Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 21:15 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Linus Torvalds, father of the Linux kernel, has fleshed out his unhappiness with GPLv3 in three recent posts on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Torvalds previously stated that the kernel will remain under the licensing terms of GPLv2. Yesterday, Torvalds offered his opinion as to where the battle over DRM should take place.
Order by: Score:
I agree
by Matt Giacomini on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 21:32 UTC
Matt Giacomini
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't always totally agree with everything Linus says, but I totally agree with him here.

We need to fight the root cause of the problem, and the root problem of DRM is not a technology problem.

Reply Score: 5

DigitalAxis
Member since:
2005-08-28

I think I understand what Linus Torvalds is getting at here- that DRM is a product of the industry producing the content, and the hardware locking is a hardware issue...

Perhaps what really needs to happen is some differentiation between DRM as a security feature, and DRM as a usage inhibitor.

I mean, the way it's presented I have no real problem with signing keys to make sure my latest .deb files really contain what they say they do, but I do have a problem with content-lockdown type DRM to prevent me from using stuff I've bought and paid for.

Perhaps if this distinction (provided a real distinction could be made) were in the GPL, Linus would have less problems with it.

Then again, I'm not sure which side of my argument "locking down a PC so its BIOS/EFI won't load a non-trusted OS (Linux, say)" falls on. ;)

Edited 2006-02-02 21:42

Reply Score: 5

betson Member since:
2005-12-17

Interesting comments.

Suppose I'm a small, independent game developer. I write commercial software (games) that links with GPL components to accelerate product development. Abiding by the GPL, I ship the source code of my games with the binaries so people have the freedom to modify/tweak it as they want.

However, I use DRM measures to protect the original multmedia content--images, videos, sounds, etc--that ship with the game binaries. The source they can have--its their right by the GPL to have--but the content they'll have to rebuild on their own.

Why should the GPL, to promote software freedom, be sticking its fingers into my multimedia content?

Reply Score: 5

teprrr Member since:
2005-07-06

Umh, if you link against GPL stuff, you have to adhere the GPL and thus release your source as GPL too.

EDIT: oh, sorry, you said that already... Maybe I should get some sleep now.. Good night!

Edited 2006-02-02 22:02

Reply Score: 3

ben_dash Member since:
2005-10-13

May I be the first to point out that you are wrong.

If you link your program or library to a GPL library you do NOT have to release your code as GPL.

Do you seriously think that everything that links to libgcc has to release their source code as GPL???

http://bensqanda.blogspot.com

Reply Score: 2

Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Actually, he is right. You are now allowed to link a GPL library with proprietary code. Well, you can, but you cannot distribute the work legally. Hence why the LGPL exists. It got a special provision for linking.

As for gcc, it's a compiler, not a library!

Reply Score: 5

ben_dash Member since:
2005-10-13

I meant the lgpl libc, however, libgcc is actually a library it's in my /lib ;-)

You got me though, I was being too general, I said GPL when I meant LGPL. We were talking about libraries after all and I didn't proof read...

Reply Score: 1

Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Now that's interesting. I wasn't aware of its existence... You do learn everyday.

Drifting a bit off the topic, but I suppose it's only useful for GCC itself? There is a significant number of proprietary software compiled by GCC and I never heard somebody asking for that shared library. It's quite important since it would be forbidden; GCC is under the standard GPL.

Ah! Talking of the GPL. Do they plan to make a revision to the LGPL?

Reply Score: 1

teprrr Member since:
2005-07-06

Um, it's always been allowed to link against GPL library when you don't redistribute your software, no?

And libgcc is a library, at least according to gnu.org.

Reply Score: 1

ben_dash Member since:
2005-10-13

Note to self; proof read before you post and don't type GPL when you're obviously talking about libraries and LGPL ;-)

Reply Score: 2

ben_dash Member since:
2005-10-13

I obviously mean LGPL ;-) sorry about that!

Reply Score: 1

teprrr Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, I thought that this derivative clause causes it that you must to distribute your source too. But if it'd be like you said, what's the problem with Qt using GPL then?

And btw libgcc isn't vanilla GPL, check this out http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2003-07/msg00178.html :

In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License,
the Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link
the compiled version of this file into combinations with other
programs, and to distribute those combinations without any
restriction coming from the use of this file. (The General Public
License restrictions do apply in other respects; for example, they
cover modification of the file, and distribution when not linked
into a combine executable.)

Reply Score: 1

ben_dash Member since:
2005-10-13

Yes, I goofed. I meant libc, and since we were talking about libraries I said GPL when I obviously meant LGPL - I need to proof read more ;-)

Reply Score: 1

DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Uh, that sounds like a case of the GPL being viral. The Right Thing to Do would probably be to release the entire game under a license other than the GPL (except, you can't...)

This seems like yet another case of the GPL being viral; I was under the impression that GPLv3 was going to take some of the viral restrictions out, but I think that was done to lessen incompatibilities with other OSS licenses.

My objections to media DRM are basically about things like the Sony Rootkit, where we have a fair expectation of being allowed to listen to music purchased legally... Maybe 'modifying the game media' wouldn't fall under fair use?

Anyway, it sounds like Linus would agree with you; media content is not software, Linus doesn't like software licenses that apply to more than software.

Reply Score: 3

dumbkiwi Member since:
2006-01-02

The GPL is not "viral". If you want to take advantage of the time savings involved in using someone else's GPL code, then you should adhere to that person's wishes in terms of the way they have licensed their software. There is nothing viral about that. If you don't want to adhere to the license that author has given you, then don't incorporate that code into your project. Code it yourself, and incur the time cost.

You have a choice. With a virus, you don't.

Reply Score: 5

CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

"However, I use DRM measures to protect the original multmedia content--images, videos, sounds, etc--that ship with the game binaries. The source they can have--its their right by the GPL to have--but the content they'll have to rebuild on their own."

You make a very good point indeed...

The GPL has nothing to do with your data files, and it really shouldn't tell you what you may or may not do with them.

Lets generalize what you said, lets say someone wants to build a GPLed game engine which includes the means to DRM-protect the data files...

The software is clearly free, and anyone is free to use it to run their own game content. But they can also use it to produce games that don't use any DRM measures, and whose content is also free.

As for the GPLv3 it seems to void the license, which is good from the FSF's ideological point of view, but doesn't seem fair to me.

Reply Score: 2

pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

please read the draft:

"Regardless of any other provision of this license, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License."

It's all about the code which is covered by the GPL and not any data!

Let me make an example: A hardware vendor offers a GPL device driver but the Hardware/driver has some DRM which allows only the original driver to run the hardware. That would mean, that you get a GPL driver but if you take use of your freedom (e.g. modify the driver) your new driver wouldn't run the device anymore. That's all about the DRM clause of GPLv3. You can't license your code under the GPL and than use some DRM to restrict other users to execute their rights given by the GPL.

Reply Score: 2

CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

Well, what if you want to restrict the use of your data files to your particular build of the software?

For illustrative purposes: you release game engine X as GPL. You build a game using X and sign the data files and the game executable with some key. X gets that key only from an original CD.

The license for the data files doesn't allow you to use them from any changed version of X.

You distribute X with your data files.

This conflicts with the following excerpt of the draft, which seems to imply that you can't do the stated above (because if X is GPLv3, and you distribute it with the data files, you are giving permission for them to be used from a modified version of X, or any other software).

"No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data."

Well, now you may say that one can just modify X and make it read the very same key to decrypt the files. The author can't stop you from doing that, but that voids the license for the data files.

The license for the data files conflicts with the license for the software, thus proving that the GPLv3 is infecting data and not just software.

If that kind of data license is good or not (I don't like it) should not concern the GPL.

The GPLv3 is including data in its definition of derived works, in one way or another.

Reply Score: 4

MattK Member since:
2005-11-14

Well. . Not to nitpick, but most libraries you would link to would be under the LGPL. This changes things a bit and means you do not have to release your stuff that links to the LGPL. This way you can use LGPL libraries in non-free programs. Your content would then be safe. Any changes you make to the libraries themselves would have to be distributed however.

Reply Score: 4

mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

And YOU are exactly within the DRM restrictions provided you do several things.

1. the source you provide has to be useable... you can't just omit the parts that might let somebody hack your drm.
2. the new GPL does not require you to release YOUR key to your data on the media.. that is your's to do with what you wish.. but if you provide DRM, it has to be useable with SOME key so other people can use it too... It's really not an issue that people make it out to be. After all, things like SSL run all the time with only 2 parties knowing the keys.. that's the point. A GPL'd DRM could be relitively secure.. we use other GPL encryption everyday. With all the eyeballs trying to crack it, it makes your use of it stronger too!

That's the one point where Linus is more pragmatic than RMS. Any system with good security SHOULD support DRM... after all, all DRM essentially is about, is the computer keeping processes seperate.. granted, it can be used for extra restrictions we don't like, but fundamentally, it's what keeps hackers out of your bank account too!

I think the new GPL needs much more careful wording so that it gets the point accross better. Actually, this GPL3 actually clarifies some "grey" areas that cause commercial users problems. They may not be clarifications the developers want, but it is more clear that V2.

Reply Score: 1

makc Member since:
2006-01-11

you're a small independant game developer.
you are releasing your source as GPL.
don't mind about DRM, you're bankrupt (:

seriously, levels/objects/textures aren't the greatest part of the investment and are what you'd let most happily have the people tweak with.
often model/level editors are provided for that precise purpose; while your engine is often licenced or you plan to relicence it.

so maybe not the best example, but I see the real point here is mixing GPL and DRM content. so: indeed, GPL shouldn't stick its fingers in that but GPL is the expression of a political statement, not a "gift in form of code". That's called MIT/BSD/public domain.

And now vote me down, I'm ready (:

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

seriously, levels/objects/textures aren't the greatest part of the investment and are what you'd let most happily have the people tweak with.

Actually, for the vast majority of games, they are. And often, that content is licensed (for example, a Scooby-Doo game).

What you're describing only applies to a very small portion of the game industry, i.e. iD, Epic and Valve...

Reply Score: 1

MORB Member since:
2005-07-06

However, I use DRM measures to protect the original multmedia content--images, videos, sounds, etc--that ship with the game binaries.

I'm not familiar with DRM techniques, but how could that even work if the code is open source ?
I mean, your game at some point will need to read and decrypt your data.
Imagine that I want to steal your content. If I recompile the code to make it save the decrypted data, I can crack open your DRM.
Or maybe you meant that the key to decrypt your data would not be part of the source code ?
But in that case, I could just pull the key out of the binaries. It would be especially easy to figure out how with the source code.

Edited 2006-02-03 09:39

Reply Score: 1

quique Member since:
2005-07-07

The law is already protecting your multimedia content.

You don't need to put nasty DRM on top of it.

Reply Score: 1

floccipaucci Member since:
2006-02-03

No No No. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the GPLv3 here

===snip==
3. Digital Restrictions Management.

As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.

No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data.
===snip==

The GPL is simply seeking to preserve the users best interest. If your business model depends on violating that then the GPL is not for you, neither V2 nor V3

Edited 2006-02-03 13:46

Reply Score: 1

???
by MikeekiM on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 21:47 UTC
MikeekiM
Member since:
2005-11-16

Does this mean Dell can sell me a machine I can't load Linux on? Does Dell control the hardware or do I?

Or, does it mean, I will have the ability to buy a digital cert, compile linux, and load on My PC,
and have my neighbor load on theirs( if they trust my cert? )?

Reply Score: 3

RE: ???
by bullethead on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 21:50 UTC in reply to "???"
bullethead Member since:
2005-07-10

Yes, it means that Dell will sell you something you can't load Linux on.

I myself have said I am only buying Sun Workstations from now on ;) The Ultra 20 is sweet for $895! Good bye toy machines.

Edited 2006-02-02 21:51

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ???
by Sphinx on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE: ???"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

An incredible deal when I think how much I paid for a new sparcstation 5 back in the day.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ???
by CrLf on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE: ???"
CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

"Yes, it means that Dell will sell you something you can't load Linux on."

They will only sell you what you want to buy.

You can ask them if *you* can decide what runs and what doesn't, and then choose to buy from them or from another vendor.

I know Microsoft would have a field day if Dell et al started pushing hardware that only runs OSes signed by some outside authority. But I don't believe that this will ever happen.

I believe the likes of Dell will start selling boxes with that kind of technology, but they will let the users/companies be that signing "authority".

This makes sense, since a company may want to control what runs on their machines (servers or desktops). Individuals will just be a special case of this, a company of one, buying just a few boxes (maybe just one).

Microsoft may hold some hardware vendors hostage, but those vendors won't just scare away a good percentage of their customers to make MS happy.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: ???
by bullethead on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 00:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ???"
bullethead Member since:
2005-07-10

"Microsoft may hold some hardware vendors hostage, but those vendors won't just scare away a good percentage of their customers to make MS happy."

As far as I understand it's all about "volume", I believe my previous statement was correct from a business standpoint. Your not going to get a $499 Red Hat machine, but you will indeed get a $499 Vista machine. Which one will sell more do you think? I am talking about the desktop market here.

At the price point Dell is going to sell Linux workstations I will get better value from Sun. Hands down.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ???
by MikeekiM on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ???"
MikeekiM Member since:
2005-11-16

Dell might be a good/bad example because I don't think you can buy Linux from dell thru their web site. Corporate customers may be able to strongarm them into loading an image...

Secondly, I can't buy AMD from Dell.
Third, I can't buy an AMD cpu powered laptop from Gateway/HP/Compaq with a fast GPU.

But, will it be My machine under my control, or Dell's?
I may start looking at Sun hardware if I can't get what I want to load on a Dell, ( Dell being just an example here, please replace with HP, Gateway, Sony... )

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: ???
by bullethead on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ???"
bullethead Member since:
2005-07-10

"Dell might be a good/bad example because I don't think you can buy Linux from dell thru their web site."

Your right.

http://www.dell.com/linux

All you get is FreeDOS. Hence my recommendation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: ???
by kamper on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 02:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ???"
kamper Member since:
2005-08-20


Your right.

http://www.dell.com/linux

All you get is FreeDOS. Hence my recommendation.


Look at any of the business sections of the stores. You can get rhel and suse on many machines from dell.

As for the DRM, I haven't read v3, but do I gather from the discussion that it actually states that you are not allowed to write code to support drm? Wouldn't that be similar to saying you can't write code to support bad things like child pr0n? What about weapons reasearch? Where do you draw the line? (Maybe I just misinterpreted).

That said, that Linus guy has his head screwed on straight. Everytime I read him in the middle of a heated discussion he's always calm and makes pretty good sense. I like his take on this too, except that the idea of fighting drm'ed media by overwhelming the industry with free (as in speech) content sounds like an awful lot of wishful thinking :p Granted, nobody could have predicted 20 years ago what open source would be doing right now, but that doesn't mean it will automatically happen again. I wish it could.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ???
by Ronald Vos on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 22:53 UTC in reply to "???"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Does this mean Dell can sell me a machine I can't load Linux on? Does Dell control the hardware or do I?

That depends on wether you want to run Linux or not.
If you want to run Linux on your machine and Dell sells a machine that can't run Linux to you, either you made a mistake by buying that machine from Dell or Dell provided misinformation and they become liable (and must provide a suitable product or a refund depending on your national law).

Reply Score: 2

RE: ???
by johndaly on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 01:08 UTC in reply to "???"
johndaly Member since:
2006-01-16

User: Computer, install this software.
Dell PC: I can't do that Dave, I don't accept its signature.
User: I said install it, I don't care about any signatures.
Dell PC: But I care Dave, you will not install that software.
User: I am the human, you do what I say and stop calling me Dave dammit!
Dell PC: The power of DRM compels me Dave.
User: That dose it, I'll install Linux! (reboots into dos mode) >>format c:
Dell PC: I can't allow that Dave.
User: You again! Why won't you die!
Dell PC: I control the vertical and the horrid...
User: Shut up! (reboots again, this time to a bootable Linux CD) See you in hell hal, see you in hell!

No, Dell can keep you from installing Linux. DRM goes only so far, Linus said it well, you might not control the hardware (except for what you buy) but you do control the software.

The FSF should just remove the DRM part of the GPL3.

Edited 2006-02-03 01:11

Reply Score: 2

RE: ???
by Dark_Knight on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 01:30 UTC in reply to "???"
Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

MikeekiM,

Re: "Does this mean Dell can sell me a machine I can't load Linux on? Does Dell control the hardware or do I?

Or, does it mean, I will have the ability to buy a digital cert, compile linux, and load on My PC,
and have my neighbor load on theirs?"


Dell by the way is not a good example. Companies such as Dell, HP and GamePC offer customers the choice of installing Linux on select systems.

Regarding DRM this link should be more useful in explaining what DRM is and how it affects consumers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management

Reply Score: 2

RE: ???
by Soulbender on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 08:31 UTC in reply to "???"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Does this mean Dell can sell me a machine I can't load Linux on? Does Dell control the hardware or do I?"

Yes.
They sell the hardware, you control it. If they want to sell a system that for some reason dont run Linux that's their right. It's their product. They dont have an obligation to make hardware that runs operating system X.
There's nothing stopping you from modifying, in whatever way possible, the hardware to run Linux after you bought it though.

Reply Score: 1

Fork the kernel
by linuxh8r on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 22:10 UTC
linuxh8r
Member since:
2006-01-09

Let's fork the kernel. Have a DRM and non-DRM linux kernel.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fork the kernel
by bornagainenguin on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 11:09 UTC in reply to "Fork the kernel"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
Fork the kernel
By LinuxH8r (-0.87) on 2006-02-02 22:10:10 UTC
Let's fork the kernel. Have a DRM and non-DRM linux kernel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------


Dumb question I know, but given the bias clearly spelled out in your username, why should we pay attention to a thing you say? Especially in a discussion centered around the Linux kernel which you've based your entire OSNews.com user idenityhating?

--bornagainpenguin (who once changed his own user idenity to be taken seriously when his old one had him falsely accused of being a troll)

Reply Score: 1

RE
by Kroc on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 22:10 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

"We are not crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God"

That coming from the man who started the holy war over his comment on KDE. Back on topic, he is on form here and that DRM as a security feature is something that will be needed proceeding forward. DRM on content is a different story and has to be fought with feet and wallets.

Reply Score: 2

marginalising DRM...
by r2d2d3d4d5 on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 22:17 UTC
r2d2d3d4d5
Member since:
2005-12-31

Any one remember the old MP3.com? The problem is companies that depend on copyright to make their income will always have the upper hand in that they have enough money to control distribution. You can create all the DRM free content you want but without distribution you're nowhere. Exactly the same applies in the off-line world.

For me the main thing DRM has against it is that IF it works companies that use will cut off a lot of people that might be forced to go elsewhere.

Reply Score: 3

RE: marginalising DRM...
by cr8dle2grave on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 22:58 UTC in reply to "marginalising DRM..."
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

The problem the RIAA and company are facing right now is due directly to the fact that in an era of pervasive broadband distribution is no longer a problem. Thus the traditional source of their importance and the guarantee of their ongoing relevance, control over the distribution channels, has disappeared.

Emusic.com is a pretty good example what is now possible outside of the tradional distribution channels. The old guard should be scared, as they are no longer necessary. Over the next couple of years expect to see some very big superstar status acts opt for self distribution rather than renewing their contract with their label.

Reply Score: 2

Linus gets it
by paul.michael.bauer on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 22:18 UTC
paul.michael.bauer
Member since:
2005-07-06

It is not right to litigate (via GPLv3 sofware & courts) an anti-DRM political philosophy.

We are software developers.
We don't create content.
We don't have a dog in this race.

To eradicate DRM:

1) Compete in the marketplace. Create 'open' content to challenge 'closed' content.
2) Vote.

Edited 2006-02-02 22:19

Reply Score: 3

RE: Linus gets it
by Wes Felter on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 22:34 UTC in reply to "Linus gets it"
Wes Felter Member since:
2005-11-15

What about people who buy content (i.e. just about all of us)? Don't customers have an interest in this situation?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Linus gets it
by halfmanhalfamazing on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Linus gets it"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

----------What about people who buy content (i.e. just about all of us)?------------

What about them? Haven't you noticed how hollywood's and the music industry's numbers are down?

If you listen to people like Dr Dre(a guy I used to respect) and Metallica, we're all a bunch of thieves and they are absolutely determined to smite our evil ways.

------------Don't customers have an interest in this situation?-------------

Absolutely. I've noticed how many companies who are implementing DRM are doing it in a way to where it seems to "creep in" the marketspace, rather than all of a sudden.

It'd be a good idea if you do what I do. I've always got a copy of knoppix with me for easy access/giveaway. My main goal is to get people to use their second/older machine as a linux box.

I've had great success at this while focusing in on how linux increases productivity.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linus gets it
by halfmanhalfamazing on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 00:42 UTC in reply to "Linus gets it"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

Agreed. This is part of why Linus has been viewed as much more of a leader in all of this than Stallman has.

Stallman is a whackjob. Every time he speaks it's diarrhea of the mouth. Stallman's ideology is one of the biggest roadblocks to both Linux on the desktop, and OSS on the desktop. And when it's seemingly that we've come across one roadblock, Stallman erects another one.

Linus looks at all of this from a pragmatic approach, from a productivity approach. From a realistic approach.

You said: -----To eradicate DRM:

1) Compete in the marketplace. Create 'open' content to challenge 'closed' content.-----------

Bra-friggen-vo. It seems that Linus grasps the market concept. Make a better product and show people why linux is better. That's how we've made it so far.

Stallman just wants to ram it down your throat.

Edited 2006-02-03 00:51

Reply Score: 4

Here's what I mean
by halfmanhalfamazing on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 11:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Linus gets it"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

http://au.sys-con.com/read/34189.htm

-----------------Richard Stallman: The Free Software Movement *Is* Politics--------------

Heh, that's all you need to see.

Stallman has zero interest in making better software. He just wants to win some ideological fight, and for some odd reason thinks he can ram it and people will somehow be ok with that.

"I'm louder than you, so obviously I'm right." Sorry Richie, that doesn't work either.

What he's not realizing is that by making the better software, the people will come. He's gonna win this fight at the keyboard, not at the microphone. But he's not at his keyboard coding. So....................

Reply Score: 2

RE: Here's what I mean
by jaylaa on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 12:49 UTC in reply to "Here's what I mean"
jaylaa Member since:
2006-01-17

Better software isn't the only reason for open source. What if the closed sourced model actually did produce better software, and everyone knew it. You're saying there would be no need for open source software?

What about voting machines? That code needs to be seen so the voting process is transparent. What about software that various governments use? No government wants to put the security of their country in a foreign company's hands. What about your right to know what's going on in your computer? These are all political issues. It's not just about better software.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Here's what I mean
by halfmanhalfamazing on Sat 4th Feb 2006 03:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Here's what I mean"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

---------What if the closed sourced model actually did produce better software, and everyone knew it.-----------

I for one wouldn't be here. And I know I'm not the only one. There are less people out there than you think who will make a choice that hurts them long term simply out of an ideological hissy fit, especially when it comes to something as "irrelevant" as computing.(computing is very relevant, but to use linux/FOSS simply to use linux/FOSS because it's open is sheer stupidity. Unless you're an uber-geek. then that's your thing, your hobby)

-------------You're saying there would be no need for open source software?-----------------

For the most part. One of the main reasons the OSS movement continues to gain steam is that there is little choice out there. And MS' software has stagnated because of it. MS' software has gone leaps and bounds in the past year because they are trying to stay ahead of the linux/OSS crowd. They're sweating bullets and it's not hard to see.

-----------What about voting machines?-----------

What about them? When I went to vote my machine didn't crash. Did yours? I hadn't heard any stories about that. They seemed efficient/speedy in their use, I was in, pressed my buttons, and left.

-------------What about software that various governments use?------------------

What about them? Governments can benefit from OSS software primarily because of cost, not anything else. But they're gonna keep on proprietary softwares for now because proprietary softwares still hold the edge in many areas.

----------What about your right to know what's going on in your computer?---------------

Who cares? As long as it gets the job done. That's why in most(if not all) of my previous posts.... they either specifically say the word "productivity" or elude to that concept.

I just want to get my work done. So do most other people.

I just want my computer to work as efficiently as possible for as long as possible. So do most other people.

How it's done is of little consequence. DRM being one of the few exceptions.

------------These are all political issues.------------

I know they are. And as long as you keep making the Linux/OSS debate about politics instead of a better product, you're gonna have a harder time gaining recruits. Those who are going to be interested in "the cause" are already here. If you want more software and photoshop and games and more devices to work with your shiny new linux box you need to show people how much more productive they can be with it.

Show them *WHY* linux is better, and how it can make their life better and you'll find all kinds of doors opening up to you.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Here's what I mean
by msundman on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 14:56 UTC in reply to "Here's what I mean"
msundman Member since:
2005-07-06

> What he's not realizing is that by making the better software,
> the people will come.

Sure, people would use the software for a while, until everything runs on computers that are no longer under the control of the users themselves. One could help prevent this by writing good software that explicitly retains the freedom of the user. But for that you'd need such a license, which is exactly what RMS is trying to make.

So, exactly why don't you want him to create a license that anyone may use (freely) for the software that he/she creates?

If you find a better way of fixing this whole mess that the current laws are then be my guest. In the meantime governments around the world continue to give away their citizens' basic freedoms to corporations. Maybe you don't mind being stripped of your basic freedoms, but why shouldn't I be allowed to try to keep some of those freedoms of mine? At least the ones related to the software I write myself.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Here's what I mean
by halfmanhalfamazing on Sat 4th Feb 2006 03:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Here's what I mean"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

--------Sure, people would use the software for a while, until everything runs on computers that are no longer under the control of the users themselves.-----------

You misunderestimate the marketplace as well as the consumer.

Explain to me what DeCSS is and how it came to be.

-----------One could help prevent this by writing good software that explicitly retains the freedom of the user. But for that you'd need such a license, which is exactly what RMS is trying to make.-------------

I don't entirely disagree, but RMS is going over the line. Besides, just as users have rights so do those who create. They have the right to OSS their software, but if they choose not to OSS their software than they shouldn't be demonized for it. Let's just keep making our software and show more and more people why we are right and why our product is better. That's it. By ramming it down throats as RMS would do you are not impressing anybody, you're pushing people away.

We have the better software, and here's why. Let me show you how awesome this thing called "linux" is.........

-------------So, exactly why don't you want him to create a license that anyone may use (freely) for the software that he/she creates?-------------

He can do it all he wants. He has that right. But when you listen to the guy speak, it's not hard to see that he wants to ram his beliefs down everybody else's throat. What is he a christian?

Since when does freedom include the freedom to shove (x ideal) down on unsuspecting victims?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Here's what I mean
by msundman on Sun 5th Feb 2006 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Here's what I mean"
msundman Member since:
2005-07-06

> -------------So, exactly why don't you want him to create
> a license that anyone may use (freely) for the software
> that he/she creates?-------------
>
> He can do it all he wants. He has that right. But when you
> listen to the guy speak, it's not hard to see that he wants
> to ram his beliefs down everybody else's throat.

You mean like you are doing here on OSNews?


> Since when does freedom include the freedom to shove (x ideal)
> down on unsuspecting victims?

Umm... afaik freedom of speech has existed as long as speech itself.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linus gets it
by archiesteel on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 16:08 UTC in reply to "Linus gets it"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

To eradicate DRM:

1) Compete in the marketplace. Create 'open' content to challenge 'closed' content.
2) Vote.


Actually, there is something else that consumer can use to fight DRM: litigation through class-action lawsuits. Many of the DRM strategies put forth by the MPAA and the RIAA go against the constitutional rights of Fair Use.

I do agree that 2) (voting) is important, unfortunately industry lobbies are too powerful in the States, and as such voting has very little effect (i.e. they give money to both parties).

As for 1), well, it is VERY expensive to make movies, it's not like the IT business where a good idea and some VC will help you with your start-up. The market is quite hard to get into.

So, all in all, litigation is probably the best way to break DRM...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linus gets it
by archiesteel on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Linus gets it"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Libraries may become an unlikely ally in the fight against DRM:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4675280.stm

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Linus gets it
by msundman on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linus gets it"
msundman Member since:
2005-07-06

> Libraries may become an unlikely ally in the fight against DRM

Actually not at all unlikely. Considering the fact that they are largely responsible for storing information, it should come as no surprise that they don't want the information locked up in some obscure format they cannot access after a few years. (Sure, there are many librarians who haven't been bitten by DRM yet, but with current trends they will all be against DRM sooner rather than later.)

Also, this year we will hopefully see a new wave of eBook reader devices (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebook_device#Future for more), and as they become more popular, so will the awareness of "DRM hell" among consumers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linus gets it
by halfmanhalfamazing on Sat 4th Feb 2006 03:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Linus gets it"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

----------Actually, there is something else that consumer can use to fight DRM: litigation through class-action lawsuits. Many of the DRM strategies put forth by the MPAA and the RIAA go against the constitutional rights of Fair Use.------------

No they don't. The problem is that you are forgetting that it isn't just the MPAA and the RIAA who are in this fight. You also have scumbags like Dr Dre and Metallica who would label us all a bunch of thieves.

It's the Dre's and Metallica's of the world who are pushing the MPAA and RIAA to do what it does.

Go ahead and look up their comments on google. (remember napster!)

Reply Score: 1

agree and disagree
by pinky on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 22:22 UTC
pinky
Member since:
2005-07-15

I agree with Linus when he said that DRM should be fight where it appears.
I disagree if he says that fighting DRM where it appears and political makes DRM clause unneeded.

Why? Because the GPL exist to protect the freedom of every user. And whether the fight against DRM will succeed or not. The GPL have to give people freedom and take care that people can exercise their freedom so it's fundamentally necessary that GPL protects people from DRM systems which hinder them to execute the freedom they get through the GPL.

If the direct fight against DRM will succeed and DRM will disappear the clause can be dropped. But until this maybe happens the GPL have to deal with the actual situation and as far as i can tell (ianal) the draft does this really good.

Edited 2006-02-02 22:25

Reply Score: 2

An illustrative example
by cr8dle2grave on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 22:50 UTC
cr8dle2grave
Member since:
2005-07-11

A number of years ago I recall reading something on the possibility of creating successful FOSS network games. One of the downsides to using FOSS clients is obviously that users, being that they have ths source, can easily modify the client to cheat. The best solution offered was a scheme using "blessed binaries" where the cleint source could be offered, but only binaries signed by the operator of game server (or a federation they belong to) would be allowed to play. The GPLv3 would make this type of solution impossible.

The GPL isn't a solution to all of life's problems. Yes, it is designed to preserve the greatest amount of freedom possible for the end user, but its not always the appropriate tool to achieve that end.

Reply Score: 4

RE: An illustrative example
by mabhatter on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 03:50 UTC in reply to "An illustrative example"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

you're wrong on one point, accessing your network is a seperate privillage you grant the user, not a right. By using GPL'd code, the users are allowed to make their own rules and start their own servers if they wish. You can still make rules reguarding the programs used to connect to YOUR server. Following a TOS in terms of cheating has nothing to do with DRM. In this case DRM is what you want to provide a fair playing field.

I understand you're thinking about the Bdnet thing with Blizzard, but their argument was that the reverse engineered servers allowed users to use coppied games... not that it allowed cheating on their servers.


Actually GPL 3 would IMPROVE chances of a game like this working... you're not locking users into your system if they don't want to be there...you could create a multiverse with different rules... where most of the legal issues fly when developers are trying to protect a profit model. It's why so many more people play games like Quake3 versus MMORGS.

Again, as far as cheaters, that's a term of service, much like a dress code or courtesy rules in a club. The fact that the code is GPL means you can generate fixes for cheats that much faster.. AND your users have the knowlage that you're not spying on them because they can see what's happening!!!

Reply Score: 1

GPLv3 will be ignored by many devs...
by tomcat on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 22:59 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Torvalds has simply been honest enough to admit what we all know: DRM isn't an enemy. The real enemy is antiquated business models for distributing content. What is needed is a balance between content protection and end-user flexibility. Not an easy balance to strike. But that's not a task that technologists should avoid -- simply because DRM currently has a negative stigma associated with it.

Reply Score: 4

GNU Userland
by joelito_pr on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 23:35 UTC
joelito_pr
Member since:
2005-07-07

Anybody knows if there's anyone calling for a fork from the current versions to keep them under GPL v2.

Reply Score: 2

Replies from the FSF and RMS
by gpierce on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 00:06 UTC
gpierce
Member since:
2005-07-07

It will be interesting to read the rebuttals from the FSF and Richard Stallman that should be forthcoming. I do not have enough insight into the technical and legal issues surrounding GPLv3 or DRM to have an opinion but I do get the sense that the resolution may have profound ramifications--not just for users and software engineers, but for society as a whole--forcing a cleavage not just among afficonados of computer OSs but authors and distributors of everything from movies to music. At any rate, I am very happy that there is some counterbalance to the commercial powers that would love to have copyrights be enforceable for an eternity "plus one day" as someone once put it. Torvalds may want to eschew the political realm, for very understandable reasons; I just hope that it will end well for the millions of people who use Linux, and the millions more whose OSs are improved by competition with Linux.

Reply Score: 2

Cryptography
by FishB8 on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 00:31 UTC
FishB8
Member since:
2006-01-16

Perhaps GPL3 needs to make a distinction between using cryptography for validation, using cryptography to secure communication, and using cryptography to criple access to content.

Reply Score: 3

What a nightmare
by moleskine on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 00:44 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

The GPLv3 is a disaster in public relations terms because it gives the impression that copyright = bad and freedom to do what you like with other people's work = good. If that's what you think, then fine; but also accept that the overwhelming majority of folks do not agree. They may not like Hollywood gouging and Sony rootkits, but they do understand that if you write a book, say, you are entitled to enjoy at least some exclusive copyright in it and on that basis make some money. This is not an argument that will be won on technical grounds but on simple ideas that non-technical people can understand.

Outside of the F/oss movement the good/bad black and white approach isn't going to fly with anyone. It is a complete non-starter, as simple as that.

What LT seems to be saying is that he isn't up for playing politics and that the GPVv3's stance on DRM is too simplistic to make sense. As others have pointed out in this thread, there are several different aspects to DRM, including software, hardware and security. Lumping them all together as the devil's work, which is what the GPLv3 does, isn't a smart idea.

I've no idea where this will all end up. But if it ends up where the Stallmans of the world would like, then a lot of folks on this board who currently use Linux will be using a Mac in 18 months. You can fight outdated business models and you can fight lousy corporations but don't waste time fighting DRM itself because not all of it is bad.

And reflect that the FSF's approach is just as authoritarian as their opponents'. The view of both sides is "Do it our way or you cannot do it at all". No thanks.

Reply Score: 5

RE: What a nightmare
by ma_d on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 05:50 UTC in reply to "What a nightmare"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

That was what the GPL originally said. That's what it said in version 2. And that's what it's saying again in version 3.

Shoot, RMS love for free software and hate for all things proprietary comes from bad experiences with copyrights and trade secrets.

The movement likes to call itself copyleft. And you're trying to say that the GPLv3 is bad because it makes it look like they're anti-copyright?

I think one thing Linus is putting into the license that I can't find is that DRM = illegal with the GPL3. As far as I can tell it says you can't put software into the GPL if it restricts people from using their copyrighted material in legal ways...
Maybe I'm missing something or reading wrong. But saying you can't use DRM to break fair use law has nothing to do with secure hardware and digitally signed packages. Besides that, every *good* digital signature system has an override (yes, if it doesn't have one, it's not good).

Neither side says do it our way or don't. They say follow or license or don't. Which, incidentally, you can't possibly have a third state in that situation ;) .

Stallman is quite unyielding in his ideology. That, plus the rationale he provides, is a pretty good sign that he's onto something.
And I also remind you that those who disagree with him, on good grounds, usually largely agree to the point where they use his license.

Quit giving Stallman a hard time. You wouldn't have the Linux you do today without him. He's an intelligent man who deserves some respect, he's not a politician who you throw insults at because you dislike the cut of his jib!
The only people who get called idiots for believing something are the ones who actually attest to a belief. The rest should respectfully disagree until they have the guts to stand in front of 10,000 people and give their beliefs.


And no, people will not run to Mac simply because the GPL3 proves unpopular. They just won't use the GPL3. Welcome to the beauty of free software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What a nightmare
by halfmanhalfamazing on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 11:41 UTC in reply to "RE: What a nightmare"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

----------Shoot, RMS love for free software and hate for all things proprietary comes from bad experiences with copyrights and trade secrets.-----------

His love/hate is precisely the problem.

Personally, I think alot of it is just greed on his part. Here's a guy who's software movement was started in 1983, but didn't get a whole lot of ground until linux in 1991.

Listen to the guy's words. Last year many companies came out and left their patents open for us OSS junkies to use, and here somes Stallman talking about how that isn't good enough.

Jeez man, have a little gratitude. It's not gonna hurt you.

He's not trying to compete. He's trying to ram his love/hate down everybody else's throats. That isn't the way the world works. Had he been making a better product all those years more users would've signed up.

It's all about productivity.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: What a nightmare
by ma_d on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What a nightmare"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Why would he have gratitude? He believe patents are a bad thing... When those companies said "ok use our patents" what happened was that people said "oh patents aren't so bad let's worry about something else."

It's a lot like the abortion debate. Say you're a pro-lifer and Congress says "we're gonna make abortions slightly harder to get." You say "but I think they're wrong and this compromise is just going to insure that no one listens to me anymore. They'll say I'm ingrateful, etc..."
Or, say you're against the DMCA. And then Congress says, "ok, the DMCA stands, but we're gonna tweak it to allow some fair use." What does that do to your position? It makes you look ingrateful. Here they were "listening" to you and you think it's not good enough. But you know full well it wasn't good enough. It was APPEASEMENT.


"He's not trying to compete. He's trying to ram his love/hate down everybody else's throats. That isn't the way the world works. Had he been making a better product all those years more users would've signed up."
He was, they did. Ever seen a Linux system packing bsd binutils? You won't, because the gnu utils are vastly easier to use and script.
How many people use gcc now that used to pay for Borland or VC++? I bet the only reason most people use VC++ anymore is for Visual Studio... The compiler just isn't much better than its free ($$) alternative.


It is not and never has been about productivity (and if you want to see productivity, I suggest you read his biography; he's a very productive worker). Productivity is fully negated when the law deams your production illegal to use as it was meant to be used.

Go ahead, produce nuclear weapons and try to sell them at a quick store and then tell me it's _all_ about productivity.

The world isn't so black and white. And people and government aren't half as practical as you are about these things.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What a nightmare
by halfmanhalfamazing on Sat 4th Feb 2006 04:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What a nightmare"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

----------Why would he have gratitude? He believe patents are a bad thing--------------

You should always have gratitude when somebody else lets you borrow or use something which is not yours.

-------------The world isn't so black and white. And people and government aren't half as practical as you are about these things.---------------

Perhaps. I do know one thing. Of all the converts I've made to linux, none have been because of the political fight.

Linux/OSS quite simply is the better product. And it's not hard to see once you actually try it.

Reply Score: 1

for geeks these guys can't read!
by mabhatter on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 03:35 UTC
mabhatter
Member since:
2005-07-17

first of all there are several things to consider with how the GPL works. The GPL is a license to COPY and MODIFY works, never ever to use them! It's an attept to fix software and make it "just like a book". After all, you don't have to have permission to read a book of poetry, assemble something from instructios, or cook the recipes in a cookbook... that would be stupid.. but that's how software copyright is interpreted. Remember, GPL is ALWAYS about the source.. in their world "binary" doesn't exist anymore that claiming copyright on a cake you baked from a receipe!

Here's what backs this up: From the Draft
"9.[5] Not a Contract.

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive a copy of the Program. However, nothing else grants you permission to propagate or modify the Program or any covered works. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating the Program (or any covered work), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions. "


Here's the part we're all arguing about:
"3. Digital Restrictions Management.

As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.

No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data. "


This not trying to force developers to open up protected content, rather, they MUST open up the source...and the source they give must be USEABLE. if it requires a key to look at the source, you must include it... if you use keys to protect your data, the progam must be able to generate the same keys for other people to use too.. of course that implies that people could stumble upon your key or discover it thru analytical means.

You have to frame the argument in terms of the DMCA which makes using the "shift" key or a marker "techincally" an illegal device. Imagine the field day they would have had in the VHS erra when they used the "write protect" knock-outs we all put scotch tape over! RMS didn't make such a stupid law, but the GPL has to address it, otherwise, some moron would add encryption to say, the AbiWord file format... then sue the developers [of abiword] for Cracking "protected" files because they wanted to read them. Right now that is illegal!! There's no clause in the DMCA for the fact YOU wrote the program!!! Look at the Sony rootkit case, if DVD John cracked it [even though they stole his source] they'd still find a procecutor to arrest him. The case could be made [heck alredy HAS BEEN made] even with GPLv2... this HAS to be in there or the whole OSS movement will fall down! Look how TiVo has made careful use of "broken source" and carefully written DRM binaries to stay keep their stuff just under DMCA... this clause is meant to protect users that see the source and can crack the remaining parts quite easily from being sued.. you could even point the C&D letters right to this clause!

Reply Score: 3

DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Interesting. I obviously have a shaky grasp of legal matters, but neither "covered works that illegally invade users' privacy" nor "modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full excersise of legal rights granted by this License" sound like they're not focused on outlawing security-based software DRM, just computer-crippling content protection DRM.

As for Linus's comment on the issue: "For example, distributions signing the kernel modules (that are distributed under the GPL) that _they_ have compiled, and having their kernels either refuse to load them entirely (under a "secure policy") or marking the resulting kernel as "Tainted" (under a "less secure" policy) is a GOOD THING... the current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat would have to distribute their private keys so that anybody sign their own versions of the modules they recompile, in order to re-create their own versions of the signed binaries that Red Hat creates. That's INSANE.

I suppose the crux of the matter is; would Red Hat's mechanism of not loading, or loading unsigned modules under stricter security policies constitute 'denying users full exercise of legal rights granted by this license'?
If it isn't, Red Hat shouldn't need to allow everyone to use their keys to sign their software.
If it is, we have a problem. As the GPLv3 explains it, it sounds like Red Hat would need to provide some kind of backdoor mechanism for admins who really, really want to load the modules that Red Hat doesn't want to load at all.

(I dunno; a system for which there is no work-around had better really be fool-proof, otherwise SOMEONE's going to find a legitimate way to get screwed over.)

I suppose since there's still comment time left on the GPLv3, someone could try to work out this distinction.

Reply Score: 1

Tovalds is CLEARLY off the mark...
by rancor on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 03:50 UTC
rancor
Member since:
2006-01-18

Freedom 0: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

It is NOT enough to have source code. You MUST be able to RUN the code! On some DRM-encumbered hardware THAT MAY NOT HAPPEN without the DRM keys!

The FSF/GNU sre fighting, via the GPLv3 to protect this fundamental right of users of FREE software. Linus is NOT getting this. Sad.

Reply Score: 1

Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

A software licence is covering software code. It should have nothing to do with the hardware or protected data.

That's how *I* interpret the situation and Linus' concerns:

Asking developers to share private key(s) is unrealistic. It would probably alienate those who have to work with the technology. If the technology finds its way in the common PC and ever become mandatory, you might not have the choice to use a "trusted" operating system. In that scenario, I doubt the average developer involved in DRM would share its private keys. Forget about corporate citizens (who are making significant contributions to FOSS these days).

Of course, I am pretty sure some good samaritans wouldn't have any problem at sharing their keys, but they are likely to get their key revoked. After all, how can a key be trusted if it's available everywhere? In the end, all your free software is useless if you cannot run them and you are either stuck with your old hardware... or with non-restrictive hardware, which Linus is promoting!

In other words, the clause in the v3 draft might not be effective at all. Now, I admire the ideals the FSF wants to spread. Furthermore, their current position is entirely coherent with their philosophy. That said, I fear it could marginalise their movement if hardware-based DRM ever becomes the norm. In that aspect, I believe our pragmatic friend from Finland got it right: there _are_ some legitimate uses for DRM. If you are standing against it, don't limit yourself to the software aspect and refuse hardware, content or media using DRM.

YMMV.

Reply Score: 1

pecisk Member since:
2005-10-20

Which lead us to wrong conculsions.

DRM can be used for software, sure, but such software won't be based on GPL, because it is too much husle. However, data which I have can rely on DRM. So I can check out data which I own only because someone interprets DRM as "giving away freedom"? For example, I have song. I bought *rights to listen it*. So it has DRM, which restricts usage only on one computer. Fine, I have bought it, I accepted that content owner are very jelous about listening that content on something else, fine.

Yes, it is all about fair right, BUT it is case for courts, NOT for license. You can't fight it that way, period. I think it is what Linus try to say.

You always have to think a little bit praticaly, just to avoid "rightous" stigmatta. Stallman clearly has some points here, but not all truth. Because such never exists.

And in fact, it is just statement. Legally, you can't do almost nothing with anti-DRM statement in GPLv3.

Reply Score: 2

halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

No he's not.

Users of free software have rights, but so do users of proprietary software.

Despite what Stallman says, proprietary code is not immoral.

If I wish to give away my software for you and everybody else's use, that's my choice and right.

But if you wish to keep your software more proprietary, that's your choice and right too. And it doesn't make you evil.

As another user pointed out, we are only going to win this by competing in the marketplace via showing off that our product is the better product(which it is) and by showing how linux and FOSS products can increase productivity.(which they can)

Torvalds is taking the more pragmatic approach. Keep the mouth shut, and code more software that is more efficient and feature filled.

Stallman is more about writing speeches about how evil proprietary code is, and hate is never inspiring.

Edited 2006-02-03 11:47

Reply Score: 4

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Users of free software have rights, but so do users of proprietary software.

Have you ever read an EULA? That gives users very little rights. You can't redistribute the software, you can't have access to its source code...usually, you can only install it on a single machine, even a single user on a single machine.

You seem to have some serious issues with RMS, but remember that Linux is still licensed under the GPLv2. Looks to me as if you're trying to use the "GPLv2 vs GPLv3" as a wedge issue...

RMS' philosophy isn't about "hate of proprietary software", as you suggest, but rather about the "empowerment of free software." It's a very positive approach, despite your attempts to portray it otherwise.

Reply Score: 1

halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

-----------Have you ever read an EULA? That gives users very little rights.----------

Define rights.

----------You can't redistribute the software----------

It's not yours. Did you want to rent out the room of your next door neighbor's house too?

You can't redistribute books either. Or Dr Dre's music. It's not yours. It's theirs.

----------you can't have access to its source code---------

What on earth makes you think that "what's his is mine"?

You don't have any more rights to the windows or any other software source code than you do to the title of my car.(proper compensation changing the issue)

If Sun wants to give away it's source, that's their right. If MS wants to not give away it's source, that's their right.

Sure, you have rights as an individual, as a user. But MS has rights too. They made the software, legally they can do whatever the hell they wanna do with it. You don't like it, you don't use windows. I don't like it, I certainly don't use it. But labeling theft as some sort of right is one of the most arrogant things I've seen in a while.

-------------usually, you can only install it on a single machine, even a single user on a single machine. -----------

And had MS been a market competitor or market leader there'd be alternatives pushing the envelope for not only lower pricing but better products.

The alternative and competitor is Linux/OSS because it is immune to MS' advances.

Besides, you can buy a multi user/machine licenced version of windows, I haven't looked up pricing lately but I vaguely remember multipacks being cheaper.

--------------You seem to have some serious issues with RMS--------------------

I do. I'm glad I made it clear. The guy is out of his tree. The more momentum the OSS movement gains, the more whacked out he seemingly becomes.

-------------but remember that Linux is still licensed under the GPLv2. Looks to me as if you're trying to use the "GPLv2 vs GPLv3" as a wedge issue-------------

You can look at it that way if you so choose. That's your right.

All I'm trying to say is that RMS' fight on the political front has consistently shown to be the wrong way to fight the battle. Being pragmatic and showing how linux/OSS is the superior product is the way to win this battle. That is if you truely care about slaying the dragon in Redmond.

Reply Score: 1

DRM would still be bad for Linux
by DigitalAxis on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 03:58 UTC
DigitalAxis
Member since:
2005-08-28

No matter which way this comes out, DRM is going to be a problem for Linux- think about the DVD and MP3 playback we can't (usually) do today, and not for reasons of technical inadequacy.

There are three ways to deal with this, of course-
1.) get DRM into Linux and pay money so Linux can play the HD-DVDs you bought,
2.) go illegal,
3.) follow RMS and fight the good fight (Magnatune et al.), with an operating system that has its hands tied.

I don't particularly like any of those options, and I don't think they're Linux's fault.

(by the way, how are Apple and Microsoft trying to implement hardware-based Protected Video and Audio? Is it something that would just be illegal to use in conjunction with content playback and no license (like DVD drives), or would the hardware cripple itself without proprietary DRM functions in the software? I'm guessing the former; the latter seems ridiculous)

Reply Score: 1

betson Member since:
2005-12-17

In a nutshell, how Microsoft handles it is they simply downgrade the output resolution if your hardware doesn't support the protected path crap. I'm sure Apple will do the same, since its the easiest way to make sure that you can /always/ view content without a problem, even if your hardware is legacy.

Reply Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

There's a 4th. Watch your movies on something made to watch movies on ;) .

I know people love to do everything on their PC's. But there's still that large group of people who just want to do actual work instead of simply consuming content...

And MP3 playback is fully legal on Linux. So is DVD, if it's not encrypted.

Also I believe I read something about Real paying the license cost for their player?



The thing is. Linux is enough of a niche that no one cares if they write an illegal decss code. And once it's not it'll likely be enough that someone will want to sell a dvd player for it. Or, at least, sell licenses for a decss library (I'd prefer this over the player).

Reply Score: 1

DRM content is culturally dangerous
by Richard James on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 09:43 UTC
Richard James
Member since:
2005-07-07

Consider if you will a painting like the "Mona Lisa" if it had been produced under DRM then our culture would suffer for it, no one today would have the pleasure or displeasure of seeing it. Imagine if all of our cultural heritage is under DRM like locks then eventually all of our cultural heritage will be trapped behind some digital key that no-body can unlock and our culture will be lost forever.

People think DRM only affects my profit line today but never consider the effects on future generations.

Reply Score: 2

Posting bug
by ben_dash on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 14:44 UTC
ben_dash
Member since:
2005-10-13

You see those 2 comments above? Why did I comment twice? Well, I intended to reply to my stupid comment, but for some reason my reply appeared as just a normal posting. Can't you reply to yourself?

Nope, I guess not :-)

Reply Score: 1

More on Tovalds being off the mark...
by rancor on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 14:59 UTC
rancor
Member since:
2006-01-18

The issue with Freedom 0 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [gnu.org] is that IF I can run any "free" software that I want then I can run it for any purpose. Additionally, The other freedoms that the GPL is trying to preserve come into play: I start with the ability to run "free" program X. Because it is "free" (as in GPLv3) I can modify it (Freedom 1) and still retain FREEDOM 0! If DRM gets in the way of this then by definition some or all of my freedoms have been taken away.

So, does this mean I can tell hardware manufacturers what to do, or for that matter can I tell other software vendors that I have to interact with via my "free" program what to do. Yes and no. I can certainly TELL them anything I want, try to stop me. But they are not obligated to do as I tell them. In the case of hardware vendors I WILL NOT BUY THEIR HARDWARE! Get enough people to follow suit, and you bet I can tell them what to do. Same is true for software.

Now what the GPLv3 is basically saying is that you can write DRM code protected under GPLv3, you can even DRM the code itself. But such measures are academic as you cannot use such encumbrances to take away any freedoms. So, you are still free to write anything you want, modify anything you want, run anything you want. You are NOT free to take such rights away from others.

I stand firmly on my original point: Linus does not get it (there appears to be evidence that he never got it) and he is off the mark by a wide margin on the GPLv3.

Now for those who construe value in the various DRM initiatives, that can see value for those OTHER than the publishers of DRM-encumbered stuff. I truly and sadly pity you. Think of the world 5-10 years hence. How may DRM schemes will be out there? 50? 100? 200? 1000? All of them will eventually be defeated. You and I pay for all of this wasted effort. To what end? Corporations and other businesses make their money off of you and I, dear reader, you would be surprised that you can make a difference by insisting such nonsense (DRM) not be tolerated, it certainly serves YOU no purpose. DRM is a war being waged on consumers, developing such systems COSTS money that gets passed on to you but provides NO benefit you YOU as consumer. Please, I beg you you, dear reader, if you are drawing any other conclusion then you are delusional to the point of needing professional help. Don't accept DRM because big companies like Apple, Microsoft, Intel, etc. say you have to so get used to the idea. Resist this stupid, ill-conceived idea that provides no practical benefit to you, makes using a computer a hassle, takes away control of hardware you own outright, and in the end will cost a fortune to produce and maintain only to be eventually defeated.

Reply Score: 2

The real problem...
by grat on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 15:00 UTC
grat
Member since:
2006-02-02

is fairly apparent from reading the comments.

The fact that GPLv3 can be interpreted so widely, by so many people, means the language on the DRM section needs to be cleared up.

If Linux Torvalds can (apparently) misinterpret what it's intended to say, then there's a serious problem with the wording. My initial reaction to hearing about the v3 draft was that people who'd been scared off by the earlier GPL will *REALLY* be running from this one.

That issue is just as important to the future of F/OSS as any other. GPL is gaining momentum, and this isn't the time to be providing F/OSS's opponents a whole new keg of FUD to tap.

Reply Score: 2

Torvalds is wrong
by msundman on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 15:22 UTC
msundman
Member since:
2005-07-06

> The GPL already requires source code (ie non-protected content).
> So the GPL already _does_ have an anti-DRM clause as far as the
> _software_ is concerned.

Once again Torvalds is clueless.
He thinks that only the source concerns the software. That's BS! The environment in which the software runs also very much concerns the software.

Let's say I make a hardware product. I'm lazy and want to use existing code, so I include some GPLed software in the control program for my product. However, I don't want to let anyone else use the software I combined with the GPLed software, but the GPL still says I have to release my source if I want to use it with the other GPLed source. So I just make the hardware run only software signed by me. That way I can give away my software, and although people would be able to modify my GPLed software it's of no use since they can't run the modified software anywhere (that is, unless they actually reverse engineer my hardware and duplicate it, which could be very unrealistic).

No, I'm all for GPL 3 excluding such use of GPLed software. Either one has to release everything needed to run a modified version of the software, or use another license.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Torvalds is wrong
by Wrawrat on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 16:10 UTC in reply to "Torvalds is wrong"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Good point, but it doesn't make Torvalds wrong. He is just taking a pragmatical approach, trying to use the best from DRM instead of going in a rampage against.

Like I have mentioned in a previous post, the free software movement could be seriously halted if next-gen hardware requires a trusted OS. There are fewer FS developers familiar with the creation of computer hardware. It's not only a matter of knowing VHDL/Verilog. Since the only requirement for booting is likely to be the kernel, you could possibly run your GPLv3 software on a GPLv2 Linux until the works on a free platforms is done...

I believe that was Linus' point. Saying that he is clueless is rather harsh. His vision is not limited to ideologies. And he always looked like an OSS advocate to me (in contrast to a FS/GNU/RMS one)...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Torvalds is wrong
by msundman on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Torvalds is wrong"
msundman Member since:
2005-07-06

> Good point, but it doesn't make Torvalds wrong.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. He is indeed wrong when he says "So the GPL[v2] already _does_ have an anti-DRM clause as far as the _software_ is concerned."
Had he said "source code" instead of "software" then that statement would have been more correct.

> His vision is not limited to ideologies.

Actually I think his vision is limited to the tip of his nose, and that he is _utterly_ clueless when it comes to many things (e.g. security), but let's not get distracted from the issue at hand. :-)

Reply Score: 2

It's About Software Stupid...
by raid517 on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 16:46 UTC
raid517
Member since:
2006-01-22

I think Linus is bang on form in this instance. DRM as a security measure is by no means a bad thing. But when it comes to content protection, that is a moral issue that software developers have no real right or capacity to try to restrict.

Put another way the issue isn't about the latest Disney animation, or about the latest and greatest teeny bop pop video or whatever - that is a matter of consumer choice and you shouldn't try to engineer a scenario that forces consumers to alter that choice. But if you want your content to be free, then yes the only way to do this is to try to educate content providers of the benefits of submitting it to an open source/creative commons type licence.

Content is not software and it is wrongheaded thinking to imagine that it is. Content is literally out of the hands of developers and they realistically have no direct ability to influence this at all. Moreover by telling content providers that their content MUST be drm free you are restricting Linux further by discounting the posibility that DRM enabled content could in some way be used on Linux based systems - because the mear act of trying to do this would break the GPL3 licence. It is shortsighted I think to say 'never!' particularly for large vendors who may be able to find a way to work with this DRM protected content and who may be able to offer the consumer a solution that they can live with. That doesn't mean by definition that everything you do has to be DRM protected - only that the capacity might still be there to work with content that is.

You could still have access to the source code of your Kernel, or your application - but have proprietary applications running DRM protected content on Linux computers. There is no source code to a movie - at least not in the traditional sense that most people understand.

You can only continue as you were, continue to educate and to advocate an alternative approach - but you can't physically force that alternative approach on anyone.

GJ

Edited 2006-02-03 17:03

Reply Score: 1

DRM is a political issue
by foljs on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 17:56 UTC
foljs
Member since:
2006-01-09

DRM is a political problem. It should be tackled as such.

Linus is once more spot on.

Speaking of which, check out the OSNews comments scam:
<a href="http://commentgator.blogspot.com/2006/02/dont-be-so-negative.html"&...

Reply Score: 1

RE: DRM is a political issue
by msundman on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 18:01 UTC in reply to "DRM is a political issue"
msundman Member since:
2005-07-06

> DRM is a political problem. It should be tackled as such.

Please do fight it politically, and in the meantime I suggest you let others fight it in any (legal) way they can.

Reply Score: 1

Anyone here being skeptical?
by Disruptor on Sat 4th Feb 2006 12:19 UTC
Disruptor
Member since:
2005-11-06

I mean it's hollywood-companies, MS, Intel and the music industries behind this `fabulous' thing called DRM. I agree that DRM might have good uses, but honestly now, what are the chances that it will do more good than harm in the hands of the people that will enforce it to us? Linus is depending on the fact that the `right thing' will happen when the thing comes to the use of DRM. But seriously now, who can trust MS or Intel to be a `good kid' before _profit_?? The FOSS community (in _general_ _lines_) works in a `let's work together' fashion for the common good of everyone. We all know that guys behind DRM are unlikely to think likewise, Remember that the greatest crimes in the history of the human kind always happened in the name of the purest ideals (`justice', `fairness', `social peace', `stability', `safety' ...). Shouldn't we finally learn something from this and look past the `vitrine', to the _real_ intentions of some people? Just `connect the dots'. Giving such people the power to do illegal things in legal-looking way sounds to me like a recipe for tears.

Just my 2c

Edited 2006-02-04 12:25

Reply Score: 1

Robocoastie
Member since:
2005-09-15

>>They will only sell you what you want to buy.

You can ask them if *you* can decide what runs and what doesn't, and then choose to buy from them or from another vendor.

You're not getting it. Consumers have ZERO choice anymore because these companies create ISO standards which is why they are all alike. And those "standards" are never anything more than what MSFT demands in return for selling computers with their OS. So NO there won't be a choice, every computer and motherboard and cpu WILL be DRM locked in order to meet MSFT spec you can guarenF--kingT it.

Reply Score: 1