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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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...

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:"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: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.

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.

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. :)

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?

[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.

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.)

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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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: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.)

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

[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?

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: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..

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?

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.

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: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.

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: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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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")

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.