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.
Thread beginning with comment 92308
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Tovalds is CLEARLY off the mark...
by rancor on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 03:50 UTC
Member since:

Freedom 0:

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:

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.


Reply Parent Score: 1

pecisk Member since:

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 Parent Score: 2

halfmanhalfamazing Member since:

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 Parent Score: 4

archiesteel Member since:

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 Parent Score: 1

halfmanhalfamazing Member since:

-----------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 Parent Score: 1