DRM is a bit of a red herring. [LWN.net]

DRM is a bit of a red herring.

Posted Feb 12, 2007 17:37 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
In reply to: DRM is a bit of a red herring. by mmarq
Parent article: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris

"""GPL v3 can say that no license will hold, if the covered code is used to restrict functionality upon modification.

But nevertheless i cant see how the GPL can impose legally on Online Services Providers an authentication method. If those acesses require a token in the form of a DRM checksum, simply by modifying the code it will generate a different checksum... TIVO will say that is not their fault... i dont know but it seems complicated...

Specialy because that DRM token restricting funcionality, will not be most probably generated from any v3 covered code, but from the BIOS level. Watch next bios capable of playing online games while you load an online OS ftp://download.intel.com/technology/efi/docs/pdfs/IDF04li..."""

I don't understand everything your aiming at.

But if you want to use GPLv3 in a machine you want to sell to people that you want to impliment DRM then bypassing the userland and going straight to firmware is a perfectly valid way to do it and it wouldn't conflict with the GPLv3. Also running non-GPlv3 code along side GPlv3 code in order to impliment DRM is valid also.

The goal of the GPlv3 here isn't to eliminate DRM or make GPlv3 software incompatable with DRM, it's just to make sure that people don't use DRM to circumvent the GPL license and limit 'four freedoms' that are suppose to be garrenteed for Free software.

As long as a paticular form of DRM does not require that software be unmodifiable to work then there isn't any problem with it being used with GPLv3 as far as the license goes.

(Log in to post comments)

DRM is a bit of a red herring.

Posted Feb 12, 2007 23:50 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

"" I don't understand everything your aiming at. ""

.-Means tivoization will continue

.-It will be possible to disable functionality, if modified code is detected, most notorious on Online services, because those most logicly, not implementing the specific restrictions by using GPLv3 code, are not bond to the distribution licence terms... IANAL, but it seems logic to me.

But though, im getting confused myself. 3 pertinent questions arise on these tivoization and functionality clause:

Why isnt installing or replacing a binary program, or a binary derivative (plugin, library...) also be considered a modification upon the original program, which must be allowed to run ?

Just following the precedent question here providing key for "in sito" compilation and signature is completely wortless, as is i belive, transfer that key and source code to a 3th capable part without transfering the machine which that key is exclusively attributed ?