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 92311
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 1