corporate world" (ah, dorm-room anti-capitalism) on Slashdot, Torvalds is actually busy right now making something people use to get things done.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me, or does anyone who uses phrases like "the corporate world" or "big corporations" basically admitting "I'm just a college student and don't have a job!"

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Eil]

I take it you didn't RTFM, because if you did you'd realize that your post is largely off-topic.

Everyone's going around saying that Linus is pooh-poohing the GPLv3, which isn't the case if you actually read his articles. What he is in fact saying is that he feels the GPLv3 isn't right for the Linux kernel.

You modify that source code to your heart's content, suckers, because it's written against this prison platform (and it's probably not really useful anywhere else) and if you change it, it won't load.

WTF is the point of the GPL then? Where is the freedom?

Here's a simple solution to that whole problem: Don't buy the damn DRM hardware in the first place. No matter how marginalized it may become, there will always be non-DRM general-purpose computing hardware. Linus is saying that software developers have no right to dictate what people do with their hardware.

Leaving aside the fact that DRM itself is nonsense (it is), impossible (it is), and inherently repugnant and evil (it is), DRM is directly incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, that's all.

I don't like DRM either, but I'm smart enough that I know to steer clear of it and simply vote with my wallet instead. Granted, my wallet not going to make any difference in the market as a whole. But my fight against DRM consists of educating those who don't know what its all about and supporting open source software and non-DRM hardware to the best of my ability. Contrived software licenses are not the proper place for a DRM battlefield.

Frankly, the more restrictions that are built into the GPL, less free the software licensed under it becomes.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[freshman_a]

He's thinking about the near future, where most interesting new hardware would have a chain of trust that requires you to have secret keys to get your programs to run on it, and you will never get those secret keys.

So take it up with the hardware people, not software people.

WTF is the point of the GPL then?

To guarantee access to the source code - which it is whether DRM is present or not.

Linus doesn't want to use it, fine. I think he's an idiot for not getting it

So he's an idiot because he has a different point of view than you? Wow, that's a bullet-proof argument. I think he does get it. He wants his source code to be freely available to anyone who wants it, and it is. He doesn't think that hardware DRM issues should be fought with software licenses. Makes sense to me. But then again, I don't agree with you, so I'm probably an idiot too, right?

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[marcosdumay]

That may be news for you, but Linux is used by the corporate world because it is good. And it is good because it has a very big and active community. And it has a very big and active community because it can't be taken away.

If easy to take away where why companies are using Linux, they would already be using a BSD.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[marcosdumay]

Nice troll! But that means "I'm not an executive of a big company". Or alternatively, "Yes, I am an executive of a big company, but mine is different".

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[ajs]

"Linux is used by the corporate world because it is good."

Fair enough.

"And it is good because it has a very big and active community."

Fair.

"And it has a very big and active community because it can't be taken away."

Oh... no, I don't think so. I and many others made the choice to run Linux early on, and to advocate it in personal and business settings because of three factors:

1) At the time, it was the only stable, Unix-like OS for cheap hardware (BSD386 wasn't quite there yet in those days, and it had not yet spawned FreeBSD or NetBSD (OpenBSD would come even later))

2) MS Windows was crashing every 1-2 hours at least (when you didn't touch it) and no matter how good Cygwin or FTP Software's stuff was, we couldn't get work done on Windows.

3) Sun and the rest of the non-PC-hardware Unix platforms were too expensive and slow to adopt new admin techniques.

In short: it was good and the competition either wasn't there yet, sucked or was too expensive.

There was almost no consideration of the license for most of us who contributed to or advocated for Linux, other than the fact that we appreciated the idea of free software, and would not have contributed to non-free software. But most of us had grown up with BSD on Vaxen.

"If easy to take away where why companies are using Linux, they would already be using a BSD."

That's not the reason any more than that's the reason NOT.

Also, if what you say were correct, none of us would be using X today, and flocks of developers would have abandoned X to write a GPLed display server. No, it was good and it was early and it was free. That was enough.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[marcosdumay]

There are some people here that don't like RMS. I can't understand why, it seems that he offended their mothers or something like that. But he should be very buzy offending mothers, what doesn't seem to be true, otherwise he'd not have the time to work on GPLv3. Those people seem to like FOSS, but that passions against the basics of the phylosophy they like (the F in FOSS) is weard.

I sencod that there are a few points on GPLv3 that need a better wording. I also know that Torvalds oppinion isn't important, Linux will be GPLv2 anyway. But not seing a problem in having his GPLed program taken away is doublethinking. Or he don't want the GPL at all.

As a side note, I'm only waitting GPLv3 release to publish a piece of code (that I already have) on it. The anti DRM clause is exactly what I want it to have, and the compatibility clause is astounishing.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[pavera]

It all comes down to idealist vs pragmatist. In an ideal world there would be no viruses, no hackers, and no need for encryption of any kind, and it would be great and everything would be open. In the real world, many systems need encryption, they need some form of DRM and not just to keep you from watching a movie. In the very near future I wouldn't be suprised if the government requires that their systems that they purchase implement some form of DRM for security purposes. Businesses will do it to, to lock THEIR DATA down and make sure corporate spys, naughty employees, whatever, don't compromise the system. The GPLv3 effectively locks OSS out of that entire market segment. It will eliminate choice for corps and governments that have policies that mandate secure systems. They will no longer be able to choose GPLv3 systems and software. It will hand the entire market to MS before there is even a battle. Basically the GPLv3 is RMS waving a white flag and saying "We won't compete with you in the secure DRM'd future, you can have that market". Believe me there is a market for this sort of thing, when TCPA actually gets here, and there is end to end encryption and rights management, Businesses will flock to it, to protect their data and networks from anyone who should be looking/touching/editing/whatever. And the GPLv3 says "Oh sorry we won't run on a TCPA computer".

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Concern]

To repeat my words, I think he's "being" an idiot, not that he is an idiot. :) I'm with you on this.

And you make a very important point. If the draft was so widely misinterpreted by us, then you can imagine how it will do in the courts. It needs work, and if the anti-DRM stuff can't be done in a clear and legally impenetrable way, it shouldn't be done (or rather, they can do it if they want, but no one will use the licence).

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The GPLv3 would, for example, rule out allowing a company to ship a Linux distribution on a hardware platform that required the software to use secret keys in order to run, even if the code that had the hooks were open source. This does not hurt the hardware vendor, but does hurt the open source project which will be passed over by anyone who needs to interact with that platform.

Hey, you forgot someone in that paragraph.

The person you forgot is the END USER you know, the one the GPL is designed to protect. As far as that end user is concerned, DRM-keyed "Open Source" software is no more Free than beer, it certainly ain't one iota Free as in Liberty.

The liberty to tinker, customize and improve is what the GPL is about and DRMing a platform to lock out tinkered versions of the software is antithetical to the prime goal of the GPL - regardless of version. The proposed v3 wording just makes that fact explicit with respect to DRM.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Concern]

I don't think you read my post. It was entirely on topic. I can't really understand your criticism, though.

What you wrote:

What he is in fact saying is that he feels the GPLv3 isn't right for the Linux kernel.

What I wrote:

Linus doesn't want to use it, fine. I think he's an idiot for not getting it, but no one is being "pressed." We're all free to do what we want. Stallman can't press anybody. And that's the point. he's fighting so that you can't be "pressed" by others.

I believe we basically agree.

Don't buy the damn DRM hardware in the first place.

First of all, this isn't the point. In fact, if you RTFA and my post you would see why this is irrelevant. I'll add more to this thought in a second.

But second of all, just as an aside, you may not have many options. Already this is true for certain specialied kinds of hardware.

It takes billions to make modern chips. Only a few companies do it. This is not exactly a fluid market. You may not realize what you mean by "marginalized."

Linus is saying that software developers have no right to dictate what people do with their hardware.

What we are discussing is how you would like to license your free software. If you want to do some FS work, you make it available under the terms you want. If people don't like the terms, they don't get the free stuff. Maybe they go pay for an alternative.

Does that sound like dictating?

No, of course it's not.

It's the DRM people who want to dictate.

This is just FSF saying, hey, you know there's really no point in having a GPL if someone can make some hardware secret sauce and you can't actually modify the works. We don't want our work to help the guys building this prison. If you feel the same way, here, you can use our license.

Linus doesn't want to come along? That's his loss. No one's dictating anything to him either. If I understand it correctly the whole thing is moot, too, since the copyrights were never assigned to a central authority and relicensing Linux is thus impossible anyway.

So by the way, is this just a comedic discussion about a moot point? Or did we just discover that this really is Linus just gratuitously (and IMHO ignorantly) bashing the GPLv3 draft?

Granted, my wallet not going to make any difference in the market as a whole.

Yeah. That's it in a nutshell, man.

Frankly, the more restrictions that are built into the GPL, less free the software licensed under it becomes.

You have a good point here. Maybe you're right. It depends. I kind of agree, but I also have an idea that many people will be unable to ignore the advantages of the commons, and just like everyone wants to live in a first world country with lots of rules (designed, largely, to make you more "free" on the balance) than a third world country that's laissez faire, people will continue to gravitate towards the license as long as its restrictions are exactly and only concerned with guaranteeing freedom effectively.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Chandon Seldon]

How is the source code even vaguely meaningful if you can't use it?

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[zotz]

"Is it just me..."

I dont't know if it is just you or if there are others in agreement, but however many of you there are, you would be wrong.

I can be found using similar language from time to time, probably something like "the big boys" or "the big guys" and I have been out of college since 1981.

I have had my own company for many years now. Many people here, on hearing me talk on subjects I most often talk on, would probably conclude I am right wing and fairly far right. (I don't know that they would be right though.) I like the idea of Free Markets. I don't think items protected by copyrights and patents can take part in the free markets though. They are inherently monopoly goods. That is, after all, the whole idea behind those protections.

So, I am not some anti-business college student.

So, you were saying?

all the best,

drew

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Chandon Seldon]

The use of DRM capibilities for actual security isn't called DRM. It's called "security hardware" and there's nothing in the GPLv3 that would prevent you from implementing a system that relied on security hardware.

The thing that GPLv3 is trying to prevent is the distribution of proprietary software/non-free software derived from GPL code that just happens to include source code - but you can't use it because modified versions won't run on your hardware.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Arandir]

WTF is the point of the GPL then? Where is the freedom?

You have the freedom not to use that hardware.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Concern]

So take it up with the hardware people, not software people.

Irrelevant. Of course we will. That's not the point.

The point is that the GPL is now meaningless on the locked platform. Without v3 you are free - to do nothing.

This is just a license you can use if you want your stuff to be really free, instead of "kind of free but not really free at all if they pull the old hardware secret sauce trick on you."

So if you care about it, using the new license is the main thing. The hardware market could in theory respond to FS geeks pressure. However, you and I both know it probably won't.

To guarantee access to the source code - which it is whether DRM is present or not.

You don't get it.

Why does it guarantee access to the source code?

Why?

So you can admire the artistry of the curly bracket placement?

So you can modify it... and then actually use it!

So. Now, where were we. You have your GPLv2 source code... you made your change. You recompile, and you try to re-use it...

And you get an error. "Security Violation."

OK, welcome to your new definition of "Freedom." It's OK with Linus, and I guess it's OK with you. Good luck kid. You do whatever you want with your own code... so will the FSF...

So he's an idiot because he has a different point of view than you? Wow, that's a bullet-proof argument.

No, he's being an idiot for the reasons I stated, and by the way, if you want to argue otherwise, you might want to read those reasons and actually respond to them...

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Roxton]

Of course you can use the software, just not on that particular hardware design. I think the separation of domains is pretty clear here.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Concern]

Wrong.

This means the DRM hardware has found a loophole to remove your freedom to modify the GPL software that runs on it.

You want to use different hardware? Beside the point. What about the software written for that DRM hardware?

Were you going to say "Don't write it then?" Because that's exactly what RMS is saying, with this license.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Arandir]

If you choose to shackle yourself to that hardware, be my guest. Just remember that it is your choice that's doing the shackling.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Chandon Seldon]

So anyone should be able to freely use GPL code in their XBox360 programs, knowing that their required code release is irrelevent because no user has a developer key?

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Syberghost]

To repeat my words, I think he's "being" an idiot, not that he is an idiot.

Not only are "being" and "is" the present participle and third person singular present indicative of the same word, but "he's" has an "is" in it.

You are, in fact, arguing about what the meaning of "is" is. That's been tried; didn't come off so well.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Concern]

Ah, I think the meaning is clear.

"Is" - is.

"Is being" by contrast clearly indicates a more transitory or temporary condition - regardless of whether the "is" is in a contraction.

But in case I wasn't understood, that's what I meant. :D

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Concern]

Sorry, getting towards the end of the day here and my eyes aren't working so well. It wasn't "is being," it was "he's an idiot for..." and it should have been "he's being"...

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[khallow]

It's not a problem now. Who will eliminate non-DRM computers? And if someone has that sort of power, what's going to keep them from negating the GPL v3 license? My point here is that in a market, there will always be demand for computers that aren't locked down by the vendor. The only way to kill that is with government force. That same force can easily be used to subvert software licenses that get in the way.

My take is that there are legitimate uses for DRM-based computers. And it makes sense to use a license that allows software to be used on those platforms and still maintain the DRM structure. That after all, increases the usefulness of your software.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Roxton]

At least you can know what's running on your box, and you can analyze and reuse clever algorithms or design approaches elsewhere. I suppose by your logic, all ROM on hardware should be flashable and have excess storage capacity for new features.

Consider an ATM with open-source software. That's great, because the community can make sure the ATM isn't flawed. The ATM contains the servicable capacity for firmware upgrades. Under your model, a private key for signing code would be inadequate - instead, you'd require the manufacturer to create physical locks. Here, the DRM provision of the GPL gives nothing, and it opens up more possibilities of tampering throughout the manufacturing chain.

Unless you want to create a very gray distinction between an appliance and a general purpose computer, you'll have a hard time justifying the DRM provision.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Chandon Seldon]

My general feeling is that the owner of hardware should have as much access to programable features as the developers.

For an ATM, the bank (as the owner) should have full programming ability.
ROM is ROM. The owner had full access to it's zero programmable features. On the other hand, if it *is* flashable then the owner should be able to flash it.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[ajs]

Again, great argument against DRM. Bad argument against software that runs equally on all platforms.

Let the market pressures take care of DRM hardware. In a market where new CPUs are measured by how overclockable they are, I just don't see DRM hardware becoming the default platform for computing.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Again, great argument against DRM. Bad argument against software that runs equally on all platforms.

You just refuse to get it don't you? The end user doesn't give a crap if the software runs on some other platform. He cares if it runs on the platform he paid for.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[rnd()]

the parent is Wise! mod it up if it gets below a 5!

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[pavera]

What it is called doesn't matter. DRM vs "Security Hardware" is the same thing, the software must be signed by a secure private key to run on the system, and that is what the GPLv3 disallows. If you sign software with a private key, you must distribute your private key. Well guess what, that totally destroys your "Security Hardware" because now any mindless joe can build some software that will run on your "secure" system, sign it with your freely available private key, and bypass the encryption and steal your data.

The GPLv3 will make OSS software completely non-viable in Government and business applications within 5 years. Government and Enterprise systems will all be mandated by policies and probably even laws (SEC regulations for publicly traded companies) to use TCPA/DRM'd computers as soon as it is a working "standard". When this happens GPLv3 software will not be allowed in any of these companies or the government.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Alsee]

I'm curious exactly which clause you are objecting to?

Is it the one that says when someone takes *my* GPL code and modifies it and distributes it, that they have to grant me all of the legal rights required for me to be able to modify derivatives of my own work? Which just so happens to now explicitly state that "all legal rights required" for making modifications also includes and DMCA rights wich might be used to attempt to violate the GPL and prohibit modifications?

Or would that be the one that says when someone takes *my* GPL code and modifies it and distributes it, that they have to include all of the source code for me to be able to modifiy and compile and use derivatives of my own work? Which just so happens to now explicitly state that if some specific key is required in order to be able to compile functioning software, then that key is a part of the source code for compilation, and therefor must be included with the source.

Really there's nothing new here, and I'm not sure what you're objecting to. The GPL was always indended and always desiged to say that you must grant the legal rightto make modifications along with the distribution, and that you must include the full source needed to be able to properly compile modifications.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone can release software under the GPL and then prohibit modifications? Do you imagine that you can somehow make a DRM system and grant people the right and ability to modify it, and that it would somehow work? Go ahead, you're free to make a GPL3 DRM system. You just can't GPL-grant people the right and ability to modify it and expect it to be a meaningful enforceable DRM system.

-

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Roxton]

Yeah, let each branch office manager flash the software on his ATM. Brilliant. I'll bet the FDIC would insure that in a heartbeat.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[ajs]

"You just refuse to get it don't you? The end user doesn't give a crap if the software runs on some other platform. He cares if it runs on the platform he paid for."

Ok, so explain yourself. Why is it a bad thing to provide users with what they want? I make an OS, and I ship it on a dozen platforms. On this one particular platform, it only works if I use a secret key to sign my software that I cannot give to my customers. The GPLv3 says I can't support that platform and ship my code under that license.

Should I tell my customers to get stuffed, or should I dump the GPLv3? Linus is saying that, were the GPLv3 even an option, which it's not, he would not tell his "customers" to get stuffed. He would support them right along with everyone else. I'd do the same, and I'd still use every argument presented here as good and valid arguments against DRM hardware (which CAN be a good thing, but not in any form that I've heard much about to date).

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[ajs]

Just to make one further point. Your post here is highly hyperbolic. To say that software "isn't one iota free as in liberty" because it ships on a DRM platform doesn't make a lot of sense. After all, you have the source. Nothing about that software is secret to you except for a key. You can take the software to another platform and modify/distribute/whatever to your heart's content. You could even work out a deal with the hardware manufacturer to get yourself a key for signing your own code and run that same software, as compiled by you.

Your argument is a bit like suggesting that you have no freedoms when someone ships binaries that only run on high-end, multi-million dollar hardware, for which compilers are only available from one company, and cost millions themselves. It's the exact same situation, and you have two choices: break the platform lock by writing a compiler (or defeating the DRM) or port to another platform. That latter option is only available to you with open source software!

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Why is it a bad thing to provide users with what they want?

The core point of the GPL is that it guarantees users the freedom to tinker. You deny them that freedom when you lock it up with DRM.

If you don't think your customers should have the freedom to tinker, then don't use GPL'd software in your products.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's the exact same situation,

No it is not the exact same situation, in fact it is fundamentally different - the difference is that the DRM's SOLE PURPOSE is to prevent users from tinkering. Platforms with specialized compilers do not have specialized compilers to prevent the end user from tinkering, that's just a side-effect and there is no law preventing someone from re-implementing the compiler while there is a big nasty law preventing someone from cracking the DRM.

A much more accurate analogy is that of the car with the hood welded shut, but a copy of the engine schematic in the glove compartment. The only point in welding the hood shut is to prevent people from tinkering with the engine - sure you are free to go build a brand new, identical engine in some other car, just don't touch the one you already paid for, under penalty of jail time.

Nothing about that software is secret to you except for a key.

Bingo - the key is effectively part of the source, without it, you can not completely recreate the original shipping binaries. From your perspective, that's already a violation under GPLv2.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[ajs]

Ok, this is going nowhere. I feel that software should expand, gas-like, to fill every available nook and cranny of its environment, and you feel that it should be prevented from shipping on platforms that you feel limit freedoms.

*shrug*

It's a moot point. The Linux kernel license can't change at this point, and the average Linux software developer isn't going to select a license that Linus has such strong concerns about, so while I'm sure the GPLv3 will be used, I'm equally sure that you won't see it as widely adopted as the GPLv2, which is kind of sad, really. For all the respect I have for Stallman as a programmer, I still think the GPL was his cleverest hack. My sense of nostalgia wants to override my sense of fair play here, but ... well, we've had that discussion, and we'll have to agree to disagree.

Re:Oh yeah, Stallman is a real tyrant...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Ok, this is going nowhere. I feel that software should expand, gas-like, to fill every available nook and cranny of its environment, and you feel that it should be prevented from shipping on platforms that you feel limit freedoms.

Thanks for the summary, but you got it wrong. I, and I'm pretty sure the FSF, believe that software should be fully Free as in liberty, not as in gratis. Your opinion much more closely matches the "Open Source" philosophy and not the "Free Software" philosophy which is ok with limited or partial liberty.

Is it just me

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Or isn't GPL seemingly just more complicated then it needs to be.

I mean, yeah, get on the bandwagon, Windows sucks! But I have never gotten a head ache trying to read and understand Windows Licencing and Disclaimers. Basically, I bought the software and I only have the rights to install it on One Computer, period.

Reading previous GPL statements is simply too confusing. When can I use software, when can I share source code, when can I use other source code in my projects. The bottom line is, our company tells us simply to avoid GPL software code or products.

It just seems like a double standard. That open source projects are trying to create a free and diverse environment for information and innovation exchange, just that there is a big disclaimer limiting your ability to use and distribute the software.

GPL3 just seems to add to that complication by trying to get DRM protection and other IP protection in place, which kind of defeats the whole warm fuzzy feeling Open source was supposed to inspire.

In the end, I do agree with Linus and his fight against DRM, but then, I just find the whole licensing and disclaimers surrounding open source software to be kind of hypocritical to the whole movement.

Code Free, Share it, Love it, period!

Re:Is it just me

[Spaceman40]

In college, I had a class on ethics where pairs took turns giving lessons on different topics. The topic my friend and I took was software licensing: have you ever read the GPL? Ever read the WinXP license? If so, great! It's a beast. Just in case you were serious about your comment, here's GPL2, simplified:

"If you want to use this software, no problem - you're free to do so. If you want to distribute this software, you must make the source code available to those who you distribute it to, at no cost over the cost of distribution."

Just to clear that up.

You're kidding right?

[slo_learner]

Dell "pilfers" code, doesn't maintain it, leaves users with laptops and desktops that will only run 2 year out of date software they can't update.

Bad business decision again; users revolt.

Please explain how it is bad business to force an upgrade cycle? Sounds very much like our current software overlords. Incidentally this is also a technique employed by shoe makers who make footware that wears out easily. This is very good business indeed for the suppliers.

In fact the scenarios you describe both sound plausible and like good business for Dell. The only caveat is that no one comes along to undercut them with an open platform including support for gma and gpa.

Re:Markets ultimately correct these silly drm atte

[Anonymous Coward]

a) What will the damage be in the meantime
b) The market is being forced to adapt, whether it wants to or not

therefore your arguments are incorrect.

Optomist?

[alexo]

> [...] Linus is an optomist [...]

Is that a cross between an optimist and an optometrist?

Re:Optomist?

[GlobalEcho]

>> [...] Linus is an optomist [...]

>Is that a cross between an optimist and an optometrist?


No, it's the ippisote of a pessomist.

Re:If Linus thinks..

[LurkerXXX]

Adding on to the previous response to your post, you say...

It allows you to stand upon the shoulders of those before you and create a better system whilst keeping that openness for the next generation.

BSD keeps it's openness for the next generation as well. Just because someone forks of a proprietary version in some company, the open version dosn't dissapear. It's still there, still open, for all future generations. "Losing the open software" is FUD from GPL folks. It's never lost.

Literally

[Anonymous Coward]

Word Nazi - perhaps _strongly_ would have been more appropriate.

Anyone who feels _literally_ must be a BAMF

[gammoth]

I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers...

I'm just curious which of the five senses Linus has such sensations with.

*AHEM* for the hundredth time about DRM:

[Hosiah]

Before we get all worked up about hardware DRM, let me point out, once again:

You do not have to toddle to Best Buy or Circuit City and trustingly buy whatever the salesdrone hands you. Knock on my mod points, but if your only means of buying a computer is buying a ready-made unit, you're no better off than if you stuck to Windows and AOL.

Soldering irons, ladies and gentlemen, soldering irons. I still have mine. Do you have yours? There is no known method of defying the laws of physics so that actual molecules of silicone and copper individualy comprehend DRM. Remember, the richest corporation on Earth cannot stop you from hacking their XBoxes to run Linux (although, as recent events show, they can change things to hinder you.); how much hardware DRM is going to stick? Free/Open Source software got here in the first place by circumventing hardware that at the time only had commercial software in mind.

What happened to the confident community that boasts it can run it's software on a toaster? Yes, DRM is evil incarnate, but let's not make another Y2K out of this, OK?

One word

[arose]

Bitkeeper.

Re:One word

[Just Some Guy]

Thank you. Linus dislikes IP issues, which is fine, but tends to ignore them until they come back to haunt him and everyone around him, which is not. I don't like toll roads, but that doesn't mean I can just drive through tollgates like they don't exist.

RMS deals with issues by confronting them. Linus deals with the same issues by avoiding them. And yet, it's fashionable to laugh at RMS for being out of touch with reality. Go figure.

Re:One word

[smash]

I don't see the issue?

Linus agreed to the license, just because someone else violated it, and caused a whole 2 weeks of work for him to write GIT, doesn't mean there was a problem.

Bitkeeper served it's purpose just fine while it was in use, and I'm sure Linus isn't having massive regrets over making the decisions he made.

smash.

Trussed Platform

[AJWM]

don't buy a trusted platform based machine

The whole "trusted platform" name is misleading. It means hardware that some 3rd party software or content vendor can trust, not hardware that the owner of said hardware can trust.

Since a TP actually limits what the owner can do with it, I suggest using the more accurate term, "trussed platform".

(trussed: (adj) bound or secured closely; "the guard was found trussed up with his arms and legs securely tied"; "a trussed chicken")

I certainly wouldn't buy a trussed platform machine.

Re:Trussed Platform

[westlake]

I certainly wouldn't buy a trussed platform machine.

You aren't the market. Your boss is the market. The home user is the market. Because dad wants the NFL in HD and the kids want Disney.

Re:Trussed Platform

[AJWM]

You aren't the market. Your boss is the market. The home user is the market. Because dad wants the NFL in HD and the kids want Disney.

Nope, because the boss needs to run a few custom apps but doesn't want or need the hassle of paying for and tracking signing certificates, and dad and the kids can watch it on TV. (Besides, given the wear and tear the kids put on their Disney media, dad likes to be able to make backups.)

It's not right because

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPLv3 actually allows DRM, requiring only that any GPL software remains modifiable by its users.

If software authors want to ensure their software will always be modifiable by end users, isn't it wrong for somebody, even police departments, to accept the software but not the conditions imposed by the licence?

Should we simply ignore GPL software authors' wishes whenever it is convenient, feasible or profitable for us to do so?

Isn't that what so-called "pirates" do with commercial software?

HW manufacturers: give us a way to sign ANY kernel

[alexborges]

The critical part of this debate is that, when bioses include DRM, hw manufacturers could be able to decide what OS you run on their hardware (as it will require kernels and-or loaders to be signed with a public key).

The thing here is then, to force hw manufacturers to release their public key to EVERYBODY, not just whomever they want.

This way, any user can make their own kernel and sign it with that key and keep on running.

Shure, the hw manufacturers will have the potential power to close some out of their stack (by not giving them the public key), but i personally dont think thats the way their gonna cut it.

If they were really thinking that way, none of them would be shipping linux by default. Linux promotes the growth of server sales. We are emerging to be the ONLY cometcially viable other option insofar as OSes go. Theyd be shooting themselves in the foot if they didnt release theyre keys and mechanisms so we could use them without restriction.

Shure, perhaps the bios will lock us out of certain interupts or services (like, accesing the pci-express bridge for high speed data transfer to the video card), if we dont provide a signed thingie there so that they know we are playing video in a DRM compliant video player.

Yeah, that will murder -some- fair use rights but only for those crazy fucking markets that so dearly depend on controling content (games, movies and music) to ensure growth in revenue (because they are inept enough to not have that much growth just by doing business as usual).

I side with Linus here, that world is not a bad world for servers. That world is not a bad world for Linux in the enterprise (even non comercial distros could still run and work fine as allways). That world is a bad world for people that use their computer like a multimedia station and a stereo. That will not be the role of the computer by next year. Next year it will all be iPod and sons and stereos with an internet connection.

So why the fuck should we care about drm?

Linus does not "get" it, probably never has...

[pennystinker]

The issue with Freedom 0 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html is that IF I can run any "free" software that I want then I can run it for any purpose. Additionally, The other freedoms that the GPL is trying to preserve come into play: I start with the ability to run "free" program X. Because it is "free" (as in GPLv3) I can modify it (Freedom 1) and still retain FREEDOM 0! If DRM gets in the way of this then by definition some or all of my freedoms have been taken away.

  So, does this mean I can tell hardware manufacturers what to do, or for that matter can I tell other software vendors that I have to interact with via my "free" program what to do. Yes and no. I can certainly TELL them anything I want, try to stop me. But they are not obligated to do as I tell them. In the case of hardware vendors I WILL NOT BUY THEIR HARDWARE! Get enough people to follow suit, and you bet I can tell them what to do. Same is true for software.

  Now what the GPLv3 is basically saying is that you can write DRM code protected under GPLv3, you can even DRM the code itself. But such measures are academic as you cannot use such encumbrances to take away any freedoms. So, you are still free to write anything you want, modify anything you want, run anything you want. You are NOT free to take such rights away from others.

  I stand firmly on my point: Linus does not get it (there appears to be evidence that he never got it) and he is off the mark by a wide margin on the GPLv3.

  Now for those who construe value in the various DRM initiatives, that can see value for those OTHER than the publishers of DRM-encumbered stuff. I truly and sadly pity you. Think of the world 5-10 years hence. How may DRM schemes will be out there? 50? 100? 200? 1000? All of them will eventually be defeated. You and I pay for all of this wasted effort. To what end? Corporations and other businesses make their money off of you and I, dear reader, you would be surprised that you can make a difference by insisting such nonsense (DRM) not be tolerated, it certainly serves YOU no purpose. DRM is a war being waged on consumers, developing such systems COSTS money that gets passed on to you but provides NO benefit you YOU as consumer. Please, I beg you you, dear reader, if you are drawing any other conclusion then you are delusional to the point of needing professional help. Don't accept DRM because big companies like Apple, Microsoft, Intel, etc. say you have to so get used to the idea. Resist this stupid, ill-conceived idea that provides no practical benefit to you, makes using a computer a hassle, takes away control of hardware you own outright, and in the end will cost a fortune to produce and maintain only to be eventually defeated.

Can someone explain the DRM stuff in GPLv3?

[typical]

Can anyone provide a pointer to a page that has a real, informed discussion of what exactly the hell the DRM stuff in the GPLv3 draft translates to?

I've read the license, and I'm not certain enough to the point that I can constructively comment.

My initial understanding was that:

* it simply affected the GPLed software (and thus, "not subject other works to" were derived works), and was an attempt to keep the DMCA from being used as an end-run around distribution and modification of GPL software. The rationale was that DRM devices cannot be circumvented, and that a company could release GPL code but still not allow it to be modified.

This reading I wholeheartedly agree with -- if the DMCA is really a loophole that allows someone to prevent modification and redistribution of GPL software, then I want this clause.

Next, I heard a reading that is something like the following:

* This is an attempt to eliminate DRM. GPLv3 software cannot be used in any device that implements DRM (whether or not the GPLv3 software is involved in DRM).

This, I think, is stupid. Not only do I just not have a fundamental problem with DRM (as long as I can freely produce *non-DRMed works*...which, irritatingly enough, I cannot for game consoles), but I don't think that the GPL is an appropriate place to go after DRM. If the DMCA is stupid, the problem should be to repeal the DMCA. I don't really want Stallman trying to use the work of many, many people who agreed to use the GPL with the understanding that it would remain ideologically the same from version to version to attack something else that he doesn't like. I don't oppose use of my GPLed software in weapons, DRM-using devices, or anything else like that.

The difference between the first and second reading is that the first just states that it is not permissible to use DMCA's anticircumvention clause to prevent modification of GPLed software. The second actively prevents GPLed software from being used to implement a device that contains DRM.

I would also argue that the second is far, far too broad. PCs have TCPA. There is nothing inherently *broken* about TCPA, as long as I can still run Linux and free works on my system. Does this mean that now the GPLed BIOSes out there that people are working on cannot be used on TCPA systems? This is, I think, unacceptable.

Basically, here's my take. I think that a lot of techies with Windows are pissy over the fact that non-techies used to subsidize their game habit (non-techies didn't know how to pirate games, techies did), and now DRM threatens to eliminate their free, subsidized product. I think that a lot of these folks size onto DRM as "freedom-limiting" because it allows them to eliminate dissonance with their unhappiness with the introduction of DRM, and the lack of another justification. Frankly, while I can understand that it might be frusterating for a teen who used to be able to play every game on the market to suddenly be limited to a fraction, it just isn't worthy tainting something as important as the GPL to fight DRM:

(a) It's a good thing for said teen. The only assets a teen has is time. Blowing it on games screws him over than anyone else. Games are damn addictive today.

(b) It just isn't a "freedom" that I'm worried about. It's not political free speech. DRM does not violate any of the fundamental rights put in place to allow government and society to continue functioning without breaking down. It *does* mean that maybe some new works cannot be manipulated for a certain period of time (I *do* think that copyright time lengths last *far* too long, and that much of the frusteration over this fact and our inability to get them shortened is translating into the irritation over DRM -- people felt that they could just *ignore* copyright if they couldn't properly adjust the rules to something sane. This is not, IMHO, a good fix.)

I've cracked an awful lot of software in my time, and pirated plenty of movies and music, and been a co

Re:Can someone explain the DRM stuff in GPLv3?

[Alsee]

You're right about the first clause, and you are essentially right about the effect of the second clause. However you are missunderstanding what it actually says, and in particular missing why it says that.

What the second clause says, and why it says it, is that you cannot take my GPL3 software and then create a derivative work of it, and then redistribute incomplete source code to deny me the right or ability to modify and use derivatives of my own work!

The purpose and function of the GPL has always been to ensure covered software always comes with all legal rights required to modify and use it (which is covered by the first clause in relation to the DMCA), and to ensure that all of code required to be able to modify and use the software is available along with that distribution. the second clase simply closes a loophole. It says that if some specific key is required during the compilation of the code in order to be able to create a functioning executable, then that key is part of the source. You cannot give out incomplete nonfunctional source code. That should always have been an obvious point of the GPL.

The GPL3 draft does *not* say "GPLv3 software cannot be used in any device that implements DRM as you suggest. You are free to use the software however you like.

The issue is that if you attempt to put some DRM scheme into GPL3 software, you must include all legal rights and all of the code neccessary for people to make fully functional modifications of that code. That like any other GPL software, you have no right or ability to prohibit people from making fully functional modifications to the software.

So while you are perfectly free to write DRM schemes in GPL3 software, the effect is that you have no expectation that people cannot or will not modify the code to ignore/bypass/remove that DRM. You can do DRM, just don't expect it to work.

Fundamentally it's the idea of DRM that is incompatible with the original operation of the GPL. The original purpose of the GPL is to ensure that covered software comes with all legal rights and all code needed to make functioning modifications. It is DRM which attempts/expects to deny people the right to change the software, or to prohibit changed software from working.

It is DRM which is at falud and which is incompatible, not some new attack by the GPL3 against DRM. GPL3 merely attempts to update the GPL to preserve the original intent and operation, update it to address the new DMCA issue and the right to make modifications, to update the GPL to close a loophole that might be abused to supply incomplete and nonfunctional source code.

-

Re:If Linus thinks..

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Debain/Ubuntu as a straight analogy to your example? Thing is, I wouldn't be keen on devoting time developing say... apache, just so iis would cherry-pick code of it an dust in in the future. That's just me, other people could just love the joy of coding and really don't care if other people drive ferraris off their hobby. But ultimately, what 'BSD vs GPL' people fail too see is that we are both on the same side. Probably not 100% compatible licenses to copy paste betwwen, but you see ideas going back and forth between both 'schools of open source licensing'.

Re:Enough with the ``forcing morals on others" stu

[hahiss]

Uh, yeah, but the same is true for GPL v2. The GPL has always been an expression of a moral view that imposes constraints on others. The current debate cannot be about whether we should do so, but rather the EXTENT to which we will do so. That makes my comment precisely on topic.

Unless you think the GPL doesn't embody any moral views; of course, this would make you an idiot.

Re:Enough with the ``forcing morals on others" stu

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello - can you please do me a massive favour? Please, please explain to me why some people, such as yourself use ``foo'' quotes. I don't understand why anyone would use double single quote keys when there is a double quote key, and I don't understand why anyone would use the grave accent key when there is a quote key. The ` key isn't a quote - it's an accent, like you would see over the e in Moiré. It's rather like me deciding to use the ^ key on the left of my quotations, and double ~ keys on the other ^like this~~, but that's not what those keys are for, so I don't. Please please explain to me what's with your style of quotes! I see them all over the place in old documentation and text written by hackers and I don't understand.

Yes it is, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Some police departments are using DRM in cameras to prove that photographic evidence has not been tampered with.

So when a smart, tech savvy cop or DA cracks the DRM and fakes the pictures, DRM proves that the fake pics aren't fake. That's an invitation to evil of the worse sort.

Imagine never having to remove gator from someone's computer again, while still giving them privileges to manage their own system.

Imagine never being ABLE to remove Gator!

Try harder, your examples are worthless. ALL DRM IS EVIL.

(not MRC="thrusts" (MRC would have been "trusts")

Freedom

[mqduck]

There is one freedom that should ALWAYS be denied and forcefully taken away under any circumstances and in any context: the freedom to take away the freedoms of others.

Note: The above philosophy, which the FSF basically holds, is profoundly anti-capitalist and therefore revolutionary. The freedom of private industry is really the freedom to deny the fruits of industry to others.

The right to want?!!?

[Mateo_LeFou]

"I don't agree that our digital world should remove the rights of content creators to want to be compensated"

What a weird thing to say. Personally, I want to be compensated (let's start at $40,000/yr) for watching "The Thin Red Line" over and over again forever. It'd be tough to picture how someone could remove my right to want this.

Whether I will in fact get such a sum for providing this service depends on what's going on in the (free, or somewhat-free) market.

"If the content creator ("right" or "wrong", it doesn't matter) wants money from anyone who plays copies of his music, for example, are you saying that he doesn't have that right?"

The question of course is whether heshe can actaully get that. Here's my first proposal on how it could be done, for example with a piece of music.
1. build a soundproof box
2. develop an amnesia pill.
3. charge people to enter the box, listen to the song, and then force them to take the amnesia pill. And of course make sure they don't have any recording devices.

Absent such a system, I have to rely on a myth (intellectual property) that pretends that people who copy/derive/perform my song are somehow harming me, and puts the full force of law&punishment behind that non-existent harm.

You will say I have "lost sales" of copies of my song. Free markets do not decide, in advance, what a song is worth to the world. It's worth what people end up paying for it when you leave them alone. How much, or whether, you want do be compensated is irrelevant.

Leaving all that aside, I think a 5-year copyright term is reasonable in our current situation. Abolition of all copyright is too big a step for most people to ponder.

Re:If Linus thinks..

[roystgnr]

What they don't do is waste time on stupid license discussions, or being worried about what someone else might do with their code.

Exactly. That's why anyone who does spend time worrying about licenses, or anyone who is worried about what someone else might do with their code, has been contributing to Linux instead. It's a lot easier for IBM to make a business case for spending a billion dollars on open source development when they can be sure they're not just writing Microsoft's next operating system for them.

The GPL world, otoh, spends it's efforts on discussions like this one...

You seem to have confused "The GPL world" with "Slashdot". We spend efforts on discussions far stupider than this one. As for wasted effort, are you kidding?

So much... effort... discussing... Can't... reach mouse... too weak... Code writing abilities... fading...

and I can't find a single instance of people standing on each other's shoulders.

We're in a discussion about the Linux kernel; don't those hundreds of developers standing on each other's shoulders count for anything? You say "I can't find..." but you don't seem to be looking very hard.

He's wrong, RS is a crusader

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus is wrong, the whole creation of the GPL was crusading. Just because he feels uncomfortable that way he can't retrogressively remove the political motivation of Free Software!

Missing the Point

[Yartrebo]

I feel that Linus is missing the point. GPL3 is mostly a set of changes to give some assurances that code licensed under it will not be made proprietary through the use of DRM and strengthens the provisions regarding patents.

Having anti-patent provisions makes total sense in my book. Having patents invoked against GPL'ed software means that the software cannot legally be used, and this provision makes it just that much more costly for a real (not a lawyer-only firm) to shut down a GPL project using patents while not effecting other users in the least.

The DRM provisions don't forbid the use of DRM, but assuming their legal theory is correct, it will make it legal to circumvent the DRM assuming that it is done for a legal end.

very philosophical

[Intangion]

so he wants to fight their restrictions with openness to promote more openness, rather than with other restrictions

now i understand ;)
hes like a jedi or something, you cant fight the darkside with the darkside! once you head down the dark path forever will it control your destiny

Bad Business

[twitter]

Option B: Dell "pilfers" code, doesn't maintain it, leaves users with laptops and desktops that will only run 2 year out of date software they can't update. Bad business decision again; users revolt.

This is different from M$'s current "Trusted Computing" plan in what way besides the code base? I agree, it's a bad idea but that won't keep the losers from trying to extend their control over other people's software.

GPLv3 moving to a legit license?

[recharged95]

Basically, this assures us that Linus is looking at the happy medium on how GPL code should work. The GPLv3 folks are graviting towards the extreme restrictions of free code so that no corporation can exploit it, immediately forcing the concepts (IP to those business-oriented) behind the code to the same 'levels' regardless of origin. Those restrictions will cause the same heartache as EULAs--i.e. the opposite end of the spectrum.

Hence, I agree with Linus's opinions--there's a balance on usage rather than publishing a law (i.e. license).

Force is not the answer

[Bizzeh]

GPL and DRM are both the same thing, but at oposite ends of the spectrum, they both force you to do or not do something.
GPL forces "openness" to everything it comes near, ie. link to any GPL source or binary from GPL source, you are FORCED to open source your own code that you worked on, thats a removal of your rights.
DRM forces access restrictions to whatever it is on, ie. you pay for a cd and you are forced to not be able to play it on your pc, or not be able to put it on your mp3 player, removing your right to be able to listen to it, since you paid for your copy.

don't be confused.

[twitter]

If Linux were released under GPL3, then nobody with a DRM box could run Linux on it.

No, people will continue to use hardware as well as they can. The ability to use your hardware as you see fit is a core freedom that's not contradicted by GPL3. That's very different from making DRM friendly code.

The bottom line is that DRM will be used to deny you the ability to run your own code, regardless of your cooperation. DRM is about control and locking people out. You can see it coming.

Re:don't be confused.

[stanwirth]

I actually agree with you on the purpose of DRM. We still have a dialog on what the best strategy is to thwart it, in the long run. With DRM aware code under Linux ("friendly" is going a bit too far!), you have a much better chance of being able to track what's going on -- and when DRM starts doing unfriendly, and unfair and unlawful things, it will be much simpler to document the fact with your DRM aware software -- and for everyone else to see what's going on as well. Much better than if the HW/SW world splits itself down the DRM-MS vs non-DRM-Linux divide. Hold your friends close -- and your enemy closer. Writing code to decode/provide keys to DRM HW...is holding the DRM enemy close. We can see what its up to.

Re:Enough with the ``forcing morals on others" stu

[hahiss]

I can't speak to why others do it (though I'd bet their reasons are similar), but I do it because I use LaTeX to typeset my papers; I don't know if you're familiar with LaTeX, but it is a mark-up language that gets typset. That is, you begin with a plain text file loaded with markup commands, and then you process the file into a graphical form (DVI, PS or PDF).

In LaTeX, you type a backtick (`) to mark a left single quote and a double-backtick (``) to mark a double quote. When you spend all day (I am a writer) reaching for the backtick to open a quote, you don't tend to change habits for posting on slashdot. (Though I do get lazy and hit " rather than ''; but I have a macro that automagically converts one to the other in LaTeX stuff)

Hope this helps.

mod parent and GGP up

[Mateo_LeFou]

So few people realize how insidious the DMCA is. GGP correctly points out what underlies DMCA logic:

Given that ideas are just like physical property we need a crime equivalent to breaking-and-entering, over and above the crime of stealing the property after you enter.

The anti-circumvention crap in the DMCA is a restriction on what you can do with property that you have purchased.

DMCA II: Electric Boogaloo will (I'm pretty sure) make it illegal for you to look at your computer with a magnifying glass. The reasoning will be that doing this enables you to discover/circumvent how the content-protection system works.

Here here, Mod the parent up

[Moochman]

I have experienced enough DRM headaches with my Sony Minidisc player to be convinced it is a bad idea. In this case, the Sony DRM Nazis decided that with their newer generation of NetMD players, they'd make it impossible to upload anything recorded on the player, period, even though it's stuff I recorded it through a mic onto the MD myself. In addition, once I got a new computer I had to re-rip all of my music just to be able to modify what was already on my music minidiscs.

Now imagine a world where such technology is pervasive, in which there is no original CD to rip from, so I have to buy the music all over again. Maybe a solution can be found, involving ability to transfer files using my fingerprint or something, but that technology doesn't exist yet. Not to mention that DRM doesn't factor in my ability to lend things out. Where does that fit in?

Another thing that worries me is the issue of historical archiving. If all of our data is stored in an actually airtight DRM, how will future generations be able to access it? This may seem silly given the idea that the original is still held unencrypted *SOMEWHERE*, but if a small media corporation were to go under and their original files were to be lost, all we would have would be a few extant DRM-encrypted discs or files. What then?

I feel like consumers would be more willing to pay money for online music if the files had fewer restrictions put on them. I know that if I could recieve 192kbps MP3s from the iTunes music store instead of limited-use limited-device DRMed AACs, I would consider buying from it a lot more strongly. DRM just ends up giving consumers headaches in most instances, and makes just about everything more inconvenient. Until such free-use media is offered for us to buy, people will keep on making illegal use of file-sharing networks.

You are wrong and out of context.

[Parity]

Linus understands the license correctly, as do you, but you don't understand Linus. He wasn't talking about what RedHat does -now-, he was saying -if- you had hardware that only ran signed kernels and -if- RedHat distributed a kernel for it -then- the GPLv3 -would- require RedHat to distribute their private key at the same time.

Nothing to do with anything being done now, since RedHat does not currently run on any such locked hardware afaik.

Re:You are wrong and out of context.

[nchip]

..Only if the hardware works with ONLY Redhat's key. If you can your own keys, or replace Redhats key on the hardware (which should be possible - else the freedom of the hardware is missing completly!), there is no need to redhat to offer their private key.

And such hardware does already exist, ie the TPM chip on IBM thinkpads - just that it isn't used by the software yet.

Re:You are wrong and out of context.

[Parity]

Yes, exactly right. Linus position is that that situation is an issue of hardware freedom is not an issue for a software license. You don't have to agree with him, but that is in fact his position.

That there would be such hardware does make sense. A platform that would run only vendor-signed binaries would be immune to attack by most kinds of malware, and particularly to rootkits that interfere with the kernel. Hardware that would run any binaries in userspace but only vendor-signed kernels would still be protected against such rootkits.

If you could sign your own binaries as you compiled them and then install them, then so could such a rootkit.

Re:Markets ultimately correct these silly drm atte

[mpcooke3]

The consumer market wants cheap and hassle free solutions

The solutions will be entirely hassle free.
Since Microsoft controls the PC market and the MPAA/RIAA cartels control almost all popular media they will make if very simple indeed.

You won't have to make any choices at all:

To play any mainstream media you need the DRM MediaPlayer.
The DRM Media Player is signed and only runs on Windows.
Windows is signed and only runs on a Complete DRM PC.

Infact 99.5% of all PCs will play the media hassle free the other PCs will not play mainstream Media won't be able to read mainstream office documents and won't run mainstream Software since it will all be signed.

Users will at last no longer have to even think about running Linux. And developers won't have to worry about writing better office suites, email or media software since these open source programs won't run in the secure mode neccessary for them to interoperate with the 99.5% of the population.

And finally should anyone try to break the DRM cartel to produce non-price-fixed software or allow fair usage rights on media they will be locked up for breaking the DMCA.

What this issue shows

[Overly Critical Guy]

What this issue shows is that there is no black-and-white definition of "free" as RMS would have you believe. What he considers free and right is actually HIS personal definition and may or may not be agreed with by others. I hope this GPL3 controversy continues as it may open the eyes of so many GNU crusaders who follow RMS' every word and flame anyone who doesn't follow his One True Definition Of Freedom.

Oh, and BSD forever!

get over it

[idlake]

I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers.

Bill Gates has no qualms about enforcing his rules on hardware manufacturers. Neither does Steve Jobs or anybody else in industry. And corporate CEOs are religious about how they think the market should operate and won't shut up about it.

RMS is no more religious than any of these people, and the GPLv3 restrictions are still far less onerous than anything Microsoft, Apple, Sun, or any of the other big players will force you to agree to.

Linus is entitled to his opinion about the GPLv3. But his statement that we have no moral right to enforce those restrictions is ridiculous in light of the fact that everybody else is trying to place far stronger restrictions on licensees and nobody thinks twice about it.

Re:get over it

[wjeff]

So your argument is that since everyone else is acting like a jerk, Linus and/or other opensource developers should too?

Re:get over it

[RexRhino]

Except that the whole reason that Open Source GPL software is attractive is because it doesn't have all the restrictions. I am not looking for "Better" or "More Intelligent" or "More Reasonable" restrictions, I am looking to live without restrictions.

The Open Source world should not try to out-restrict Microsoft and Sun and Apple. The more restrictions there are, the more free software becomes free as in beer instead of free as in speech.

As a hobby, I am writing a web based strategy game. I have certain mechanisms to hide certain pieces of information in order to eliminate cheating, real life harrasment of players, or whatever. Is this DRM? Although it is not exactly like encrypting a sound file to only play on one PC, some people might consider it to be DRM. So then, I am forced to choose to eliminate some of the fairness of the game and protections for the player to satisfy some "Information wants to be free... including your credit data!" zealot?

I imagine people who are doing things with credit card transactions, or health records, or some application with REAL security needs (besides a free web game), would be even MORE frightened to use the GPLv3 lest some protection scheme be considered DRM. For example, if I send your personal financial data to you in some protected format, so only you on your PC can access it, it is DRM, isn't it. Doesn't matter how you answer, if I have to ask the question then the GPLv3 sucks.

Re:get over it

[idlake]

No, my argument is that imposing restrictions is generally not considered evil by itself by most people. If Linus wants to make a convincing argument against the DRM provisions in GPLv3, his argument needs to be made on the issue of those specific restrictions; "telling hardware manufacturers what to do is immoral" simply isn't going to cut it as an argument for most people.

Re:get over it

[idlake]

I am not looking for "Better" or "More Intelligent" or "More Reasonable" restrictions, I am looking to live without restrictions.

Well, then GPL'ed software isn't for you.

As a hobby, I am writing a web based strategy game. I have certain mechanisms to hide certain pieces of information in order to eliminate cheating, real life harrasment of players, or whatever. Is this DRM? Although it is not exactly like encrypting a sound file to only play on one PC, some people might consider it to be DRM.

I have no particular opinion yet on whether the DRM provisions in GPLv3 are problematic; they may be or they may not be. But if you want to make an argument against those provisions, you'll have to make it on issues releated specifically to those provisions; "restrictions are bad" are not going to convince most GPL adopters because they already believe that some restrictions are good.

Re:get over it

[robertjw]

"telling hardware manufacturers what to do is immoral" simply isn't going to cut it as an argument for most people.

Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and the relatively small number of software publishing CEOs don't constitute most people. I think most people, at least most who understand what's going on, think Microsoft, Apple, Sony and many other major IP companies that are attempting to force DRM are using evil, immoral tactics. If the open source community uses the same tactics as Microsoft and Apple how are they any better?

Re:get over it

[robertjw]

RMS is no more religious than any of these people

RMS is MUCH more 'religious' when it comes to software than any of those people. Gates and Jobs are in it for the power and money. Stallman has dedicated his life to creating free software with a fanaticsim rarely seen anywhere. Corporate CEOs would change their mind completely if they thought they could make more money from Open Source software.

DRM is an anti-hacker tool

[dwarfking]

The other day while driving to work I heard a reporterette on NPR discussing the rumor of Google buying Napster. She was trying to say how it would be a good thing for Google to offer free music.

During the report, she said that Google could do so without using DRM, an anti-hacker technology.

Granted, NPR may not have the most technically savvy folks, but if they are calling digital rights management a counter measure to hacking, and enough people believe it, then you can bet it will take hold. After all, only hackers wouldn't want an anti-hacking measure built into their computers, right?

Re:DRM is an anti-hacker tool

[argent]

During the report, she said that Google could do so without using DRM, an anti-hacker technology.

Well, by the OLD definition of hacker, she'd be right. :)

Re:DRM is an anti-hacker tool

[arose]

Makes sense: RMS is a hacker.

Who's the "we" he's talking about?

[anothy]

We are not crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God.

Torvalds might not be; Stallman clearly is.

i'm not Torvald's biggest fan. i don't think he's a particularly good architect or designer, he's abusive and abrasive in conversations, is impressively adverse to accepting the idea that somebody - anybody - might know better than him about something, blah blah blah. but the fact remains that where Stallman is an ideologue and fanatic, Torvalds is a pragmatist. Stallman talks a better game, but Torvalds actually gets stuff done. my comments on the quality of the output should not be read as a knock on his ability to drive an impressively-sized project.

Your take on RMS is remarkably incorrect.

[jbn-o]

Because we all know RMS is a crusader trying to press his beliefs onto others.

I think this says a lot less than you think it does. Everyone who tries to convince others of the weight of their argument is "trying to press [their] beliefs onto others". This does not address whether those beliefs are wise or valuable.

I think the creators of the GPL are trying to be much more influencial than Linus ever was.

They already are much more influential, but influence isn't that important without understanding what the influence is trying to get you to do. The GNU GPL is almost 20 years old and is the most popular license in the Free Software community. GNU is a remarkably popular OS. Linus Torvalds has not written any license, nor has he assembled a social movement, nor has he put together an operating system. The Linux kernel was originally his work, but now there are many forks of the Linux kernel and Torvalds' fork is one (and this fork has many contributors, Torvalds no longer writes Linux alone). People draw inspiration and code from his fork of the kernel, but plenty of people in the community don't use the Linux kernel at all, yet they still use some GNU programs (such as GCC). Even some proprietary software projects use GNU programs to build their systems (again, GCC among them). The GNU project aims to bring people software freedom—the freedom to run, inspect, modify, and share programs—freedoms which Torvalds sometimes works against (his chastising Andrew Tridgell for working on a program to allow users to copy data from Bitkeeper repos comes to mind).

RMS wants complete reform (or removal) of IP laws.

Please cite a source to back this up; I know of nowhere RMS says that he would like all patent, trademark, copyright, and other laws to disappear. RMS presents a clear understanding of why we should not use the term "intellectual property" (which is what you mean by "IP" here), and has come up with a clever use of copyright law to create and maintain a legally defensible commons. Someone who is utterly opposed to copyright law would not do this. They would probably reject copyright law entirely for copyrightable works, place their copyrightable works into the public domain and encourage others to do the same. Yet in his explanation of "copyleft", RMS says why he doesn't place his copyrightable work into the public domain (but would be fine with his copyrighted works entering the public domain through systematic copyright expiration, in fact during the recent GPLv3 conference Eben Moglen said that RMS would be more comfortable with a copyright regime from long ago instead of the one we have now).

Your post is vastly overvalued in its moderation. It is not interesting nor does it deserve a +5.

Re:Your take on RMS is remarkably incorrect.

[dbIII]

GNU is a remarkably popular OS

Please use a definition that predates Microsofts ridiculous definition as an excuse to bundle IE and preferably get it out of a textbook. Linux is not some small subset of the gnu project - it is a seperate project and not run by the gnu group.

Now why do I see the current situation as a bad use of politics? RMS will be hurting the wrong people by trying to bash companies such as Microsoft with new resrictions.

Lets take an example of a piece of hardware that exists - an embedded linux system on what looks like a network card to a Microsoft OS but is really a nice little firewall router. A small company with little in the way of budget can do this now. New versions of the Microsoft OS will require digital signing, and if the can't use linux for their product due to this they will have to give up or spend a lot of money developing new drivers for their on board comnponents in another OS. Microsoft doesn't get hurt either way - but uClinux or a similar project may lose a pile of developers. In this example RMS would be using someone elses project to bash at his hated foe of commercial (open or closed) software to the detriment of that project. You all have to remember here that despite the efforts to rename it linux is a seperate project to gnu and both have seperate goals (as you would see over the flames when it was suggested that gcc not have so much linux support since that wouldn't help the hurd).

Listen to what RMS says but don't make him a hero to be believed on every point. I for one think logon passwords on computers are a good idea and so I have at least one view diametricly opposed to RMS. Linux is not his project so the maintainers of linux are free to state if they think it is a bad idea when he tries to tell them what to do - they are free to use his older licence and ignore his new one.

There's one part that's useful...

[argent]

There's one clause in the anti-DRM section that's necessary, but it's not related to DRM, but rather to using DRM to undermine the GPL.

If you distribute software under the GPL linked against DRM components, and someone uses the GPLed software to bypass the DRM, they could be liable under the DMCA. The anti-DRM section in GPLv3 should limit this. Now, I'm inclined to believe that the GPLv2 strictly read might have the same effect... but I'm not sure.

The rest of the section is either potentially dangerous, or irrelevant (the definition of common source covers the access-to-keys part, for example). But this clause is worth keeping.

DRM concept is false idea itself

[Maljin Jolt]

Whole DRM concept is seriously flawed and cannot work in reality but in limited way only. Here are my points:

- In cybernetics theory, there is no mathematical distinction between hardware and software. Hardware has theoretical base in abstract automatons while software in algorithms, but cybernetics shows those two are mathematically equivalent. Whatever algo you can design in hardware (logic gates, for example) you can implement in software and vice versa. Also in theory, there is no distinction between data and program as well.

- Most non-cs people intuitively accept hardware as something static, and software+data as something volatile, and DRM is a try to declare software+data static by binding it to hardware. This is fundamental error of the DRM, because hardware could be not as "static" as it is expected to be. So, DRM concept does not respect laws of mathematics which makes it false.

- Algorithm cannot decide if it runs as a part of some "bigger" algorithm. First emulator of specific DRM hardware will make the specific hardware obsolete.

Example for dummies:

Imagine your computer is DRMed totally to the stage you can only use a word processor with limited scripting of your own documents, and email to send your documents around. But you can create an universal computing platform even on top of that:
- let the document represent a "memory" for virtual computer (line==instruction, use hex or keep the stuff human readable or both)
- write some virtual instructions as a document script functions
You can code an 8-bit platform such way in a week or two, capable of running some ancient 8-bit operating system such as Newdos-80 or CP/M at the speed comparable with those of 70'-80' computers. Or you can code something like forth or lisp even quicker, in days.
- Process your data such as sound or pictures on that platform. Use other word documents as a filesystem.
- use email transport as a low level network layer, implementing some simple protocols over it, treating an email message as a "packet".

Now you have a free as in uncontrolled platform at your hands.

Re:DRM concept is false idea itself

[JetScootr]

I wish I had the mod points I had until yesterday, I'd mod you up.
This is part of the fundamental problem with any kind of computing-denial method, even cryptography. The best cryptgraphic methods available today just buy time, not security - eventually they'll be cracked, your messages are only safe until then.
The only "box" into which you can put something and make it unreachable is a black hole. And even a tiny bit of information escapes from black holes...
The other problem with DRM, of course, is that you must put the encrypted and unencrypted messages and the software and its keys all into the hands of the "enemy" - your customers.

directed quotes

[Medievalist]

In written english, all paired punctuation marks are directed, which means they point inwards at what they enclose. Usually the left-side marks and right-side marks are mirror images of each other (like these parentheses).

Due to the limitations of the (horrendously badly engineered) standard PC keyboard, there are no left-hand double quote marks available, and the single quote marks do not properly mirror each other. So it is often impossible to type correct english on a PC.

Most of us shrug, and soldier on - ignoring the rules and using only right-hand marks, or using the left-hand single quote twice to fabricate a left-double-quote. Fabricated quotes don't look right and undirected quoting is faster (it also mimics the syntax of most programming languages, although m4 and some typesetting languages use directed quoting) so the former strategy has come to dominate the on-line world lately.

Younger people like yourself, who may have seen far more computer-typed text than hand-written or professionally printed text, don't automatically see undirected quoting as "wrong" and vaguely disturbing. Perhaps you've also never noticed the correct use of directed quoting in magazines and books. To me, it looks wrong no matter how you do it - possibly because when I was a child teachers still insisted on correct handwriting technique. Which is why I hate this keyboard I'm using!

Re:directed quotes

[Blakey Rat]

Back before the web and (as a result) everyone having to be compatible with both Unix and Windows (both of which have primitive typesetting compared to MacOS), I'd gotten myself into the habit of using Macintosh 'curly quotes.' Option-[] if I recall correctly. Of course, the problem is that I then:

1) Got a job working with Windows machines, and only God knows how to type curly quotes on Windows without using Word. (I'm pretty sure you hold down one of the alt keys and type in a memorized 4-digit code on the keypad... no I'm not shitting you, it's THAT DIFFICULT!)

2) Started doing some web design, and found that browsers displayed the curly quotes as some other wacky characters. And yes, I know that HTML has curly quote character codes, something like , but typing 6 characters for a damned curly quote is almost as bad as the Windows way of doing it. Plus it makes your text an indecipherable mess.

In short, I lost my habit of typing correct quotes and now I don't even clearly remember how to do it in MacOS. Shame, really, but you Linux and Windows people really need to get on the ball! Why is it so godamned hard to type a curly quote?

Re:directed quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'll find your buggy-whip doesn't make your car go any faster, too.

Simple way to handle this

[Anonymous Coward]

if it is DRM'd, you lose copyrights. If not, you keep copyrights.

sure, he doesn't "feel" like it

[Anonymous Coward]

but he sure takes advantage of the fact that other people DO think it's important and have done work to make it so he can do what he does with some sort of freedom.

Torvalds is a big fat hypocrite on this issue. He can stick his head in the sand like an ostrich and try to play make believe that these political issues don't exist, but he's WRONG, just like he was wrong with bit keeper originally. The ONLY reason he can sit around on his ass and get paid to code open source now is PRECISELY because a lot of people spent a lot of effort making sure THE CONCEPT of open source existed in the first place. If it wasn't for people going way out of their way to fight the political battles he minimizes and downplays, he'd be an unknown coding drone in a cubicle someplace eating boss crap sandwiches and licking legal boots and liking it.

As for the big corporations, it has been proven that freedom and open source doesn't need them, THAT is what is revolutionary about it, UNLESS the entire idea becomes illegal, which is precisely what DRM, trusted this or that, DMCA and patents are all about.

You either get it, or you don't get it, and screw the corporations. there's enough of them out there that get it, they will prosper long term, the ones that seek to restrict and weasel their way around freedom will find themselves on the outside looking in holding on to their pathetic offerings going ME ME ME ALL MINE like a schoolyard bully when finally no one will play with him because it's "his" ball.

Re:Markets ultimately correct these silly drm atte

[gknoy]

Remember that bus that IBM made, microchannel or something, that was suppose to be better than ISA. .... [A]long came a small company called Compaq and gave consumers what they wanted. Over the years I have watched this same scenerio play out over and over again with HD interfaces, Video cards, data file formats, you name it. Each time the open market solution natuarly won.

The main difference between the current DRM situation and what has happened in the past is that (to my knowledge) this is the first time that there has been a legislative push to accompany it. If those who are pushing DRM get their desires, it may be infeasible/illegal for the "open market solution" to exist. DMCA and similar laws are making it very difficult for people to cook up something that will play well with the DRM circus.

Hmm. It seems like an "open market solution" would work if hardware vendors kept selling a non-DRM alternative. However, I am sure that license agreements to be able to MAKE DRM hardware will forbid such competition. A "you agree to only make DRM stuff.." clause would probabyl be legally enforceable, or cost a LOT of money to fight.

Major hardware vendors WILL go the DRM route, I expect. Why? Joe Sixpack and Grandpa. The average media consumer will want to go the route of least resistance. This is like the popularity of MS Office, or Windows : Everyone else has it, it's what they can buy at the store, etc.

When the new Disney videos come out, and are DRM'ed, who is going to tell their kids and grandkids, "Sorry, we aren't going to support the technology used in these"? At best, people might buy two players -- one for DRM content, and one for non-DRM; eventually, they will wonder why they have two media players.

When most of the people will buy/consume what is foisted upon them by media producers, vendors will see no reason NOT to go with DRM.

I really hope you're right, and that DRM is defeated in the long run by the open market solution -- but I'm worried that it won't.

Completely missing the point

[truthsearch]

You are completely missing the point of the parent. It's not about who's right or wrong. Or about what actions are taken. Or about how extreme any views are. The point is simply that the intentions of RMS and Linus are different and sometimes clash. You read way too much into the post.

Regarding your request to cite RMS' desire for IP reform, you stated it yourself: "RMS would be more comfortable with a copyright regime from long ago instead of the one we have now".

Bollocks!

[Anonymous Coward]

He thinks that the closed sourcementality of code development/selling is evil (as in antisocial). Because you've "bought" a product but have no rights therein. You have. to coin the old phrase: bought a pig in a poke.

You are now at the mercy of the seller. If they give up support for bug fixes etc, you can['t say "well, can I have my money back".

Use license to knock legal teeth (only) out of DRM

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

You believe both the GPL v3 and the DMCA are both wrong, because they use the force of law to restrict technology.

How about having instead of a prohibition on DRM use, the following type of requirement:

"Any user of this code in a DRM system, grants an unrestricted authorization under 17 USC 1201, et seq to circumvent any DRM implemented by this code or which controls access to this code or restricts use of any modified version of this code.". Yes, I know that legalese needs to be cleaned up.

They'll still be able to use the technical power of DRM and not be violating the license. They will however, not be allowed to use the DMCA granted legal powers of DRM, as they have granted "authorization".

People could use technical measures to both support and attack DRM legally. No GPL v3 outlawing of DRM, and no DMCA outlawing of anti-DRM attacks.

The pre-1988, pre-DMCA situation would be in effect, a cat-and-mouse game between technology being used to support and attack DRM. Unlike the current situation which is a cat-and-mouse game where it is illegal for the mouse to hide or run.

Atheists don't do holy missions

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS is so level-headed in a field of short-sighted-engineers as far as the eye can see. I may not always agree 100%, but it's well worth it just to hear him point out from time to time that we do not, in fact, have to commit ourselves to virtual slavery.

Re:If Linus thinks..

[Anonymous Coward]

Although some former CVS developers have worked on SVN, there is no CVS code in SVN. (SVN isn't GPLed either--it's under the old Apache license.)

Re:Markets ultimately correct these silly drm atte

[pavera]

One slight flaw in your argument is the following:
99.5% of computer owners will never upgrade their pc's in a year, not even in 10 years. As a consultant I have been on-site in hundreds of businesses, I see computers every day that are still running windows 95 or NT 4. Windows 98 is still around alot of places, I actually haven't seen a "brand new" computer in a small business in the last year.

If this new super DRM system ever did get released remember you'd have to have cooperation not only between MS and Intel, but nvidia, asus, via, ati, seagate, western digital, dell, hp, lenovo, ibm, amd, broadcom, everyone. If any one of the hardware companies for whatever reason isn't on board, then there is still plenty of choice, and I can easily see AMD standing up to Intel and saying "Ok you have fun with that, our systems are going to stay open". And you'd see AMD take another 20% market share from Intel, in a week.

Further, if GPLv3 says what Linus says it does, and I believe him, then it doesn't matter, if they release a complete DRM pc there will be no way to run linux on it anyway cause no one would be able to sign linux to run in a DRM system. Basically Linus is saying "Linux will continue to run on any platform we can possibly port it to". While RMS is saying "We won't port to DRM systems, so you better not release them or you'll loose that .5% of the market that we represent". In my opinion RMS's threat is pretty empty. If DRM systems are coming, we ought to be able to run linux on them. If GPLv3 says you basically can't run GPLv3 software on a DRM platform, that is stupid. If it simply says you can't use DRM to lock up GPLv3 software (or changes you've made to that software) behind the DMCA then its a good thing... I've read the draft at least 30 times, and I don't know which it is.

Re:Markets ultimately correct these silly drm atte

[Damek]

Then where are the DVD players/TVs/etc with HDMI interface that do not include the DRM aspects?

You can only vote with your dollars when you're allowed the option you want to vote for.

*Literally*

[DavidD_CA]

I *literally* don't think he knows what the word means.

People like "my mum" should not by hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this is the same thing as with locked cellphones which are not useable with other providers. Who is to blame? The client for not reading the contract or the service provider?

I *want* it to get much worse

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

As strange as it sounds, I actually want the next round of DRM to get dramatically worse, for one simple reason: I think it's going to get worse before it gets better whatever happens, because not enough people are currently being annoyed by it to care, and the sooner it gets to the turning point, the sooner we can get past it.

When silly things happen, the market will tolerate them, and legislators will even support them if well-enough bribed, but only for so long. One breath too many makes the whole stack of cards fall down. History suggests that consumer markets and governments often lag behind new technology by several years, but are remarkably consistent in eventually telling those with abusive pro-their-business, anti-anyone-else proposals where to go.

For example, the idea that the DRM groups will be able to force hardware makers who want to support their DRM technology not to support anything else is a bit like Microsoft telling PC vendors that they could only ship with Windows preinstalled. For a while they got away with it, but now the tables have turned, they've been ruled against in court, they're being fined left, right and centre, and the big PC vendors are shipping Linux servers without a care in the world.

Similar idiocy will happen with DRM and copyright laws, until it gets to the point that the average Joe can no longer do reasonable but technically illegal and/or DRM-restricted things, and gets upset about it. Then, probably quite suddenly, public opinion will turn overwhelmingly against those seen to be supporting such measures. The technology companies will back away, and those who offered less offensive alternatives will profit greatly. The legislators will turn on the media companies like piranha on raw meat, and several will fall as they try to distance themselves from any pro-abusive-system laws they voted on previously. The effective monopolies run by media groups will collapse, as the public flees to safer, more reasonable, and probably higher quality (but less advertised) alternatives. The picture will change within a few months, and the art and media world will be much better for it from then on.

So bring it on, I say. Add DRM to all music CDs, so none of them will play in anyone's car CD player or PC, and no-one can rip them to an MP3 player. Put unskippable thirty-minute ad sequences before every film on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Force product activation for all new Windows operating systems, and make everyone call a premium rate phone number to reactivate every time they change any aspect of their hardware configuration. Show major sports finals in HD-TV formats only with HDCP, and make sure the only recorders that can save them for later viewing cost at least 50% more than the boxes that do everything the same except for HDCP. Do all of this tomorrow, please!

Because if that happens, then by 2007, restricting any reasonable use of legally obtained content will probably be illegal in every major economy in the first world.

Re:I *want* it to get much worse

[gknoy]

probably quite suddenly, public opinion will turn overwhelmingly against those seen to be supporting such measures. The technology companies will back away, and those who offered less offensive alternatives will profit greatly. The legislators will turn on the media companies like piranha on raw meat, and several will fall as they try to distance themselves from any pro-abusive-system laws they voted on previously.

This sounds very optimistic -- but, I REALLY hope that this happens. :) Much as the birth of Tivo led to 'average' media consumers thinking about digital recording, and the necesity of commercials. Sounds good. :D

Re:I *want* it to get much worse

[jeffc128ca]

I like your reply. That's exactly what I was thinking about in my first post. There may be a lag when it seems like bad old DRM types are winning but in the end they will get arrogant. Any DRM scheme requied cordination between vendors, which NEVER works out in the long run. Customers get pissed, look for alternatives, and the whole DRM mess is behind us.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

the Philosopher and the Engineer?

[geekee]

There are comments calling RMS the philosopher and Linus the engineer, but in my opinion Linus has a better philosophy that places a higher value on freedom, whereas RMS's philosphy involves increasing his own personal freedom at the expense of others. Linus's comments on GPLv3 seem to inllustrate this very well.

Stop the propaganda, please!

[marcosdumay]

Repeat with me:
DRM doesn't stop piracy!
DRM doesn't stop piracy!
DRM doesn't stop piracy!
DRM doesn't stop piracy!

It is easy to break. And once broken, it IS broken.

The real question-Split Personality.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now do you see the problem?"

Actually I don't see the problem. Basically DRM applies to content created by those who wish it to be controlled. As long as a DRM computer also allows you to run content that those who don't wish to participate in such a control scheme, then it's OK (which is all of OSS).

But the GPL2 covers signing keys

[jesterzog]

I realise I'm most likely missing things, but I don't fully understand why the GPL2 wouldn't cover this, simply through its definition of source code. From section 3 of GPL2:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

In short, the first sentance seems to cover it in my eyes. If the provided code can't be usefully modified without a private key (because it won't run on its intended hardware), then I'd certainly consider that private key to be part of "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". The "special exception" of sentance 3 could, by its own words, only apply if the signing key is already included with the hardware.

If Dell released a Dell-signed binary and Dell source code for running on Dell systems, I'd definitely consider everything required to recompile modified Dell code as the "preferred form of source code", including a key to sign it with.

The GPL3 (which I haven't carefully read) seems to make this requirement more explicit if I understand it correctly, and perhaps that's why it's worth having, but does it really cover anything in this area that the GPL2 didn't cover already?

baby and bathwater? what about chicken and egg?

[Rob Y.]

Linus rightly points out that a total rejection of DRM is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are legitimate reasons to lock down hardware. That doesn't mean there aren't nasty side-effects.

What about that other cliche, the chicken and the egg? Successful development of Linux was only possible because there was a ton of non-DRM'd hardware out there. That hardware was designed to run Windows, and the fact that Linux could be built to run on it is a happy coincidence. Imagine if Windows 95 required a 'Trusted Computing' platform. The manufacturers would have, for various reasons, produced hardware that could essentially only run Windows, and the fact that it couldn't run other, yet-to-be-developed operating systems would have been a total non issue to them. End result - no Linux.

So, fast forward to 2006 or 2007. The vast majority of computers are built to only run DRM OS's. It becomes hard to find a reasonably-priced PC that can run non-signed code. Red Hat might be okay for the time being, but eventually the pool of amateur contributers dries up. Nobody can do the initial experimenting to get involved without a deep commitment to being involved in the first place. I guess if RH doesn't want to support desktop users, Fedora could still put out a signed binary so that people could perhaps try it (if it's still possible to shrink the NTFS on this new DRM box). But with more and more friction, the Open Source movement gradually grinds to a halt.

This doesn't make Linus wrong, it just means that practially, there's no way 'Trusted Computing' doesn't work against Open Source.

The real question-Triumph isn't just a car.

[Anonymous Coward]

"By wrapping GPL code in DRM and use DMCA to protect it there is legaly a whatertight hole to not let users change the GPL code in the products."'

So in your LEGAL opinion, the DMCA triumphs contract law, or failing the GPL being unenforcable, copyright law? More likely the DRM provision was added, not because the DMCA could be used as a hammer, but because DRM could be used to hide the deed. The DMCA doesn't protect companies/individuals conspiring* to break the law. Which violating the terms of the GPL would be.

*Yes "conspire". The mere act of intentional obscuring a civil act. Similar to the argument that can be brought against pirates that use tools to hide their illegal acts.

Celebrating the demise of GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL attempts to force one particular software development paradigm upon others. All that talk they spew about freedom is actually about the "freedom to impose their will upon others". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that many different business models are appropriate and that forcing one way effectively locks out certain categories of developers. Bury the GPL rape strategy already and celebrate its demise.

Re:Markets ultimately correct these silly drm atte

[Anonymous Coward]

Your points a and b show your woeful lack of understanding of the free market.

Therefore not only are you incorrect, you look like a dumbass in the process. Free market response to consumer demand is much akin to a government election. You and other anti-DRM fringe fanatics are like some obscure political party constantly holding a 1% demographic. And that's why you are so scared of DRM, when the rest of us aren't. As the OP correctly said, if something we purchase doesn't work to our benefit, someone else will provide that alternative. Thus, linus is spot on in his analysis. He's a pragmatist, which the market rewards. How's GNU/Hurd doing these days?

All's fair in love and DRM.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But it's currently implemented in terms of mapping to physical media. It controls copying the information from one instance of media to another. The problem is that computers with hard drives can instantly create thousands of these new copies, so attempting to regulate this action is almost impossible without taking away computers' general ability to copy."

Computers also allow one to purloin your identity, and commit crimminal, and civil acts in your name. By your argument, there should be no laws against identity theft. The fact that technology makes it easier to exercise humanities basic natures, isn't sufficient reason to do nothing.

"If people want to protect ideas, they should come up with a scheme to do it that doesn't depend on keeping track of all the ephemeral copies that may be in computers. The costs of accounting for that (in terms of user restrictions, lost rights, government interference and abuse) aren't worth the economic benefits to content creators provided by tracking all those individual copies."

Copyright does. It's not the "million copies" that's the problem. It's the sharing of those copies with individuals who have no intention of entering into a reciprocal agreement with the original content creator that's causing all the problems.

"You can get on your high horse and say "The content belongs to the creator, so the current system must be preserved as-is". However, I can get on a higher horse and say that the current system is unfair because I can buy a physical copy and view it over and over again without the creator getting one more cent."

That's what the "fair use" provisions, and "right of first sale" are about. What you can't do is sell your original, and keep a copy.

"In a perfect world, the creator would get compensated each time somebody enjoyed their work."

In a perfect world, people would honor the terms of their agreements (implicit or otherwise).

"The current system is a very crude approximation of what would really be fair. "

Would that be the "information wants to be free" definition of "fair"? Or the more likely definition that both parties honor the terms of their agreement "fair"?

Re:All's fair in love and DRM.

[Waffle Iron]

I've got news for you, naive AC. Throughout history, people have generally never honored any "terms of agreement" without some kind of enforcement. Lamenting about that doesn't change anything. And copyrights aren't an "agreement" anyway, they're a dictum from above.

DRM is an attempt to implement enforcement of the current system in a world where the technological limitations that originally enabled the current system have been lifted. The result is both the loss of the benefits of the new technology and the content producers placing *new* restrictions on their products that never existed before. My point is, the bargain isn't worth it. We'd be better off without the extra content supposedly provided by DRM.

BTW, your "fair use" and "right of first sale" are some of the first victims of DRM, so your point about that is moot.

Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

> He's so level-headed in a field of holy-men-with-a-mission-from-$DIETY as far as the eye can see.

Umm, RMS is an atheist.

Re:Translation

[npsimons]

GPL3 is a tipping point for the FSF. If they go that route, they will lose all corporate support, which they think they don't need but in fact very much do. GPL3 goes way too far. So if they want to marginalize themselves...go right ahead.

You know, I'll bet somebody said the *exact* same thing about the original GPL. And look where the FSF is now! Nobody is talking about them . . . oh, wait.

Yes

[Concern]

Yeah, you got it exactly right. That's exactly what they want to do.

It's basically saying, "look, you want me to build my own prison, you can damn well pay me a salary while I do it."

More practically, the idea is to raise the alarm and encourage the community not to waste work in inherently un-free systems. This may make those systems less commercially attractive (or even economically viable) than closed systems, because the dirty secret of the software world is that free software is virtually indispensable, even on platforms like Windows (Putty, hello?).

Linus is just gratuitously FSF-bashing, since he couldn't relicense if he wanted to. He never had the copyrights assigned. But imagine the hypothetical example, to get an idea: if these new DRM systems couldn't use Linux? This actually is already a deterrent! Even today, they would at least think twice before closing that off.

GPL2 is dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, you just don't get it. GPL2 is dead. A walking zombie at this point; it's only a matter of time before some company drives this point home.

GPL2 has no protection against software patents. All Microsoft has to do is to fund a small group of people to get some key technology into the source tree, and at the same time, start some submarine patents on it. They ought to be able to do this for far less than the $30 Million that they paid SCO.

Yes, of course the code could be pulled out. But by then it's too late. Microsoft could milk such a lawsuit for years, just like they are doing now. This type of attack will raise far greater FUD in the commercial adoption of Linux than the feeble one SCO is trying. And it will change how code is acepted into the kernel source tree.

Fighting Copyright?

[vanka]

You could apply the exact same argument to say the GPLv2 is not the place to fight copyright.

I do not see the GPLv2 as fighting copyright. If I write a piece of software and release it under the GPLv2 it is still my intellectual property, I can copyright it. By releasing it under the GPLv2 I allow you, the user, to change and modify my copyrighted software as you see fit; but require you to release your modifications to the community in the same way that I released my original software to you. Note I have not given you my copyright or intellectual property, I have licensed it to you under a low restriction license. In the same way, any software you create using my software is your intellectual property and yours to copyright, but since you agreed to my license (the GPL) when you used my code you are required to license your software under the GPL.

This is similar to what Microsoft is doing (or rather being forced to do); they are releasing the source code to Windows, but under a restrictive license of their own manufacture. They are retaining the copyrights to the code, you are just given a license to use their code to create your own. So the GPL is not fighting copyrights, it is making a way to have copyrighted code available be freely available to a community of developers and make sure that these same developers contribute back to the community; ie no freeloaders. I agree that copyright as we have it now in the US is a problem, and Stallman realized this. What he created with the GPL was not a way to fight copyright, but a way around the hassles of copyright.

Re:Fighting Copyright?

[m50d]

GPL is implemented using copyright, yes, but that's irrelevant - it's a hack of the copyright system. GPL is a fight against current copyright laws, just as GPLv3 is a fight against current DRM laws.

Wow check it out

[Anonymous Coward]

A right-wing reactionary. How did you get past the "intelligence filter"? (i.e. login form)

strategy

[pyrrho]

you have to build dams at the narrow parts of the river.

the key in all strategic battle is controls of these sorts of points and other types of high ground, pressure, and choke points.

if you have goals... you'll need to fight in the right places... not the merely logically morally right places, but wherever in reality you can accomplish your goals, and that will be whichever areas you are strongest in.

Now that sounds general like I'm not really disagreeing with you in that I'm not sure you're wrong in where you say we should fight... because I'm only making this generalization, that strategically you have to fight places you have power and supply lines, etc, and so I don't think the model yours is going to work because it's true, morally, it's not the Postal Carrier's fault.

If your neighbor has put a gate on a drive that was an access road (not allowed in most states), you might have to go to the Post Office to use the power of the post office, and say, "the carrier can't get to my house any more because my neighbor closed off my right of way". I know, maybe you get a lawyer and take the guy to court... or you do both and more. Sometimes you have to pull in third parties because they are part of the whole situation.

In this case... I'm not sure where I stand, but I think defeating the idea and structure of DRM is worth fighting on every front, especially since it's unlikely to be defeated.

Up to the original author

[ishmalius]

I think that an author might want to consider the provisions of the license on a case-by-case business. He would ask himself, "do I want the added provisions of GPL v.3? Do I want people to use my creation in ways with which I might disagree?" Remember, this is his code, not the World's, so it is totally up to him how he chooses to license it, if at all. He would probably realize that his decision might restrict its acceptance into some software projects (like the Linux kernel, maybe?), but that's his decision.

But, then again, maybe it would even be possible to use multiple licenses (v2, v3, LGPL, BSD, etc), like Mozilla uses. The developers down the line can decide which one with which they would prefer to agree.

stanwirth

[pyrrho]

very well put, that's an excellent point, if linus made it... um, thanks for making it again in three paragraphs.

That's a very strong case... also emphasizing the gpl3 is a new license, gpl2 still exists, if there is a way these licenses work together as you've described... that's fantastic, isn't it.

Ah, a member of Stallman's clone army

[petrus4]

The issue with Freedom 0 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html is that IF I can run any "free" software that I want then I can run it for any purpose.

Yes, but if you actually knew how to think for yourself, chances are you wouldn't want Stallman (or anyone else, for that matter) defining freedom for you. Those of us who *are* capable of using our own brains prefer to reach our own definition. I'm guessing Linus specifically wanted copyleft himself in order to ensure that downstream developers/companies couldn't lock up his work; however I also suspect that he actually would have thought it through. He might have even looked at some of the other licenses in existence at the time (including non-copyleft ones - *horrors!*) before deciding on the GPL. I'm curious...how much do you know about the other OSS licenses that exist?

The other issue is, Linus *wasn't* off the mark with DRM...what he was concerned about was how the term DRM is defined, which is something that the draft does not elaborate very much on. His point was that some of the things which could conceivably be defined as DRM (he gives encryption as one example) can actually be extremely beneficial in some circumstances.

DRM is a war being waged on consumers, developing such systems COSTS money that gets passed on to you but provides NO benefit you YOU as consumer.

Right. That's exactly why what you're defining here as DRM is failing, and will ultimately fail. Capitalist economic theory 101: Corporations ultimately exist for (and profit from) the purpose of meeting public needs. If they don't do that, eventually they cease to exist. I'm not claiming that that happens overnight, and I'm also not claiming that they don't do a hell of a lot of damage in the process, (environmental damage probably being the best example) but eventually it happens. Someone else comes along who not only more efficiently meets the original need, but who also figures out ways of solving the problems that the original corporation created. It's happening to an extent with Linux and Microsoft, even though Linux is not the domain of a single corporation.

Richard Stallman is a Marxist fanatic in the truest and most literal sense of the word. I will agree with anyone who claims that big business causes a lot of problems. Yes, many large corporations *are* run by rapacious moral degenerates, and yes, they can do a tremendous amount of damage, but just because that happens in some or even most cases does not mean it happens in *every* case. The economic system in a contemporary sense also may have metastasized into something undesirable and dangerous, (which does, I concede, now need to at least be partly replaced) but for a long time, and in ways smaller than those which are currently most visible, it has served as a valid and even positive framework for solving human problems.

Stallman sold Emacs tapes himself during the 80s for $1,500 US apiece, and the "Deluxe distribution package," is being sold for $5,000 US. I'm aware that the conventional Marxist justification for this would be to claim to be "using the system in order to bring it down," however a more accurate term for it would simply be rank hypocrisy. He has stated on more than one occasion that he wants to see an end to people being able to earn money from software, and yet he himself has done so in the past, and his foundation currently obviously has no qualms whatsoever about doing so.

I suspect that you, like many of his other followers, simply focus on how wonderful his philosophy looks on the surface, and don't bother digging any deeper than that. For those of us who have been looking, however, the gnu costume has never been able to entirely conceal Stallman's Red underwear.

Re:Ah, a member of Stallman's clone army

[pennystinker]

You're free to have an axe to grind with RMS, that I can do nothing about. I guess now it's my turn to make stupendously broad, ill-informed, unjustified, inexplicable but clearly penetrating, enlightening, and "on-the-mark" comment about you, my friend, someone whom I only know as a series of pixels on the screen. But somehow I know you completely already, just as you know me, isn't that right?

Aside from the blather about various political positions you ascribe to RMS, and I guess by extension, to me, I think your take is weak, at best.

Let me start with I'm no Marxist, I am a free-market thinker. That said I insist that the markets in question actually be FREE (as in liberty for the consumers of the produce of such a market, and that the rules of the marketplace enable, support, encourage, and make possible the freedom to compete). So, my knee-jerk, reactionist, pattern-matcher, I happen, just happen to agree with the fact that DRM is anti-competitive, anti-free market, so does the FSF. So what? What? you afraid that that others applying their clearly inferior little grey cells couldn't possibly come to the same conclusion? Please, sit down before you hurt yourself.

Let me clue you in on a few pieces of my digging into what is happening with DRM (most of the "engaged" community of /. seems to be clued into this, alas you aren't): Your "Capitalism 101" (please, someone slap this elementary school poser) don't, or should I say, won't be applicable here son. All of that "capital" coming out of our pockets is being used to buy legislation that will change the very nature of your "Capitalism 101" course. (DMCA, Sonny Bono copyright extension act, the RIAA/MPAA are trying to close the analog hole, sue their customer base into accepting their antiquated and now obsolete business model, and finally they are trying to stop the march of technological progress by making it illegal to do ANYTHING "non-customary" with their "content"). I guess in your way of looking at this we sheep sit around and wait for "the market" to produce a messiah that will figure out how to move the market forward and profit so well that they will be able to afford all the legal battles necessary to change the "rules".... back? or forward?

Please, give me a break. Don't flame bait if you can't take the heat. Please, DO think for yourself and refrain from making accusations about who's in who's "bed" and what color their underwear is. (By the way exactly how did you know that about RMS?). Please DO think for yourself and stop bantering about meaningless cliches like "Marxist fanatic"; RMS is who he is, you don't have to agree with him, or even like the man, but stop dismissing via labels, and by extension folks like me who just happen to, yes, AGREE in large part with the philosophical positions taken by the FSF. Perhaps if you weren't so damn patronizing in your response you might find it enlightening to hear my of-the-wall quackery as to why I have this agreement. I think you would find my reasoning to be quite non-Marxist. Instead you just pissed me off.

Um, other OSS licenses, what's that? No. Such things exist? Wow, the FSF has been feeding me the line that there is only the GPL (and the LGPL for those who want to commit little sins). Where the hell do you get off on this? Who hired you to be teacher? Here you go fool: I'm writing this on my HP laptop on my custom build Gentoo Ricer Gentoo distro. Gentoo has a nice on-line package DB that has explicit listing of the various licenses for the packages: click, read, learn. HOLY SHIT! EVERY MAJOR DISTRIBUTION out there has the same thing. Wait! Sourceforge and Freshmeat also have that. Then there's all of those developer mailing-lists that I'm on that have discussions about the pros/cons of various licenses every so often. I guess that isn't enough for the likes of "high-brows" such as yourself, forgive me, I shall double my efforts.

By the way: Linus *IS* off the mark on DRM. The fact that *he* has drawn the arbitr

Re:Ah, a member of Stallman's clone army

[petrus4]

(DMCA, Sonny Bono copyright extension act, the RIAA/MPAA are trying to close the analog hole, sue their customer base into accepting their antiquated and now obsolete business model, and finally they are trying to stop the march of technological progress by making it illegal to do ANYTHING "non-customary" with their "content")

I notice here that you use the word "trying," a few times...and that's appropriate. We've heard on Slashdot about some of the RIAA's recent adventures in court. They both involve women who are on record as scarcely knowing what a computer is, let alone how to share mp3s.

Hence, in using the legal system to persecute people who are fairly obviously innocent, all the RIAA succeed in doing is to portray themselves as exactly the kind of blind, avaricious jackasses that we already knew they were. They're not a serious long-term threat to anybody but themselves.

As for the DMCA, who cares? It's the proverbial pie-crust law. ("Easily made, easily broken," ergo largely unenforceable) If you're an American corporate entity, then yes, you might have to care about it, but nobody else on the planet really should.

The thing that so many people on Slashdot and in other places don't seem to understand is that the corporate greed addicts are a tiny minority of the population. I was reading yet another article yesterday about how the sky is supposedly falling because Verizon and the Bells want to try and lock up the Internet, and do various other economically suicidal things. As far as I'm concerned, they're entirely welcome to try.

For starters, they only have direct control over the net in certain parts of the US, which doesn't include the rest of the planet. For another thing, even if they were able to completely monopolise whatever network space they *do* have control over, they'd very rapidly become amazed at how nobody would come to their party. People who don't understand the Internet don't understand perhaps the most fundamental characteristic of it; namely, that it is composed of individual machines, owned by disparate individuals. Ergo, Verizon and the Bells can make as much of a monopolistic mess of their *part* of the network as they want; the rest of us can (and will) simply divert around it, and they'll be left potentially bankrupt and looking like fools.

The bottom line here is that American corporations can hatch whatever evil schemes they want, and the rest of us will simply continue on with our lives. The US is *not* the center of the universe, and it does *not* have control of the entire planet, as much as it might like to. Large-scale hardware-based DRM is not going to happen. The total prevention of p2p file sharing is not going to happen. The destruction of open source is not going to happen. George W. Bush and his demoniac handlers taking over the world is not going to happen.

Why not? It's very simple. The overwhelming majority simply do not want it, and will not accept it...and any governmental or corporate entity which wants to survive, ultimately either accepts the will of the majority, or ceases to exist.

You can tell me I'm wrong if you like...but watch it happen.

Re:Ah, a member of Stallman's clone army

[pennystinker]

"Trying" applies to:

- the various broadcast flag attempts
- closing the analog hole
- freeze "time" and compel "customary" uses of media
- RIAA/MPAA suits against "some" customers
- Trying to export the DMCA (thankfully, with some failures)

Success in:

- The DMCA is on the books
- The Sonny Bono copyright extension act
- RIAA/MPAA suits against "some" customers (yes, they have been able to get settlements in a number of cases, so their activity is not harmless, more later)
- Getting more Broadcast flag/analog hole legislation in the pipeline

In general, I would say that we have agreement on the point that "eventually" most of this nonsense will fall by the wayside, but the by the copyright extension act is probably here for good, and the DMCA will take a decade or so to be neutralized (this crust is pretty thick). You, I and the general /. community are aware and informed about these issues, but the vast majority of the general public are not. Nor do they understand the implications of these threats so they don't know why they should resist them in the first place. In the mean time we have security and academic researchers concerned about disclosing information that might make them subjects of DMCA lawsuits (remember the the DVD audio watermarking fiasco a few years ago?, cracking Acrobat reader?, the MPAA was even able to haul DVD Jon into court despite the fact that there were no local laws [other than theft of copyrighted materials] applicable).

Now, for the next WHILE we DO have the DMCA on the books. It is THE singular law that enables United States citizens to be legally forbidden to circumvent DRM. It is literally the only "practical" impediment that gives DRM teeth in the first place. The entire discussion we are having, the whole reason why the the anti-DRM clause is in the GPLv3 in the first place is exactly BECAUSE of the legal environment. Resistance to this wrong-headed thinking needs to happen on every front possible: Content creators (as Linus has said) need to release their works in such a way that DRM cannot be applied to their works. Those who provide the active "tools" (software/hardware) that can be used to DRM encumber "stuff" (music, videos, books, other software) have to take a stand and say that their tools cannot be used in a fashion that takes away the rights of users. The anti DRM-clause is simply this, it is yet another way to resist.

Again, remember, DRM is only a threat, substantially in the US, because of the DMCA. It gives teeth to iTunes (use hymn people!) making it "legitimate", it is what makes all of this supposedly "trusted" hardware "trusted" because there are legal ramifications (suites, fines, prison time) worth paying for. Without the DMCA anybody can circumvent any DRM with impunity and this whole ire-raising issue would be moot.

Regarding the "successful" lawsuits carried out by the RIAA/MPAA, some of the settlements were reached without even reaching the level of evidence that would be required in court. Merely the suit was enough. Lawsuits are expensive, not everyone can afford to defend themselves, and some of the folks sued did, in fact, infringe on copyrights. It is a shotgun approach to "addressing" their "problem" (which is that their very industry is on the verge of irrelevance), but has not made its way into the mental space of the general public yet. Oh, by the way, the MPAA/RIAA are fueled by your capital as well.

The reasons why such a clause is in the GPLv3 is because "we", certainly in the US, and potentially elsewhere as well, are going to be living in this environment for a while. Taking the academic position that it will sort itself out in the end is not productive, nor inspires leadership. Say what the hell you want about RMS, but he is trying to address an issue that he perceives as an immediate threat to users of free software NOW. Don't be surprised if other FLOSS licenses follow suit.

So in the end, I've gone from a mindless RMS BBS bot to

Re:Ah, a member of Stallman's clone army

[petrus4]

*I* think that you are the victim of group-think. *I* seen this pattern of RMS bashing many times of the years. It is the result of "not thinking for yourself" and falling in line with a particular kind of anti-RMS camp.

I will concede that extremism on either side is undesirable, and that I displayed such.

Don't be surprised if other FLOSS licenses follow suit.

I will also concede that that is entirely possible. My objection is not so much about the idea of condemning/expressing disapproval towards DRM as such. Rather it was that a) the term "DRM" perhaps was not sufficiently clearly defined in the draft, and that b) it did sound, at least superficially, like the FSF was trying to dictate/decree policy for their "group." Because of that, if as you say more licenses than merely the GPL itself adopt such clauses in the future, I will be willing to believe that they are doing so for other reasons.

In terms of the idea of the FSF attempting to issue decrees for their "followers," you may be correct that viewing the FSF/GNU project as a religion is somewhat inaccurate. However, even if in fact this perception is inaccurate, there are concrete reasons why said perception exists, and as you've already said, I am not the only person who holds it. Some people might answer that Microsoft and the RIAA already established the idea that you're either in one camp or the other, and that hence it wasn't the FSF who did so...but in a more objective mode of thought I'm able to believe that such intense factionalism isn't entirely necessary.

True you have used a similar rhetorical style as a particular school of RMS-bashers (Marxists, commie-pinko, anti-capitalism, followed by legions of RMS worshiping drones)

I believe that Richard Stallman desires to be worshipped, and that he has at least implied that desire on more than one occasion. Granted, most of said insinuations would be claimed as satirical humour (the "St. Ignucius" material, etc) by his advocates, but as Shakespeare said, often it is the humour a person uses which reveals the most information about said person's serious nature.

Also, my labelling of Stallman as a Marxist or Communist is not entirely based on reactionary ignorance. One of Marx's core beliefs was that workers themselves should own the means of production. Granted, said belief in that form does not *exactly* scale to Stallman's concept of Free Software...but especially given that the issue of hardware has entered the picture, it is a fairly close fit, don't you think?

I also don't necessarily believe that somebody being a Marxist is on its' own a bad thing; I'd only be inclined to believe it was a bad thing in the case of someone who believed that Marxism *alone* had any validity. Stallman's seeming inability to accept the validity of perspectives other than his own has been one of my main objections to his stated philosophy.

I view Capitalism and Communism as being poles at each end of a spectrum or continuum. I realise that such is not an original thought, however, I would add to that that I believe that *both* are vital parts of the economic/social/political ecosystem. Try and claim that either one of them, in exclusivity, is supreme, and totally neglect the other, and you will rapidly run into very serious problems in my experience.

Re:Ah, a member of Stallman's clone army

[pennystinker]

Then all is well.

DMCA

[SmallFurryCreature]

That is the difference between then and now. Nothing stopped compaq from doing what it did. The DMCA will prevent anyone from doing something similar.

Second is that the market has changed. Compaq launched there clone as a cheap alternative to the expensive IBM machines. But current PC's are already as cheap as they can be. Who can afford to undercut Dell? It is easy to overthrow an immature market, next to impossibl to overthrow a mature one. Especially one semi controlled by monopolists or virtual monopolists. Intel and AMD between them OWN the desktop. If both of them think DRM is the future who is going to create an alternative?

The compaq happened because it made economic sense. A non-drm PC would be far harder especially if a large portion of buyers want a drm machine because they need it to get their drm content.

People wanted and needed cheap clone PC's. Is there a similar market for non-drm hardware? Outside /.? I doubt it.

Re:baby and bathwater? what about chicken and egg?

[geekee]

"Imagine if Windows 95 required a 'Trusted Computing' platform. The manufacturers would have, for various reasons, produced hardware that could essentially only run Windows, and the fact that it couldn't run other, yet-to-be-developed operating systems would have been a total non issue to them. End result - no Linux."

Trusted computing does not mean "only runs windows". Trusted computing means altering a signed OS causes the hardware to flag an error, i.e. your software has been tampered with. As Linus points out, it's a great security feature, and I believe earlier he said he was willing to make Linux compatible with trusted computing.

Re:If Linus thinks..

[ignorant_newbie]

You are right about the BSD variants openly sharing code, but thats more due to good sportsmanship and an informal gentlemans code than anything. Nothing (as far as I know) prevents me from taking a branch from one of them and creating a "Secure-BSD" and locking the code and my modifications away and not give the source away.

yup. that's kinda the point

Re:If Linus thinks..

[ignorant_newbie]

>Hell, anything compiled with the GNU compilers

how is this standing on someone's shoulders anymore than using msvc++ would be ? The compiler doesn't force you to license the resulting binary under the GPL, so I don't see your point here.

The real incompatibility...

[Anonymous Coward]

4) original author of signed/DRM'd driver sees said fixed version
5) original author ports your fixes to original release and gives you credit
6) original author signs/DRM's new driver
7) original author releases new code

The GPL is not incompatible with this scenario at all.

Just how do you test a fixed version of a driver if your printer can't use it, because the printers allow only manufacturer-signed drivers? Theoretically you could fix the buggy driver, but there'd be no way to be sure it works if you can't run it.

best comment I've read all day

[Anonymous Coward]

This is especially cool:
"That's not free as in speech; it's free as in loading."
Can I use this for my sig?

Re:best comment I've read all day

[Hell O'World]

"I wish I had said that."

"You will, you will."

-Oscar Wilde (or maybe Monty Python)

Re:If Linus thinks..

[ignorant_newbie]

>What about Linux (based on Stallman's work)

What work of RMS's is linux based on? I'm sure Linus would be very interested to hear about this, as he seems to remember writing the thing by scratch himself.

> mplayer (based on libavcodec, which uses X264)

you seem to misunderstand the differrence between a derived work and linking to a library. the point of the GPL is that people can make derived works with your source code. Linking to a GPL library is no different than linking to a microsoft DLL.

Shouldn't it be up to the software developer?

[iamacat]

If I don't want my code to be used in DRMed products or nuclear weapons, I certainly have a right to say so. If you don't like that, write your own!

Re:If Linus thinks..

[ignorant_newbie]

>You seem to have confused "The GPL world" with "Slashdot"

not really. We happen to be having this discussion on slashdot, but the FA is a post by some guy named torvalds on a linux kernel mailing liist.

>We're in a discussion about the Linux kernel;
>don't those hundreds of developers standing
>on each other's shoulders count for anything?

well, no. because there are no derived works involved. it's just new versions of the same thing, and the fact that developers working on new versions of a product get to see the code for the older versions of the same product is hardly a uniquely GPL thing.

My point was supposed to be that the GPL fanbois seem to think that without GPL nothing will ever get shared, because people won't be forced to. In reality, i see many more significant OSS products released under BSD-like licenses than GPL ones.

Re:If Linus thinks..

[orzetto]

The most promin[e]nt BSD licensed products (Free, Open and Net ) all happily share between themselves, thus effectiv[e]ly standing on each other's shoulders.

How much did Microsoft share of the TCP/IP stack?

What they don't do is waste time on stupid license discussions, or being worried about what someone else might do with their code.

That's why Linux makes headlines, is the main FOSS OS, and has all eyes on it, whereas BSD is a niche.

The GPL world, otoh, spends it's efforts on discussions like this one... and I can't find a single instance of people standing on each other's shoulders.

I am using KDE (GPL) running on Linux (GPL) working with G++ (GPL) and the GSL (GPL) for today's work. Today, I also used Octave (GPL) and Kile (GPL). I managed my references with Jabref (GPL), and I am browsing with Firefox ({L}GPL).

that's influence

[davek]

I want to be so influential that I am able to send a few philosophical emails and have it reverberate and spawn discussion throughout the world.

Can anyone think of another person besides Linus who holds such influence in directing the political mind outside of politics and commerce?

I respect him. That doesn't mean I agree.

[HiThere]

Linus commands a lot of respect in the FOSS community, and it's well earned. That doesn't mean that we need to agree with everything he says. Sometimes I don't, and this is one instance.

I don't like it that power politics determines everything about human society, but I acknowledge that it does. I wish it didn't, but it does. That's why the GPL is superior to the BSD. In a perfect world, everyone would use the BSD license. In a world of power politics, GPL is superior. Linus has always had trouble with this. He chose the GPL because RMS "bullied" him into it. But it was the RIGHT decision. And, plausibly, the GPL2 is also the right decision. I currently think so, but I'm reserving my opinion while I think things through a bit more.

When the US was being created, the founders created the constitution with checks and balance *BECAUSE* they didn't want power politics to operate unchecked. They weren't totally successful, but it was a good attempt, that lasted nearly intact for nearly 200 years. I tend to think of GPL2 as an "amendment" to the GPL. As such it needs a lot of thought, and careful consideration. It also needs to be able to work harmoniously with works under the older version of the GPL. (I.e., it needs to be unimportant whether or not Linus converts the part of the kernel that he can convert to use the new license.) I need to convince myself about the backwards compatibility to decide that the proposal that I have seen is the correct choice. About the DRM issue, I don't have any doubts. DRM is immoral except when the owner of the hardware holds the key. (In such cases it can be useful for security purposes.)

Re:Use license to knock legal teeth (only) out of

[2short]

"Yes, I know that legalese needs to be cleaned up"
Which I think you will find impossible. In particular, you need to define "DRM system". To use Linus's example, define what you are restricting in such a way that it rules out any effective DRM, but doesn't include a Linux kernel that will only load modules signed by RedHat (or trusted party of your choice). It can't be done. If I can build a system that will refuse to run stuff I don't want it to, others can build systems that will refuse to run stuff they don't want it to. Which of us is building a secure system, and which is building DRM? It depends entirely which stuff we don't want it to run.

Frankly, saying you can't use GPL3 code as part of a DRM scheme is inherently ridiculous; If I'm writing code for a DRM scheme, I'm not terribly likely to choose any GPL version for my license now am I? If the vast majority of code everywhere was GPL3, it might slow down DRM implementers by a few days while they re-implemented the stuff they needed; but that's not the case, and DRM implementation isn't being held up by lack of software in any case. This will do squat to slow down DRM, and will add another restriction that people will have to worry about.

How about not trying to use the license on your software to solve unrelated social ills?

Re:If Linus thinks..

[roystgnr]

well, no. because there are no derived works involved. it's just new versions of the same thing

A new version of the same thing is a derived work. The term you're looking for is "code fork" - perhaps that happens more often to BSD projects than to GPL ones, but even if it does I wouldn't call that something to brag about.

In reality, i see many more significant OSS products released under BSD-like licenses than GPL ones.

Of the top ten most active projects on SourceForge last week, all ten were released under GPL, LGPL, or MPL licenses. Of the top ten most downloaded projects on SourceForge, all ten were released under the GPL or the Bittorrent Open Source License (which has a similar "must make the Source Code of your Modifications available" clause).

I know, there's other definitions of "significant" out there (and 2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2!), but the first place I looked for objective data came up 100% GPL-like, 0% BSD-like. That might have been a lucky fluke, but I don't think so.

Really Batman!

[jotaeleemeese]

Thank you for pointing the Bat-ovbious.

Unless you think that MS forcing their EULAs on us is a charitable action.

What do you thing licenses are for? Are you the Joker or what?

Re:If Linus thinks..

[catch23]

Hell, anything compiled with the GNU compilers.

This statement is incorrect.

this is why i prefer the BSD license

[smash]

Oh noes! Someone can use it for commercial gain!!

You mean like MacOS X?

IMHO that is a *good* thing... I'd much rather have commercial software that doesn't suck and free software that has the majority of the features than commercial software that's crappy and unsupported Free software.

BSD license is short and to the point, and does not try and impose any holier than thou agenda.

:)

smash.

Re:this is why i prefer the BSD license

[arose]

Are you saying that the proprietary software development model is so bad that without free software gifts are needed to make it not suck?

Re:this is why i prefer the BSD license

[smash]

Not necessarily - but if there is free tech out there that works, why waste time reinventing the wheel? Wasted time is wasted time, whether its that of a commercial developer or not. Why should we pay development costs for wasted time?

Re-use of BSD licensed code -> lower development costs -> better tested software -> better commercial software, more likelyhood of having compatible behavior with BSD licensed software. Better commercial software = more time available to work on new issues as opposed to fixing problems. More commercial development = more ideas that can be re-implemented in the free software world (like it or not, a lot of new ideas come from payware land - not all, but lots do).

Yes, someone can take BSD code and make it proprietry, however it doesn't take away the fact that the free stuff is still out there if it does what you need.

And if it doesn't shouldn't someone be paid for taking the time to extend the feature-set, if they don't want to work for free?

If commercial feature X is so damn important, then pay for it. If the free stuff is good enough, don't - or update it yourself :)

smash.

Re:this is why i prefer the BSD license

[arose]

First: commercial != proprietry. Second: you are back at reinventing the wheel when the proprietry stuff fails, there are many scenarios. Third: you may not know that the BSD code ever existed, it may even not be available anymore.

Why should we pay development costs for wasted time?

Because that's how proprietry software works, for every innovation there are hundreds of reimplentations, BSD does not solve that, if anything it worsens the problem because more people add that one feature and close it up.

Re:this is why i prefer the BSD license

[arose]

Oh, also keep in mind that I was talking about the great majority of cases, sometimes BSD is the right license--Ogg Vorbis is a good example.

Re:this is why i prefer the BSD license

[smash]

Third: you may not know that the BSD code ever existed, it may even not be available anymore.

How so?

Once it's released into the public domain, if it's any good, you can be damn sure that some FTP site will keep a copy of it in one form or another :D

And if it's no good - then who cares if it goes missing?

It's not like a commercial entity can remove it from distribution when it was released by someone else...

smash.

Re:this is why i prefer the BSD license

[arose]

Not findable might describe it better. If the original BSD code was never popular you may not be able to find it even if it still lingers on a few ftp servers, you may not even know it has ever existed at all! The proprietary that included the BSD code usualy won't tell you that a big portion of what you have is available in that way, nor will it tell you what to search for. It will have the bare minimum copyright notice (Protions (c) John Doe 1995-1997) somewhere.

Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

You have done an excellent job of illustrating the problem. I don't really give a damn if original author wants to incorporate my code. I don't want to deal with original author at all. You perfectly describe the antithesis of freedom: to have to cowtow to the whims of some ignoramus simply because they happen to be original author. It's my goddamn printer. It's my goddamn computer. Just because you wrote a few fiddly bits that spit ink on paper doesn't give you the right to tell me how to use my computer. That's exactly the situtation the GPL was designed to avert, and exactly the reason that the advent of DRM warrents a GPL upgrade.

Re:Exactly

[baadger]

I agree that DRM and signed drivers are bad _IF_ the system prevents you from installing non-signed drivers. Your "it's mine" attitude is fine until you expect the 'original author' or manufacturer to bail you out when you fuck up. I was merely pointing out that giving someone who provides you with some sort of support in an official capacity, much like Redhat does with Linux, the ability to sign drivers is a good thing.

IMO, the lack of the notion of a 'product' with open source software is one of it's weaknesses. Not everyone can be bothered or is able to code and how do non-tech savvy users really know if Linux distro X hasn't messed with a manufacturers linux drivers and for what purpose?

Nothing I said nullifies the 'more eyes' principle or prevents the open source effort from doing good.

Re:Markets ultimately correct these silly drm atte

[rtechie]

The solutions will be entirely hassle free.
Since Microsoft controls the PC market and the MPAA/RIAA cartels control almost all popular media they will make if very simple indeed.

Um, no. Where is the evidence that in the last few years hardware/software vendors have mad a QUANTUM LEAP (which is what you describe) in the reliability and convienience of DRM'ed hardware and software. I worked on some of these solutions and ALL of the ones I've worked with are a hassle. iTunes is a hassle. If you have the slightest problem, Secure Windows Media is actually much better (IMO) because there are plenty of tools widely available to strip off the DRM, without that it would be a major hassle. Which should tell you something: The stronger and more effective you make your DRM protection, the greater the hassle it will be for your customers. This is a "Golden Rule" in DRM and it's absolutely true.

The Sony rootkit fiasco we saw earlier wasn't a exception to the rollouts of strong DRM products, but THE RULE. The spectacular failure that was DIVX should have taught the industry something. If DRM makes hardware nigh unto useless, people will not buy that hardware (I'm looking at you Apple). Asian hardware vendors know better that to shoot themselves in the foot and which push comes to shove, I suspect they're fully prepared to simply ignore US law. I don't doubt for one moment that "no-name" Asian vendors (who are really secret divisions of the large companies you know at love, like Panasonic and Toshiba) will release Blue-ray players that bypass DRM restrictions just like you can buy DVD players that bypass Macrovision. The only company not in this position is schitzophrenic Sony, and they may be forced to largely abandon the consumer electronics market because of it.

Re:Markets ultimately correct these silly drm atte

[Hooya]

"I used to fret and worry about IBM locking down.... ... Each time the open market solution natuarly won."

yes, open market solutions brought to you by folks like Richard Stallman who continue to worry about such lockdowns.

on their machine?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you bought it, it's your machine.

Let's not forget that ownership means that the citizen can own things too, not just the corporation.

Otherwise we live in a corporate communist state if only businesses can own anything.

The real question is HURD

[CarpetShark]

The only question for me now is... when will HURD-L4 be ready?

Let's think positive about transition to DRM :-)

[vleo]

I'm a Linux video hardware manufacturer with GNU GPL drivers. I *DREAM* of the day when nobody else is producing non-DRM hardware. We would then come up with a great new product called "General Purpose DRM-Free Personal Computer" and we'll be very rich soon. That's assuming that no one else would be offering such a beast, but it's still legal to manufacture non-DRM equipment. Which is unlikely.

More probable scenario is that they would make it illegal to manufacture/sell and own non-DRM equipment - but that's even BETTER from my business standpoint, since then non-DRM hardware design,manufacturing, sales and distribution would be more profitable then illegal drugs are now. And non-DRM equipment is probably better for health then substances of abuse :-)

Linus believes that Linux momentum before we enter DRM reality is more important for success of future computer/internet underground. RMS wants to spend open source momentum trying to slow down the transition to DRM. You be the judge. But if we don't get into DRM world (and I would not get very rich or go to jail :-( ) - Linus's strategy works better then.

Re:If Linus thinks..

[Alsee]

not that i think linus should switch licenses. afterall, it's his software. he can license it any way he likes.

No and no.

At this point only fraction of Linux code is written (and copyrighted) by Linus. Linus cannot licence Linux - cannot license other people's code - any way he likes. Much of that code was contributed expressly or implicitly under GPL2 with no "or later" clause.

So really any and all discussion of Linux and GPL3 is moot. The licence for Linux effectively cannot be changed without starting from scratch.

-

Re:Markets ultimately correct these silly drm atte

[mpcooke3]

Sorry, use of the word "controls" was misleading. I meant "owns".

With regard to the DRM I was not referring to *now* I was referring to the obvious end game for DRM as far as the music and software monopolies are concerned. It's not as much of a quantum leap as you might think though. Already DRM'd music is claimed to be the majority of online music transfers. By not releasing ANY mainstream music without DRM the RIAA has done a pretty good job of making the majority of non-DRM'd music transfer either questionable (allofmp3.com) or just illegal.

End-to-end DRM'd hardware to run a managed/secure version of Windows is going to be sold as an advantage that windows has over Linux because it allows things to be done more "securely", stop untrusted software from running and allow playback of RIAA media. Also the DRM is going to work it's way back gradually, from the media player to a trusted version of windows back eventually to trust hardware it won't need to be a quantum leap.

I'd also put money on the next standard Music Disc format having DRM too they've wanted a reason to get rid of the open non-DRM'd redbook standard for quite some time.

to pry my cold, dead fingers off my buggy whip

[Medievalist]

I use undirected quoting everywhere except m4 programming. Are you accusing me of using proper english punctuation? If so, thanks! Nobody's ever accused me of that before, I'm honored.

If your statement was meant literally, I think you will find that your car does go faster if you "encourage" the driver with your buggy whip.