Torvalds Describes DRM and GPLv3 as 'Hot Air'

An anonymous reader writes "In Sydney this week for the annual Linux conference, Linus Torvalds has described DRM and the GPL as 'hot air' and 'no big deal'. From the interview: 'I suspect — and I may not be right — but when it comes to things like DRM or licensing, people get really very excited about them. People have very strong opinions. I have very strong opinions and they happen to be for different reasons than many other people. It ends up in a situation where people really like to argue — and that very much includes me... I expect this to raise a lot of bad blood but at the same time, at the end of the day, I don't think it really matters that much.'"

Comments

Re:fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical"

[Pink Tinkletini]

My God, you really mean that, don't you?

Travel. Gain some perspective. I suggest visiting the exurbs of Kabul for starters. See if you still think your "right" to listen to the latest tracks on MTV in any way compares to the right of children to play in the grass without getting their legs blown off by landmines.

What's the worst that could happen if you did gain some perspective? Well, I guess you could get your legs blown off by a landmine. This would certainly be a boon for the rest of us here on Slashdot.

Re:fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical"

[FallLine]

Of course it can. Putting allofmp3.com aside for the moment, there is no legal source of non-DRM music aside from CD. Many CDs have DRM mechanisms on them these days, so even that source is not free. Microsoft and Apple will both be mandating DRM in short order, and both already do so when it comes to most types of media.

Sigh. The fact that many artists/copyright owners choose not to licence their content in DRM-free formats is a totally different debate than the discussion over one vendor's ability to use network effects to sustain an actual monopoly. It is within the legal right of the individual artists/copyright holders unless the legislature or the courts say otherwise. What's more, you can find legal music in non-DRM formats where the copyright holders have actually blessed it. If you're an Indie artist, there is nothing to stop you from offering your music for free or for a fee (without DRM) today.

Theorizing that "the man" will somehow force all music to be encumbered with DRM, against the wishes of its creators, is nothing more than wild speculation (not to mention that it is very unlikely).

then I hope you're not planning to use word, which has problems when opening documents from substantially older versions of word, and whose documents are not backwards-compatible.

What is your point? I said this is a monopoly, i.e., it's not a good situation. I use Word regularly and I certainly have plenty of complaints about the price and some of its bugginess (particularly in the past... although compared to Open Office and others its still heads and shoulders better), but I've had very few problems with forward compatibility.

Now I know you're a shill. There is NOTHING stopping you from developing non-GPL software for Linux or other FOSS. Many corporations, including say Adobe are already managing to do this. You are a FUD-spreader. Now that I know you are scum, the rest of this comment will probably be a lot more fun.

I'm no shill. This is also an ad hominem attack. First, porting your code to any wholly new platform/SDK/APK/etc creates very real hurdles. Second, I assert that Linux does create high hurdles for proprietary developers relative to other platforms (e.g., MacOS X). The lack of high quality application development tools and the GPL licenses of many important libraries create very real problems for proprietary developers. QT, for instance, is licensed under GPL v2. Developers that link to it must either GPL their code or pay TrollTech money for their dual-license (which would allow them the chance to actually sell more than 1 copy of the application). Third, the proprietary developer also must contend with the "everything must be free" mentality of a significant percentage of Linux users so they have a reduced incentive to port. You can't exactly claim that there's a lot of proprietary applications available for Linux or that there are a lot of superior quality Linux applications.

But we're not really talking about a monopoly here, we're talking ubiquity. Some media simply can not be gotten without DRM, and that DRM is there specifically to prevent you from exercising fair use rights, to stop you from format-shifting, and the like. They don't just want to entice you to buy the white album again, they want to force you.

The artist is not obligated to give you what you want. The artist isn't obligated to record music, why should they be obliged to provide it to you on your terms? Vote with your feet if you don't like it. Besides, most content is still available without any DRM on CDs.

If it's so damn easy to crack DRM, what's your problem? You're on slashdot, right, this is supposed to be easy for you.

Yes, the musician can decide that they want less exposure, that's true. What a choice!