Weekly Edition
Return to the Front pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Similar in spirit?
The recent discussions on the proposed version 3 of the GNU General Public
License have been well documented here and elsewhere. This proposal has
clearly exposed some differences of opinion within the development
community, with the anti-DRM provisions being at the core of the debate.
The addition of these provisions has created a fair amount of ill will
against the Free Software Foundation; opposition to them appears to have
created similar feelings in the opposite direction.
In theory, this disagreement should not come about. GPLv2 contains the following language:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such
new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version,
but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
If the FSF is adhering to its part of this bargain, then anybody who bought into the "spirit" of GPLv2 should not have trouble with this revision. So, clearly, those who oppose the GPLv3 draft - many of whom have released vast amounts of code under GPLv2 - believe that the revisions are not "similar in spirit." Some have gone as far as to accuse the FSF of using its power over the GPL to push its founder's radical agenda onto the code of large numbers of unwilling developers. That accusation is probably over the top. The FSF is, with GPLv3, attempting to respond to a number of problems as it sees them. Software patents are a clear problem, and the GPLv3 draft tries to mitigate that problem somewhat. International applicability of the license has not yet proved to be a problem in practice, but it is clearly something that reasonable lawyers can worry about. It seems worth fixing the language before some court somewhere on the planet decides that the GPLv2 incantations only work in the US. And so on. The FSF also, clearly, sees locked-down systems as a problem. It is interesting that this has not always been the case; back in 2000, LWN took issue with an interview with Richard Stallman, where he said:
I'm less concerned with what happens with embedded systems than I
am with real computers. The real reason for this is the moral
issues about software freedom are much more significant for
computers that users see as a computer. And so I'm not really
concerned with what's running inside my microwave oven.
(This interview has disappeared off the original site, but the Wayback Machine has it). Most TiVo owners probably see their gadget as being more like a microwave oven than a computer. It is not that TiVo has come along since then (the 2000 LWN article mentions it); what has changed is the FSF's - or, at least, Richard Stallman's - position on it. There are few people who disagree with the idea that locked-down systems can be a problem. Beyond the fact that such devices will always deny users the full potential of the hardware, they can spy on us, deny fair use rights under copyright law, lock us out of our own data, prevent us from fixing serious problems, and so on. Locked-down systems are designed to implement the goals of somebody other than the ultimate owner of the device. Such systems are undesirable at best, and outright evil at their worst. The disagreement is over how this problem should be addressed. The two sides, insofar as there are two clear sides, would appear to be these:
This logjam looks hard to break. Your editor, in his infinite humility, would like to offer a couple of suggestions, however:
Finally, while your editor is standing on this nice soapbox... The anti-DRM language was very appealing when it first came out. Your editor does not much appreciate the idea of some vendor locking up his software and selling it back to him in a non-modifiable and potentially hostile form. It is a violation of the social contract (if not the legal license) under which the software was contributed. But the attempt to address this problem in GPLv3 carries a high risk of splitting the development community while doing very little to solve the real problem. Dropping that language could help to bring the community back together behind the new license, leaving us united to fight DRM (and numerous other attacks on our freedom) in more effective ways. The FSF may want to consider whether, in the long run, its goals would be better served by a license which lacks this language. Such a license might be closer to the spirit which brought this community together in the first place. (Log in to post comments)
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 0:55 UTC (Thu) by Sombrio (guest, #26942) [Link] > There are few people who disagree with the idea that locked-down systems can be a problem.
Could you please post the survey data that you used to come to this conclusion. I would like to know what questions were asked of the survey participants, and how you selected the survey participants, and what the margin of error is on your survey.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 1:32 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Oh come on. Could you please post an example of somebody who believes there are not abusive uses of that technology? That is not where the disagreement lies.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 2:19 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] No shit.
For DRM you have to realise that ALMOST EVERY major hardware maker is pro-DRM. They see it as a way to attract content providers to the computer so that they can finally say that they have truly 'multimedia' PC.
They want to make the PC the hub of the electronics in people's living rooms.. As the television, stereo system, games, dvr, etc etc. The whole nine yards.
Sure today the 'Tivo' is used as a example. But now EVERY computer you buy is going to have trusted computer stuff on it. Now this have a viable security use, but in reality it's #1 purpose is DRM.
The is the main reason why we now have extensions like VT and Pacifica to help with VM! Back when Microsoft was touting 'Paladium' the idea was that with Paladium you would have a sort of mini-system seperate from your host operating system. The VM would provide the division to protect the data stream from being tapped software-wise, and the trusted computing modules ensured that you were unable to tamper with the VM or the software in it.
Now this stuff is in every PC your going to buy. It's a good thing for Linux (better VM, better security), but it's bad because of what it was and is going to be used for.
Now the DRM provisions in GPLv3 is bothersome for embedded developers who want to make their devices 'user proof' to cater to major copyright controllers of media. (they can easily work around any free software restrictions by doing a palladium-vm of their own anyways for media playback.. which I expect a number of people are already looking into)
HOWEVER the DRM issue is a problem for _all_of_us_. Not just users of embedded devices. Because the same restrictions (or better then) restrictions that are present in a TiVO is present in all PCs, in all servers.
So don't think a second this is just about embedded devices or some anti-tivo rampage.
The difference between 'GOOD' trusted computing (the kind that you can use to fight off rootkits) vs 'BAD' trusted computing (the kind that allows people like Sony to install rootkits which are illegal for you to remove) is weither or not you hold the keys to your own computer.
If you hold the keys, then all this stuff is great. The DRM provisions are attempting to protect your right to have control over your own hardware.
Weither it is in your DVR, your 'open source' router, your PC, your server, or whatever else.
I don't think that you're correct Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:04 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Actually, many hardware makers strongly oppose giving Hollywood a veto over their designs. They are willing to make devices with DRM in them where it's profitable, but they oppose giving the "content industry" the power to dictate DRM everywhere.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 16:05 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I can't speak to whether "most manufacturers" are pro-DRM. I'm not sure even what that would mean.
Manufacturers DO want to be able to play the content that their customers want access to and they DO want to be able to build devices that talk to services that their customers want to use, both of which often require some kind of DRM, so you could say that manufacturers support having hte ability to DRM when producing such devices.
In more general terms, manufacturers aren't crazy about DRM. It raises the cost of their hardware, increases the complexity of their designs (and, therefore, the development and maintenance cost of their products), and creates downstream user problems. You say "Customers have to replace their products for newer versions of the DRM" the manufacturer says "I have to redesign my product more often." Manufacturers love it when they can use the same design over and over, for years and years; it builds margins.
On the other hand, manufacturers generally would like to be able to keep consumers fingers out of the insides of their products, because it adds support costs and potential civil liabilities. Even if you say "Modifying this device voids your warranty.", in practice, people STILL expect to get support in that case. Also, when a modified device breaks and causes damage, either to the user or to a network or a content provider, the manufacturer STILL can get sued, both for direct liability and for negligence in not preventing the user from making the change. It also offers opportunities for bad PR - when cell phone batteries explode it is virtually always non-manufacturer batteries that are involved, bu the press usually just uses the manufacturer's name in the story.
And, remember, the number of people who want to change their software is a tiny fraction of the total device market. So, the manufacturer has to spend money and accept risks to support a community that has no real impact on the market for the device. Those costs end up factored into the price of the devices, so people who have no interest in the freedom to modify the device end up paying something to support the wishes of the small group that do want that freedom.
It's just not a simple equation...
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 2:48 UTC (Thu) by Sombrio (guest, #26942) [Link] I fully believe that DRM is NOT an abusive use of any technology or of the general public. Everyone I know does not believe in the DRM consipiracy theories either, so I am not alone. DRM is a problem manufactured by the FSF, and I for one, would like to know what percentage of people in the real world would consider DRM a problem. There is nothing wrong with DRM. A manufacturer has every right to incorporate any kind of technology into his device and offer it for sale, as long as it does not break any laws. If the public doesn't like what he has to offer, then don't buy it. But, do not characterize legitimate, law abiding, job providing, and upstanding members of our society as evil abusers of rights that you do not have.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 2:58 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Nobody said it should be illegal or evil for hardware manufacturers to support it.
Do you know what the anti-DRM stuff in the license is even designed to do?
It's not designed to stop DRM or stop free software used for DRM. What it does is prevent people from using DRM to effectively make the software you use unmodifiable.
It does that for the same exact reason why the GPLv2 forbids people from taking the code and using it in closed source software.
It's designed to keep software free. Right now DRM is used to make GPL'd software unmodifiable by it's end users. Tivo is the most famous example of this, but there are others.
It doesn't stop people from using encryption. It doesn't make it illegal to playback WMV10 on your computer or anything like that. It doesn't stop people from using trusted computing to make their systems more secure. It doesn't even stop people from using GPL'd software to create, distribute, or playback DRM'd media.
It only stops people from using DRM to make GPL'd software unmodifiable. That's ALL it does. That's it.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 3:21 UTC (Thu) by Sombrio (guest, #26942) [Link] Can you also explain this to me then.
"The Free Software Foundation has declared October 3, 2006 a "Day Against DRM" with demonstrations in New York and London. Also today, the Free Software Foundation Europe launched DRM.info. "DRM.info is based on the idea that people should be informed and involved in decisions that will affect them on a very personal level. "DRM technologies are based on the principle that a third party has more influence over your devices than you, and that their interests will override yours when they come in conflict. That is even true where your interest is perfectly legitimate and legal, and possibly also for your own data," explains Georg Greve, FSFE's president."
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 3:59 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888) [Link] What part of "DRM.info is based on the idea that people should be informed and involved in decisions that will affect them on a very personal level." do you have a problem with?Perhaps you agree with Peter Lee, an executive at Disney, who said in The Economist: “If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed,”? Shame.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:19 UTC (Thu) by Per_Bothner (subscriber, #7375) [Link] Perhaps you agree with Peter Lee, an executive at Disney, who said in The Economist: “If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed,”?I think you're misreading the statement, which is just saying that unless DRM is near-invisible to the typical consumer, or if the "consumer experience" is made unpleasent because of DRM, then DRM will have failed. It's making the technical point that DRM will fail if it is something the consumer needs to be aware of. And that is the big problem DRM faces: consumers are happy with CD-quality sound and DVD-quality video, and they're not going to trade restrictions in what they feel they can legitimately do for relatively minor quality improvements. And that is the fundamental problem the "DRM industry" faces.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 13:22 UTC (Thu) by jneves (subscriber, #2859) [Link] When we're building a world where consumers also become producers, then DRM is a problem. DRM is just a way to defend the current status quo and it will disappear in the end, because it's not acceptable for people who want to do more that consume. Until then it'll be a PITA, but in the long run, a disappearing PITA.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:34 UTC (Thu) by Sombrio (guest, #26942) [Link] > What part of "DRM.info is based on the idea that people should be informed > and involved in decisions that will affect them on a very personal level." > do you have a problem with?
I have no problem with this statement. Do you think that selecting benign statements out of my post and trying to embarass me with them is a debate in good faith.
> Perhaps you agree with Peter Lee, an executive at Disney, who said in The
Ooooh, big bad Disney. I have the utmost respect for Disney, there are few corporations in America that express the true heart and soul of the American people as well as Disney does. My kids grew up on Disney, and they are better people for it. How many companies can claim that? I am sure this statement is taken out of context to promote an agenda.
The part I have a problem with is
This is FUD, that has no basis in fact, nor does it have a basis in law.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 5:48 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] ""The part I have a problem with is"DRM technologies are based on the principle that a third party has more influence over your devices than you, and that their interests will override yours when they come in conflict. That is even true where your interest is perfectly legitimate and legal, and possibly also for your own data".
This is FUD, that has no basis in fact, nor does it have a basis in law.""
What exactly do you think DRM does? Have you taken a look at the DMCA ever?
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
All 100% fact.
What this effectively makes it completely illegal to attempt to, or tell people about, or distribute programs or software, that circumvent any sort of digital copyright protection scemes IRREGARDLESS of the user's intention.
So what DRM does is provide a way to control what software you are and are not allowed to run on your computer by wrapping it in the notion that these restrictions are intended to protect copyrighted material.
For instance you have 'FairPlay' versions Windows Media Video 10. These are DRM encrusted media files we are told are intended to protect the copyrights of various artists who produce music.
Now effectively due to the DMCA it is ILLEGAL to play these files on Linux. Because in order to do that you have to break the DRM encryption to do so and if your a 'pirate' you could use the same software that plays back music to copy music. Thusly enabling support of FairPlay in Linux with open source software is a U.S. Federal crime.
Now this DOES NOTHING TO STOP PIRACY. People have found easy ways to work around DRM restrictions and provide content on the internet. Once one copy is out there then anybody can find it and download it. Effectively DRM delays music being 'stolen' by a matter of minutes.
What it does accomplish though is it allows Microsoft to try to convince folks like the RIAA to sell music under their Fairplay DRM. Once people purchase the music then Microsoft, protected by the U.S. Federal Government, can now dictate to these people what software and operating systems they are allowed to use to to play back the music they purchased and what sort of other audio devices they are allowed to use.
Apple does a similar thing with their DRM'd Itunes service. They restrict people from licensing their DRM technology for MP3 players and such and they don't let other people create software to play it. If somebody from another country with no DMCA-like restrictions creates a compatable player or software then Apple will change the format of the DRM to effectively break their software or hardware. It does not have anything to do with protecting from piracy because Apple themselves allow end users to burn cdrom copies of music with no loss of fidality. The time it takes for a new song on Itunes to appear on the internet in a P2p site is measured in _minutes_.
So this does NOTHING to stop piracy. However because Apple says its a digital encryption intended to protect copyright then they now are protected by government law and can now control what software, what operating systems, what media devices, you are allowed to listen to music you purchase from them.
Basicly they are using DRM to make return customers of Ipods.
Same thing with the HDCP from Intel and friends.
HDCP is 'high definition copyright protection'. It is a encryption sceme for hardware they claim intended to 'protect' High definition content from being copied. HDCP, however, seemed to be a rather weak encryption method and was cracked years ago.
So it accomplishes absolutely nothing in preventing real piracy. Remember once you get one or two copies of unencrypted data on the internet it's easily aviable to millions and millions of users. For people with high speed internet it's easier and quicker to steal ex-drm'd content off the internet then it is to go down to the store and buy a new dvd.
However what it effectively does is this. That when you go out and in the near future by a High-Def or Blueray DVD it will probably have HDCP protections.
In order to legally play it back you will be required to purchase a special DVD player (no suprises), purchase a motherboard with a 'encrypted media path', purchase Vista 64bit (32bit won't work), purchase a new video card that support the protected media path, and purchase a new video monitor that supports HDCP.
Even though in other countries you can buy devices to circumvent this and allow older hardwar to work, in the United States it is illegal to produce or distribute or buy or use those devices because they could possibly be used to circumvent the 'protections' and allow 'piracy'.
OR if you want to use a HD dvd, if you got one now it probably won't work with HDCP protected content. You'll have to buy a new one.
It won't work with any HD television you may own right now either.. You'll have to by a new one.
It's a huge freaking scam. Over and over and over again any time you see 'DRM' it turns out to be almost exactly like the above.
HOWEVER NOTHING IN THE GPLv3 does anything about that. Nothing at all.
As far as Dinsey and 'Americanism' goes.. Disney sucks. I am proud to be American and am pretty freaking conservative.
It's just a snow job that they are for family values and such nowadays. That was over in the 60's. The Disney corporation owns many many major music recording, television, and movie studios. A lot of it produces the most vile anti-american, anti-family, BS you ever heard. And they'll happily do it as long as it sells and it doesn't get associated with the Disney name. It's not that they are anti-anything, they are just very pro-money. They do what sells. Now I am pro-money, pro-profit, pro-capitolism and all that, but I like to think that I am somewhat moral about it how I go about it.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 6:08 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Na. Nevermind about Disney. Now I think about it they aren't so bad, not as bad as other things at least.
I'd give them about a C- :P
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 9:25 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] What an excellent description of the problems with DRM that affect Joe Public that is.
Do you have any objections if I send it to a few doubting friends of mine before the subscriber-only period expires?
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 11:17 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Ya sure. Just keep in mind that it's just my opinion and accuracy is not garrenteed.
It's no wikipedia article :-p
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 11:19 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] "Do you have any objections if I send it to a few doubting friends of mine before the subscriber-only period expires?"
Ya sure, go ahead.
Just keep in mind that it's only my own personal opinion and accuracy is not garrenteed.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:46 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] The FSF have a hatred on DRM.
But it's not getting into the GPLv3 as you may think. Look at it for yourself.
In the GPLv3 the DRM provisions are there to preserve the right of the end user to modify and run GPL'd software. Nothing more nothing less.
"" Can you also explain this to me then.
"The Free Software Foundation has declared October 3, 2006 a "Day Against DRM" with demonstrations in New York and London. Also today, the Free Software Foundation Europe launched DRM.info. "DRM.info is based on the idea that people should be informed and involved in decisions that will affect them on a very personal level. "DRM technologies are based on the principle that a third party has more influence over your devices than you, and that their interests will override yours when they come in conflict. That is even true where your interest is perfectly legitimate and legal, and possibly also for your own data," explains Georg Greve, FSFE's president." ""
Did you pull that out of the GPLv3 license? I think not.
Again. The FSF has a anti-DRM agenda. So do most sane people once they realise that DRM is designed to control end users not designed to control piracy. (Look at DRM implimentations and how they apply in the real world. It's obvious that it has less to do with piracy and everything to do with market control and manipulation)
HOWEVER the dispute is over the GPLv3 license, not FSF's stance on DRM in general.
The GPLv3 license is a ATTEMPT to ensure that you as a end user and you as a developer will always be able to freely modify and run modified GPL'd software.
It has no language against using GPL'd software to play, create, or distribute DRM'd content. If somebody figures out a clever way (Sun is working on it) to have a open source application that play/distribute DRM'd content with strong protections legally, while still being modifiable, then there is no reason why a person can't license it GPLv3.
From the FSF point of view the lack of DRM language in the GPLv2 is effectively a loophole that provides a way for people to effectively make GPL'd software behave as if it was closed source. If you can't modify the software and still run it.. is it realy Free/Open source software?
To them, No it's not Free software anymore and thus is a violation of 'the spirit of the GPL'.
That is entire the point of it of the GPLv3 DRM language.
Weither or not it's needed I haven't decided yet... Also it may have unintended consequences.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 8:06 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] What the FSF feels about DRMs in general, and what the GPLv3 actually forbids are two different things. The GPLv3 scope is necessarily limited to the areas where DRM and GPLed software interact.
Moreover the "Day Against DRM" is about fighting the attempts to make DRM mandatory and protected every possible way by the law. Even if it is hugely successful it won't outlaw DRMs (Tivos for example existed well before the drastic Hollywood DRM laws started being written.
Your argument don't stand
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 3:49 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888) [Link] I hesitate to feed the obvious troll, but...
> A manufacturer has every right to incorporate any kind of technology into his device and offer it for sale, as long as it does not break any laws.
Certainly. And software developers have every right to refuse to allow their software to be used in such devices.
>[DRM users] as evil abusers of rights that you do not have
I have a right to purchase a copy of a work, hold on to it for 95 years (or whatever the current limit is), and then make free use of that work in any way I choose. DRM curtails that right.
I have a right to copy limited portions of a work still in copyright for use in a review or research. DRM curtails that right.
I have a right to privacy. Spyware embedded in a device sold for an entirely different purpose, which does not permit me to remove the spyware without damaging the device, curtails that right.
I have a right to the peaceable enjoyment of a system which I own. Certain DRM measures, such as the Sony rootkit, can and have curtailed that right.
These are all rights encoded in existing law, which (bad) DRM threatens.
Can you honestly defend Sony's rootkit malware as "NOT an abusive use of" technology or the general public? Didn't think so.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 5:03 UTC (Thu) by Sombrio (guest, #26942) [Link] > I hesitate to feed the obvious troll, but...
Ok, this is just making me angry, and I have to disengage. I apologize for offending all of you to the point where I am now called names. I deny this charge, I am not a troll. I don't work for one of the companies all of you consider to be evil. I am not paid to annoy you. I simply disagree with you.
I certainly wish you all the best with your fight against DRM. Freedom is a great thing and you deserve the freedom to fight against your perceived evils.
I guess I need to go back to the fold of proprietary software developers. I do miss their professionalism and I think that I have just grown to the age where I can no longer relate to the ideals of the Free Software movement. You all just seem so radical to me now. I sure never thought I would join the establishment, but, they do have a whole lot more money, and I hear they are looking for evil coders. Now, where is that old Windows/CE manual.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 7:32 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] The initial statement was that locked-down systems can be a problem. Your hijack of this thread can be fairly described as trolling, by pulling it into a discussion of a particular type of locked-down system which is a hot-button toopic at the moment, and a particular set of issues and attitudes surrounding that type of locked-down system.
The debate about the issues surrounding DRM systems does have to occur in the open/free communities, but your narrow presentation and slicing don't help. You may not be a troll by intention, but you have achieved trolling by result.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 9:27 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I'm impressed by the reasoning at the end: don't respond to the arguments, just complain about unfairness and say you're going to pick up your toys and go home.
If that's 'professionalism', I'll take the free software community. I prefer amateurs anyway: they have more enthusiasm (and more competence).
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:47 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I think the corollary to Godwin's Law should be extended to include the use of the terms "FUD" and "troll", which never advance the discussion and are basically just uncivil...
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 22:46 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] So, what do you say to someone which is spreading FUD or is an obvious troll? Like this:Everyone I know does not believe in the DRM consipiracy theories either, so I am not alone.Ad populum. Or this: DRM is a problem manufactured by the FSFKill the messenger. Again in this: I for one, would like to know what percentage of people in the real world would consider DRM a problem.Ad populum again. Or even worse, this: There is nothing wrong with DRM.Blanket statement. And this? A manufacturer has every right to incorporate any kind of technology into his device and offer it for sale, as long as it does not break any laws.Excusation non petita, accusatio manifesta. Finally this: But, do not characterize legitimate, law abiding, job providing, and upstanding members of our society as evil abusers of rights that you do not have.Appeal to emotion. I'd say the message is a troll, even if the person is a cartesian thinker.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 6, 2006 1:56 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] If you think someone has raised an irrlevant argument, ignore it. Or explain why it's worthless. Or just say it's a worthless argument.
I just see way too many posts in way too many threads where "FUD" and "troll" are used to mean "You disagree with me." The particular example where it was applied to Sombrio felt to me like such an example.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 6, 2006 8:39 UTC (Fri) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] Agreed. The dissection in the grandparent post, now *that* carries weight.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:36 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] If unfree is the mark of a true professional, I'll gladly call myself amere amateur for the rest of my life!
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 13, 2006 8:06 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] In Germany, being "professional" has two meanings, which are actually the same - doing it for money. The second meaning therefore is "prostitute", they are doing "it" for money, not for love. And then, "amateur" is the right opposite, since that's a french word meaning "lover". Most prostitutes are actually enslaved in some way or another (and it seems to be that this is true for other professionals, as well, who are wage sclaves ;-).
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:35 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] A number of these complaints fail to distinguish between the copy you bought and your rights under copyright.
I have a right to purchase a copy of a work, hold on to it
No, it doesn't. At that point you are free to circumvent the DRM, because the work is no longer under copyright. Copyright does not require them to provide you with a copy when the copyright expires, it just bars you from making your own copy in the meantime.
"I have a right to copy limited portions of a work still in
Yes, you have a right to copy limited portions of a work. However, the copyright owner is NOT required to provide you with those portions. If you make a copy (say by videotaping a TV playback) to use in a review or research, that is not infringing. But there is nothing in the law that requires that you be able to copy such excerpts from a piece of licensed media that you own.
"I have a right to privacy. Spyware embedded in a device sold
Now that's a good argument. That's one to take to your representative and ask for legislation that specifically protects consumers against such reporting. It has, however, nothing specifically to do with DRM.
I think DRM makes content less desirable. People should object to it and push back on the content owners to not use it, just as consumers once successfully marginalized copy protection on software. I wouldn't mind seeing a mandatory licensing law that barred DRM and required payment of a small royalty on blank media, as consumers and device manufacturers also once successfully demanded. I would also love to see the DMCA repealed.
I just don't think the anti-DRM language in GPLv3 draft 2 will accomplish anything other than causing some amount of fracturing within the community.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 16:40 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] "Yes, you have a right to copy limited portions of a work. However, the copyright owner is NOT required to provide you with those portions."
That's not the problem. No one says the copyrightholder has to provide the specific portions. The problem is that the reviewer is not legally allowed to copy those portions. To break the DRM to copy them is illegal.
This DRM restriction is like saying it is legal to print anything you want but it is illegal to own a printing press or any other means of printing.
It may be legal to have a copy of something, but you have to break the DRM, and thus the DMCA law, in order to get that copy. That's what is wrong with DRM.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 19:38 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] My point is that fair use does not in any way imply that the author must allow you to make direct, perfect copies from a particular copy that you own. You do not have and never had such a right. That would be akin to saying "all copyrighted text must be printed in black on a white background, so that copying machines can make clean copies for fair use purposes."
All fair use says is "if I use a copy of a brief segment of the work in a review, the owner may not sue me". You have basically the same recourse for electronic video that you would have for photographic video - capturing the video as it is played back.
Fair use does not give you any special rights with respect to your physical copy of the work, it only gives you protection from claims of infringement with respect to the underlying work. Your right would be exactly the same if you did not own a copy of the work or if the work was not available for private purchase (say, a movie).
Fair use does not in any way require that there be a way for you to make a copy; it is just a defense to copyright infringement. If you think that it should (which sounds good to me), lobby for legislation to support that.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 23:00 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I think I understood your point the first time, but the issue under discussion is completely different.Before, you had the right to copy certain things, and you could buy or build devices which did the copying. Today those copying devices are unlawful. Your intent doesn't matter; circumventing technical measures that protect copyrighted works is illegal, even if you do it to copy your own holiday pictures. Since DRM is based on those technical measures, you are screwed no matter what it protects. You don't have any recourse.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 6, 2006 2:08 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I completely agree that it should not be illegal to circumvent technological protection measures. I would be ecstatic to see the DCMA repealed.
Your point about your holiday pictures is wrong. It is not illegal to circumvent if you have the copyright holder's permission. Presumably, for your holiday pictures, you are the copyright holder. [In fairness, I had the same belief until I looked at the law again today.]
DRM didn't take away any rights you had [though the DMCA did]. The copyright holder always had the right to make it difficult or impossible to make copies.
DRM does take away rights Posted Oct 6, 2006 4:45 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] If content is locked up under DRM by an encryption key, and that key disappears, the content is lost forever.
Even if the key is not lost, if it is not available for someone who merely wants to exercise fair use rights, it effectively bans fair use. This destroys the balance of granting copyright for a limited time in exchange for fair use.
The average person should not have to jump thru hoops to exercise fair use rights. DRM requires that, even if the DMCA were to be repealed.
DRM does take away rights Posted Oct 6, 2006 13:27 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Sorry, I stand by what I said. "Fair use" is a defense to infringement, it is not a requirement that the copyright holder enable you to get or make copies.
If you think it should be (I wouldn't necessarily disagree), then you need to get the Act modified.
DRM does take away rights Posted Oct 12, 2006 16:54 UTC (Thu) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569) [Link] Saying the Fair Use is only some kind of excuse to allow infringement is showing a lack of respect for the intelligence of the people that actually penned down the act.
You have to remember that in those days the right you had as an auther either did not exist or followed the english model (IIRC) where the protection was absolute and for eternity.
It was recognized that neither was really any good because if you have no protection what incentive do you have in doing any original work? Somebody can just copy it 5 minutes after you put it on sale. But the other way around didn't work either because it stifled cultural and scientific progress.
So that's when they thought that a time-limited protection would be a good idea, I think it was only something like 7 years in the beginning? The idea being that in those years you could make enough money of your work but also recognizing that the term shouldn't be too long because again, what would be the incentive to make new work if you could live the rest of your live of a couple of good works? (In those days there was still a strong feeling that you actually had to work for a living)
But 7 years can still be a long time if you talk about scientific discoveries or about new important cultural developments. So in their wisdom they included, exactly, "Fair Use". With Fair Use you couldn't copy wholesale for publication or claim a work for your own but you could copy parts of it _for_publication_. You see, I'm not even talking about the possibility that you were able to extract part of the work, but you were even allowed to use it in your own works! That was considered to be a _very_ important part of the Copyright Act and can not be seen seperate from it or as being "tacked on" somehow.
In the end the Copyright Act was never about the authors, but about society: how to keep authors producing while preventing them from having a monopoly on their works and thereby depriving the society as a whole from learing and profiting from it.
But DRM is threatening to change all that. If you say that the Copyright Act says nothing about copyright holders being obliged to allow Fair Use you are exactly right, but you also have to remember that until now it was never _impossible_ to use your Fair Use rights given to you by the Copyright Act. And these protections are ever lasting as well, who is to say that in 90 years we're actually able to "crack" the DRM? Would we even be allowed to? Who knows existing work will still use the same DRM so it might still be illegal to crack the DRM because it would make existing work vulerable as well.
So yes, the best thing to do if you want to keep the spirit of the Copyright Act is to change it to include some limitations on what copyright holders can do in their crusade to prevent piracy. But with the kind of power the media companies have nowadays it's going to be a tough battle.
DRM does take away rights Posted Oct 13, 2006 6:54 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] With respect, I think you just said, at rather greater length, the same thing I had said - if you think there should be an additional right to access to make fair-use copies, then you need to work to change the Act.
Circumvention Posted Oct 6, 2006 6:50 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] It is not illegal to circumvent if you have the copyright holder's permission.IANAL, but paragraph 1201 says that No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.Then there are exceptions for certain classes of copyrighted works (as published by the Librarian of Congress) and uninfringing uses. I'd say it is illegal. Then it says that No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that [...] is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.This means that you cannot even get the circumvention from someone else; this time the Librarian has nothing to say. DRM didn't take away any rights you had [though the DMCA did].DRM is bad enough without DMCA, its evilness only tempered by the fact that it is probably doomed to fail. Combined with the DMCA, it is positively evil. Right now the DMCA is in effect (and we have a similar law in Europe); when it is repealed this argument may not be valid, but until then it looks like it is illegal to circumvent even for your own holiday pictures.
Circumvention Posted Oct 6, 2006 13:25 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Yes, but you're missing the definition of "circumvention" in (a) (1) (3): "to descamble, to decrypt ... without the authority of the copyright owner". So, if you have the copyright owner's permission, it isn't circumvention [so, I misworded my statement, too].
Circumvention Posted Oct 6, 2006 13:34 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] For circumvention to be illegal, it is enough that there is one work under valid copyright, not necessarily the one you want to access. Suppose you try to crack Microsoft's DRM scheme to gain access to: some outdated tunes from the 20's, a few excerpts for an academic study, or your own music. Since the "effective technological measure" also "controls access to a work protected under this title", you cannot circumvent it or even get a means to circumvent it from a third party.
Circumvention Posted Oct 6, 2006 17:10 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Yes, if you had your own content protected by the same DRM as other content, then it would be illegal to circumvent that protection. It's not necessarily a bizarre scenario, either, but one I would recommend avoiding.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 18:40 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888) [Link] >> "I have a right to privacy. Spyware embedded in a device sold>> for an entirely different purpose, which does not permit me >> to remove the spyware without damaging the device, curtails >> that right."
> Now that's a good argument. That's one to take to your representative and ask for legislation that specifically protects consumers against such reporting. It has, however, nothing specifically to do with DRM.
In the TiVo case, it does. Tivo's argument for locking down the box is that the content industries are demanding it, so that one can't use the Tivo for anything but time shifting (explicitly allowed under the Betamax decision). Hence, a DRM measure. That lockdown also conveniently prevents users from disabling the piece that records your recording/viewing habits and occasionally phones home with them.
In other words, the manufacturer is using DRM as a convenient excuse for preventing the disabling of spyware.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 19:51 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] This whole discussion has thoroughly muddied the distinction between DRM (content protection) and Trusted Computing (control over what software runs on the device). My statement maintained that distinction. DRM has nothing to do with spyware or with whether you can replace your software. The technologies used for DRM and TC are sometimes related, but it makes no sense to conflate them. They are both technologies that restrict users' freedom in return for certain benefits.
DRM sometimes (but not always) relies on some kind of TC mechanism to make sure that the software accessing the content is trusted. In other cases the DRM and content acces are bundled in a separate module so that the controlling software is unable to access the decoded content, in which case no TC is needed.
It's reasonable to expect that as hardware with built-in TC is commoditized, use of TC to simplify DRM implementations will become more common.
Note, however, that situations such as you describe (where "spyware" is in the trusted software) are typically service situations, where your contractual relationship with a service provider probably dictates that that software be used, anyway. [Not that there aren't exceptions.]
Most Tivo devotees say that the device's ability to track and predict their use is the primary reason for preferring a Tivo to a generic DVR. What you consider "spyware" is a critical product feature to them. Don't like it? Buy a different device.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 11:16 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] > I for one, would like to know what percentage of people in the real world would consider DRM a problem.
The majority of iPod owners, for a start, judging by their avoidance of it.
However, as far as I can see the FSF isn't banning the use of DRM; they're simply requiring that GPL'd software can be run once it's compiled, which could be done by providing a signing key for each machine that only works on that machine, or a GPL'd signing program that could do the equivalent - as far as I know, the GPL is silent on the *right* to distribute universally-runnable binaries, merely setting out the obligations of those who do. So try as I might, I simply cannot see how the FSF is doing anything other than making explicit what was previously implicit, in the face of a situation where it would not otherwise be possible.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 18:33 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] "DRM is a problem manufactured by the FSF"
I find it hard to take you seriously. If you are trolling, I'm sorry I'm contibuting.
There are many examples of DRM abuses. Look a ebooks, defunct music downloads which no longer work because the company went out of business, etc.
If people had no problem with DRM, why do DRM devices always go away when there is a non-DRM version with the same features? Sony had to give in. Their portable music players wouldn't play non-DRM music so nobody bought them.
The GPL is not law, it is a license. If people don't want to abide by its rules they don't have to. But then they can't use the software. You can't incorportate other people's code into a product just because you are "job providing" or "upstanding". You have to have their permission.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 20:35 UTC (Thu) by mrfredsmoothie (subscriber, #3100) [Link] They take the operating system which includes my work, and sell it back to me , unchanged by them except wrapped in DRM inside their wireless router, and I want to alter the kernel or the configuration of said to block my teenage child's access to porn sites. I can't. Now, it may not be "illegitmate" or illegal, but it violates the spirit of the license of my work which they're using, without compensating me in the only way I cared about: ability to run modified code. You may not consider that to be a problem; I certainly do and I suspect many others do too.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 7, 2006 4:51 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > I fully believe that DRM is NOT an abusive use of any technology or of the general public.
I'm really not big on conspiracy theories, but you'll have to admit that by shifting the trust from the user to the software or device, the "who can do what" shifted with it as well. Sure, there are good uses of DRM, as people pointed out - like in medical and safety equipment etc. But claiming that technology cannot be abused in factually untrue.
> DRM is a problem manufactured by the FSF
A think a more accurate statement would be that FSF pointed out to some potential problems with the use of DRM technologies.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 7, 2006 16:34 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Thanks, Jonathan, for hitting the nail on the head. The major question facing us is not whether the DRM provisions or right or wrong. The question is whether the DRM provisions are worth the division of the community that will almost certainly result.
Unfortunately, this is Richard's license, and in my humble opinion, the "Year of Debate" is a dog and pony show.
But the fact that the situation is tense enough to elicit an outburst from you (I've been reading LWN for years, and your comment above *IS* an outburst... for you. That's a compliment, BTW.) speaks volumes to me.
This new license version is poison to the community. We can't afford it.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 2:02 UTC (Thu) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] While personally I am undecided on the GPLv3 provisions, I find the brouhaha about "similar in spirit" a little curious. A thought experiment for those who it bothers: suppose 5-10 years ago, before DRM was actually on the horizon etc., I had asked you, "What if it was possible to have a computer whose software could only be modified with the permission of the original manufacturer -- do you think RMS and the FSF would consider such a computer to be antithetical to everything they stand for?" If someone had asked me this, I would have said "yes"; the FSF's philosophy seems to make that quite clear. Recall also that while in these discussions we just say "or later version" as a shorthand, the full language we write in our licenses explicitly adds "as published by the Free Software Foundation".
If you agree that the FSF's philosophy is consistent from then to now, and that those of us who used the "or later version" language were explicitly placing our trust in the FSF -- then how can you be surprised when they interpret clause 9 in the same way now as they would have back then? If someone makes you a promise, and also publishes hundreds of pages of positions papers explaining what they meant by it, you can't be surprised when they hold to their version of the promise, rather than what you wished they meant but never said (or explicitly repudiated).
To reiterate, I'm not saying that objections to the current v3 draft are unjustified; just that dragging in clause 9 seems disingenuous.
I also find all the people preemptively removing the "or later version" language from their software strange. Like Ingo points out, this puts a really astonishing amount of power into the FSF's hands, and that's a scary thing. But the scary possibility, the thing that takes an extraordinary leap of faith, is trusting that the FSF will not add _more_ permissions -- in particular, removing things like the "tit-for-tat" that are so fundamental to protecting us. RMS is the only person who could do that. I can't blame people like Linus for deciding to play it safe in this respect.
But, it turns out that all the objections I've heard to the v3 drafts have to do with adding more _restrictions_. For me, there's a fundamental distinction here -- if I found out that my software, that I thought was free, could suddenly be incorporated into proprietary software, that would piss me off. If, OTOH, I found out that someone could suddenly add some patches to my code and the result could only be used on certain machines, then, well... that's annoying, and counter to the GPLv2, but... I would survive just fine. I only object to people forking my code to live in their own little more-restrictive universe if their doing this somehow impacts my own development.
Which is a worry. People (e.g. Ingo) have pointed out that code can go "v2 or later" -> "v3", but not vice-versa, and this gives v3-only forks an advantage that could potentially suck away developer resources. But we're lucky -- most of this stuff is so scary and contentious because the stakes are high and none of us really know how to predict what will happen. In this case, though, we actually have data! _Lots_ of projects have licenses that are "upgradeable" to more restricted ones -- as someone pointed out on the last thread, the LGPL in particular has the property. I'd actually forgotten until it was pointed out. Why had I forgotten? Because it _never_ gets used (except maybe to incorporate some LGPLed code into a pre-existing GPLed project). The same is true of the BSDs... BSD code gets proprietary forks all the time, but have you ever heard of a BSD-licensed project getting forked to GPL? And the fork being successful? Wine is sort of an example of this, except IIUC pretty much everyone switched licenses together -- so it's hard to call it an example of a harmful fork that diluted developer resources.
(See also Don Marti: http://www.linuxworld.com/community/?q=node/182 )
So, since I trust the FSF not to add permissions, and history doesn't support there being non-trivial harmful effects to adding restrictions, I'm leaving the "or later version" language on all my software for now.
I guess finally I'll say something bad about v3 too, since I claimed at the beginning that I hadn't decided but here I am making only arguments for the "pro" side... I am actually, despite the above, really really scared of v3. It isn't the whole debate about whether v3 puts restrictions on use, or separately created hardware, or whatever, that bother me the most. I'd actually call myself a Free Software guy, over the years I've come around to agree with a _lot_ of the FSF's philosophy, but it's this issue of freedom that scares me.
For me (and this matches my reading of the GNU Manifesto), free software means that I can learn from and modify the tools I use, and help my neighbor. And, if the whole world can't be free (since copyright law is not so easy to change), then with tools like the GPL and the GNU project at least we can create a sandbox for ourselves, and so long as we stay inside it, we can stop dealing with obnoxious copyright rules -- we can act as if we're really free.
A not-really-digression: this is what pisses me off about Sun and their CDDL. I'm happy they freed their software, that's very generous of them, woohoo, but they made it GPL incompatible. That's their decision, but it's like the person who says they will only be your friend if you stop hanging out with your other, existing, friend. If you want to come play in our sandbox, great, the more the merrier, but don't try to split the sandbox in two by putting a big wall down the center. The whole point is to never trip over those walls.
This is what worries me about how the v3 process is turning out: if it manages to split the FOSS community, then even if I agree completely with the FSF's goals, I can't shrug that off as just a practical problem, or the regretful but morally necessary outcome of some people deciding that they prefer pragmatics to freedom. It directly, and potentially dramatically, impacts my own ability to act as a free developer. The possiblity terrifies me, viscerally.
I'm starting to wonder if we shouldn't treat the draft v3 DRM provisions like we all treat questionable patches. The legal and technical landscape around DRM is so unsettled right now that no-one seems to be sure if the DRM clauses _are_ in fact necessary to preserve freedom or not, or even if the proposed clauses will actually have any practical effect at all. (Maybe next year it will turn out that the latest preferred way to achieve DRM-like effects doesn't run afoul of the draft language at all.) There's also a worry, just from the difficulty getting the language right so far, that they may have nasty, unforseen negative consequences (i.e., somehow preventing perfectly legitimate and freedom-enhancing projects).
Compare that to a patch adding a new feature to a project. If we can't tell yet whether the feature actually has the right design, the coding style is a little grotty, enough to make us worry it might have bugs in it to make the whole program crash... maybe the feature is actually really, really important to have in the long run. But we already have a bunch of other stuff landed on mainline to go into the next release, and we're not going to delay getting all that to users's hands just so we can get this other new thing right.
So maybe we should push back DRM provisions to GPL v4. The way patches go, half the time it turns out that just by waiting a bit and getting more experience with how the software is used, suddenly the right solution turns out to be obvious to everyone and the debate disappears.
So, to conclude this epic comment:
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:09 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] So maybe we should push back DRM provisions to GPL v4.Actually, I haven't heard anyone saying that GPLv3 is better than GPLv2 except the DRM issue. Whoever criticizes changes in GPLv3 compared to GPLv2 criticizes other changes as well. My prediction is that most code that is under GPLv2 now will stay under GPLv2. But we may see new projects under GPLv3. We may also see some currently non-GPL code relicensed under GPLv3. We may see a new Java implementation under GPLv3. We may see Qt under GPLv3. We may see truly innovative software under GPLv3 due to the fact that it's more explicit with regard to patents. Making changes to GPL piecemeal would likely increase fragmentation, not avoid it.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:38 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] you contradict yourself
you say exisitng code will stay GPLv2, but that there may be a QT under GPLv3
why would they change from GPLv2 to GPLv3?
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 8:48 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Because it's way better Trolltech. Really. Think about it: Qt is used in closed boxes. A lot. But right now you can (in theory) take GPL version and lock it down with DRM. GPLv3 is perfect for dual-licensing scheme! Community projects rarely change the license (because it's hard). Company-owned projects are toally different kettle of fish. If IBM will "approve" patent changes (who's approval will you trust in regard to patents clause if not IBM?) then I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot of software licensed under GPL, not just Qt.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:57 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] That's a fascinating observation that I hadn't really thought about before, but it's clearly true: by banning the application of GPLv3 software in protected applications, the FSF is making dual-licensing more attractive, because the alternative licenses do allow such use.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:36 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] the LGPL->GPL conversion isn't the same problem as the GPLv2->GPLv3 conversion for one big reason
there are a lot of people takeing religious stances on the GPLv2/v3 issue who are being extremely adamant about the need to switch to code to v3. there is not a similar body of people determined to eliminate the LGPL
and frankly these people have a point, while I personally prefer the GPLv2, there is no point in having a GPLv3 if all code remains at GPLv2 or later, yes you can use the v3 license, but if it's prohibiting things that v2 allows, anyone wanting to do those things just ignores v3 and acts under the v2 license. Also, the 'license compatability advantage' of GPLv3 is meaningless if a project is trying to maintain GPLv2 compatability.
so there are three outcomes
1. code remains GPLv2 or later and GPLv3 is meaningless as none of it's provisions are every used.
2. code migrates to GPLv3
3. the community splits between the two versions, probably with continual snipeing back and forth.
the FSF is intending for result 2, but unfortunantly I expect result 3 to take place. there are a lot of people who strongly believe both sides of this issue, and if forced to choose, will go different ways.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 8:54 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Generally speaking it seems that the license choices of the major contributors are respected even if the license can be 'upgraded' to the GPL.
Look at the large number of BSD-licensed software. A major example is PostgreSQL. If there is any peice of software poised for a 'GPL Takover' then that one would be one! But I don't think I've ever heard of anybody trying to 'take over' PostgreSQL with a GPL'd license (although I am sure that it's used in inumerable propriatory products).
There are numerious projects on non-copyleft licenses like zlib and such.
Also don't forget that the GPLv3 is due for a few more revisions before it gets out there. People are all excited right now because it's new and the debates help people figure out what is going on. (I know it helps me a lot)
I think that if the majority of the people in a GPLv2 or later project want it to remain GPLv2 or later then I think that most of them will be fine.
*shrug*
I think the majority of the fights are going to be with people who have "GPLv2 only" style licenses. These people usually had a reason to distrust the FSF/RMS stuff and while the "GPLv2 and later" crowd have little problem integrating with GPLv3 code from other projects (probably all it would take would be a nice email for permission to GPlv2 the code)..
the "GPLv2 only" people will probably end up with huge fights when people try to take them to "GPLv2 or later" for "better compatability" with other programs. The original people that choose the license in the first place will probably perceive it as a underhanded attempt to take their project to GPLv3.. while the other side of the internal project debate will want to see the project gain compatability with GPLv3 code rather then risk going of into irrelevency. (definately not talking about the Linux kernel here, it has it's own special rules)
Eliminate the LGPL? Posted Oct 5, 2006 23:32 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] there is not a similar body of people determined to eliminate the LGPLWhat about the own proponent of the license, Richard Stallman? Also, the 'license compatability advantage' of GPLv3 is meaningless if a project is trying to maintain GPLv2 compatability.Not if you just take advantage of the "or later" clause; switch to GPLv3 all those things that are GPLv2 "or later" and you can be compatible with Apache code. the FSF is intending for result 2, but unfortunantly I expect result 3 to take place.Frankly, we don't need this FUD. Notice how njs in the parent comment says that his biggest fear is not with any GPLv3 clauses, but with the split it might cause. Even our favorite editor seems to think the same way. That is what many people seem to be trying here on LWN: creating division, crying: "Stop this licensing madness!" I for one am happy that Stallman is not one to change his mind under pressure, even if on other occasions it has worked to the detriment of free software.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:58 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] > This is what worries me about how the v3 process is turning out: if it> manages to split the FOSS community, then even if I agree completely > with the FSF's goals, I can't shrug that off as just a practical > problem, or the regretful but morally necessary outcome of some people > deciding that they prefer pragmatics to freedom. It directly, and > potentially dramatically, impacts my own ability to act as a free > developer. The possiblity terrifies me, viscerally.
That worries me too, but I don't stay up thinking about it at night
The kernel community is one of the most visible and vocal parties when it
It's no surprise to me that it appears as if we're split right down the
There seem to be a lot of people that are really happy with the way
The _real_ danger isn't from the GPLv3 license - it's from the GPLv3
Cheers!
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 6, 2006 14:37 UTC (Fri) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] The kernel community is one of the most visible and vocal parties when it actually has something to say in the public. The kernel community is the biggest project that is closest to the hardware, so you should not be surprised that we have a direct (and vocal) opinion when it comes to issues of the GPLv3 trying to control hardware. We are dealing with tons of hardware issues today, our work has been DRM-ed by Tivo, and we'll be amongst the first ones suffering the fallout of any negative effect of a bad license change in this area.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 6, 2006 17:22 UTC (Fri) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] > The kernel community is the biggest project that is closest to the> hardware, so you should not be surprised that we have a direct (and > vocal) opinion when it comes to issues of the GPLv3 trying to control > hardware.
I claim no surprise. I observe precisely what you've said.
> We are dealing with tons of hardware issues today, our work has been
Indeed.
> and we'll be amongst the first ones suffering the fallout of any
How so? The kernel is under GPLv2 only, and the issue of forming a
This is an easy question to answer I'm sure, but please don't forget
And I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer from anyone as to why
Why will no one answer my charge?
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 13, 2006 10:13 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] The kernel is under GPLv2 only Please read the license, this is not true. Linus redistributes what he has got under GPLv2 only, which is his right. Most of Linux either does not tell anything about the license version (in which case you need to assume that it's GPL any version), or it explicitely tells you that it is GPLv2 or later. Few, if any, files are marked with an explicit "GPLv2 only" by the original author. Linus is not in the position to change the license terms of the original authors, and the GPL clearly states that you get the license from the original author. Node besides: Linus didn't ask anybody about his GPLv2-only comment in 2.4.0-test-something, so he can remove that whenever he's convinced that GPLv3 is ok for him. Being a loudmouth who makes more than enough errors, and then takes years to recover from that, this is not likely to be soon, but it may happen.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 19:35 UTC (Thu) by pimlott (subscriber, #1535) [Link] Maybe next year it will turn out that the latest preferred way to achieve DRM-like effects doesn't run afoul of the draft language at all.That possibility seems quite real to me. As I posted before: What if software provider and the service demanding remote attestation are different entities? Eg, the device manufacturer distributes the GPLv3 media player and the media company verifies that it is a "known-good" version (according to their list). This seems a plausible arrangement. So if I hack the media player, the device doesn't "play the same songs", but the manufacturer has no power to change this and the media company has no obligation to the device owner. Who do we go after?
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 6, 2006 14:22 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] The check for the media company signature *is* deployed by the manufacturer in its devices, so the manufacturer can hardly pretend he was not involved one way or another.
Now the interesting part in this scenario is the manufacturer may not have the private key of the media company, so if the GPLv3 latest draft only handles this case, it needs to be tightened up.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 6, 2006 15:34 UTC (Fri) by pimlott (subscriber, #1535) [Link] The check for the media company signature *is* deployed by the manufacturer in its devices, so the manufacturer can hardly pretend he was not involved one way or another. Fair enough, but they can argue that this is simply a standard facility of their (proprietary) operating system, and that they don't control how third parties make use of it. Or extend the scenario another link: Say entity A distributes the device and operating system which supports trusted remote querying of the running software; entity B distributes a GPLv3 media player; and entity C distributes music to the device only after determining that a good (according to their list) version of the media player is running. I think that any "tightening up" of the GPLv3 that could block this scenario is reaching too far (if it doesn't reach too far already).
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 6, 2006 15:55 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] The entity wich installs the initial GPLed software version has by definition the means to authorize it.
You can add indirections, cloak it in multilateral agreements, that does not change this basic fact
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 6, 2006 16:24 UTC (Fri) by pimlott (subscriber, #1535) [Link] The entity wich installs the initial GPLed software version has by definition the means to authorize it.I believe that's simply not true. In my scenario, the media distributors are merely validating a checksum of the media player binary. This checksum needn't even be provided by the media player company. They could simply distribute a (DRM-enabled) binary, then the media distributors verify that it is sufficiently user-hostily (by inspecting the source code and recompiling with the same toolchain to see that the same binary is produced) and add it to their approved list. Nothing the media player company does can make the media distributors add to their approved list.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 6, 2006 21:46 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] Your scenario is not credible.
0. Your use of a checksum muddies the water somewhat, because it implies a 1<->1 relationship between authorization and software version. But a fixed checksum list would be of little use, so the list itself must be updateable, and the checksum of the update list is unknown beforehand, which means you have a master key somewhere which can approve any checksum or list, which takes us back to square one.
1. The media player company is not distributing its binary in the hope that, maybe, a media distributor will pick it up, approve it, and it will end up in the device. They have contracts with all these entities if only to get paid. If they take the money without ensuring the licensing obligations are respected, they'll be condemned.
2. Even assuming it does release a binary without any counterpart or contact with the other companies, I believe that by ensuring it can made its way on the device they are participating it its distribution, and have to honor the licensing obligations. Certainly should they approve a binary containing sequences "lifted" from an Hollywood media they wouldn't expect not to be sued.
This is a general weakness of many of the examples provided so far. You all assume that because the GPL "payment" is not monetary, or due to hobbyists, it's somehow optional or weak and you only need to make the situation complex enough before people give up. The law does not work this way.
Before you post any other scenario, take the time to replace "GPLed software" with "Hollywood film" and "GPL licensing obligations" with "Hollywood film licensing obligations". If your house of cards wouldn't protect you when distributing an "Hollywood film", do you actually believe using it for a "GPL software" will work any better before the judge?
Also, do remember that no judge will rule that since you're broke, you didn't have to pay at the shop. He'll rule that since you're broke, you shouldn't have taken what you couldn't afford (and send you to jail). Likewise, being in no position to honour GPL licensing obligations does not give you a free pass at GPLed software. Especially if you've painted yourself in this corner knowingly.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 6, 2006 22:31 UTC (Fri) by pimlott (subscriber, #1535) [Link] I agree that the weak point in my scenario lies in the relationships between the parties. If you can show that the media player maker is colluding with the device manufacturer or the media distributors to keep users from exercising their rights, you might be able to use the GPLv3 against them. But I am not as sanguine about this as you: I still fear that courts would not consider my scenario (or some variation) collusion. DRM is still an experiment, and we should keep an open (that is, cynical) mind about all of the imaginitive ways in which the media industry will try to use it.On your point 0: the checksum list is maintained by the media distributor, so there is no need for a master key. Also, you seem to have made some interpretation I didn't intend about what's in the media player binary. At least, I don't know what "sequences 'lifted' from an Hollywood media" refers to. What I had in mind is simply that the media player only plays files signed by the media distributor's public key and enforces use restrictions specified in the files. If I offered such a binary (along with its sources) on my web site, having no relationship with any device manufacturer or media distributor, just to be ornery, surely I wouldn't be violating any license.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 7, 2006 12:38 UTC (Sat) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] > On your point 0: the checksum list is maintained by the media> distributor, so there is no need for a master key.
And how do the device knows it can accept a new checksum list? If it can not at all or if it can accept anyone your system is pretty useless
> Also, you seem to have made some interpretation I didn't intend about
Let me rephrase it then:
1. Let's say Disney decides to participate in a campaign against evil_of_the_day and makes a great mickey cartoon freely distributable provided it's alway bundled with the latest localised update of education_pamphlet_against_evil_of_the_day
2. one of your nebulous entities authorizes the video for a device sold all over the world, but does not bother with the education_pamphlet_against_evil_of_the_day, or all the localized versions, or ignores updates
3. another of your nebulous entities makes the authorized binary available advertising it can be played in media player
Questions:
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 9, 2006 3:38 UTC (Mon) by pimlott (subscriber, #1535) [Link] And how do the device knows it can accept a new checksum list?The device doesn't need the checksum. The device merely reports the checksum to the media distributor, which validates it against its own (self-maintained) list. Let me rephrase it then:[snip] I think I understand your scenario, but I truly think the outcome is sensitive (as in my scenario) to the details of the relationships between the entities, and their intentions. If the entity in (3) is advertising the authorized binary for use in many media players, maybe they can say, "hey, it's not our fault that the device in (2) refuses to view the pamphlet--every other device views it". To repeat, I agree that there may be grounds for finding a GPLv3 violation in some cases like I described; however I don't agree that it is clear-cut for all cases.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 9, 2006 15:33 UTC (Mon) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] The device doesn't need the checksum. The device merely reports the checksum to the media distributor, which validates it against its own (self-maintained) list.Well, that's obviously not going to work. Then I can simply set the code to return the expected checksum while actually running something else. For a remote entity to verify you're actually running a particular binary is hard. The act of sending the checksum becomes the weak link, because some upstream router can just change it. So instead, the device has to fetch a list of valid checksums and have some TPM of its own to verify the checksum against the list. It's the verifying of an authentic checksum list that is the crucial part, and where of use of encryption keys comes from.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 9, 2006 16:10 UTC (Mon) by pimlott (subscriber, #1535) [Link] Then I can simply set the code to return the expected checksum while actually running something else.As I said earlier in this thread, the device (with its proprietary operating system) "supports trusted remote querying of the running software". The query protocol naturally ensures the authenticity, integrity, and confidentiality of the communication. You or an upstream router can't tamper with it. The media distributer can be sure that it is talking to the unmodified operating system and getting trustworthy checksums.
Voting and X-Ray machines? Posted Oct 5, 2006 3:33 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Voting machines? X-Ray machines? The parties who own such devices can and probably should make use of tamper resistance features. Voters and patients should not be permitted to make changes, for the same reason guest accounts shouldn't have root access on servers. Maybe politicians and doctors should be restricted as well but governments and hospitals should clearly have the power to modify the software themselves if necessary.
Perhaps there are legitimate uses for DRM (I would like to know about them) but these particular examples seem confused. The extent to which the GPLv3 draft prohibits tamper resistance deployed by a system owner as opposed to DRM imposed by a vendor is unclear to me, but if it does that is probably not intended.
Voting and X-Ray machines? Posted Oct 5, 2006 3:49 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] I tell you what -- I don't care about X-ray machines. Who in their right mind will want to change their X-ray machine software? Considering that they cost so much, it is simply not going to happen unless some super crazed admin were to go off the deep end, and that admin would go to jail as soon as something bad happened.
Voting machines are a different problem. The danger with them is not from voters, it's from the manufacturer mainly and the individual govt bureaucrats to a lesser extent. Almost all problems with voting machines could be solved by producing a paper ballot which was the one and only source of vote counting, and then it doesn't matter what monkey business goes on with even the manufacturer. If each voter gets a paper printout which they put in the ballot box, and that is what is counted for all vote tallies, who cares what goes on with the voting machine itself? If someone messes with it, it would only take a very few voters to complain to get the cracker in hot water.
Voting and X-Ray machines? Posted Oct 5, 2006 8:27 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] > Voting machines? X-Ray machines? The parties who own such devices can and> probably should make use of tamper resistance features.
And surprise the GPLv3 actually allows it.
What it forbids is the manufacturer keeping the key for himself (to take an analogy : you can build a password auth in your product, but you can't hardcode a password you do not share downstream. The direct result obviously is no hardcoded password and the owner choosing whatever password he likes)
For voting machines for example there are *many* documented occurences of the manufacturer stealthily changing the software after the customer had audited one version. No DRM-as-forbidden-by-the-GPLv3 would have helped as they leave the key control in the manufacturer's hands.
For X-rays-machines displaying a "warranty void if uncontroled software uploaded" during the update process is the strict equivallent of the tamper-proof seals which have served the industry well against hardware tampering for years. Again, no DRM-as-forbidden-by-the-GPLv3 is needed.
DRM-as-forbidden-by-the-GPLv3 are the analog of security locks whose keys are kept by the manufacturer (and not distributed with the product). Did you see one of those in actual life ? Stangely this level of protection was never justified in the no-software world, but once it's DRMized it "makes sense"
Laser & DRM Posted Oct 5, 2006 12:54 UTC (Thu) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] And surprise the GPLv3 actually allows it. The GPLv3 does not allow the use of DRM in a couple of other cases, for example to prevent the tweaking of barcode-reader laser light intensities by shop owners. (As described in a thread before on lwn.net, shop owners frequently requested the manufacturer of such devices to allow the increasing of the intensity of the laser - against work safety regulations - just to increase their efficiency and thus improve the throughput of shops (not caring about the eyesight of their workers).) So this is an example of a case where the GPLv3 would hurt the little guy, and literally so. Again, the reason for the injustice is that the FSF is making the false assumption that DRM is "evil", and that "upstream" providers are doing "evil lock-in", while "downstream recipients" are the "victims". In the laser-scanner case the situation is exactly the opposite: the upstream manufacturer is more moral (and has the larger legal liability), while the downstream "owner of the hardware" is less moral - and the little guy suffers under the GPLv3's DRM provisions.
Laser & DRM Posted Oct 5, 2006 13:18 UTC (Thu) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] In your example, in my opinion, the problem lies with willful violation of safety regulations, not with GPL v3. Making devices tamper proof is a wholly different dimension. Similarly, I don't have root access at the (Debian) workstation where I type this. It is a policy enforced by my employer, orthogonal to the workings of the GPL v2.
Laser & DRM Posted Oct 5, 2006 13:42 UTC (Thu) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] | |||||||||||