Slashdot Mirror
Nokia Urges Linux Developers To Be Cool With DRM
superglaze writes in to note that according to Nokia's software chief, its plans for open source include getting developers to accept things like DRM, commercial IP rights, and SIM locks. "Jaaksi admitted that concepts like these 'go against the open-source philosophy,' but said they were necessary components of the current mobile industry. 'Why do we need closed vehicles? We do,' he said. 'Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]. These are touchy, emotional issues, but this dialogue is very much needed. As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too.'"
I'm sorry, it sounds like you have your head firmly rooted somewhere dark and unnatural.
"These things suck and hurt both you and us, and we won't bend on that. But we want you to work for us for free anyway."
Holy cow man, listen to yourself. This is our playground and we give you an opportunity to play in it for free; in return we purchase the goods you produce as a result. You play by our rules or we take our playground and our purchasing power to someone who will.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Write your own damn code!
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
"We want to ditch your rules but have you live by our rules. We know it's wrong and bad for consumers but too bad. We want to lock in our profits".
Pretty typical attitude in the industry I'd say.
this sounds rather like a declaration of war. Of course, we know how accurate Slashdot article teaser text can be...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
I think they are the ones that need to be "educated".
My rights don't need management.
Huh? A corporation talking about emotion?
It's about money. It's about vendor lock-in, it's about customer control and about avoiding competition.
They want cheap/free (the beer kind) software, but under their sole control, without allowing the user of the software to apply it to their needs. Sorry, OSS doesn't swing that way.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In other news, a dictator urged the population to be cool with a totalitarian state.
Are you shitting me? IP rights are one thing (we don't expect people not to respect IP rights, we may disagree a bit on how extensive those rights should be), but SIM locks are an anticompetitive abomination, and this guy is a moron if he expects intelligent developers ever to like them. They're all about vendor lock-in, and removal of consumer choice. I bought my phone independently of a contract. It cost more but means I just put in whatever company's SIM I want and I switch providers that easily. Nokia, if you don't like that, fuck off. (It's a Nokia phone)
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I'm sure that will do wonders to convince all of the second-grade OSS programmers to help you out.
Me, I'm not interested. Because you're a doody-head, because you are.
That it is possible to know enough to talk about the principles, but not enough to understand them.
Asking Linux users to accept DRM is like asking them if it's alright to take a shit in their kitchen.
There is *no* cool way you can word it.
... as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights to reprogram anything using any free/libre software and doesn't intefere with my fair use rights to use the content I pay for.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Okay... So you want to tap into the free development pool and freely use the work of others, yet you don't want to play the rules? This sounds like a one way street, to me. How obsurd!
I'll make sure that I NEVER purchase a Nokia phone. Better yet, why not just let Nokia go out and purchase the software they need to make their phones work. Screw them!!!
"As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules."
Sounds like they are not yet in a position to use open-source technologies.
It would be interesting to see if turnabout is fair play. I'd love to have a free high-end smartphone, but that means taking up an expensive monthly airtime contract. Instead, I'll just declare that I am "not yet ready to play by the rules", take the benefit of the free handset now, and later on I'll sign up for a contract when I am ready to play by the rules.
OK?
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
Apparently these guys own QT now.
GTK+ FTW, I guess. At least their DRMed apps will look pretty.
Can I for one say you and who's army on this one. If somone is programing for fun they can right whatever code they want and release it how they see fit. For most people programing for fun the atraction of linux is its openess. DRM, SIMlocks and overly restrictive licenses (EG no source modification) are not openess. They can develop there own DRM if they want to. Just don't expect anyone to help them or even express any interest.
If I don't control it, I don't own it.
If I don't own it, I can't trust it.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Is this a joke or a misquote? I thought only Darl McBride was that stupid & arrogant.
There is a war going on for your mind.
1) encrypt something
2) send encrypted data to their computer
3) send key to their computer
4) wait for somebody to take a memory dump
5) NO profit
Even if somebody was to make a binary blob to prevent memory dumps at kernel level, all you need is to run linux in a virtual machine (i hear its good at that) or use some rootkit.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Other plans include getting the open-source community to make closed source software while still working for free. And also get nokia "a pony" (*).
Oh wait. They want DRM, which needs the software to be closed source. So I guess that's already what they are asking for.
And the "we need closed vehicles" bit? Worst car analogy ever. If you want to "close" your music, you encrypt it. What nokia wants are cars that locks from the outside when you get in, so you can't escape from them. Not sure that we really need those.
(*)fake quote. Keep the pony if you've already bought it.
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
Thanks Nokia, I needed a good laugh this morning.
The answer is NO!!!! Jaaksi, you idiot...
I'm not sure how accurate the article summary, it's a little hard to believe. Judging from it my reaction would be: What funny guy this Jaaksi character is!. I wonder if he would also like us to do his dishes, take his dog out for walks, and wash his car .. all this while hacking away at code he can use for free which then he can lock us out of as well. Would he like a foot massage too?
[alk]
--> Insert Funny Sig Here
Trolltech?
"The manufacturer has one other significant investment in open source, however: the software maker Trolltech, Nokia's purchase of which finally went through in the last few days. Trolltech makes Qt, a graphical toolkit that is used in the KDE Linux desktop environment and in much commercial software and is an apparently non-participatory member in the LiMo Foundation."
Wonderful.
Also?
"[...]primarily the need to avoid 'forking' code. He said: "Don't make your own version. The original mistake we made was to take the code to our labs, change it and then release it at the last minute. The community had already gone in a different direction than [us], and no-one was pushing it other than [us]. Everybody wants to make their own version and keep it too close to their chest but that leads to fragmentation.""
Nokia: Linux Needs to Learn Business
Well, ok. I want $90K/year, 4 weeks paid vacation, paid overtime, health/optical/dental, free lunches and soda/coffee/tea, stock options and profit sharing to improve and add features to your code.
"We want to educate open-source developers. There are certain business rules [developers] need to obey, such as DRM, IPR [intellectual property rights], SIM locks and subsidised business models." Everyone has said my thoughts in a polite way. I wil just put it plain and simple. This guy is either the biggest pawn/suck-up for Nokia or his parents named him "Dr Ari" and he has no doctorate. Honestly how can anyone with some level of intelligence say. We need to educate these people against the belief/values they hold in high regard because senior management in our industry don't like people getting things for free!
Nokia, we just dropped in a new kernel module that makes DRM and SIM locking 100% transparent. you do not have to do anything it uses a 1024bit RSA encryption and has bypass detection as well as a system to fight off anyone trying to break DRM. you don't have to do anything it's all in there for you. It's even TRANSPARENT to you and the users.
Dont worry nokia, we got your back, it's there believe us. and it's Un-Crackable. We wouldn't lie to you.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Wow, I think he just beat the Chewbacca defense. What an overwhelming argument !
Go ahead Nokia and write the code that forces open-source software to respect DRM and content locks ... just make sure your code is well-commented. Thanks!
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
I'm sad to see Ari take this position, he's normally a very reasonable guy (he's been the head of the Open Source division at Nokia that does maemo since it was founded.
Nokia should use its 40%+ market share to educate the mobile industry about openness. Inside Nokia, there is a growing consensus that Symbian is a major failure (there's a reason they're putting so much money into maemo). So they should go out to their telco partners and say "Look guys, we've made a big mistake, Symbian sucks, the future of smart phones is open, and that means you'll have to change the way you work, live with it"..
Are they worried we'll download their latest mobile phone on Bit Torrent instead of buying it with a 18 month contract??
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
"These are touchy, emotional issues"
No, they are not. There are very rational and well-explained reasons for being against DRM, closed platforms, vendor lock-in and the like.
I'm not even going to repeat them here, because I assume them to be well-known (certainly to the Slashdot audience).
So that's some nice bullshitting and spin doctoring going on there, but no. Really, no.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
"'Why do we need closed vehicles? We do,'"
... good luck with that.
I'm sure that car manufacturers would also say they "need" the hood of their cars to be bolted shut and the engine serviced exclusively by exhorbitantly-priced dealer mechanics with exclusively dealer-supplied parts, but the reality is that they don't really need such requirements. What is really going on is: A) companies would like it that way, because B) they'd make a great deal more money thanks to the artificial barriers to competition.
Same for the mobile phone companies. What they want and what they need are two completely different things. Consumers will decide which competitor offers the most attractive product. For some, that will be one that doesn't have everything locked down so tightly that they can't adapt the product to *their* needs.
Here's a free clue: your needs don't matter. The customer's needs do. If you think you can convince consumers that a product with built-in restrictions and intentional defects is what they need
You have to give me all yo' money, but in return I will have sex with your wife.
Deal?
I like how cutting into profit margin equals hurting the industry.
That Ari Jaaksi sure talks alot but he never says anything. He just babbles open-source developers and community should be taught yet he doesn't say how or why, he didn't answer the reason why they need closed devices and so forth..Well sure, they want closed devices, DRM and all that so they can control people and milk even more money from them. But that is exactly what most of the open-source community is strongly against! Me, I have never bought a SIM-locked phone, I don't buy drmed music nor would I buy DVDs if I couldn't back them up. If they come up with some new format for audio or video files and then DRM makes it impossible for me to back up those files or use them in other devices I own then I'll steer clear from those formats in the future. Most likely I'd start avoiding Nokia, too.
-Nita
Ari Jaaksi blogs at jaaksi.blogspot.com, if you want to directly talk to him.
Yes we could fork it. But we also could fork it under the BSD license.
Actually the BSD license gives you more options, as you can fork something and turn it into a closed source application. The GPL does deny you that freedom to ensure that derived works stay Open source.
But in this case it doesn't make a difference:
The copyright owner (Trolltech) can always release new, closed-source versions. Unless they include other people's GPL software. The rest of the world can fork the last GPLed version and run with that.
C - the footgun of programming languages
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
we plan to use open-source technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too.
It seems to me that the other way round is this: We, the open source people, plan to use closed source technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules. In other words, Nokia is saying go ahead and rip/copy whatever you can.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
If I don't own it, I can't trust it. If I pay you a considerable amount of money for a physical item, I own it.
If I own it, I get to decide what to do with it.
Take your SIM lock and go home.
I'm not the OS you kill. I'm the OS you write!
Are you so fucking greedy that you don't even see what I am?
I sold out Novell for $348 million.
I'm your easiest problem and you're gonna DRM me?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
It's so funny it ain't funny. You will soon be able to buy a production openmoko handset, to work without simlocks or DRM, and have complete control, even down to reflashing the BIOS if you really really want. How does this fit with your bloated DRM'd crapware handsets. These are the handsets that make it difficult to find a contacts phone number, hoping you wont use that cheap POTS phone, rather the mobile, and therefore pay mobile rates for your call. Incidious at best.
Now, tell me, what drugs where you smoking when you thought us people that stand for the following would say yeah, dude, take away my liberties to own stuff I paid for, I don't mind being done over.
Freedom,
Free as in beer,
Techno geeks who just love to rip gadgets/code apart without fear of some arsehole company (ahem apple and nokia, im looking at you) threatening us.
http://www.writeitfor.us - Writing IT for the IT generation.
needs to be told gtfo
This isn't a popular opinion on slashdot, but it's true. Linux has one of two choices:
(1) Continue to be hostile to DRM, but continue to be increasingly marginalized.
(2) Embrace DRM and see wider adoption.
The problem is that being compatible with DRM is needed to do things that common people want to do. For instance, I know someone who won't use Linux because it won't play Netflix videos on demand. Unlike many people on here, in the real world most people just want to use their computers for things - they're not religious about their operating system. And if Linux can't do things like this, or supporting subscription content and DRM compatible mp3 players, they won't even consider it.
It isn't want people "want" to believe, but it's the truth. DRM isn't going away, as much as some people want it to. So either Linux has to become compatible, or always be a nerd-only operating system.
DRM doesn't have to be a bad thing. In particular, open source software is in a particularly advantagous position to make DRM software that's durable and more of a two way street. That's wealth. Real wealth. Giving choice to everyone, over night. If Sony, et al get Microsoft to do it, I'll pretty much be one way. A belated attempt to turn the internet into multicast cable tv. If random companies, or again just Microsoft, impliment specific schemes they may tire of maintaining them, and just turn the data people bought off. Why can't I use DRM to protect and maintain a durable finely gained control of how my data is used and by whom? Sex tapes come to mind, though some are sure to be efforts at self promotion, and I'll still be confident in my ability to use my personal appearence as a deterent. Not everyone is so fortunate. But it could also be youtube videos networks have no qualms about appropriating for their own commercial purposes. It could be a database of painstakingly researched impossibly obscure mineral claims.
What's the end you want? One that draws your foes into a collabrative fold, or one that keeps you unnecessarily at odds depriving everyone of more choice, more ability?
Who actually uses DRM crippled music services anymore? I mean, other than people who don't know any better. There are a number of DRM-free music services where you can buy unrestricted mp3s that you can do whatever you want with.
Presumably, the Nokia phones will be able to play regular mp3s. You know, the ones that you own. So, in a way, who cares if they get some hack to work for them for free and write a crummy DRM enabled program? In another few years, the people who don't know any better will know better, and it'll be a moot point.
The Internet is generally stupid
Why should we accept DRM? The real reason for it is to give copyright owners more control over content than copyright law allows. You asking us to accept DRM means you are asking us to yield the rights we are not denied under copyright law.
IPR... for @#$% sake stop using "Intellectual Property." I do respect Patents (although software patents are broken and the US patent system is in severe need of reform). I respect copyrights, the GPL doesn't work without it. I think trademarks are swell and I understand all about trade secrets.
SIM locks... meaning I should accept that I can buy something and not do with it what I want? No thank you. I want to own the physical goods that I buy.
Subsidized business models I tend to have deep scorn for, because it's all about screwing the customer in the end.
And just why would they do that? So you can continue to make bank off your channel partners? If you don't like what the community is turning out, write your own damn software.
You're never going to be able to dictate to the community. It's not like they're afraid of losing their job and the things that motivate them having nothing to do with your bottom line. I get really tired of for profit companies saying they're going to leverage the power of open source development. It's like saying you're going to leverage the power of a grizzly bear. They're not afraid of anyone and if you annoy them enough they'll eat you.
Linux developers to Nokia: You'll be cooler without DRM.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Two words for that:
Eat shit
Two more words for that:
and die
If they want the benefits of open source, they play by the rules. If they don't want to play by the rules, they can fuck the hell off and develop the shit themselves and pay for it.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Poor guy, he has been the head and lead promoter of the Open Source group inside Nokia. He has convinced large parts of the upper management that Linux and Free Software are the way to go.. He's heavily invested not only millions and millions of Nokia's euros, but also most of his own credibility.
And now he's stuck with the GPLv3 and the whole lock-the-phone/DRM/etc business model becomes very hard to do. Now that major parts of the infrastructure (think glibc) are turning LGPLv3, he's stuck between a rock (freedom) and a hard place (loosing face/being stuck with Symbian)...
In open source, its the community that dictates the terms. Not individuals.
Read radical news here
- Can't crank up the volume. (Appearently because it may be bad for yoour hearing.) Instead I have to regain all my podcasts before putting them on the phone.
- The illumination turns off after about 10s. No way to increase it. It doesn't matter if you are browsing or reading an ebook... Rumours have it that it is regulations regarding driving.
- Can't replace the music playing software (it's only a System 40 phone) so I can't get something with bookmarks, or fast forward at speeds faster than x4 (which is no fun with a large podcast).
- Ebook reading software in J2ME needs user confirmation for every disk access. You can't give a program permanent permission, unless it is "signed", which is a process that costs several hundred dollars.
I personally can't wait replacing the phone with something that is truly open, which does not mean putting up with arbitrary limitations. I guess it is time for Nokia to realize that the mobile world is going to change and be more like the desktop world.That's what the headline should read.
He asks 'Why do we need closed vehicles?', and he continues ; 'We do,'. fantastic reasoning to a 'why' question i ever seen in my life.
Read radical news here
transl.:
"You unwashed barbarians are so stooopid. You don't get what this fine stuff is all about. You mingle with, and protect, the scum of the Earth (users), because you superstitiously believe users are alive and possess souls of their own, you worship Idol of Freedom instead of true One God of Profit. How silly you are for your beliefs! Come over on our side, predators' side, where you belong for your exquisiteness. Come and be welcome, bow and eat from plentiful hand of Profit. Users are grass and we are a mower."
Man, in olden days, this sort of evangelist talk and presumptuous attitude costed many a Christian missionary his head, skin, bowels and bodily liquids!
Look, Mr Nokia, while you may have perfectly valid reasons for your position, THIS is a crowd that simply does not just take someone's word for something.
If you've somehow failed to grasp that aspect of the Open Source community, then you are way, way out of your depth...
No, not because it raises several questions about this man's mental state but because he justifies the need for closed vehicles with the fact that we need closed vehicles.
I submit that HE needs the education!
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
Stick it up your Jaaksi!
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
c'mon guys! really!
Inflammatory comments from a guy called Ari Jaaksi?
Ari Jaaksi - Hairy Jacksy (*)
Can't you even recognise a troll these days?
(*)Hairy Ass for non-Brits
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Build good hardware. Don't lock me in. And don't piss me off - as, f.i., with sort of like closing a fab in Germany shortly after scoring some x-hundred million Euros of gouverment subventions for said fab (*hint* *hint*).
... let's put things into perspective here, shall we:
On the issue at hand
It's only because of Linux and OSS in general that Non-DRM in cellphones even is on the agenda. Which goes to show which way the market is headed. Look over to Asus EEE PC craze to understand what I mean. Now get back to work, do your thing and call back your marketing bullshitters for now. We're pissed off enough as it is allready. (Especially here in Germany)
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Look Nokia. If you don't like the GPL/fear the backlash just stop using GPLed code and move over to BSD code.
Here it is: the KDE Free Qt Foundation.
If Nokia screws up and stops releasing FOSS versions of Qt or otherwise messes with it, Qt's forcefully taken from them. The Foundation is there to ensure that Qt remains available. In a lot of ways, it would make more sense to do this now before Nokia starts using it as a hammer to pound DRM where it doesn't belong. Further, Nokia's competitors would be stupid to use it while Nokia controls it. Tools like Qt belong under an independent company or foundation. Jaaksi is just making that very clear.
What Jaaksi seems to be saying on behalf of his employer, Nokia, is that the company is unwilling to abide by the license (the GPL) under which their new business model is founded upon. That's not a way to appear clever. Though it's good of them to put the cards on the table so early after acquisition, it's still rather shameful of Nokia to try to bullshit us like that. Probably time to check the resume's of Nokia execs and dismiss any moles from Redmond.
I'm not planning on giving up on Qt anytime soon, but I do resent the increased level of alertness required by these probes.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
geeks to be cool with jocks
gamers to be cool with deodorant
and phb's to just be cool
kewl!
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
And they can keep going to the Finnish.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
As the previous guy said
You don't rewrite, you fork.
If you don't know the basics of a topic, don't post.
"It's bad for you and everyone else, but it's good for us, and we've got monopolies to protect, so just shut up and get back to work (for us)."
--
make install -not war
Thank you Mr Jaaski, you made my day. I did not laugh so loud from corporate speech for long.
I really appreciate the : "We want to educate open-source developers. There are certain business rules [developers] need to obey, such as DRM, IPR [intellectual property rights], SIM locks and subsidised business models."
Who educates who ? You simply did not grasp the inner meaning of Open Source. You seem confused the world does not work as you want it to be. Your solution is then to "Educate", to teach reality to all this dreamers because you know the true. It's so pathetic that it's funny. You do not understand your model is obsolete, people do not want DRM, they do not want SIM lock.
You present these "technologies" as natural, but they are not. Coalition of network operators, manufacturers, and content providers want to impose it to the users. It's nothing natural, it's just the easiest way to keep high margin business. Or so you think, because users will not keep buying this s**t if they have choice. And FLOSS gives this choice.
I can't help but think that maybe every person who came up with the idea for DRM wasn't really a programmer or an engineer.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
we plan to use open-source technologies but we are not yet ready to play by the rules
See you in court, then.
Don't like OSS? Then don't use it. Nobody is forcing you.
(as a contributor). Qt is GPL'd, and a fork is available at all times. Lots of good, GPL'd Qt software can only work with the fork if Nokia chooses to close it up. The loss are the good brains at Trolltech.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I urge Nokia to be cool with me not buying their phones since the late 90's. It's great when we can get these concerns out in the open and get back to the business of me not caring about them or what they do. ;)
nt
"In this industry, we don't care about our customers. If you want to work with us, you'll have to respect that."
"Our business models are very fragile. Please don't break them."
"Our business is based on customer lock-in, rather than customer satisfaction. Don't interfere."
"We accept that we have problems, and that if we followed your rules we wouldn't have these problems. But instead, we want you to follow our rules and enjoy our problems with us."
Ok.
A common fear about BSD-style licenses is that people will make closed forks. If the project is active, this fear is very likely overblown.
Ok.
Some people think that Nokia wants to go play by itself.
Second, attempts at implementing DRM are a _terrible_ thing -- because they are just attempts to prevent honest people from exercising their fair use rights, and lock people on carriers, distributors, or platforms. Nothing else. Forget the 'piracy!' screams, it just translates to 'the consumer wants to buy a CD and listen to the same music on his iPod without paying another fee for it' or 'the consumer wants to watch the movie on this DVD... but after, he wants to lend it to a friend, that will watch it and we will not receive any money for it'. Why can't I use DRM to protect and maintain a durable finely gained control of how my data is used and by whom? Answer: because it's mathematically impossible. What's the end you want? One that draws your foes into a collabrative fold, or one that keeps you unnecessarily at odds depriving everyone of more choice, more ability? I, personally, don't care if they try to implement DRM schemes... as long as the Free Software they are using to leverage their problem remains Free. The case, here, is that they want to use software developed by thousands of people against the license that those same people freed their software. The issue is the same: DRMers want to be in control of what people do with their own things.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
He who controls the source, controls the industry.
In this case they don't control shit other than a phone. What an arrogant prick...and here I was actually thinking about getting a Nokia phone this year, silly me. Guess I can tell my friends and family they can cross Nokia off their lists since I won't help them with it.
"Just a fox, a whisper."
Blog is HERE
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
A 5 year old could do better ....
.... If we decide to... maybe.
"As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too.'"
Are you serious? Play by our rules, and when were ready we'll play by yours
Deal with it, we have a good product, were smart enough to get it accepted in the main stream and not charge a dime for it. People like it and it causes you (or at least those who subscribe to your way of thinking) to lose money. Stop living in the paradigm that your way of making a livening is the only way. Accept the facts that things like DRM, and SIM locks, don't work. That people search out DRM free music and video, and unlocked cellular phones and are willing to PAY MORE for these things simply be cause they are open and they are free to do as they please. WORK HARD to keep your customers, don't lambaste them into staying with you because you can't always perform up to par. Open technologies are here, they are now, and they are the future. Get on the train or get run over.
Hey, Nokia. What part of 'fuck you!' don't you understand?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Well, for one, DRM doesn't work. There have been plenty of discussions about that on Slashdot. You cannot give out the lock and the key together and expect it to not get cracked. For a much more in-depth explanation, you can read this: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/96
Step 1. Buy TrollTech, thus making yourself (nominally) an "open source company"
Step 2. Frame serious, anti-competitive technical/legal barriers-to-entry to the market (and barriers to creating new markets) as "touchy, emotional issues".
Step 3. Label critics of these barriers as "idealists"; Claim you're taking the "pragmatic" approach. (cf. classic anti-GPL rhetoric)
Step 4. Profit!
My prediction: Don't expect Qt to be compatible with a future GPLv4.
http://outcampaign.org/
Jaaksi admitted that concepts like these 'go against the open-source philosophy,' but said they were necessary components of the current mobile industry. 'Why do we need closed vehicles? We do,' he said.
Wow, they took the words right out of me, except, opposite. "Open cars" is something I've been thinking about for a long time, because I'm very sick and tired of being held at random by the auto makers. They are using the DMCA and a lack of standards to squeeze money out of consumers and auto body shops by taking over control of the interface with their on-board computers. By not having a standard computer interface like they used to, anyone, including auto shops, have to pay outrageous prices like $10,000 per year for a license for their proprietary software just to do the simplest things. This ranges from things like having a sensor go out, to simply disconnecting and reconnecting a wire (the computer is made to be too "dumb" to recheck the connection, so the "service engine soon" lights will stay on." No one can work on their own vehicles anymore.
Now is a great time to try to take back control from the auto makers and to undo this horrible scam that our government lets them get away with. You can't pick a more expensive shop to take your vehicle to than the dealership. Without competition, consumers are completely screwed, with a big pointy sharp pineapple. Demand open cars, everyone.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
But they don't insist on it.
"We like open source, as a way for us to get free cake, but please Linux devs, change your licenses and forget about all that freedom, transparency and competition stuff, let us have our free cake without having to risk our monopolies, this will allows us to be the only who profit from Linux, in exchange, I promise not to say you are not ready for business, thanks."
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Linux Developers Urge Nokia to see figure 1.
In addition to begging the question, he has chosen a horrible "car analogy" basis. Horrible because it's ironic - the automotive manufacturers openly support the aftermarket modders. There's plenty of legal precedent stating that you actually own you vehicle - i.e. you're not under any obligation to use Mopar oil filters in your Chrysler product. But way beyond that, the auto manufacturers provide factory drawings to third parties for the express purpose of making replacement or accessory parts. They don't necessarily share the implementation details, but the specs are available.
... You wouldn't buy a car like that. Why would you buy the equivalent phone/anything?
The automotive market isn't nearly as "closed" as Mr. Jaaksi thinks. If it were, the hood/bonnet on your car would be welded shut, and the only service opportunity would be at the dealership. Oh, and the manufacturer could download code to your vehicle any time they saw fit, altering the service interval information on a whim. The car would be instructed to cease operation if service procedures weren't followed to the letter. And let's not gloss over the restriction to use only factory-authorized roads
Wouldn't have expected any other reaction here.
Quite inflammatory speech from Jaaksi, considering that he is responsible for Nokia's maemo platform - which contributes to many Open Source projects such as Linux, X11, Gtk+, Hildon, Mozilla. He should know what kind of reaction his message will create.
Open source projects are often forked in commercial projects just because following progress of an open source project may conflict with product release cycle or desired features. It is easier to ignore the base project - for a while . But the next version will then be painful.
The power we free software developers wield comes from our personal investment of time, effort, and brain power in creating the software we do. We have specific views on how OUR software is to be used.
Nokia wants to respect intellectual property? OK, respect ours. We say how our software works and what is acceptable or not. If you don't like it, hire and pay a million people to re-write the code. Short of that, screw you.
Freedom is not free.
I hadn't seen this one before (and no, I am *not* new here), so for the fellow uninitiated, LART == Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool.
Coming from someone that just bought a Nokia N810, that might sound biased, but... I think most posters here completely missed the point.
Nokia sells cellphones, and most of them are sold to carriers that want to use SIM locks and DRM to lock in customers to their plans and those stupid ringtones at $1.
Why do you think they use Linux almost only for "Internet Tablets"? No carriers would never sell a phone that's unlocked out of the box, and the vast majority of cellphones are bought with a plan, not unlocked.
Why do you guys think the iPhone is selling so well? Because it's unlocked? Because it's Open Source? And why do you guys think the iTunes music store grew so big at first? Because it was DRM free?
Nokia, RedHat, Sun are not making the rules. Business, cellphone carriers, and media companies are the ones lobbying governments, and until that changes there is no way Open Source software will grow unless we gradually change those rules.
It is the carriers who refuse to allow full un-sandboxed native SDKs for phones (such as the motorola linux phones) and insist on DRM and other crap, usually sighting some BS about open phones being a "security risk to the network"
If there was a security risk to the network from open phones, the FCC would not have given certification to the FIC Neo1973 and it would be illegal to use one in the US.
Cell phones are radio tansmitting equipment, regulated by organizations such as the FCC and CRTC.
It is common for people to run CB radios out of spec. This can include extra transmit power, overmodulation, and using the "missing" frequnecies. The result is everybody has to cut though more noise.
The reponse from regulatory authorites has been to require radio manufacturers to make the radios increasingly difficult to tamper with. I also noticed that maximum transmit power is now specified as "Effective Radiated Power", which takes the antenna system into account.
The conflict becomes obvious if you consider a software-implemented radio. If you have access to the source code, you can tweak all of the setting the radio manufacturer is required to keep tamper-resistant.
Regards,
James Phillips
Sorry, circular arguments just don't hold any weight with me.
Unless of course the last BSD licensed version was the one that Nokia downloaded from the same public servers to which you have access.
BSD - no modified source availability protection for upstream or downstream
BSD - this guy wouldn't even be complaining, cause he could already do exactly what he wanted wrt DRM
s/educate/indoctrinate
If you're going to use the word that much, you should probably know how to spell it.
Why do you need to give me seventy percent of your profits? You do.
And you should be cool with that.
..not to buy another Nokia product. I cannot fathom that someone would actually say these things in a public forum. He poses the question, "Why do we need closed vehicles?" yet doesn't answer. He pretty much says it's because the industry uses archaic business practices. I'm sorry, but that's not justification enough to try to get around the GPL.
linus and every other hacker who has ever started a project do not get to influence ENTIRE open source community. rather, open source community influence them. parafascistado.
Read radical news here
Please accept DRM, IPR and SIM because... because... snif... because I will cry!
And perhaps more to the point here, and more why people are getting right royally pissed off about this, is that:
IP strikes me more and more as an extremely bad idea, but once we posit that ideas can be owned, I cannot see how what Nokia is trying to do here ultimately amounts to anything more than extortion and / or attempted theft.
The company's basic strategy is inherently, and rather ridiculously, flawed -- an effort to use FOSS-based DRM to effectively remove the FO from FOSS. As another posted noted, they can go FO [f'off].
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Companies try to paint people who object to DRM and closed source as some kind of religiously driven zealots, but that's bullshit.
The reason I loathe DRM is because it's a hassle and because I know companies like Nokia, Apple, and Microsoft are going to screw me with it.
Likewise, the reason I loathe Nokia's software (I have an S60 phone) is not because it's closed source, but because it's buggy and user hostile, and because Nokia is trying to use it as a vehicle to push even more of their crap on me. The only reason I don't use anything else is because the other commercial offerings are even worse.
I don't want a "dialog" with Nokia, I want someone to ship less crappy software for mobile phones (Apple zealots: spare me the iPhone lecture). Given that Nokia's phones are getting worse with every release, I'm in line for an Android phone as soon as they come out, and I'm going to contribute to Android.
Why am I going to contribute to Android? Because Android actually lets me fix things. Nokia is such an obsessive control freak that they don't even let me remap the Mail key from their bogus mail application to a third party application.
Open source wasn't created because a bunch of people randomly decided on a new philosophy. Open source was created because companies like Nokia have been shipping such poor products and have been so greedy and unresponsive that users simply don't have any other reasonable choice than to take matters into their own hands.
We keep writing DRM and you guys keep breaking it and screwing us out of our money dammit. Please help us to defeat you. It is your duty as a citizen of the planet to help us protect our profits.
Sincerely, The Mafiaa
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
well thats the wonder of the GPL, we can just take the most current version of QT and FORK.
We can, but that leaves commercial developers in the dust, whose closed source applications then can't use the open source Qt fork anymore, no matter how much money they pay to Nokia.
BSD - this guy wouldn't even be complaining, cause he could already do exactly what he wanted wrt DRM Neither of which has to do with the ability to fork the last "clean" version, which is what the post I was replying to claimed.
The even more messed up thing about this is that Nokia isn't just asking to shit in our kitchen, Nokia is asking us to help them do it. From TFA:
I.e., pay money to buy our crap phone, using software you helped develop, and then help us out even more by developing more crippleware for it. This makes me think something got lost in translation from the Finnish. I actually translate Japanese for a living, but they say Japanese and Finnish are supposed to be related somehow, so lemme see... Yep, sure enough, there was a translation goof. Here's my own proposed translation:
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
DRM doesn't have to be a bad thing
Fire doesn't have to be hot? What are you smoking, crack or crystal? If you're going to make a laughably stupid comment like that you had damned well better explain it or everyone will know you're clueless. How in Satan's name can DRM ever be a good thing? It does absolutely nothing to prevent piracy but only serves to inconvinience the honest, paying customer.
Anyone who would use an incredibly brain-dead technology like this is too stupid to argue or bargain with. I refuse to do business with anyone who supports or apologizes for DRM. You should as well.
When information isn't free, you aren't free.
HAND.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Nokia is being forced by another industry (Verison, Sprunt, ATTingular, TMo, etc) to lock their cellphones and smartphones up so that the wireless giants can exhaustively control what end-customers can and can't do with them, or else Nokia devices will not be permitted on their networks and hence will be unsellable. Nokia must do this in order to survive since the Japanese, Korean, and most of all American (Motorolla) makers of the phone devices are already way to eager to do as the carriers demand. Nokia has already been completely pushed out of the CDMA phone market in the USA and the GSM market would just as soon tell them to FOAD too, unless they willing to cave in to the control-freak demands of the carriers.
So don't use the same CPU for the cellphone functions and the general purpose computing platform.
It's the same solution they need for DRM. Don't use the general purpose CPU as anything but a channel between the encrypted CD or streaming website and the codec sealed in epoxy on the audiovisual card. That way you can run ANYTHING on the general purpose computer and the MAFIAA won't care.
It doesn't, however, ensure that Qt remains compatible with the most current version of the GPL. That's something to be concerned about.
Good point. Nokia, on average, has a good record with open standards and, more recently, open source. However, that's only the average. Not all steps Nokia has taken lately have been ones going forwards.
Probably the single largest move that Nokia could make to assure the market that it is seriously committed to keeping Qt open would be to update the KDE Free Qt Foundation statement to specifically use GPLv3.
Maybe some KDE developers can add their 2 c
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
This car analogy with SIM locks etc. is completely and utterly wrong. SIM locks and vender lock-in is like having a car that can only drive on roads produced by Nokia. Its absolutely necessary that we have an open standard for roads so that everybody is free to go wherever he likes. The same argument holds for cell phones, the only problem is that we are already so used to this SIM locks that nobody finds it as offending as it really is.
Open Source Alternatives
not everyone runs as root, applications shouldn't unless they have to. Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be useful, we want it to not be used maliciously.
And fire doesn't have to be hot. So hey, you learned something new, so how can you no be HingAND
And that applies especially much to open source software, so much that I think that it is actually impossible. How could they prevent anyone from removing the DRM if the attacker has both the locked content, the key and the source code for the locking mechanism.
And for the trolls out there, no, this is not at all equivalent with having the locked content and the source code to the lock, but no encryption key, which is the case with regular encryption.
If we didn't allow these types of locks, we could end up with a future of phones like PCs -- where you could install any OS you like on any device you like that will support it, and use it on any combination of networks you like.
... but it'll be a world without DRM locks.
Can you imagine buying a cell phone with the OS of your choice and having a non-contract arrangement with two different providers for network access, telling your phone which to prefer and having it use Skype when you're near open Wifi instead?
I can
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Ummm... No.
Just my $0.02 worth.
The age of Aquarius.
Is it a coincedence that the medly Age of Aquarius/Let the Sunshine and the birth of the Internet and the open source process both happened at the same time?
As MindKata puts it: The more open, the better. Nokia and those with a like attitude don't stand a chance, it's cosmic ;)
DRM saves me so much money by telling me exactly which products I am not going to buy. It's a great system.
Fuck you and your DRM, we ain't cool with that.
We ain't down with no DRM.
What a fucking asshole.
DRM? Hell fucking no!
We need closed vehicles so that, when Bob buys a car from Alice, Charlie can't open it.
For example OpenSSH is FOSS and does that.
DRM is when Alice sells a car to Bob, but don't want Bob to open it, which is simply not rational and just unacceptable.
Nokia's new N-Gage game platform will make extensive use of DRM. I myself doubt the effectiveness of DRM. There is no such thing as an unhackable system, as we all know. It's just seen as a challange to the Hackers. Also it creates a whole lot of extra work for the developers to implement, not to mention inconvience for the customers - it makes the installation process more complicated.
However, Nokia had no chance of attracting any serious game developers to their new platform unless it had DRM, so I'd say that's where the real push is coming.
If you don't want people accessing your sex tapes why don't you change the permissions on it and encrypt the hard drive? Granted linux could benefit from more granular file permissions than rwx (SE linux kind of solves this), but I would hardly call file permissions drm.
There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
Oh, and while you guys are down there, can you sweep up the "SCO" ashes?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
You respect our rights first, then we'll respect yours. Jaaksi admitted that concepts like these "go against the open-source philosophy", but said they were necessary components of the current mobile industry. Which tells me that something is very wrong with the current mobile industry. "Why do we need closed vehicles? We do," he said. Now, maybe he means cars need to be closed in design, in which case, I call BS.
If he means we need cars which can lock, or cars which are not convertibles, then it is, indeed, the worst car analogy ever.
This seems to be worded as an analogy which is meant to be self-evident. It isn't, though. I can interpret it in one way where it's a bad analogy (doesn't fit what he's describing), and another way where it actually supports my position. "Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]." So wait -- do I have to say anything here? He's making my point for me -- some of these things harm the industry, so why don't you fucking change them? "As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too." If you're not ready to play by the rules, don't play. Pick up your toys and go home.
And what is the second part supposed to mean? That we should plan to use closed-source technologies, but not play by the rules? That might be fair. primarily the need to avoid 'forking' code. He said: "Don't make your own version. The original mistake we made was to take the code to our labs, change it and then release it at the last minute. The community had already gone in a different direction than [us], and no-one was pushing it other than [us]. Everybody wants to make their own version and keep it too close to their chest but that leads to fragmentation." So that part has been misconstrued, or at least, he seems to be confusing a need to not fork with a need to release early and often.
By all means, fork. That's the beauty of open source -- fork if you need to. But if you want to have a chance of ever merging again, or of working with the same codebase as everyone else, make sure everyone else knows what you're doing.
In other words, he's right about that one.
This smells very strongly of mistranslation, but that last part was the only bit taken out of context. The rest is pretty much exactly as bad as you think it is.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
...Hairy Jacksy!
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Couldn't have said it better.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Can anyone explain to me why they don't just use *BSD instead of Linux - it worked for Apple, didn't it?
How a doctor gets his doctorate in academia is that they work on their thesis, teach courses, and then when they finish their thesis they submit it for a vote by the other doctors. It is hard to see how this man from Nokia (with his doctorate) could possibly be even remotely saying what he is.
It is very simple. If you don't want to play by the rules you don't get to make your own up. The GPL and FOSS principles provide his company with the code to create their product. They use it freely under the GPL and other licenses. Why would we want to bend our licenses and ideals to fit within one segment of another segment of an industry? Their segment is a small part of the software industry that produces content, and that is a segment of the larger software industry. There's no need to have a world wide Open Source community stop and redirect itself for the purposes of this small segment of a segment of one industry; of all the industries that drive the economics of the world.
Now, he says that Nokia has grabbed the rainbow and is going to hold the colors for ransom unless we all agree to do things their way--that is utterly ludicrous. They use this open source software at the choice of the people who develop it, not the other way around. Of course, they know this, so they purchase a critical component and say, "Hey, guess what? We now own a critical piece of open source, play by our rules or get kicked in the gonads."
These people are so utterly stupid as to not understand how that will play out? Forking the code at that point in time removes them from the picture altogether. It doesn't harm other businesses (other than Nokia) to have the code forked. It doesn't even affect businesses that have created proprietary products. Forking simply removes the future development from Nokia's control.
Honestly, what is wrong with these people, even those purported to be doctors and granted the title and recognition? They can't understand even the concept that Open Source is open? This is why the OS and all the components necessary to manage the OS should always be free and never be in the hands of one entity.
What these guys have also misunderstood is that when word goes forth that Nokia is implementing extensive use of DRM the slash.dot type individuals (whom are responsible for guiding a huge amount of purchases of technology) will put the dampers on those Nokia DRM products.
DRM is something that Microsoft foams at the mouth over. They are desperate to regrow that market. Nothing more would make them happier than to see everyone forced back to DRM. They want this because they want control over the tools and delivery process for the content. As Bill Gates said, the computer is no longer used primarily to produce content. It is used to consume it.
Gates knew that when they built Vista. They did so with the intent of selling massive DRM technologies to content creation companies. Why? Because it ties you to Microsoft and to Windows--it is another one of those many lock-in technologies. Microsoft will not license the content restrictions management to use by anyone unless they produce that content for their tools on their platform. Even the Mac OS would suffer as they don't have the same architecture in their OS to play this game with DRM the way Microsoft has incorporated it into the heart of Vista.
This is precisely why we do NOT want DRM, ever. Nor do we want to let some hokey company such as Nokia attempt to hold the world hostage unless we implement their view (of how it should be done in one segment of another segment of a market).
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
This is Chewbacca and if Chewbacca lives on endore we must think of the children.
And if we think of the children we have to include DRM in OSS.
Otherwise divices could go unlocked and we just can't allow that.
So in summing up Chewbacca, the children, use DRM.
I guess he meant the fact BSD source may be closed, so one cannot fork it anymore.
And shove it.
Wanna use GPL? Comply.
So there, how is that for negotiating.
NO SIG
Thanks for pointing out the troll zoo. It took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about but then I remembered that you are one of those idiot who thinks everyone is twitter. You and twitter have been seeing each other for a long time?
Political torture and murder is not funny http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=581079&cid=23757591
Why should they have to comment their code, let alone comment it well? HUGE amounts of open source code is atrociously commented if at all...
There is no need to hold Nokia to a higher standard... that is just mean.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Allow me to dispel your delusions here. The purpose of DRM is to take away rights we the public should have and then sell them back to us.
It's no different than circuit city hiring people to break into our homes and steal buttons and remotes for electronic devices we just bought, then call us and offer us these "features" for a price.
hard disk encryption and various other means of protecting your data and system from intruders are NOT drm, they are encryption, the key difference being encryption is used to protect your data from someone else, while DRM is used to protect your data from YOU.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
They say it's delicious and moist, but that's a lie!
I urge Nokia to take DRM, commercial IP, and locked SIMs and shove them straight up their collective arse.
Wow. Just...wow. Nokia, you don't get it. You truly have no idea what open source and free-as-in-libre really means. It's a philosophy designed explicitly to lock out douchebaggery like this. Like all corporations, you know the price of everything and the value of nothing, and that will cost you dearly someday. Just because a lot of F/OSS devs don't get paid doesn't mean their work is somehow less valuable than proprietary devs'; if anything, it's more. Jeez, no wonder it's called *Troll*tech...
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
The definition of cryptography is that you want Adam to send a message to Bob without Eve eavesdropping. The definition of DRM is that Bob IS Eve.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Sounds to me like "Oh shit... we invested FLOSS but now we can't implement Palladium into it". Don't give it to them!
Here be signatures
my(*) == I paid for it with my hard-earned cash.
The plaintiff rests. The need is undeniable. The need for Trek-like food replicators is also undeniable, but it's not gonna happen anytime soon. DRM is not gonna happen ever because it is a mathematical impossibility and impraticality.
A lesson in history: when computer DAT tape drives appeared, the cat pretty much went out of the bag. Because soon, people started to realize that the equipment to generate (and copy with fidelity) high-quality audio (and a little bit later, video) became accessible to their budgets. In 1970, if you wanted to record a vinyl LP, your investment was in the US$ 500,000 range [citation needed]. In 2008, if you want to record a high-quality CD, your investment is in the US$ 10,000 range tops. To copy a vinyl, in 1970, you would spend the same half million, if you wanted a hi-fidelity copy. Today, you can copy a CD for as low as an US$ 100 investment (for an old, crappy but with CDR drive computer). The thing that was the main obstacle for a common person to generate high-quality content was also the main obstacle for a common person to copy high-quality content: price of equipment.
The only way to make DRM practical (for content distributors) again is to jack up the prices to high-res content generating tools (like next-next-gen-bluray writers or somesuch). No crypto-based ADRM (attempted DRM) will work, ever, because once you can see/hear something you can capture the bits again. I'm sorry.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
So, does the "other way round" mean that the FOSS community uses the DRM, but doesn't play by it's rules (i.e. cracks it)? Um, ok, if that's what you want...
Obligatory link is Obligatory: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Let's not and say we did.
Hihihi... Oh wait, there not joking? HAHAHAAHAA Seriously, don't be mad. I find him a lot more stupid in a funny way than in an enraging way.
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
BSD code is more forkable, until it's not.
You can close BSD code or has that changed?
If someone closes their fork of a BSD project, that doesn't reflect on the BSD license. You can still fork the original project just as much as you could before, what you can't do is fork the new, closed-source project. BSD-licensed code never becomes less forkable than the GPL. If they change the license, then it isn't exactly BSD-licensed code any more, and thus doesn't apply to a judgement of the BSD license.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
I have bought Nokia's all my life and have two of their internet tablets.
But with this kind of attitude I rather buy some other brand.
'Jaaksi' as in 'slang for arse'?
I don't think any more needs to be said.
see Section 3
Luke-Jr
Why build anything in Windows? I have no problems building Windows binaries (MingW) and installers (NSIS) from Linux.
Luke-Jr
To protect you "sex tapes" just encrypt them and do not distribute them, problem solve no DRM used. DRM is just needed if you want to distribute something and keep control over it , and it does not work.
I completely agree with your stance. By forcing people ethically and morally committed to freedom, and data freedom in particular, you are ensuring that you will be replaced as a hard ware manufacturer by another company that gets it.
DRM: Sponsored heartily by every company virtually guaranteed to become a company that "Doesn't Really Matter" in the near future.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Fuck that!
But a company can start releasing components and obfuscating the original codebase with proprietary libraries.
I think this is an opportunity to influence IP patents. You can argue a case for DRM and Sim locks and, in the end, we consumers still have a choice on that end (don't but DRM limited music and don't buy cell phones with Sim locks).
But the Software IP and those who "own" it are the robber-barons and the oil or railroad monopolists of the 21st century. Patenting Software is like patenting math. Even worse, the patent office grants patents for basic concepts which have been in use (public domain) since the 60's. Corruption?
When Nokia and others use Open Source Linux (or whatever) it's a gain for freedom of use and information, even if DRM and Sim Locks are still part of the mix.
Nokia should get back to us when they finally realize what open-source is really all about.
Exactly. First rule to security: if a hacker (cracker for those of you who are purists) has physical access to your equipment, it's no longer yours. Unfortunately for the guys pushing DRM, they can't deliver their product without giving you physical access to it at some point. So long as you wait downstream of the decryption, you can capture it.
It also doesn't help that in order to decrypt it for you, they have to also give you the keys. Granted, they hide them, but they seriously underestimate the resourcefulness of geeks.
Show of hands; who here has every hacked together a makeshift something or other by interfacing random parts lying around the house to accomplish something when you didn't have the correct part? I'm fairly sure everyone here knows what I'm talking about. *Looks over at the DIY UPS made of a bench power supply, two car battery chargers, two Radio Shack bridge rectifiers, and an AGM marine battery, sitting on the floor* Well, it's an ugly hack, but it works. And, that's the point.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
DRM doesn't have to be a bad thing. In particular, open source software is in a particularly advantagous position to make DRM software that's durable and more of a two way street.
There's one tiny problem, the only way you can get working DRM is by magic. In the real world it is fundermentally impossible because anyone you allow to view or listen to your "content" can copy it. Whereas it might well be possible for a Hogwarts student to create text which can only be viewed by certain people, whilst inhibiting their ability to speak, write, type, etc whilst looking at the text, whilst failing to remember any of the text when not looking at it.
they don't accept contributions without copyright assignment, so... the own the whole kaboodle.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too It does doesn't it? You are not ready to play with our rules and we are not ready to play by yours!
there is heaploads of consistency in it. at least its grammatically consistent, even if there is nothing at the end of because. in this, he asks 'why do we need it ?' and then says we do. its more like he is himself also believing that we dont need it, and in his mind he is trying to reason with himself, when his inner voice tells him we dont need it.
Read radical news here
You will live by the rules of my religion or you must die. Sound familiar. Time for a reality check people.
I think it is awesome that some people volunteer their time for many great causes, but unless you can figure out a way to make everything in life free then you are just blowing hot air. Somebody has to pay the bills - this is real life, not some fantasy.
Some people like to make money - always have and always will - it is a fact of life. Nokia wants to add not free software to your free software - fact of life. Someone wants to put pepper they paid for on the beans they got for free at the soup kitchen - fact of life.
What part don't you understand??????