Exactly what I was thinking. As a bicycle commuter, I have to say I hope this is illegal. It's dangerous enough out there without some jack-ass looking for "Oops! I did it again" in his playlist instead of watching the road.
EU report calls for widespread open source adoption http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26102.html
n.b: "The study does not recommend any specific software platform or open source licence variant. But it does seem to take the view that pooled software should be exchanged between administrations, rather than being available to all and sundry, which suggests that the GPL won't be the way European goverment goes. It also considers the BSD licence and MPL, whereby "the code and the executable binary may be disassociated." This would allow the executable to be distributed with a proprietary licence, and hence would allow it to be restricted."
I recommend you read the column on the Reg about this.
In short, the point of Palladium is DRM. This means the crypto-chip will scan software to see if it is approved to run on this machine. (Who authorizes? Guess who.) So, it is possible that GPL software could get authorization to run on this platform, but if modifications are made, and then it is recompiled (the whole point of GPL, no?) the new binaries *will not* be authorized.
Check the Reg column; they did a better version of explaining the implications then I just did.
"The sleaze has gotten out of hand; it's time to roast a group of 20 or so companies whose profits are directly linked to creating fear in their customers, who have to keep discovering new sources of fear to improve their bottom line - or in the absence of new discoveries, keep inventing new sources of fear."
Sounds like:
The news media
Pharmaceutical industry
Military-industrial complex
Insurance industry
etc., etc.
Why should AV companies be excluded from employing this excellent marketing strategy?
Slashdot Mirror
I posted this story last week, but it was rejected. Mod me down, please.
Exactly what I was thinking. As a bicycle commuter, I have to say I hope this is illegal. It's dangerous enough out there without some jack-ass looking for "Oops! I did it again" in his playlist instead of watching the road.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26102.html
n.b:
"The study does not recommend any specific software platform or open source licence variant. But it does seem to take the view that pooled software should be exchanged between administrations, rather than being available to all and sundry, which suggests that the GPL won't be the way European goverment goes. It also considers the BSD licence and MPL, whereby "the code and the executable binary may be disassociated." This would allow the executable to be distributed with a proprietary licence, and hence would allow it to be restricted."
I recommend you read the column on the Reg about this. In short, the point of Palladium is DRM. This means the crypto-chip will scan software to see if it is approved to run on this machine. (Who authorizes? Guess who.) So, it is possible that GPL software could get authorization to run on this platform, but if modifications are made, and then it is recompiled (the whole point of GPL, no?) the new binaries *will not* be authorized. Check the Reg column; they did a better version of explaining the implications then I just did.
"The sleaze has gotten out of hand; it's time to roast a group of 20 or so companies whose profits are directly linked to creating fear in their customers, who have to keep discovering new sources of fear to improve their bottom line - or in the absence of new discoveries, keep inventing new sources of fear." Sounds like: The news media Pharmaceutical industry Military-industrial complex Insurance industry etc., etc. Why should AV companies be excluded from employing this excellent marketing strategy?