|| ||James Morris <jmorris-AT-namei.org> |
|| ||Theodore Tso <tytso-AT-mit.edu> |
|| ||Re: [RFC v3][PATCH 2/2] intel_txt: Intel(R) TXT and tboot kernel
|| ||Fri, 15 May 2009 10:17:56 +1000 (EST)|
|| ||Joseph Cihula <joseph.cihula-AT-intel.com>,
linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, mingo-AT-elte.hu, arjan-AT-linux.intel.com,
hpa-AT-zytor.com, andi-AT-firstfloor.org, chrisw-AT-sous-sol.org,
jbeulich-AT-novell.com, peterm-AT-redhat.com, gang.wei-AT-intel.com,
shane.wang-AT-intel.com, John Gilmore <gnu-AT-toad.com>|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
> So we should expect a certain amount of controversy and people
> lobbying to resist the acceptance of this patch.
FWIW, here's my response to an earlier private enquiry from John on the
I'd prefer discussion to be public, so I don't mind leaving more
detailed discussion to that.
There has been considerable discussion on the issue, following Linus'
statement (which I'm sure you're aware of):
My position is similar -- people can decide for themselves whether they
want to use DRM technology. I'm also confident that technical measures
taken to prevent real freedom will always be broken (when have they ever
I also feel there may be genuinely useful applications of some of the
technology (e.g. sealing disk encryption keys in the TPM a la
I'm fairly neutral on the technology itself and feel that "market
pressure" from users as well as local regulatory policy (e.g. anti-trust
laws) should determine how the technology is used, rather than the views
of a few kernel hackers.
to post comments)