Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The FSF, GPLv3 and DRM

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the preaching-to-the-choir dept.

whats-life-without-gpl writes "FSF has a thing against DRM. This article tries to explain why RMS isn't a DRM (Note that NewsForge is also owned by OSTG) fan and how GPLv3 is gearing up to protect against it. "

2 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What's wrong with TiVo? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah, but.

    They don't make it easy to hack the box and put fixes or
    enhancements of GPLed software on the box.

    Tivo went overboard, and locked down the entire box when
    they could have done the following alternative:

    Provide the source (as they do).
    Provide a build environment so you can make enhancements
    or install bug fixes to the GPLed software (they don't).
    Provide a method to update the box (reflash if needed) (they don't).
    Make sure the box will boot any kernel with GPLed userland (they don't).

    Tivo could do the above, and provide their signed proprietary
    binaries, and everyone would be happy.

    Because of Tivo, RMS has been gamed, and he and Eben have
    come up with a more complicated 'solution' to the problem.

    All the GPLv3 has to do (with regard to DRM), is to require
    that distributors provide the source, provide the build environment,
    provide their proprietary binaries, provide a method to update
    the box, and make sure the box will boot even if you change the GPLed software.

    Everyone will be happy, and the spirit of GPL will be preserved.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  2. Re:I fear a repeat of the Bison fiasco... by Chops · · Score: 4, Informative
    Bison (GNU's version of YACC) used to have the restriction that the output of Bison, since it was a large amount of code, was GPL. As a result, nobody used Bison except for GCC, because the liscence was untenible.

    Correction: Bison used to have the restriction that the output of Bison was GPL, because nobody (including the FSF) had noticed that that was true. As soon as somebody did (in 1996 or so), the FSF put in a special exception and life went on pretty much as normal.

    I fear that GPLv3, by trying to force RMS's notion of "Liberty" more strongly (anti-DRM provisions, anti-closed-hardware provisions) will be a repeat: GPLv3 based software will only be used by the real FSF zealots. Everyone else will avoid it.

    Yes, the popularity of Bison has certainly suffered a staggering defeat; the Debian popularity contest, to pick a random example, shows it slightly less popular than X Windows, but slightly more popular than the ftp client. Doubtless we should heed your example and run screaming from the GPLv3 lest we, like it, and like Bison, become...

    (shudder)

    unpopular.

    Nice use of the word "zealot" to describe harmless nerds who like to share their software, also.