LWN: Comments on "A couple of Linux trademark notes"

piracy-enablers

Ross — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:33:09 +0000

Actually, bnetd is not limited to use with Blizzard games, though that is the focus of the software. What you say about the lack of standardized DRM is true, though Linux does currently do things like turn off the unique processor serial number features which is the basis for many DRM implementations. Unfortunately for the bnetd project, the Blizzard DRM mechanism isn't documented, is only implemented as a black box (the algorithm can only be feed inputs and the yes/no response tested) from anyone but Blizzard's viewpoint, and Blizzard considers it a secret. If anyone were motivated enough to implement it, they would have to test a huge number of queries against Blizzard's servers... you can bet that Blizzard would call that a DoS attack and attempted piracy.

A couple of Linux trademark notes

job — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:31:51 +0000

After reading the above link where he further explains how he sees the matter I am now fully convinced he's been brainwashed by working there and actually believes what he's writing.

To that I would like to reply: 1) On the topic that the only reason is to enable piracy, then what is the reason to port Linux to an old SGI Indy? What is the reason to port GCC to the PDP11? Figuring out a complex protocol from net dumps is great geek credz. 2) One could just as easily say that Samba is nothing but a piracy enabler. After all, why wouldn't just somebody buy MS Server 2003? Samba is a tool to copy data between pirated versions of MS Windows.

A couple of Linux trademark notes

dannyobrien — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:50:00 +0000

I think it's worth pointing out, in the interests of full disclosure, that Florian has worked for Blizzard in the past, which may well influence his position on the Bnetd case.

d. (who works for the EFF)

A couple of Linux trademark notes

mozart3 — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:37:19 +0000

See also Florian's view on the bnetd issue here:
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=418

piracy-enablers

dlang — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:23:27 +0000

I'll admit that I only casually followed the case, but how in the world could Bnetd be expected to implement the anti-piracy code of bnet when it's secret, and intentially designed to be difficult to reverse engineer?

piracy-enablers

gowen — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:57:34 +0000

The distinction is that Operating Systems are multi-purpose in a way Bnetd cannot possibly be. This may not be a distinction you care to make, but the US Courts do. Bnetd's comparitively limited functionality make an anti-piracy check practical to implement. Adding similar general-DRM functionality to Linux is not practical, even if it is possible.

A couple of Linux trademark notes

job — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:50:00 +0000

If your assumption is true then his remark was a really unfortunate and
unnecessary one. Much of what Florian has accomplished has been made
possible by unpaid work from volunteer individuals. Creative people who
actually create things should not be frowned on.

A couple of Linux trademark notes

Ross — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:37:23 +0000

My best guess is that he is worried about appearances and that he thinks bnetd appears to be anti-Blizzard, and that he thinks EFF's support appears to make them look to be against all forms of intellectual property (I personally hate that term, but whatever), and that such appearances appear to make them look communist or at least anti-business.

Lots of assumptions and supposed inferences. You'd almost get the idea he doesn't give other people much credit for thinking.

A couple of Linux trademark notes

man_ls — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:27:49 +0000

Mueller refers to "intellectual property" liberally, which seems to be a concession to lobbies which do not differ much from software patent proponents (like RIAA, MPAA or BSA itself). An extract:

It's lawless and pointless to indiscriminately oppose intellectual property rights. They're the foundation of the digital economy.

Lawless? In which sense of the word? Beg to differ from all of them. Stallman himself opposes indiscriminately "intellectual property rights", since he won't let you even use the term since it is misleading; and you would hardly call the man "lawless".

Foundation of the digital economy? This stupid rationalization could as well be used to attack Linux since closed source is the "Fundamental pillar of the digital lifestyle" or some other newspeak for outrageous software licenses and useless DRM schemes.

This issue contains a lesson for all of us: if you ever want to rant about anything and make it appear respectable at the same time, just write your opinion in third person, include Torvalds' name somewhere and post it from some notable account. My take:

ANTI-SOFTWARE PATENT SUPPORTER THINKS LINUS TORVALDS LOOKS GOOD IN SWIMMING SUIT, REQUESTS THAT DEBIAN SUPPORT THE MAC MINI'S SLEEP FEATURES.

A couple of Linux trademark notes

job — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:11:03 +0000

I do agree very much with Florian Müller that other forms of intellectual
property are vastly different from software patentability. I think that
is (part of) the reason why Richard Stallman stays away from that term
and is careful to speak about patent law only.

What I do not understand however, is the remark about the bnetd case. I
may be misinformed since it was a long time ago that I read about it, but
wasn't it the case of re-implementing a proprietary protocol in free
code? And that the company behind the proprietary server code was very
angry (just like Bitkeeper was with Tridgell) and tried stop them. What
is the logic behind defending that behaviour?

piracy-enablers

Ross — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:49:53 +0000

I don't mean to speak for the other poster but I have a personal interest in those statements by Mr. Mueller and they greatly offend me.

I believe the argument wasn't about open source but about the utility of software. If bnetd is a "piracy enabler" because people can play illegally-made copies of games on it, then other seemingly-innocuous software like operating systems, ftp clients, video card drivers, etc. would be "piracy enablers". I guess it hinges on just what definition is being used, but I can not think of one that wouldn't relegate huge swaths of the software industry to the "dirty pirates" bin.

(Please note I'm not trying to distract from the discussion of the Linux trademark. Those comments were made in the press release even though they seem to have no relation to the topic whatsoever.)

piracy-enablers

kornak — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:32:24 +0000

There is a fallacy in your logic. Since Linux, by its very nature is open
source as are most of the applications and tools on the platform, there is
very little one would need. It is primarily a developer's platform. Windows
is a less sofisticated consumer platform that does not include much and one
must purchase a great deal of software in order to achieve parity with a
base Linux platform. Thus, you either have to purchase or pirate what is
missing on your platform. Also, regarding the issue of music and video
piracy, clearly a consumer oriented platform would be the primary pirate
platform. It is clear, the primary enabler of piracy of any sort is Windows.

piracy-enablers

dvdeug — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:07:51 +0000

He says "It's very unwise for organizations like the EFF
(Electronic Frontier Foundation) to rush to the aid of piracy-enablers." But in the same sense that bnetd is a piracy-enabler, so is Linux. Linux is a tool to copy and process data, illicit or licit, just like bnetd doesn't care whether the people connecting up have valid copies of the game or not. Linux is used to copy and play pirated copies of movies, music, and games all the time. What's the difference?