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

fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical"

[QuantumG]

"At the same time, on a completely different tangent -- forget about technology -- I am a big believer in letting people do what they want to do. If somebody wants to do DRM it is their problem." Well, no Linus, it's not their problem. It's the user's problem. You're a big believer in letting people do what they want to do.. that's great stuff. Very liberal minded. I'm sure I've said something along those lines myself. Of course, I tend to clarify it with the caveat that what they want to do can't hurt or take away the freedom of others. Is that just an omission on the part of the reporter or do you really believe you have no moral responsibility to intervene when you see someone doing something wrong?

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

[CmdrGravy]

All he is saying is that if people want to write DRM then thats up to them and no doubt he also thinks that if people wish to use it then thats up to them too.

Having a "moral responsibility to intervene when you see someone doing something wrong" has got nothing whatsoever to do with it.

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

[spiritraveller]

Is that just an omission on the part of the reporter or do you really believe you have no moral responsibility to intervene when you see someone doing something wrong?

I think he just means that if someone wants to write code that implements some sort of DRM scheme, he thinks they should be allowed to do that. What he should be saying is that he is OK if they do that with HIS code, because that is his position.

If he is really OK with "letting people do what they want," then why force them to allow further modification of works derived from your code?

Why not just let them take your code, create their own version and use a signed key to make any further modifications unusable on the device? Oh wait. That's what DRM does. He **is** OK with that.

Linus sure is a confusing guy.

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

[MysticOne]

I disagree. If you're at a store and notice that a customer keeps distracting the cashier, then proceeds to take a dollar or two from the cash drawer, you have a moral responsibility to either point it out to the cashier, contact the authorities, etc. Ignoring it makes you complicit in the act.

In essence, this type of activity is what the recording industry and movie industry are doing to consumers. They distract them long enough to steal a few rights from us when nobody is looking. The average person, much like the cashier in my example, is probably very trusting and open, especially to somebody they feel is trustworthy. Staying silent, refusing to point out that the consumer is being robbed blind, and then going on about how people are allowed to do as they please, is really just a way of saying you're either 1) too lazy to be bothered with doing the right thing or 2) too apathetic to care.

I really respect Linus for what he's done for Linux. I don't think it's appropriate for people to always look to him for guidance on such things, because he's consistently pointed out that he isn't an activist on any issues with which the FOSS community concerns itself. But, this isn't because he has some sort of superior view on the issues at hand. He simply doesn't care. So why don't we stop looking to Linus for answers here, and stop being disappointed by his views, and continue to fight the fight without him.

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

[avalys]

No - the difference is that not everyone sees DRM as such a critical moral issue.

I'm amazed that you think there is a parallel between sweatshop labor, and mechanisms that prevent you from copying the latest Christina Aguilera track.

I see no moral issue with DRM-encumbered products. If you don't like DRM, you don't have to buy them.

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

[anagama]

I'm no fan of DRM, but comparing the inability to play a song on every player made to the plight of working 12-14 hours per day, every day, in dangerous facilities, from the time you're 6 till you die, is offbase.

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

[Ed Avis]

he also thinks that if people wish to use it then thats up to them too

I agree and I'm sure even RMS agrees. If people want to use DRM, let them use it. The trouble is that many people don't want to use DRM but are forced to, because it's part of the software on their computer and they cannot change that software.

Even if the software is GPL'd and so meant to be free, you might be unable to change it (whether to remove DRM or anything else) because of 'trusted' keys and signing. That's what GPLv3 aims to fix.

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

[drinkypoo]

Try a better grade of stuffing for your straw man, sunshine. DRM is something that you can buy or not, nobody's got a gun to your head. It's not a moral issue, period.

Yeah, and Microsoft doesn't have a literal monopoly, they have a virtual monopoly, whereas you're not literally forced to buy DRM, you're virtually forced to. Microsoft and Apple are both staunch DRM supporters and between them they hold nearly the entire market.

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

[QuantumG]

wtf? People *choose* to work in sweatshops too ya know. Why do they do that? Because their is little choice otherwise. Are you trying to suggest that in the brave new future of DRM'd media we're going to have ample opportunity to buy media that is not DRM'd? What world have you been living in?

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

[init100]

what? When has that ever happened?

What? You never heard about the TiVo, the device that brought the DRM clause to the GPLv3? The operating system of the TiVo is Linux, probably not only the kernel, but also other GNU utilities. It is supposed to be free to modify for the user. But TiVo signs the software with their private key, and the hardware verifies that the operating system image contains a signature created by their private key. If it doesn't, the system refuses to start.

This is effectively a DRM system that removes the ability to modify the software on the TiVo, even though it is mostly free software, where allowing modification by the user is a crucial part of the license. It barely complies with the GPLv2 by supplying the source code, but requiring that the modified software is used on another hardware device (not a TiVo).

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

[drinkypoo]

I've not had any trouble ripping DVD's, MP3's, watching content and all of that stuff.

But since the DMCA prohibits your owning or using a software product designed to break copyright protection, you are arguably breaking federal law every time you rip a DVD. That's not a problem? Someday your actions (to which you have confessed publicly here on slashdot) could be used to persecute you.

To cut a long story short, everything does what it needs to do, and with the right warez I am not restricted in my personal freedom at all.

Not yet. Meanwhile you're making an investment in Windows with both knowledge (mostly time spent) and money (products that you have purchased which are compatible with windows but not a Free operating system) and when Windows changes over to be even more restrictive, to require a trusted computing module and the like, you will now have to give up those investments (some of the hardware and less of the software will work) if you want to move to another platform.

Just because the restrictions aren't affecting you yet, that doesn't make them not restrictions and they can still affect you in the future.

You have to break the law to exercise your rights. Is that really acceptable or reasonable? Do you really think that Fascism is a thing for other places?

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

[Lemmy Caution]

See, that's the problem - you can't compete with those who work their people to the bone. It's called the "race to the bottom." It relies on the existence of borders and pure distance, which prevents workers from relocating to places where labor conditions are better - as well as the fact that as long as consumers don't see the working conditions, they will shop driven by the pocket book (and resist any tariffs that raise the prices of goods coming from places with inadequate labor laws.)

The growth of the Chinese manufacturing sector is, indeed, a good thing. But your justification of globalization falls on the fact that, absent some tariff structure, there will always be a competitive disadvantage to pay a decent wage as long as there's one country, somewhere, where they don't. Your "50 years" claim is really as much of an act of quasi-religious faith as the old Communist promises of a worker's paradise and the withering away of the state.

Re:Shows it...

[jackharrer]

At the same time there is a chance that DRM will collapse under it's own weight. People are annoyed with it, especially iTunes users. I know few non-geek ones that started researching into the subject because they changed iPod for different player. We will see what future brings.

*Not* pragmatic

[Anonymous Coward]

People often contrast Torvalds and Stallman as being pragmatic and idealistic, respectively. I don't think this is the case. Stallman *is* pragmatic - the only thing is, he's pragmatic about the long-term consequences and Torvalds only looks at the short-term consequences.

One example of this is the version control debate. Stallman rightly pointed out that Bitkeeper was a problem waiting to happen, and Torvalds didn't care until it was too late. Sure, you might say that the problem was avoided because Torvalds wrote git. But if he'd have done that in the first place, git would have been years ahead in development by now, and the Linux community could have avoided an embarrassing debacle.

This isn't an isolated incident - there is a history of Stallman making a point about something, a lot of people laughing at him and saying that it won't be a problem, and then a few years down the line, it becomes a problem.

Another example: the GNU project has required contributers to sign copyright waivers on the code their contribute, or have their employers do it if necessary. If Torvalds had done this from the start, half of the things SCO were complaining about to the press would have been more readily rebutted and easier to face in court. But Torvalds didn't bother with this until it was too late either.

Now I'm not saying that everything Stallman does is perfect. But he has a history of being right, even in the face of people saying that he's wrong or that it doesn't matter. So instead of simply writing him off because golden boy Torvalds says so, perhaps it would be prudent to take a closer look.

Re:*Not* pragmatic

[T-Ranger]

Another example: the GNU project has required contributers to sign copyright waivers on the code their contribute, or have their employers do it if necessary. If Torvalds had done this from the start, half of the things SCO were complaining about to the press would have been more readily rebutted and easier to face in court. But Torvalds didn't bother with this until it was too late either.

So far as I know, Linus still doesn't have such a requirement. But in any event, you can only call one way right and one way wrong if you have something to measure them against. The rational for the FSF is that it would give them legal standing in court. IANAL, but I would imagine that just about any Kernel contributor could, alone, have some standing in court - it would be another hearing, sure - and might be a problem if another hacker is on the other side. But any event, the claim wouldn't just be ignored.

The FSF have the requirement because they think they know best, and they want the ease any potential legal burden on them. Linux doesn't have that requirement, first because Linus was just a pragmatic undergrad, but Im sure he would say now, because he wants it that way. He wants there to be confusion, and mob rule. He wants it to be decentralized and loosely associated. One might potentially sue the FSF, they are a solid target. You cant sue "the Linux kernel". You sue, as you said, IBM. But IBM has lots of lawyers, so they can take care of themselves.

The FSF is a political group with political goals surrounding software. Controlling the software, and giving it away under very specific conditions, is a means for their political goals. The Linux kernel is a software project, with the goal of producing the Linux kernel. That goal seems to be well met under the current system of very loose political/legal structure.

As for these wavers helping the SCO case, the SCO case needs little help. Its taking a long time, because thats just how fast the legal system works. IBM would have had the tightest code-release policies of anyone, their internal and existing controls are much stricter then anything that the FSF may want. The allegation was - in short - that IBM released code belonging to SCO into the Linux kernel. IBM having papers filed somewhere saying "We own this code, and we give it to you" would have stopped that not at all. And besides, all the source files are explicitly or implicitly marked as "We own this, and give it to you under the GPL". Either way, its exactly the same to SCO.

And when they came for the hackers, I said nothing

[pr0nbot]

Maybe Linus is one of those people for whom it will only matter very much when it bites him in the ass and it's too late to do anything about it.

Re:Shows it...

[Kadin2048]

Doesn't really matter. The real battle of DRM is going to happen in Congress; if the content industry gets what it wants, people won't have any option as to whether they buy DRM or not, any more than you have a choice of whether or not to buy a MacroVision-enabled VCR. They're just going to get Congress to mandate it, and that will be the end of the discussion.

The technology of DRM is hardly even worth discussing, because it's inherently flawed. There cannot ever be a 'perfect DRM' system, because of the model's fundamental problems. So whatever gets implemented, will be broken -- the discussion is whether the people who break it, and others who subsequently take advantage of the break, will be criminals.

Torvalds is a brilliant programmer...

[A beautiful mind]

...but I don't think he has the legal understanding and I don't think he understands why the content industry is pushing DRM (hint: it's not because of piracy).

That is why I take Torvald's world on any programming issue related to the kernel and support RMS's position when it comes to freedom, content industry issues. While RMS may not be legally trained, he realises that and has a team that is competent in legal matters. Of course Linus is entitled to his opinion on these issues, but I believe that his take on it is harmful because it's the "famous people slightly connected to the issue seeming to be expert on the issue to the public" syndrome. He is no more competent in this case than the celebrities ridiculed by the bbc in a previous article.

Re:Shows it...

[Lazerf4rt]

Here we go. Bring on the legions of dorks who are hell-bent on appearing more intelligent than Linus. Boy, it sure would be great to be smarter than the guy who wrote Linux, wouldn't it? I would sure love to warp every fucking thing he says in order to make him look stupid, even if it's only to myself! That way, I can cling to my private little fantasy of being smarter than him!

Come on, the guy makes it clear that he is only sharing his gut feelings and personal opinions. He doesn't claim to be right -- unlike you. He's very careful with his words, and we should at least recognize that.

I suspect -- and I may not be right...
I suspect it is not going to be that big. But time will tell...

By qualifying his opinions, he's acknowledging that they are only opinions, and not facts. That's what keeps him in touch with reality. Pay attention to that. We should all choose our words so carefully.

And don't call me a fanboy either, because I don't even use Linux.

Re:Shows it...

[jackharrer]

Don't forget that States are not the whole world. There's also Europe. There's Asia with South Korea, Japan and CHINA. Guess which of those countries are in favour of DRM? I think that RIAA/MPIA will try to enforce DRM as widely as possible but they are already failing. Take a look at South Korea. It's DRM free. You can download as many songs as you like for flat fee starting $5 per month.

Another one is China: they don't even care about DRM. But who produces most of electronics? Who sets the prices?

IMHO there are more factors that US Congress. It's an important factor, but not everything. Canada still didn't ratify anti-piracy laws. And they're just over the border.

Plus there's a Linux that is gaining very strong foothold especially in Europe.

The problem with DRM and the GPL

[spiritraveller]

I will give one thing to Linus. He is right that there is a lot of hot air involved. That's because people (including him) miss the point about DRM and the GPL.

For DRM to work, it has to use technical means to prevent modification of the code. This is open source we're talking about. If they don't prevent modification of the code, a crack will be easily implemented.

The GPL prevents a party from relicensing your code with a modification restriction... but DRM allows them to use technical means instead of legal means to accomplish the same result.

DRM (or at least, that part of it that I've described) is a loophole that should be closed. We are not talking about "someone's right to create programs that use DRM". We are talking about someone's right to modify **your** code, while preventing further modification by others. That's one of the core rights that the GPL is meant to preserve.

No - IBM has made censorship an issue NOW.

[btarval]

I'm sorry, but Linus is absolutely dead wrong when he says:

"both DRM technology and GPLv3 will cause "lots of arguments" but in the bigger scheme of things, neither will stop good technology from prevailing."

He doesn't seem to be aware of the current actions to limit his options here.

The problem is that IBM appears to be trying to take control of Linux via software patents. Specifically, censoring it when a Linux solution gives them competition that they don't like.

And they are doing this in the fashion of a Patent Troll, with some rather questionable software patents.

I've mentioned this before; here's the link again. "IBM's decision to sue Platform Solutions is another indication that the company is becoming more aggressive about defending its intellectual property in an effort to extract more revenue from its extensive patent trove."

What is especially disconcerting is that if IBM wins this lawsuit, it means they will have extreme influence (if not effective control) over most (if not all) Linux products out there, given IBM's vast Patent trove.

Note very well that this is what people were worried about with Microsoft and Novell. The sad news here is that this may have already arrived, via IBM. Which is probably why IBM wants to keep this quiet.

Hello - where's the Linux community on this one? People (myself included) were up in arms when Microsoft and Novell tried to skirt the GPL. IBM's approach strikes me as much worse. It's here. Now.

While Linus would like to keep adding good technology to the kernel, if IBM's lawsuit is allowed to stand, Linus doesn't seem to recognize that his options may be taken away from him. He will no longer be able to publish software without IBM's blessing.

What's next? Is he going to need Microsoft/Novell approval after that?

The only option that I can see is the GPL v3 license approach. One wonders how long Linus can keep ignoring this issue. It would be much better if he were taking a proactive approach here, because simply ignoring the issue doesn't seem to be working.

Re:Shows it...

[kfg]

Boy, it sure would be great to be smarter than the guy who wrote Linux, wouldn't it?

It has its pros and cons.

KFG

Meta-thought

[redelm]

One of the most admirable things about Linus is his ability to elevate to meta-thought (thinking about thinking) along with a very healthy dose of self-skepticism. I like that because it's most likely to solve problems. If simple on-topic thinking could solve a given problem, it would have long ago. New -different- ideas and perspectives are needed. Meta-thought is one avenue.

I tend to deplore DRM. But I also agree that GPLv3 won't stop it. The value of the GPL codebase above BSD and above the cost of proprietary code just isn't that great: neoTivo would just go BSD if not MS-proprietary.

DRM will stand or fall one-by-one as users accept the deals offered. Or reject them. The iPOD is currently the biggest successful implementation of DRM. Consumers apparently accept the deal, irrespective of RMS' dire warnings.

Re:Where?

[dmitrygr]

allOfMp3.com is my favorite place to buy music. You get non-DRMed mp3s. While they are not allowed to accept Visa or MC payments, you can use their other site to pay, and then transfer the funds

Torvalds is a True Neutral Druid.

[ubuwalker31]

I think that the AD&D analogy is warranted here. Torvalds admits that he dislikes DRM, but doesn't want anyone else to be stopped from using it. He likes the idea of the GPL, but he thinks that all of the broo-haha over v3 is a sideshow and that its just a load of hot air. Torvalds is on the side of Linux, and Linux only. Sort of how druids love nature. They hate fire, but they must also embrace it so that the forest can grow. Torvalds likes opensource, but will be satisfied with any license that protects Linux. Druids hate orcs, but they are also forest creatures...Torvalds dislikes huge businesses, but he needs them for linux to expand. Its a delicate balancing act that he's trying to pull off here.

Re:Shows it...

[hotdiggitydawg]

If China doesn't care about DRM - why have both their attempts to compete with HD-BLU-DVD-RAY included DRM? Because they'll never officially get the Western content (and thus the Export bucks) without at least a token attempt.

Both.

[Kadin2048]

It's both: it makes legitimate activities difficult to do, but rarely makes actually illegal ones impossible. So it doesn't accomplish its stated purpose, and fails to accomplish it at the cost of inhibiting legitimate activities. As an example, it will probably never be impossible for a skilled person to copy a movie, or move their audio from one device to the next; however it may not be within the reach of most people. They'll be left repurchasing their media, without regard to traditional fair use. And in their pursuit of locking users into pay-per-view business models, DRM systems will also drive more tightly controlled, black-box hardware.

DRM is flawed and will always be broken, but not easily; it will probably always be obnoxious and intrusive, and the continuing arms race between DRM-builders and DRM-breakers is destructive, and may have a lot of "collateral damage" (not to mention a waste of time and skill that could be profitably spent elsewhere).

But to be honest, the problem of DRM is really only a symptom of a far greater problem, which is the influence that industries (in particular, the entertainment industry) have on government. I would be ready to just let the DRM/anti-DRM war play itself out on the technological front, except that there's no way that it's going to stay there: as new DRM systems fail, the media lobby is going to look to the government to shore up the failed technology with draconian legislation. Those laws will have effects far beyond any single DRM system, or virtually anything that either the content industry or the anti-DRM programmers could do by themselves.

That we have entities other than natural (in the "natural persons" sense) U.S. citizens contributing money to politicians and their campaigns is absolutely ridiculous. So if you want to look for hypocrisy, just find a politician railing against 'corruption' in one moment, while begging for cash from lobbyists in the next.