Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Sep 2006 15:36 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
GNU, GPL, Open Source Friday Several kernel developers issued a position paper criticizing the GPLv3 drafts. That prompted Software Freedom Law Center chairman Eben Moglen to issue a 'renewed invitation' yesterday to kernel developers to participate in the GPLv3 process. Linus Torvalds responded to Moglen's statement by saying that his position on the license is clear and that he's "fed up" with the FSF.
Thread beginning with comment 166410
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
GPL v3 and DRM
by dusanyu on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:41 UTC
Member since:

i dont see the problem with the anti-DRM statements in the GPL v3 drafts. (but thean again i have technical isshues with DRM) the fact is Linus is being a big baby and if he keeps it up I am switching to BSD

Reply Score: 5

RE: GPL v3 and DRM
by twenex on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:50 in reply to "GPL v3 and DRM"
twenex Member since:

Linus is being a big baby and if he keeps it up I am switching to BSD

I don't see how he's being "a big baby," but even if I did, I think that's equally childish. Besides which, even if he's being a "big baby" about DRM, you get even LESS protection from it from BSD.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: GPL v3 and DRM
by nalf38 on Thu 28th Sep 2006 21:31 in reply to "GPL v3 and DRM"
nalf38 Member since:

The anti-DRM clauses in GPL3 are more restrictive than people realize. Have you read it? It's vague enough to prohibit just about any kind of open source encryption.

Furthermore, what's so wrong about Tivo preventing you from using your DVR as anything but a DVR? The GPL3 says that even if you modify the Tivo beyond all recognition, Tivo would still have to allow you access to their online TV listing service. Talk about a huge security risk. The GPL3 has some clauses in it that are downright draconian.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: GPL v3 and DRM
by mabhatter on Fri 29th Sep 2006 03:57 in reply to "RE[2]: GPL v3 and DRM"
mabhatter Member since:

exactly the one flaw I see in the second draft. the first draft didn't have that language in it to make companies open their services... only that the functionality had to be reproducable. Personally, I think somebody in the middle double talked their way into inserting the changes and because it's a revision they got put thru. It's not like lawyers to let something like that slip, but it obviously did. In the orginal wording it was much like the "bnet.d" case... where people wanted to create a new service instead of the manufacure's service. I think that's what the goal was, but in an age of all the services being tied to the hardware, it's hard to say. After all, if I modify the software, should I be banned from getting chanel guides, weather reports, etc. as long as I have a vaild account shouldn't I get that anyway? Why do they need to lock me out because I wanted to change a few things?

On the other hand, the entertainment companies are demanding end-to-end encryption and this new license flies in the face of that... in that respect, I think RMS knows exactly what he's doing. FCC regulated communications has always been about Freeedom.. all the talk of "broadcast flags" and DRM flies directly in the face of that. The FCC is a "traffic cop" to keep the airwaves/power lines/etc moving smoothly, not to enforce one groups media rights over anothers. I think RMS is putting a "line in the sand" that either companies need to choose to be open.. or not... stop trying to get the free development of OSS, but tie users up on the other end.

Reply Parent Score: 1