Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedomGPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedomPosted Oct 24, 2006 12:16 UTC (Tue) by bignose (subscriber, #40)In reply to: Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org) by bronson Parent article: Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org)
> The problem is that, if a hardware manufacturer creates a hardware
In the case where the vendor chooses to distribute code they received under GPLv3, yes. This is an explicit feature of the (still-in-development) GPLv3, not a problem.
> This greatly limits the places where GPLv3 code may run, effectively
Not at all. Any of those devices can contain code under GPLv3. They just can't prevent the user from having all the freedoms the vendor received in the GPLv3 code. This may make the DRM pointless, but since DRM is antithetical to user freedoms, that should be welcome.
The big lie keeps getting repeated: that somehow DRM is inevitable and necessary. It's not at all necessary, and it's not inevitable; the devices are defective by design, and GPLv3 is a way for people to ensure their code doesn't rob users of freedom. Just like the spirit of the preceding versions of the GPL.
(Log in to post comments)
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 25, 2006 0:15 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > The big lie keeps getting repeated: that somehow DRM is inevitable and necessary. It's not at all necessary, and it's not inevitable; the devices are defective by design, and GPLv3 is a way for people to ensure their code doesn't rob users of freedom. Just like the spirit of the preceding versions of the GPL.
OK, so devices are defective by design. Who's going to order more of these devices to be made (since these are defective)? Service and content providers. You think they will care about users' freedom or their profits more? DMCA and similar legislation explicitly allows them to do all this. You reckon they will just say "pass" because they value our freedom more?
If the signed GPLv2 software that runs on those devices with DRM hardware was to be relicensed today to GPLv3, the end result would not be more freedom to the users in the form of GPLv3 software running on these devices, but replacement of GPLv2 software on them with proprietary software. I would like to believe that somehow GPLv3 is going make the world better and force content and service providers into obedience, but that's simply naive.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 25, 2006 1:11 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > You think [vendors who design malfunctioning devices to restrict user's freedoms] will care about users' freedom or their profits more? DMCA and similar legislation explicitly allows them to do all this. You reckon they will just say "pass" because they value our freedom more?
I think the GPLv3 is designed to give free software developers an option for licensing their work such that it cannot be abused this way.
> I would like to believe that somehow GPLv3 is going make the world better
I can be more specific about the "somehow". It's exactly the same way as the GPL has always done: allow work to be released as free software so that a compelling body of work is licensed in a way that preserves user's freedoms.
> and force content and service providers into obedience, but that's simply naive.
The license can't force anyone to do anything; it grants them more options than they would have in the absence of the license. Whether they choose to exercise those options is their choice.
The GPL, as a copyleft license, is designed to make the choice to preserve user freedoms more attractive, by having desirable works licensed such that those freedoms cannot be restricted to recipients of the work. It can't force anyone to do anything that isn't already forced by copyright law.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 25, 2006 1:48 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > The license can't force anyone to do anything; it grants them more options than they would have in the absence of the license. Whether they choose to exercise those options is their choice.
Aha, my point exactly. If Linux went GPLv3 today, Tivo wouldn't ship it any more, as it would violate their contracts with content providers. They would exercise that choice faster than you could say "no DRM".
So, your original "Not at all" to bronson's point that GPLv3 rules out running such software on TC (i.e. DRM enabled) hardware is obviously not true. A theoretical possibility of someone doing something silly (like shipping supposedly secret keys to everyone) doesn't make it any closer to being reality. People just won't do it, as long as practical and legal surrounding allow them to do something that can earn them more money.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 25, 2006 1:58 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > If Linux went GPLv3 today, Tivo wouldn't ship it any more, as it would violate their contracts with content providers. They would exercise that choice faster than you could say "no DRM".
Fine. Note, though, that it's *their choice* to do this.
> So, your original "Not at all" to bronson's point that GPLv3 rules out running such software on TC (i.e. DRM enabled) hardware is obviously not true.
In that scenario, the GPLv3 isn't stopping them from shipping the software on that hardware: it provides an explicit permission to do so, so long as they permit their users to exercise the same freedoms they received in the work.
That they don't *like* the terms, or that it might violate an agreement with some other party to restrict users's freedoms, is a problem of their own making, not of the GPLv3.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 25, 2006 3:49 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > That they don't *like* the terms, or that it might violate an agreement with some other party to restrict users's freedoms, is a problem of their own making, not of the GPLv3.
And the only thing that GPLv3 licensing of Linux in Tivo's scenario would achieve, would be to take Tivo developers out of the free software community. The end users would end up with less freedom, as they wouldn't even be able to get Tivo's source and run it on their own boxes (let alone start a business based on that source), as all devices would simply ship with proprietary software. Ditto mobile phones and other similar devices. Now that would be the problem of GPLv3 making, for sure.
And that is, I guess, what kernel developers don't want to happen. They see their hard working colleagues making a living out of GPLv2 piece of software and at the same time contributing all of it back, only to be expelled from the community by something that's completely beyond their control (Hollywood's push to DRM hardware).
If hardware manufacturers decide that it is of benefit to them to ship dual-mode hardware (i.e. where TC can be turned off, overridden etc.) for the tinkering effect, they'll do it regardless of GPLv3 (remember, many smaller proprietary software makers, with no access to keys, may need to tinker too). And that's because those GPLv3 binaries, signed by practically public keys, will be just the same as any old untrusted software running on the platform (i.e. gotten from somewhere without any keys).
Bottom line: GPLv3 will probably have close to zero effect in stopping TC (i.e. DRM hardware). Nobody (or close to it) will be able to exercise any of those GPLv3 freedoms on DRM enabled hardware anyway, because nobody (or close to it) is going to ship GPLv3 code with keys attached.
Why bother at all?
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 25, 2006 14:07 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > the only thing that GPLv3 licensing of Linux in Tivo's scenario would achieve,
I'm not sure where you got your crystal ball, to predict all possible outcomes.
> would be to take Tivo developers out of the free software community.
Tivo already removed those developers from the free software community, by releasing a device that subverts the freedoms of the recipient. That's completely against the spirit of the GPL, even version 2, so GPLv3 is being written to help avoid that outcome in future.
> Bottom line: GPLv3 will probably have close to zero effect in stopping TC (i.e. DRM hardware).
Nothing can be done about software already released under terms that don't prevent this abuse. What can be done is to create a body of software that can't be subverted in this manner, to ensure that those who do respect freedoms in software can protect them in their future works.
Very similar to how a body of software was created and licensed under terms designed to avoid the freedom restrictions of proprietary software. The naysayers insisted that would never be worthwhile, either.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 25, 2006 21:22 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Tivo already removed those developers from the free software community, by releasing a device that subverts the freedoms of the recipient.
So, you remove all Tivo patches from Linux before you compile and run it, right?
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 25, 2006 23:37 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > So, you remove all Tivo patches from Linux before you compile and run it, right?
Non sequitur. We're talking about preventing abuse of GPL software in the future.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 25, 2006 23:54 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Yeah, so much for the "GPL spirit"... How very convenient.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 0:25 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] You've lost me.
We've been discussing how the GPLv3 is an attempt to address problems found with the existing GPLv2. One of those problems, we both seem to agree, is the potential to revoke freedoms that the GPL tries to guarantee for recipients of the work.
The existing code isn't the problem; the GPLv2 still does what it does. The problem is the distribution of that code to recipients in such a way that they can't exercise the freedoms enjoyed by the distributor. The GPLv3 is being designed to guarantee that can't happen.
Then you suddenly talk about removing code outside that context. That's a non sequitur. In the absence of anything new, I'm getting weary of this exchange.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 1:21 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > You've lost me.
You mentioned the "GPL spirit", according to which, Tivo are in violation (of whatever that may be). Since you seem to be so keen on it (the spirit), why not live by your own principles now, instead of waiting until a GPLv3 licensed kernel is released? Wouldn't that be a moral thing to do? You may sense a bit of sarcasm there - it's not unintentional. And yes, this part is all rhetorical.
As for "getting weary of this exchange", that would be because you think that I have some kind of "crystal ball" of predicting outcomes. I do not. Instead, I try to present the arguments that would seem logical (at least to me):
- GPLv3 requires that keys be distributed with software (fact)
- device manufacturers, content and service providers find locked devices useful, therefore they will keep manufactuing them (fact)
- device manufacturers find free software option useful, as it reduces the cost of manufacturing the device (fact)
- giving keys away would make the devices unlocked again (fact)
- therefore, not many are going to have a locked yet unlocked devices, as it would be just silly (my conclusion)
- therefore, not many are going to get a chance to exercise GPLv3 freedoms on any of those devices, because not many are going to ship that combination of hardware/software (my conclusion)
- therefore, attempts to increase freedom through the use of GPLv3, would only have the effect of reducing the free software developer community, by forcing many embedded developers into proprietary software (my conclusion)
- by not introducing the anti-DRM clauses into GPLv3, people would at least have a chance to get the source for use on other devices or to start their own free software based business, while increasing free software licence compatiblity and therefore bringing more free software communites together (my conclusion)
You seem to be talking about some kind of theoretical possibility that GPLv3 will bring more freedom to users, without pointing to any real world mechanisms or forces that would make that happen. What good is this theoretical freedom, when nobody is going to write software to take advantage of it? How are users going to enjoy more freedom by not running free software?
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 1:50 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > GPLv3 requires that keys be distributed with software
Or that no keys be required at all.
> device manufacturers, content and service providers find locked devices useful, therefore they will keep manufactuing them
The "therefore" is true only to the extent that it continues to be profitable to do so. DRM is gaining widespread dissatisfaction as its ramifications become known. I find the idea that such devices are inevitably going to become ubiquitous to be a very defeatist position.
> device manufacturers find free software option useful, as it reduces the cost of manufacturing the device
This is completely at odds with restricting the freedoms of the recipient. If you mean "device manufacturers find zero-cost software [...] useful", that's irrelevant here.
> therefore, not many are going to get a chance to exercise GPLv3 freedoms on any of those devices
That's true under *any* free software license. The devices you describe are explicitly designed to restrict the freedoms of the recipient, so that they cannot exercise the freedom to modify and run the software.
Since such distribution doesn't allow exercise of the freedoms in the GPL, the GPLv3 is being designed so that those who would distribute in that way can't pretend to offer those freedoms.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 2:20 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > The "therefore" is true only to the extent that it continues to be profitable to do so.
Oh, you better believe that part. Content and service providers are making sure that's the case. Why do you think we have DMCA?
> DRM is gaining widespread dissatisfaction as its ramifications become known.
Widespread? Wouldn't be so sure about that. What seems widespread on LWN, may not be even known in the real world. I reckon upward of 90% of Tivo users neither know nor would care if they found out that their system has DRM enabled hardware. And I think I'm being generous to the people that know and care here.
> This is completely at odds with restricting the freedoms of the recipient. If you mean "device manufacturers find zero-cost software [...] useful", that's irrelevant here.
No, I mean free software. Especially copyleft free software, as they can enjoy the benefits of sharing the development cost with other companies (i.e. other members of the community). Or are we saying now the GPLv2 software is not copyleft free software, because GPLv2 is violating the spirit of GPL (the mind boggles :-)? I certainly hope not.
> That's true under *any* free software license. The devices you describe are explicitly designed to restrict the freedoms of the recipient, so that they cannot exercise the freedom to modify and run the software.
My point exactly. So, the devices are the problem here - and one that GPLv3 isn't going to solve. At least with GPLv2 you get to have developers that keep hacking the software (therefore making it relevant) and let other people have access to such source (to run on other devices). With GPLv3, however, those communities die and the software soon becomes irrelevant in that area.
Which gives? Less free software, not more. Surely, less free software is not better than more free software. Except, of course, if GPLv2 software doesn't count as free software any more.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 2:35 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > > The devices you describe are explicitly designed to restrict the freedoms of the recipient, so that they cannot exercise the freedom to modify and run the software.
> My point exactly. So, the devices are the problem here - and one that GPLv3 isn't going to solve.
No copyright license can solve that problem, and the GPLv3 isn't designed to do so.
The problem GPLv3 is addressing, in this case, is the unwilling contribution by free software developers to explicitly non-free distribution.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 2:44 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > The problem GPLv3 is addressing, in this case, is the unwilling contribution by free software developers to explicitly non-free distribution.
A noble goal, for sure (I'm not being sarcastic here, I promise).
However, in the case of Linux (or other similar software) this would have a side effect of killing the development efforts of many of those developers. So, instead of just killing "non-free distribution", communities and a lot of contributions useful elsewhere would be killed with it as well. All of which is just collateral damage to FSF, I guess.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 2:54 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > this would have a side effect of killing the development efforts of many of those developers. So, instead of just killing "non-free distribution", communities and a lot of contributions useful elsewhere would be killed with it as well.
I guess our crystal balls must be tuned to different futures. I plan to keep working toward the future I see in mine.
Thanks for the discussion, I'm stopping here.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 3:00 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Thanks for the discussion, I'm stopping here.
Thanks for your time. I enjoyed the discussion.
|
|
||||||||||||