Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 22:40 UTC (Fri) by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093)
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by sepreece
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

> 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.

to post comments

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.