Slashdot Mirror
The FSF, GPLv3 and DRM
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. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
One is a person, the other an ill conceived business plan...
No sig for the moment.
Linus Torvalds, has a problem with this. He says that he himself signs the Linux kernel, and that that's his way of telling everyone, "You can trust this, it's from me." In an email message to the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML) on 23 April, he says that there are two types of keys: "One is an external key that is applied _to_ the kernel (OK, and outside the license), and the other one is embedding a key _into_ the kernel."
GPLv3 says that if any GPLed software carries an embedded key, this key should me made available to the users, but it makes no demands on the first kind of key. Linus has said that he would never distribute his signing keys, but the GPLv3 does not require him to release them. The key he talks about only describe the trustworthiness of the kernel. It in no way affects the freedoms of copyleft. It's only the embedded keys, which can be used to nullify the freedoms offered by copyleft, that need to be released.
There, fixed it for you
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
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)
We'd better get the CIA and FBI involved, along with the RIAA, NTSB, MPAA, ABC, CBS, CNN, AOL, MSN, and NBC. Oh, and be sure to alert the EFF and NRA while you're at it. Note that I am not affiliated with the RNC or DNC, although I am a FOB.
One of them tries to control what you can do by enforcing a system of burdensome legal restrictions, and the other is a system for managing digital rights.
FYI, that article really ID's the SNAFUs with DRM and OSS as pertaining to the GPL. I was KO'd when I read it - IANAL, but I wonder if it's BS or OK. Maybe I'll keep it on the QT until I know. Gotta run - I need to have a BM so I can leave for my AA meeting ASAP.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Hardly. Slashdot features some of the most anti-GPL trolls around =- they can put the Microsoft Marketing department to shame on occasion.
*waves to the trolls* Hi! This is for you!
1) The GPL is only ever a problem for you if you want to distribute someone else's work that they already let you use for free.
2) See point 1.
Gift horse, mouth, examination via the anus... all those are things that spring to mind when I hear complaints about how restrictive the GPL is.
TFA gets it wrong. Richard Stallman is opposed to DRM; look at the 'Defective By Design' real-world protests of earlier this year. But that's not the point here.
Since the beginning the idea of free software (as rms sees it) is that if you use a program, you should have the freedom to modify it, among other freedoms. So if you have a Tivo, you should have the freedom to modify the software that runs on your Tivo. If Linux is GPLed, then it's clearly not allowed for the Tivo manufacturers to ship it with a label saying 'we forbid modifying the software'. It's also not allowed under the GPL for them to try blocking your freedom another way by withholding the source code. But under GPLv2 your freedom to change the program can still be taken away, by the manufacturer making the device only execute signed binaries (for which nobody but the manufacturer has the signing key). GPLv3 as proposed is about making sure your freedom to change the software running on your computer (or Tivo) isn't taken away like this.
Of course anyone can write GPLed software that has DRM restrictions. But if you use it, you should have the right to modify it, and remove the DRM if you don't want DRM on your computer. That is the important point.
Analogously: there is nothing in the GPL against charging a sum of money for the software. You can sell it for as much as you like. But if you do, the person who receives it still gets all the freedoms to use, share and change the program.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
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.
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.
Let us be thankful that Linus Torvald has more of a "tit for tat" notion rather than a liberty notion, and thus selected GPLv2 only.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Because if you RTFA you will see that TiVo makes it impossible to run modified code on it's hardware which effectively makes the source code useless to anybody.
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.
The irony here is that by requiring signed binaries, TiVO is both restricting and protecting users.
Sure, by requiring signed binaries, you are restricted to run code only from TiVO. This restricts what users can do with their own hardware.
At the same time, since these devices are now on networks, there is a real possibility of them getting hacked. If TiVO ran untrusted binaries, this probably would have already happened. Of course, this happens now with Series 1 TiVO's, but you can't put them on the net without hacking, and if you are smart enough to do that, you probably have a firewall. So in some ways TiVO is doing a good thing by only running trusted code.
It is an interesting tradeoff.