The FSF, GPLv3 and DRM 388
whats-life-without-gpl writes "FSF has a thing against DRM. This article tries to explain why RMS isn't a DRM (Note that NewsForge is also owned by OSTG) fan and how GPLv3 is gearing up to protect against it. "
Of course RMS is not a DRM! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course RMS is not a DRM! (Score:2, Funny)
It's a series of tubes.
Re:Of course RMS is not a DRM! (Score:2)
Re:Of course RMS is not a DRM! (Score:4, Funny)
I wish another stupid politcian would come up with another retarded description for something technical so all these no-so-funny anymore tubes jokes would rot in the bowels of internets history.
Oh look, another joke that wasn't funny.
Re:Of course RMS is not a DRM! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Of course RMS is not a DRM! (Score:3, Funny)
RMS: Ramstein, Germany
DRM: Drama, Greece
Re:Of course RMS is not a DRM! (Score:2)
Re:Of course RMS is not a DRM! (Score:2)
Re:Of course RMS is not a DRM! (Score:4, Funny)
The problem with signing (Score:5, Interesting)
GPLv3 says that if any GPLed software carries an embedded key, this key should me made available to the users, but it makes no demands on the first kind of key. Linus has said that he would never distribute his signing keys, but the GPLv3 does not require him to release them. The key he talks about only describe the trustworthiness of the kernel. It in no way affects the freedoms of copyleft. It's only the embedded keys, which can be used to nullify the freedoms offered by copyleft, that need to be released.
Re:The problem with signing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem with signing (Score:2)
But it's not an embedded key of the software, it's an embedded key of the hardware. Modified software will run just fine... on any other equipment.
Now, the real question is whether this kind of "entanglement" would require the hardware to be GPL'd itself, including that key, just like linking to a GPL program or library would require the software to be GPL'd.
What's wrong with that? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm with Linus, I don't think the license should be used as a "crowbar" into the hardware too. The GPL3 sounds like it places even MORE restrictions on what the user and/or developer and/or companies may do, not less... I'm against how they went about it too... it doesn't sound like the FSF even took anyone's opinions into account, RS and the rest just created an even more onerous license than the original. I
Re:What's wrong with that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with that? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason they would have to provide that signing key would be if they rig the hardware so that it is NOT possible to run modified binaries in any other way. This would be silly.
Instead, what they should do, is include a documented, warranty-voiding method to turn off the circuit that refuses to load unsigned binaries. As an example - you have a locked, tamper proof box (like all medical equipment) and the purchaser receives a key. They may, at their discrection, us
Re:The problem with signing (Score:4, Interesting)
The manufacturer building that computer is perfectly legal. Linus continuing to develop Linux and sign his copies of it afterwards is perfectly legal.
The illegal act -- and the signifier of the "fundamental distinction" you're after -- is when the manufacturer copies Linux in order to sell it to someone on his special computer. He may only make that copy if he's complying with the terms of the GPL, the same as it ever was, and in order to comply with the GPL, he must ensure that the people receiving software from him receive the same rights he had when he received it -- the rights to modify it for any purpose that suits them. Since he want to deny his customers that right (at least when running on the computer he sold them), the GPL v3 will (correctly IMHO) deny him the right to sell Linus's software along with his shiny new computer.
If he made that computer, and required that his end users download a kernel.org kernel signed by Linus in order for his computer to operate, he would be in the clear, as would his end users (since they aren't copying any GPLed work, the provisions don't have to apply). This situation would make RMS slightly unhappy, since the end user isn't free to modify his computer's software, but it's perfectly legal according to the terms of the GPL v3.
Of course, the DRM provisions aren't designed to attack that farfetched example; they're designed to counter the much more plausible example of Tivo-style DRMization of GPLed works, letting Tivo profit from hundreds of millions of dollars [dwheeler.com] worth of community research without compensating the community in kind.
Boooring (Score:2)
This argument keeps surfacing even though it has been debunked time and again. The GPL v3 only requires you to provide the embedded key if it is necessary to run the software. That's the letter and the spirit of the GPL v3. The second discussion draft clearly words out: [fsf.org]
The real problem with trusted computing (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as i understood the discussion, GPLv3 thinks that (1.1) is the prob
Re:The problem with signing (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux signing the key is different because its unenforced. Its a way of recognizing that Linux blesses this version of the kernel, but it doesn't stop you from running any other version of the kernel.
Re:The problem with signing (Score:4, Insightful)
You rights under the gpl require them to let you have the source code for GPLed software they distribute and possibly change it if that is your wish. Nothing in the GPL makes a claim that you are entitled to run that code on any specific hardware, is there? Not any provision that i know of.
Having hardware and not being able to run whatever you want on it is a different story. If you want to do something the manufacturer didn't intend, then you are going to have to work around the limitations of the hardware. This includes limitations purposly implanted by the manufactuer. But, unless the hardware is GPLed, I don't see anything in the GPL guarenteeing this ability.
This is a key example of why manufacturers don't want to provide GPLed drivers. It will be construed before the day is out that there is some fundelmental rights here and assure microsofts possition on the GPL being viral. Stop and really think about it from an angle outside the everything should be free attitude and look for the real issue.
Re:The problem with signing (Score:3, Insightful)
The sensible angle to look at it from is "what am I trying to achieve in licensing my software?"
If you want users of your software to receive the right to modify it then these terms are likely to suit your aims.
If you want manufacturers to be able to limit the ability of recipients to modify your code then the GPL is probably not a good license for you, and never was.
Re:The problem with signing (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter what manufactures want. They aren't obligated to support linux. They aren't forced to use linux in their closed embedded systems. But if they do use it, since it means less cost, easier maintenance and higher quality, they are agreeing to the contract under which that code may be distributed. In the case of Windows CE, there is a definite cost and an onerous contract you need to agree to. Linux to has a cost too. You need to offer the source to anyone you give the software to. Leased, bought or free, you still need to offer them that.
Re:The problem with signing (Score:2)
Re:The problem with signing (Score:2)
Re:The problem with signing (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL or not, there is not and should not be any obligation for a vender to allow you to use the equiptment they are selling any differently then thier intended
Re:The problem with signing (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL was always, explicitly, designed to allow free usage of GPL code only to those who are willing to also allow that same freedom to those downstream of them.
Why you think that people "should" be ab
Re:The problem with signing (Score:2)
Linus is correct. What hardware you can/can not run on is not something for software license to enforce. Isint this a form of DRM through license?
As you said you have two rights here. The right to the Tivo since you bought it. The right to the software in the Tivo since it
Re:The problem with signing (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, no, it's just that the hardware you bought was damaged by design when you bought it. Tough, you should have bought something else. If I bought a PPC Mac would the fact that it won't boot Windows be violating my rights as an owner? No. (Of course, some of us would see that as a feature rather than a bug.)
Re:The problem with signing (Score:3, Insightful)
But an otherwise general purpose computer that will only load specially signed binaries is "damaged by design" in the same way that a 6-slot motherboard that has had two slots filled with glue and sold (cheaper) as a 4-slot mobo is damaged by design. (And before you scoff at this example, review the history of some of the old DEC Q-Bus and VAX systems.) Another example would be a car inherently capable of 120MPH with a manufacturer-installed governor to l
Re:The problem with signing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The problem with signing (Score:3, Insightful)
And the GPL can easily be extended to hardware- thats what the GPLv3 does. It ensures that if you use GPLed code in your hardware product, that the user must maintain the right to modify the code. It protects the principles of Free Softwa
Get a grip. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The problem with signing (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference is that the same entity is both the one releasing the code and enforcing the key. Linus doesn't have to release his key because he is not requiring it to run the code on anything (therefore, he isn't violating the license). Some company can create hardware that will only accept kernels signed with some particular key only if it doesn't actually distribute a modified and signed kernel itself (because it wouldn't be bound by the license in the first place).
This does bring up a flaw in the idea, though: what stops a company like TiVo from creating "unrelated" shell organizations so as to separate the kernel development and hardware development in order to get around this?
(note: I used the kernel merely as an example; there's no need to inform me about issues related to the lack of the "or any later version" clause)
Re:The problem with signing (Score:5, Insightful)
The second draft is very explicit and well thought-out; the question is whether you agree with the intent. On the one side, RMS (and an all-star cast) with a strong philosophical position supported by well thought-out arguments. On the other hand, Linus with some spur of the moment comments opposing RMS (at least I hope Linus' comments are spur of the moment because his position is not well articulated).
Re:The problem with signing (Score:3, Informative)
I thought of this same thing after I wrote an earlier post in this thread, and when I checked out the GPLv3 [fsf.org] draft, I saw that it was very cleverly handled even in that case:
The FSF, GPLv3 and DRM (Score:2)
I'm already busy gearing up to protect myself against acronyms overload, thank you.
Lay off the acronyms? (Score:5, Funny)
There, fixed it for you
I think... (Score:5, Funny)
We'd better get the CIA and FBI involved, along with the RIAA, NTSB, MPAA, ABC, CBS, CNN, AOL, MSN, and NBC. Oh, and be sure to alert the EFF and NRA while you're at it. Note that I am not affiliated with the RNC or DNC, although I am a FOB.
ObGoodMorningVietnam (Score:2)
Re:I think... (Score:2)
Great post... yup, you are definitely a Fucking Obvious Badass (tm)
SB
Re:I think... (Score:2)
Re:I think... (Score:2)
Of course RMS is not DRM! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Of course RMS is not DRM! (Score:2)
Could we use a few more acronyms? (Score:3, Funny)
Preaching to the choir? (Score:5, Insightful)
*waves to the trolls* Hi! This is for you!
1) The GPL is only ever a problem for you if you want to distribute someone else's work that they already let you use for free.
2) See point 1.
Gift horse, mouth, examination via the anus... all those are things that spring to mind when I hear complaints about how restrictive the GPL is.
Re:Preaching to the choir? (Score:2)
It is also a problem if I want to use their code in a project that is distributed under a license that is more free than the GPL. And I do.
Re:Preaching to the choir? (Score:2)
Huge restrictions on use of code? It guarantees the right of recipients to reuse code.
Re:Preaching to the choir? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Preaching to the choir? (Score:2)
Re:Preaching to the choir? (Score:4, Interesting)
OSS is properly a development model, not a philosophy.
Re:Preaching to the choir? (Score:2)
I applaud the altruism of releasing your work under a BSD-style license.
Re:Preaching to the choir? (Score:2)
Surrender accepted. Now go away and stop bothering us.
Oh, and GPL all your base on your way out.
Re:Help a clueless newbie out? (Score:2)
Re:Help a clueless newbie out? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Help a clueless newbie out? (Score:2)
Yes. If you don't want your code to be GPL, link to LGPL libraries instead. (Note, by the way, that GLIBC is LGPL, so system calls and standard library functions shouldn't cause a problem for you.)
DRM isn't the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
And then GPLv4 will come out (Score:2)
Re:And then GPLv4 will come out (Score:2)
Re:And then GPLv4 will come out (Score:2)
And he'll be the only one releasing software under GPLv3.
Re:And then GPLv4 will come out (Score:2)
Its kind of like a law that punishes people that kidknap you off the street and lock you in their basement.
Sure that restricts the kidnapper's freedom from doing what they want, but the hostages in the basement would beg to differ.
The point of these DRM restrictions allow the original author of the code to prevent people down the line from going against the spirit of the GPL by adding DRM to the code they
Re:And then GPLv4 will come out (Score:2)
Yeah, F*** those guys. It's like trying to make laws to protect people from other people. They must be clueless...
Re:DRM isn't the problem (Score:2)
For starters, I don't think MS would ever do that and if they did they wouldn't use GPL but some other kind of license they came up with.
Re:DRM isn't the problem (Score:2)
If they did, then they might well want to run some existing piece of free software that was only released under the GPL.
Missed the point (Score:2)
I switched to the XBOX instead of keeping with TiVo so people wouldn't chime in with "but TiVo doesn't have the volume to get a custom chip from Intel". Suppose Sony wanted to use a variant of VLC for a media player in the PS3 rather than write their own. The point was that you can TiVoize the software by running on custom hardware where the user can't recompile for that
Re:DRM isn't the problem (Score:2)
Well, in that example, there would be nothing stopping the end users from reverse-engineering the hardware and duplicating the proprietary tool chain.
Re:DRM isn't the problem (Score:2)
Personally, I have no problem with requiring an open tool chain. Really, why are compilers still being sold? Make your money with tools like Photoshop, or Lightwave, or whatever other tools are required to make the content. Or use LGPL'd stuff and sell a proprietary library. Or...
People who call the GPL "viral" and such really need a little imagination.
Linus needs to join the party (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope that Tivo get's taken to court. It would be a triumph for open source efforts.
What's wrong with TiVo? (Score:3, Informative)
Er, TiVo's one of the good guys, they release their source [tivo.com] in compliance with the GPL.
Re:What's wrong with TiVo? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's wrong with TiVo? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, by requiring signed binaries, you are restricted to run code only from TiVO. This restricts what users can do with their own hardware.
At the same time, since these devices are now on networks, there is a real possibility of them getting hacked. If TiVO ran untrusted binaries, this probably would have already happened. Of course, this happens now with Series 1 TiVO's, but you can't put them on the net without hacking, and if you are smart enough to do that, you probably have a firewall. So in some ways TiVO is doing a good thing by only running trusted code.
It is an interesting tradeoff.
Re:What's wrong with TiVo? (Score:2)
Re:What's wrong with TiVo? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, first off my DirecTiVo has no network option, and it's still crippled.
Secondly, there's a simple solution which would enable them to comply with the letter and spirit of the GPL: Put a DIP switch inside the unit that turned off the signature verification.
And thirdly, yesterday I had a successful Denial of Service attack perpetrated against my TiVo by TiVo/DirecTV themselves, who somehow
Re:What's wrong with TiVo? (Score:2)
Why, why, why?
I mean, the whole point of the GPL(v2) is this, you can take my code and do with it whatever you want. And than I can take your modifications/additions and do with it whatever I want. And look, you can take the code used in the Tivo and you can do with it whatever you want. Nothing wrong there...
And then there's the fact that some hardware will only run manufacturer approved software. If you don't like that, don't buy the hard
Re:What's wrong with TiVo? (Score:4, Informative)
They don't make it easy to hack the box and put fixes or
enhancements of GPLed software on the box.
Tivo went overboard, and locked down the entire box when
they could have done the following alternative:
Provide the source (as they do).
Provide a build environment so you can make enhancements
or install bug fixes to the GPLed software (they don't).
Provide a method to update the box (reflash if needed) (they don't).
Make sure the box will boot any kernel with GPLed userland (they don't).
Tivo could do the above, and provide their signed proprietary
binaries, and everyone would be happy.
Because of Tivo, RMS has been gamed, and he and Eben have
come up with a more complicated 'solution' to the problem.
All the GPLv3 has to do (with regard to DRM), is to require
that distributors provide the source, provide the build environment,
provide their proprietary binaries, provide a method to update
the box, and make sure the box will boot even if you change the GPLed software.
Everyone will be happy, and the spirit of GPL will be preserved.
Violates SPIRIT of GPL. (Score:3, Insightful)
Complying with the letter of the license is not the same thing as complying with the spirit and intent of it. The GPL is designed to ensure that the user always has control over his hardware; since the TiVo won't run modified code, the user does not have this control. QED.
Re:Linus needs to join the party (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically speaking they are not ignoring the GPL.
The purpose of the GPLv2 was never to force all hardware to run your custom software, it was to force other developers to publish their own changes to your code (please note that I am talking about the intents of the GPLv2, not the intents of the FSF). In other words: feel free to modify the software... just don't expect it to run in my hardware. And Linus
Re:Linus needs to join the party (Score:2)
The intents of the GPL v.2 and the intents of the FSF are exactly the same. The trouble is that the letter of the GPL v.2 fails to reflect that, which is why the FSF is coming out with the GPL v.3. It doesn't change the intent; it just fixes some bugs.
Re:Linus needs to join the party (Score:2)
Er, no it wouldn't. Here's why...
The TiVo license applies to what can be run on the TiVo hardware device. You are free to download the TiVo source, modify it as you see fit and run it on any compatible device; the TiVo device itself just isn't one of these. You are also free to attempt to hack the TiVo hardware to allow non-signed software to run but this is a different problem (and probably voids the warranty).
WSE (Score:3, Funny)
He is against DRM, but that's not the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the beginning the idea of free software (as rms sees it) is that if you use a program, you should have the freedom to modify it, among other freedoms. So if you have a Tivo, you should have the freedom to modify the software that runs on your Tivo. If Linux is GPLed, then it's clearly not allowed for the Tivo manufacturers to ship it with a label saying 'we forbid modifying the software'. It's also not allowed under the GPL for them to try blocking your freedom another way by withholding the source code. But under GPLv2 your freedom to change the program can still be taken away, by the manufacturer making the device only execute signed binaries (for which nobody but the manufacturer has the signing key). GPLv3 as proposed is about making sure your freedom to change the software running on your computer (or Tivo) isn't taken away like this.
Of course anyone can write GPLed software that has DRM restrictions. But if you use it, you should have the right to modify it, and remove the DRM if you don't want DRM on your computer. That is the important point.
Analogously: there is nothing in the GPL against charging a sum of money for the software. You can sell it for as much as you like. But if you do, the person who receives it still gets all the freedoms to use, share and change the program.
Re:He is against DRM, but that's not the point (Score:3, Insightful)
So fundimentally, what's the difference between hardware only running signed code, and having the code on a PROM chip? Is the GPL V4 going to end up banning the use of read-only memory?
I fear a repeat of the Bison fiasco... (Score:5, Insightful)
I fear that GPLv3, by trying to force RMS's notion of "Liberty" more strongly (anti-DRM provisions, anti-closed-hardware provisions) will be a repeat: GPLv3 based software will only be used by the real FSF zealots. Everyone else will avoid it.
Let us be thankful that Linus Torvald has more of a "tit for tat" notion rather than a liberty notion, and thus selected GPLv2 only.
Re:I fear a repeat of the Bison fiasco... (Score:3, Insightful)
How would the proposed GPL v3 affect average programmers in a negative way, other than denying us pieces of hardware that come with GPL bi
Re:I fear a repeat of the Bison fiasco... (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft, the RIAA and the MPAA have wanted to be able to do this for a long time.
We will then need a blessed versions of Linux that has been signed by a major financial backer like IBM who could give kickbacks to the right cartels just to be able to access the content we can currenly use and to read files sent to us from Microsoft machines.
I don't know if Richard Stallman stands much chance against the tide of monopolies and cartels that want to use DRM to restrict our rights(RIAA/MPAA) and kill competition (Microsoft).
But I'm glad someones trying.
Re:I fear a repeat of the Bison fiasco... (Score:5, Informative)
Correction: Bison used to have the restriction that the output of Bison was GPL, because nobody (including the FSF) had noticed that that was true. As soon as somebody did (in 1996 or so), the FSF put in a special exception [gnu.org] and life went on pretty much as normal.
Yes, the popularity of Bison has certainly suffered a staggering defeat; the Debian popularity contest [debian.org], to pick a random example, shows it slightly less popular than X Windows, but slightly more popular than the ftp client. Doubtless we should heed your example and run screaming from the GPLv3 lest we, like it, and like Bison, become...
(shudder)
unpopular.
Nice use of the word "zealot" to describe harmless nerds who like to share their software, also.
Oh, if Linux's key is ok, GPLv3 doesn't stop Tivo. (Score:2)
GPL 2 vs. GPL 3 (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't this mean that - since GPL 3 is more restrictive - that already GPL'ed software cannot be distributed under GPL 3?
Re:GPL 2 vs. GPL 3 (Score:2)
If it was released with the "or any future version" language in the GPL it used, there's no problem.
Re:GPL 2 vs. GPL 3 (Score:2)
It would, except that the default boilerplate is that you license it under the GPL v.2 "or any later version." Because of that clause, the code is effectively dual-licensed.
Aside from that, however, no, they're not compatible. This is why Linux kernel code (licensed without that clause) can't become GPL v.3 without the consent of every copyright holder.
YAT (Score:2)
Can I buy a vowel? (Score:2, Interesting)
RMS? (Score:3, Funny)
Acronyms (Score:2, Informative)
DRM: Digital Rights Management
RMS: Richard M. Stallman (founder of the free software movement, the GNU Project, the Free Software Foundation, and the League for Programming Freedom).
OSTG: The Open Source Technology Group.
GPLv3: GNU Public License version 3.
Re:Summus interruptus (Score:2)
i agree though that in this case the disclaimer was ackwardly placed.
Re:Summus interruptus (Score:3, Informative)
instead of
Re:Why does everyone keep quoting Linus? (Score:2, Interesting)
Unless he wanted to write a brand new kernel from scratch, which would be a kick-ass idea. I wouldn't miss linux' monolithic dinkerishisness.
Two problems with this (Score:2)
The first problem is that this ranges from being technically very difficult to technically impossible. For example, if the key is built into the CPU chip you can't just pry it open and flip bits. Early versions might be breakable but later versions will be extremely difficult if not impossible to break.
The second problem is that this is il
Re:What if Linksys had TiVo'd the WRT54G? (Score:2)
I'd like to ask the amatuer lawers here a question: Does the GPL (pick your version) have any stan
Re:The FSF are out to lunch on this. (Score:2)
And the GPLv3 simply says that if I can't run modified GPLv3 software on that machine then no one can use my GPLv3 software on that machine.
ac said:
Exactly! And if there is a large enough GPLv3 cod