In every current desktop OS, applications never interface directly to the hardware, they do this through the OS libraries and the system kernel. Why would applications suddenly start interfacing directly with hardware now? Security hardware would need drivers, just like any other hardware.... Otherwise, access to security hardware would require involvement of the kernel, which would need to be trusted in this case.
Again: Please inform you how TCPA works.
Yes, the Kernel needs an interface to communicate with the TCPA-Features of the Hardware, but the Kernel don't need to be signed. The DRM-Application can test if it talk to the Processor, or to a imposter because of the key in the TCPA-Modul that is signed from the Hardwarevendor. Yes, the DRM-Application speaks with the OS-Interfaces and the OS-Interfaces talk to the TCPA-Module, but there is an encrypted End-to-End-Tunnel from the the Hardware to the DRM-Software. The DRM-Software can see that the public key from the TCPA-Module is signed from the Hardwarevendor, and the initial data from the application will be encryptet with this public key and therefore the Data can only decryptet by the private-key that lies in the Hardware. In this secure Chanel they generate a AES-Session-Key to encrypt the Data for the following Session. The only kernel you can build, is a Kernel that can copy the ENcryptet Data in some Datafiles, but every Datastream will encryptet with an new Session-Key, and so you can work a couple million years to decrypt a single session.
You can only make a Kernel that can get the Mediastreams UNencrypted outside the Processor, if you have the signing-key from the Hardwarevendor, and you can bet that this key lies on a networkless PC behind steel-reinforced doors.
TCPA will not kill Open-Source-Software and even on your 100% selfbuild Linux-from-Scratch you will be able to run DRM-Software that enables you to watch the newest Hollywood-Blockbuster - if you wish. The "only" thing that TCPA will bring, is that the big player from the Content-Industrie will put all their Content in encrypted bottles that you can only open with DRM-Software and TCPA-Hardware. This can be seen as a social problem, but it has nothing to do with render you unable to run your own software on a TCPA-Hardware. The social problem with DRM and TCPA can only be solved by law, or if the Community build enough open content.
Your kernel needs to be signed (not by you, say goodbye to running modified kernels), your operating system libraries need to be signed (OS libraries are used by applications to interface with the kernel) and the application need to be signed.
Sorry, this is wrong. TCPA lies in the HARDWARE and Prozesses can get an encryptet environment from the TCPA-Hardware. You can run your own modified Kernel with your own modified Desktopenvironment and on top of this you can execute a signed Programm that get a "secure" enviroment from the Hardware.
Yes, there will be Vendors that use GPL-Soft and forbid changed and therefore unsignd binarys to execute on there Hardware.
And because the idea of GPL is that nobody should have the power to forbid you this things GPLv3 will close this hole.
But should we fight this fight with the GPL? We see with Tivo that a) Enterprises lock there Hardware b) the same Enterprises bring the Software forward because the GPLv2 force them to published their changes of the code. Maybe it is in the short term better to force Hardwarevendors not to lock their Hardware, but will it be better in the long term?
I don't think so. The Hardwarevendors that want lock there Hardware will simply use BSD and the GPL-Software will evolve slower. But when the GPL don't forbid to lock the Hardware, the Vendors help to evolve the GPL-Software although you can't use your own binary on their Hardware.
But remember, no one will force you to buy their Hardware and they alienate their Community.
And i think it's also in his interest to controls his own IT infrastructure.
I think this too, and therefore i think that there is no need for the DRM-Part in the GPL. Let the stupid Vendors lock their Hardware while they need to give Softwarechanges to the Community. As you say: there is an intrest to control the own Infrastructure. If the established Vendors lock the Hardware while using GPL-Soft, there will be new StartUps that grep the same Code that the established Vendors use, but put it in Hardware that give the Customer the ability to Control the Code. I belief that in the long Term the Customers will require the ability to Control the Hardware, because of the benefits that the Community will give them. If the established Hardwarevendors don't give you Hardware that you can control, there will be space for new Vendors that can grep the same Software and put it in Customer-friendly-Hardware.
You obviously don't understand that freedom doesn't entail being forced to run signed binaries.
You have the freedom to let all Hardware in the shelves that want you to force to use signed binarys. I will never buy Hardware like Tivo from Enterprices that don't want me in there community.
I will not be running any signed software on my systems. What don't you understand?
I understand this and thats OK! But why will you force other to do the same? I for one run Ubuntu and Debian and all my binarys are signed. And i would use signed Bankingsoftware to.
Indeed, I should have said Free Software, not Open Source.
That don't change anything.
As to your question: other factors will determine it. The market fails to protect the rights of consumers in this case because there are not enough consumers who are aware that they have these rights and/or care to make use of them.
I don't agree with you. I think the Market that realize that Homebrew and a big Community arround a Produkt is something to want, is allready big enough. I am amazed how many People have a WRT54G(S) because of the community. I am amanzed how many have a modded Xbox or a modded PSP. I am amanzed how many People are pissed off about Mobiles with crappy Firmware, and ask about Linux-Mobiles. The Community is already bigger than many ever feared/hoped.
I disagree with you when you say we must save stupid people from buying crappy hardware. If the GPL is a place to stop other People from doing stupit things, i have some paragraphs that we can include to.
In one Paragraph we can stop all fascist, racist and warmonger using GPL-Soft because they use it for stupid things that i don't want.
In another Paragraph we can add that all Users from GPL-Soft must accept Freigeld because our Money we use today has a bug that drives many in poverty and view in richness - till Civil War
But you are ignoring a very real way in which it (or, at least general DRM) is being used to kill open source: Tivo's abuse of the works it builds upon and distributes which are licensed under the GPL.
No, Tivo don't kill OpenSource. You can download the complete Source with all there Changes from there Website:
http://www.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp
Yes, i think it sucks that you can't use the Tivo-Hardware with modificated Software, but everyone can take the Source and build similar Hardware and Services to compete with Tivo. So Tivo don't kill OpenSource.
A Question: You have the choice between Tivo that don't allow Homebrew and a similar Service that allow you Homebrew. What Service will get more Customers over time?
It is a problem once my bank says, "for your security, you must have a Trusted Computing verified system to access your bank account online". It is a problem once my government says the same thing.
You obvious don't know how TCPA works. There is no Problem if your Bank say you need TCPA-Features to use there service. There is no need that ALL Software that you run in that Moment need to be signed. Only the Software for the Banking needs to be signed. So you can run Linux and on top of it the signed BankingSoftware. TCPA will NOT kill OpenSource. You will not forced to run a 100% signed System to used DRM-caged-services.
So they can lobby a law that all Hardware must have Trusted Computing without the possibility to copy DRM-Content
Which is a bad thing since it completely obliterates uses which, until now, were protected by the doctrines of fair use, fair dealing, and by the fact that in the non-digital world, utilisation and modification of a work does not require it to be copied.
Yes, it is a bad thing that big Industries try to take away fair use, fair dealing and things like that from our culture, but i agree with Linus that the GPL is not the place to fight this development.
Feature creep! Running your own code TCPA free is great when you can no longer even connect to the internet.
If you can't connect to the Internet, please pay your bill or let an expert help you. But it will NEVER happen that your ISP will check if your Hardware runs 100% DRM-Soft. And also most Content-Creators have no wish to check if you have also OSS running. Many Content-Providers will make DRM-Hardware and Software mandtory to use there Content, but if you want there Content, you can run DRM-Software on TOP auf your OpenSource-OS that get a "secure" environment for there Content from your Hardware. Without kicking the Ilusion of Democracy and establish a Diktatorship there will be NO WAY that you can't get in the Internet because you use OpenSource.
Monopoly holders such as Microsoft and the *IAA will lobby for laws making the manufacture, import, sale or use of hardware without Trusted Computing chips illegal.
I think that softwarepatents are the only real threat for OpenSource-Software.
by the way: I am using 99% OpenSource @Home and administrate a 100% Linux-Lab at work. But after i informed me many hours about Trusted Computing, i am sure that it CAN't be used to kill OpenSource.
Monopoly holders such as Microsoft and the *IAA will lobby for laws making the manufacture, import, sale or use of hardware without Trusted Computing chips illegal.
There is NO PROBLEM for OOS if ALL Hardware have "Trusted Computing" chips, because there is no problem to execute OSS without harm for the DRM-Soft on the same Hardware. So they can lobby a law that all Hardware must have Trusted Computing without the possibility to copy DRM-Content, but you can't lobby a law that all Software must DRM-cribbled. It is like you can make a law that all streets must have mandatory attributes, but you can't make a law that only Cars from Ford and GM can use the street.
Are you on drugs? No, the marketplace will not decide because the market will be rigged. TCPA crippled hardware will be sold unmarked to prey on consumer ignorance and it will be sold at a huge loss to maintain market apathy.
You seems not to realize that TCPA should not be used kill all OpenSource on all devices with TCPA-Hardware.
OSS and DRM-Software will coexist on normal Hardware without the Problems that someone told you. They will NEVER forbid you to run own code on a PC. The Cell-Chip is one of the first CPUs that designed with Hardware-Security in mind. With the Cell-Chip you kann run a SELFMODIFID Linux and on top of it you run a DRM-Software that will get an encrypted chanel from the Processor. Please read some more about TCPA and how it Works: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/librar y/pa-cellsecurity/
There is no need to forbid you to execute your own binarys to give DRM-Software all features there need. The Problem lies only in the Embedded-Market, where Vendors can decide that there should only run the own binarys one the Hardware. But as i explained, if all gread Vendors forbit you to execute your own code, then there will rise another Vendors that will allow it to you.
Homebrew developers are a tiny percentage of the global computing device market.
The Homebrew-Community are developers AND users and together there will be enough on the global market that there will be Enterprices that meets the demands of the Homebrew-Community.
Far from embracing and welcoming community contribution, many corporates would prefer if we didn't exist,
Thats right, but prefer something will mean nothing.
which we wont the TCPA scenario plays out.
Thats Wrong. TCPA will NEVER take your posibility to run your own code on Standard-Hardware.
For a time we may be able to obtain functional hardware, until TCPA becomes so entrenched that there's a push for legislation to make it mandatory.
It is no Problem when they will make it manatory for Hardware, because you will have no Problem to execute DRM-Soft and OSS at the same time on the same PC. And there will never a Bill that force you to put your own Work in the DRM-Cage.
I think that Linus is right and there is no problem with DRM because we have a marketplace. Yes, there will be Vendors that use GPL-Soft and forbid changed and therefore unsignd binarys to execute on there Hardware. Maybe you can call that Vendors Leeches, but sometimes there are good reasons for this behavior that benefit the Custumer. Think on Mission-Critical Hardware that should NEVER execute hacked binarys - in your best interest.
And yes, there will DRM-crippled Hardware where you would like to change the software, but you are free to not buy that Hardware if it not fit your needs. If the big Vendors use only "crippled" Hardware and there are enough People that want Hardware that allow to execute unsigned binarys, than there will uprise a new vendor that grow big really fast. Most Hardware is no Magic in this times and many Companys exist that sell you the ASICs you need for your Hardware. Buy a CPU, some DSPs, some RAM and some Interfaces and put it together. If all Hardware is crippled and you are the only on that dont cripple the Hardware, your sales will skyrocket.
Don't underestimate the community. In times where many people realize the power and benefits of Homebrew Software, Vendors that forbit Homebrew will slowly die if there is not a REALLY good reason to forbid changes. Sony seems to realize that with the PS3 and allow Homebrew to sell more Hardware. If you can select between a XBox360 that don't allow you execute Homebrew and a PS3 that allow you execute Homebrew, what Hardware will a Homebrew-Fan buy?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the Kernel needs an interface to communicate with the TCPA-Features of the Hardware, but the Kernel don't need to be signed. The DRM-Application can test if it talk to the Processor, or to a imposter because of the key in the TCPA-Modul that is signed from the Hardwarevendor. Yes, the DRM-Application speaks with the OS-Interfaces and the OS-Interfaces talk to the TCPA-Module, but there is an encrypted End-to-End-Tunnel from the the Hardware to the DRM-Software. The DRM-Software can see that the public key from the TCPA-Module is signed from the Hardwarevendor, and the initial data from the application will be encryptet with this public key and therefore the Data can only decryptet by the private-key that lies in the Hardware. In this secure Chanel they generate a AES-Session-Key to encrypt the Data for the following Session. The only kernel you can build, is a Kernel that can copy the ENcryptet Data in some Datafiles, but every Datastream will encryptet with an new Session-Key, and so you can work a couple million years to decrypt a single session.
You can only make a Kernel that can get the Mediastreams UNencrypted outside the Processor, if you have the signing-key from the Hardwarevendor, and you can bet that this key lies on a networkless PC behind steel-reinforced doors.
TCPA will not kill Open-Source-Software and even on your 100% selfbuild Linux-from-Scratch you will be able to run DRM-Software that enables you to watch the newest Hollywood-Blockbuster - if you wish. The "only" thing that TCPA will bring, is that the big player from the Content-Industrie will put all their Content in encrypted bottles that you can only open with DRM-Software and TCPA-Hardware. This can be seen as a social problem, but it has nothing to do with render you unable to run your own software on a TCPA-Hardware. The social problem with DRM and TCPA can only be solved by law, or if the Community build enough open content.
Sorry, this is wrong. TCPA lies in the HARDWARE and Prozesses can get an encryptet environment from the TCPA-Hardware. You can run your own modified Kernel with your own modified Desktopenvironment and on top of this you can execute a signed Programm that get a "secure" enviroment from the Hardware.
Please inform you how TCPA works:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/libra
But should we fight this fight with the GPL? We see with Tivo that a) Enterprises lock there Hardware b) the same Enterprises bring the Software forward because the GPLv2 force them to published their changes of the code. Maybe it is in the short term better to force Hardwarevendors not to lock their Hardware, but will it be better in the long term?
I don't think so. The Hardwarevendors that want lock there Hardware will simply use BSD and the GPL-Software will evolve slower. But when the GPL don't forbid to lock the Hardware, the Vendors help to evolve the GPL-Software although you can't use your own binary on their Hardware. But remember, no one will force you to buy their Hardware and they alienate their Community.
I think this too, and therefore i think that there is no need for the DRM-Part in the GPL. Let the stupid Vendors lock their Hardware while they need to give Softwarechanges to the Community. As you say: there is an intrest to control the own Infrastructure. If the established Vendors lock the Hardware while using GPL-Soft, there will be new StartUps that grep the same Code that the established Vendors use, but put it in Hardware that give the Customer the ability to Control the Code. I belief that in the long Term the Customers will require the ability to Control the Hardware, because of the benefits that the Community will give them. If the established Hardwarevendors don't give you Hardware that you can control, there will be space for new Vendors that can grep the same Software and put it in Customer-friendly-Hardware.
I understand this and thats OK! But why will you force other to do the same? I for one run Ubuntu and Debian and all my binarys are signed. And i would use signed Bankingsoftware to.
I don't agree with you. I think the Market that realize that Homebrew and a big Community arround a Produkt is something to want, is allready big enough. I am amazed how many People have a WRT54G(S) because of the community. I am amanzed how many have a modded Xbox or a modded PSP. I am amanzed how many People are pissed off about Mobiles with crappy Firmware, and ask about Linux-Mobiles. The Community is already bigger than many ever feared/hoped.
I disagree with you when you say we must save stupid people from buying crappy hardware. If the GPL is a place to stop other People from doing stupit things, i have some paragraphs that we can include to.
In one Paragraph we can stop all fascist, racist and warmonger using GPL-Soft because they use it for stupid things that i don't want.
In another Paragraph we can add that all Users from GPL-Soft must accept Freigeld because our Money we use today has a bug that drives many in poverty and view in richness - till Civil War
See also:
A Critical Analysis of Traditional Money and the Financial Innovation "Neutral Money"
A Market Economy without Capitalism
No, Tivo don't kill OpenSource. You can download the complete Source with all there Changes from there Website: http://www.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp
Yes, i think it sucks that you can't use the Tivo-Hardware with modificated Software, but everyone can take the Source and build similar Hardware and Services to compete with Tivo. So Tivo don't kill OpenSource. A Question: You have the choice between Tivo that don't allow Homebrew and a similar Service that allow you Homebrew. What Service will get more Customers over time?
Yes, it is a bad thing that big Industries try to take away fair use, fair dealing and things like that from our culture, but i agree with Linus that the GPL is not the place to fight this development.
by the way: I am using 99% OpenSource @Home and administrate a 100% Linux-Lab at work. But after i informed me many hours about Trusted Computing, i am sure that it CAN't be used to kill OpenSource.
You seems not to realize that TCPA should not be used kill all OpenSource on all devices with TCPA-Hardware.
OSS and DRM-Software will coexist on normal Hardware without the Problems that someone told you. They will NEVER forbid you to run own code on a PC. The Cell-Chip is one of the first CPUs that designed with Hardware-Security in mind. With the Cell-Chip you kann run a SELFMODIFID Linux and on top of it you run a DRM-Software that will get an encrypted chanel from the Processor. Please read some more about TCPA and how it Works:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/libra
There is no need to forbid you to execute your own binarys to give DRM-Software all features there need. The Problem lies only in the Embedded-Market, where Vendors can decide that there should only run the own binarys one the Hardware. But as i explained, if all gread Vendors forbit you to execute your own code, then there will rise another Vendors that will allow it to you.
The Homebrew-Community are developers AND users and together there will be enough on the global market that there will be Enterprices that meets the demands of the Homebrew-Community.
Thats right, but prefer something will mean nothing.
Thats Wrong. TCPA will NEVER take your posibility to run your own code on Standard-Hardware.
It is no Problem when they will make it manatory for Hardware, because you will have no Problem to execute DRM-Soft and OSS at the same time on the same PC. And there will never a Bill that force you to put your own Work in the DRM-Cage.
I think that Linus is right and there is no problem with DRM because we have a marketplace. Yes, there will be Vendors that use GPL-Soft and forbid changed and therefore unsignd binarys to execute on there Hardware. Maybe you can call that Vendors Leeches, but sometimes there are good reasons for this behavior that benefit the Custumer. Think on Mission-Critical Hardware that should NEVER execute hacked binarys - in your best interest.
And yes, there will DRM-crippled Hardware where you would like to change the software, but you are free to not buy that Hardware if it not fit your needs. If the big Vendors use only "crippled" Hardware and there are enough People that want Hardware that allow to execute unsigned binarys, than there will uprise a new vendor that grow big really fast. Most Hardware is no Magic in this times and many Companys exist that sell you the ASICs you need for your Hardware. Buy a CPU, some DSPs, some RAM and some Interfaces and put it together. If all Hardware is crippled and you are the only on that dont cripple the Hardware, your sales will skyrocket.
Don't underestimate the community. In times where many people realize the power and benefits of Homebrew Software, Vendors that forbit Homebrew will slowly die if there is not a REALLY good reason to forbid changes. Sony seems to realize that with the PS3 and allow Homebrew to sell more Hardware. If you can select between a XBox360 that don't allow you execute Homebrew and a PS3 that allow you execute Homebrew, what Hardware will a Homebrew-Fan buy?