Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
A report from an "IPR protection" seminar in Helsinki
Here's a
one-week-old report from Georg Greve on the "IPR Protection of
Software: Copyright, Patent and/or Open Source?" seminar recently held in
Helsinki. "My personal favorite was probably the presentation of
Dietmar Tallroth of Nokia. He had just come back from a face to face
meeting in the GPLv3 process to discuss in particular the clauses on
Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), that have recently made the
headlines when some Linux kernel developers took public position against
it. According to Mr Tallroth, the potential issues with DRM were clarified
sufficiently for Nokia. He expressed understanding and acceptance of the
position taken by FSF, and provided that the result of the recent
discussions is present in the next draft, there are only a few more points
to clarify in the software patent language, for which he was generally
optimistic." (Thanks to Timo Jyrinki).
(Log in to post comments)
A report from an "IPR protection" seminar in Helsinki Posted Oct 4, 2006 16:49 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] So interesting that businesses seem to be cooperating with the FSF andparticipating in the GPLv3 discussion, making a difference and telling the public they are satisfied with how things are going. Businesses - you know, the people who we're happy to work with but who we have to watch the most due to the difference in motives. So interesting that all this is taking place while we see unfortunately minimal participation and high paranoia from the kernel developer community. And interesting that businesses seem to imply that they are being listened to, when apparently the plan was for Richard Stallman to draft the whole license himself and for Eben Moglen to conduct an international discussion process as a sham with the intent to deceive.
The licensing FUD must stop!
Better sorting out of the issues would help Posted Oct 4, 2006 17:28 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] There are two distinct sets of concerns raised in the kernel developers' document. There is only one real difference in principle, and it is over the DRM issue. Everything else, that is, the patent language, and the "additional restrictions" language, is either not a real problem or will be cleaned up before GPLv3 is final.We're seeing all kinds of evidence that the concerns of big patent holders are being addressed (Nokia and Sun seem satisfied; HP has raised some objections but I believe that those should be worked out as well). The objections the kernel developers raised to the "extra restrictions" section seem particularly mistaken: the purpose of that section is to make GPLv3 compatible with other free software licenses. That section is vital: the GCC project needs it so we can unify the free Java projects: Classpath, gjc, and Eclipse, and we have buy-in from all those projects to do the work. Lots of progress has been made on that front towards a high quality free-as-in-freedom Java. This isn't about the FSF trying to gain control of everyone's precious bodily fluids, quite the opposite. Individual software components will keep their existing licenses. In any case, even with GPLv2 we see people doing special exception language all the time, e.g. to permit linking with openssl or other libraries that have GPL-incompatible licenses. These special exceptions fragment the free software world, as every piece you use has to have the right exceptions. GPLv3 reduces this problem, by increasing the number of free software licenses that are compatible. Even the DRM objection should be stated more narrowly: there is a real dispute, but people who object to the language need to be careful not to state or imply that the new language bans things that it does not ban. The DRM battle is difficult, and I see merit in both sides' positions. I respect Linus' position that it suffices for him to get changes to the software back, that he doesn't care that he can't load a new version on a given device. I also worry that, if we do not object, general-purpose PCs will all come with DRM mechanisms that refuse to load non-approved operating systems, and the Linux world might have to resort to building its own hardware, which then could be excluded from web sites owned by media companies. But I'm not sure that the GPLv3 DRM clause helps all that much; all it does is say "we won't help build the jail". At best it is a symbolic measure, but there is sometimes value in that.
Symbolic value greatly appreciated Posted Oct 5, 2006 1:59 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > But I'm not sure that the GPLv3 DRM clause helps all that> much; all it does is say "we won't help build the jail".
If anyone ever expected the FSF to "help build the jail"
> At best it is a symbolic measure, but there is sometimes value in that.
At best, it is a foundation on which to build a better future.
But there is *great* value in symbolic measures. The original GNU
A report from an "IPR protection" seminar in Helsinki Posted Oct 4, 2006 17:56 UTC (Wed) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] Btw. this "Dr." Mikko Mustonen of "the Helsinki School of Economics"mentioned in the article, was he wearing a giant penis suit like the "WTO representative" in Tampere? http://www.theyesmen.org/finland/photos.html http://www.paulkingsnorth.net/yes.html
A report from an "IPR protection" seminar in Helsinki Posted Oct 4, 2006 22:07 UTC (Wed) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] What a fine pair of links. Thank you for that, of which I was unaware. It is remarkable how far a spoof can be pushed if done well.
A report from an "IPR protection" seminar in Helsinki Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:43 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] No, he's for real. He's into "R&D cost modelling".I think he just doesn't "get it".
Yes but... Posted Oct 4, 2006 21:02 UTC (Wed) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] > According to Mr Tallroth, the potential issues with DRM were clarified sufficiently for Nokia.
Sufficiently for Nokia to do what? Steer clear of GPLv3 code? Not worry about it? Release their code under GPLv3? v2 only? Only use BSD code? What?
Okay, dig through TFA, and find this:
>So his conclusion was that unless there were major surprises, Nokia will be going with GPLv3.
Okay, so Nokia apparently has not problem with _releasing_ code under GPLv3. Nothing about _using_ other people's v3 code in the possibly locked down parts of their hardware, though.
Reread that last quoted paragraph above substituing "a proprietary licence" for "GPLv3":
That makes perfect sense, nothing odd about it. I am NOT saying that GPLv3 is a proprietary license (of course it isn't), just that Nokia's acceptance of it doesn't mean a thing vis a vis how the Linux kernel and other software developers may feel about it.
A report from an "IPR protection" seminar in Helsinki Posted Oct 4, 2006 21:08 UTC (Wed) by Sombrio (guest, #26942) [Link] Ok, so let me get this straight. Nokia is going to let us load our own kernels on their phones.
Excuse me, but I can't help myself. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
The reason that Nokia is going to go with GPLv3 is because they know the kernel is going to stay GPLv2, and all of the Digital RIGHTS Management stuff they want to do, will either be in the Linux kernel or will be in a separate proprietary kernel running alongside Linux.
A very amusing interpretation of Nokia's intent. Thanks for the laugh.
More options Posted Oct 4, 2006 21:34 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] They might also use a completely proprietary system, or develop their own from scratch. So what? It only means that a manufacturer of embedded devices (a big one too) and possible consumer of DRM doesn't have a problem with the anti-DRM clauses in GPLv3; or at least a company representative says so. It is only ironic because a group of developers who are not affected by GPLv3 are so adamant that embedded device manufacturers will not want to touch GPLv3 code with a ten foot pole.I believe Nokia is already shipping GPLv2 code; in time they will probably ship GPLv3 code. They just don't have to tell you where or why.
A report from an "IPR protection" seminar in Helsinki Posted Oct 4, 2006 21:53 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] A very amusing interpretation of Nokia's intent. Thanks for the laugh.Where did you find this interpretation? I don't see anything about "loading kernels" in the story or in the previous comments. It looks like a strawman argument to me.
A report from an "IPR protection" seminar in Helsinki Posted Oct 4, 2006 21:57 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Note that Nokia does not make and has not said it is going to make *phones* based on Linux or GPLed software. They are using Linux and GPLed software in a non-phone device (the 770). I have no idea whether they include any DRM software in that device.
Nokia has been very effective in working with the FLOSS community on the software for the 770. I just don't want to see the statement interpreted as having anything to do with phones. [DISCLAIMER: I work for a phone manufacturer.]
I do agree that today, at least, the key issue for embedded-device manufacturers is the kernel. Most of the other components they want are either under different licenses or available under dual licenses.
A report from an "IPR protection" seminar in Helsinki Posted Oct 5, 2006 0:28 UTC (Thu) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link] Note that Nokia does not make and has not said it is going to make *phones* based on Linux or GPLed software. They are using Linux and GPLed software in a non-phone device (the 770). I have no idea whether they include any DRM software in that device.To the best of my knowledge, we don't have any DRM in the 770. At least all the supported file-formats are non-DRM encumbered...
|
|||||||||||||