Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 21:46 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (guest, #19270)
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by mattmelton
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

"When there are so many DRM-restricted devices that the FSF has to give up enforcing the GPL because it can't audit them, legally, we'll look back at this point, and at the decisive developers and say, "they didnt WANT to look forward".

This suggests that the anti-DRM clauses in the GPLv3 can somehow block the progress of devices containing DRM and trusted-computing features. In fact, though, there are lots of such devices in the field and will be many more. The most you can hope for is that they not run Linux. If you want to fight against efforts to legally require such things, please do so! I strongly agree with that. But, good as it is, FOSS is not yet important enough to hold back the growth of such technologies.

"You can't scare big business away from Linux now. Look at the mile stones made in 2.6. Look at the improvement upon system after system 2.6 has made over 2.4. No company in the right mind would desert a GPLv3 2.8 if it made only half the advances as 2.6 has."

This is simply not true. The companies who use, or want to use, Linux and other FOSS in their devices simply have no choice. If you make it impossible to ship GPLv3 software in devices that are critical to those companies' future (players for protected content, cell phones meeting FCC type certification rules, etc.), then they won't use GPLv3 software. They weren't using it before and they can, by and large, switch to something else with much less pain that there would be in giving up those markets.

[Note - not claiming to speak for the developers or for anyone else but myself]

to post comments

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 22:40 UTC (Fri) by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093) [Link] (5 responses)

> If you make it impossible to ship GPLv3 software in devices that are
> critical to those companies' future (players for protected content, cell
> phones meeting FCC type certification rules, etc.), then they won't use
> GPLv3 software.

This is backwards. What RMS is trying to do is ensure that the user cannot be bound by such unnecessary restrictions. "Protected content" should never exist - and hardware that can, by design, bypass the protection (or be hacked to do so) is good for both the consumer and the manufacturer.

I do take your point about FCC power-level rules - but that sort of limit ought to be implemented in silicon, if for no other reason than to avoid potential harm from driver bugs.

RMS has a habit of being right in the longterm, and he has my complete trust.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 1:57 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (4 responses)

My point is that disallowing use of free software in such devices will have essentially zero effect on whether the devices exist. The devices WILL exist, because consumers WANT them. If you want to fight DRM, the place to do it is in Congress (if you're in the US) and through public awareness.

"Protected content" exists because the content owners have said "these are the terms under which you can have our content" and most people are, apparently, willing to accept those terms. If you want to fight it, work to make people see that it's an unfair exchange. I think you'll have a hard sell, because the huge majority of them just want their TV programs, movies, and songs and don't really care about using them other than as the DRM allows, but maybe you can make some headway. Telling manufacturers "you can't use our software in this kind of device" just means they'll have to use different software, of which there is no particular shortage.

The current GPLv3 language tries to take an issue that belongs in legal and market arenas and make it a license term. This hurts the community (which benefits from the work and investment of the device manufacturers) and gains nothing in return.

The market can't fight DRM

Posted Sep 23, 2006 2:55 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (1 responses)

Fighting DRM in the market is a fallacy.

Purchasing choices are often too lumped together to make a definite statement.

Also, the list of options offered to people is designed as part of a strategy, not a just democracy.

Finally, the software/electronics industry can leverage a third party (such as the music industry) to make their DRM'd devices have a plus side.

The market can't fight DRM

Posted Sep 23, 2006 18:50 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

The DRM is there because the content owners insist on it. Device manufacturers have no particular desire to restrict their customers. But, if their customers want access to content that is only available under DRM restrictions, the device manufacturers are willing to do the extra work necessary to allow them to sell such devices.

[The game system market, where the manufacturers typically control the content, is a slightly special case.]

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 6:08 UTC (Sat) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link] (1 responses)

The devices will exist, sure. However, development costs of those devices
will be higher than development costs of open source devices. Capitalism
is what makes free software devices exist, you get a high quality OS for
free.

If manufacturers have a cost advantage if they stay DRM free, there will
be DRM free devices. So, lets implement the GPLv3.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 18:58 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

The cost of the OS is a tiny part of the development cost of a consumer device. Manufacturers do, in fact, worry about pennies of device cost, but the difference between the cost of using Linux and using a proprietary OS is a very small piece of the cost. Note that a lot of the device companies are using it to replace OSes that they wrote themselves. It's access to software that runs on Linux that is the big driver, and in many cases that is paid for under dual licenses, specifically to avoid licensing issues.

Manufacturers won't build devices they don't see a market for. A cable box that cable companies won't allow on their network won't have much market. A music player that won't work with content-owners' restrictions won't have much of a market. A cell phone that the FCC won't accept or that carriers won't sell won't have much of a market.

It's not hte manufacturers who want DRM, it's the CUSTOMERS who want the things that they can only have if they accept DRM. You can't fight that with a software license.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 10:23 UTC (Mon) by anandsr21 (guest, #28562) [Link]

This is the same argument that BSD guys would give. They are the ones saying that their license is business friendly. But you know what, GPL is the more business friendly because of the prisoners dilemma. It forces all the companies to cooperate, while the BSD favours the one not playing fair. Similar is the difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 regarding the DRM. the GPLv3 will in the long run turn out to be the one that survives better because it will again force companies to play fair rather that hiding behind DRM.

You are afraid that the big businesses will run away if they see the DRM is not allowed in Linux and Linux will suffer. But the question is again of the Prisoners Dilemma. Do you see any reason (apart from GPLv3) why they will not use DRM? And don't give me the bull**it about benefits of sharing, the prisoners dilemma guarantees that they will not share. If there will not be appreciable number of important programs that are not GPLv3 we should see very easily in the future a plethora of Tivoised devices.

You say that GPLv3 cannot block the progress of devices containing DRM. But at least it will provide an economic reason for not using DRM. Without that reason there is nothing that can block the progress of DRM.

If the kernel developers cannot be bothered to think beyond total domination of Linux they should at least let the other people think of the future.