| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisRecommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisPosted Feb 11, 2007 5:57 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332)In reply to: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris by b3timmons Parent article: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris
"" The point you seem to be reiterating is that GPLv3-covered kernels will be unsuitable for those who wish to subjugate users with Tivoization. ""
Not quite.I happen to have been reading this: http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/drm-and-gplv3.en....
Tivoization will continue in same form or another, simply because any users, looking for alternatives for running in their TIVO boxes, will have to compile with their keys from source code, after modification or not, and install the program, all on their own or handover those keys available to someone that can do that for them.
I belive 99% or more than 90% of users in the low end part of the technical spectrum( the immense majority), for a forseable future, will have to handover those keys.period.
Expect a huge social engineering spree. Crackers can have the most easy walk over in the park ever. DRM can make somehow a system more secure, right, but can make users more suceptible to total attack as in under GPLv3 than in GPLv2. It can make Linux look like horribly insecure when the fault is not of Linux.
TIVO will have a copy of those keys and will be in the business too of course, as the preferred partner. But TIVO wont be making those changes to the code that is not politicly correct for them. Tivoization will continue...
DRM was never about security "per se", was always about control. IMHO, if GPLv3 stated a mandatory private/public key for their public repositorys, it will be easier to pass the message of DRM as a master acess control feature and advice caution against it.
The ideal, and most logic for the low technical users ( the immense majority), will be to make mandatory the turn off of those DRM features if the users will choose so, in any GPLv3 repository, and permit those low technical users to directly install binarys from sources they trust, as they are, on their own peril.( obnoxious these forced paternalistic pseudo-security )
The Hardware System vendors are not the enemy, belive me. They want to sell more, they dont want to kill the WhiteBox paradigma. They prefer if they dont have to choose, because is not any licence GPLv3 or v2 that can force them. Its being in bed with some integrators and BIG BROTHER, that can force them, the ones that are making profit budgets projections on this.
(Log in to post comments)
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 11, 2007 6:27 UTC (Sun) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] However interesting it may be to speculate about how Tivoization and DRM will play out, the immediate issue is the need for the GPLv3 to serve free software developers. I cannot yet see from your comments, including this interesting one, how the current draft could be improved.
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 11, 2007 6:59 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] ??make mandatory the turn off of those DRM features if the users will choose so, for any binary resulting from a GPLv3 source repository.
Dont think only of software developers by software developers for software developers.
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 11, 2007 10:08 UTC (Sun) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link] Tivoization plus GPLv3 is very possible.
Vendor A provides USB keys containing "GNU OS" plus source code, since keys are so big these days. This "GNU OS" is built for PowerPC and has drivers for a Hardware MPEG Decoder Ring.
*Unrelated* vendor B builds boxes that verify by checksum that the code is Vendor A Release 3.14 of GNU OS.
Yet another vendor C sells to customers by having Vendors A and B ship their respective product to the customer, with a booklet explaining how to put it together with the video cables, satellite receiver and USB key.
There's no one for any GPLv3 copyright holder to sue in that scenario. No one is violating the license.
As you see, GPLv3 really can't accomplish what it wants to do here. It can not remain a distribution license and still affect actions of the end user, and many DRM scenarios can be recast as I did above, so that the end user puts the pieces together, keeping vendor's hands free of violating distribution limitations.
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 11, 2007 21:16 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] There's no one for any GPLv3 copyright holder to sue in that scenario. No one is violating the license. Cartel from Vendors A, B and C is violating the license. If vendor A truly does not know anything about vendors B and C (for example if it's RedHat) then you need to send them letter and ask them to change signature to stop vendor's B and C. If it's not done then you just go to court. End of story. And Vendor B will have truly hard time trying to explain why he's selling the hardware which is unusable without software from Vendor A: if he does not know about Vendor A - then what he thinks users should do with this hardware, if they know about Vendor A, but have no agreement with Vendor A - then how can they be sure it'll not stop producing "USB keys", if they know about Vendor A and have an agreement with Vendor A - then they together are infringing. Yes, it's possible to circumvent GPLv3, but it's insanely risky and thus the whole example looks like straw men...
|
|
||||||||||||