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. "

5 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Of course RMS is not a DRM! by Abreu · · Score: 5, Funny

    One is a person, the other an ill conceived business plan...

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  2. The problem with signing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Lay off the acronyms? by megaditto · · Score: 5, Funny
    The FSF, GPLv3 and DRM, WTF, STFU, and RTFM

    There, fixed it for you
    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  4. Preaching to the choir? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. I fear a repeat of the Bison fiasco... by nweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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