Misunderstanding of embedded system designers
Posted Jan 17, 2006 1:52 UTC (Tue) by karim
In reply to: Misunderstanding of embedded system designers
Parent article: GPLv3: a first look
Well, if we're going to discuss "other ways" of doing DRM, here's a basic
example applied to the kernel (not that the kernel developers have
agreed to use GPL3 for the kernel, but just for the sake of argument):
Prior to booting kernel, let the firmware verify the kernel's signature.
Whether or not the signature is valid, boot the thing. But, if it isn't
valid, lock up or disable or just don't enable those hardware components
that control access to the "stuff" -- and do this in a way that requires
a hard reset for another pass at lock/don't-lock. Then package all the
proprietary/DRM software into individual applications. So everything just
runs as normal up to the time these apps try to access the hardware,
and now because it's disabled, the device is useless.
Using the words of the draft, there are no codes for you to "install and/
or execute" the work. In fact, you're free to install and execute any
kernel you wish. Plus, the kernel's "functioning in all circumstances is
identical". It's just that hardware beneath it just doesn't work any more,
and that, consequently, the proprietary applications running on top can't
do anything because the hardware is disabled.
There you have it, GPL3-compatible DRM -- to the best of my understanding
of course, and mind you I'm not a lawyer.
Again, fighting DRM is a worthy goal, but this is the wrong venue.
to post comments)