Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:09:06 -0800 (PST) | From | Michael ODonald <> | Subject | Abolishing the DMCA (was GPL only modules) |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over > the rights expressly granted by copyright law.
The best ways to get rich corporations on our side in fighting the DMCA is to use the DMCA to hurt their profits. Companies that rely on binary drivers would have several options:
1) Lobby politicians to repeal the DMCA, thereby allowing the companies to *internally* circumvent Linuxs GPL-only pseudo-restriction all they want by simply changing the source code.
2) Release the binary drivers as open source or use their economic clout to pressure the makers of the binary drivers.
3) Use FOSS-friendly hardware.
Im sorry, but theres currently no economic push for repealing the DMCA; the only people trying to abolish it are idealists who are easily out-bought by the media cartel. This is our only chance to put some corporate money muscle behind the otherwise doomed anti-DMCA movement.
And just to make it clear: Gregs proposal calls for a soft-DRM that is by definition easily circumvented the only thing that prevents companies from removing it is the blasted DMCA. Once the DMCA is gone, so will be the soft-DRM.
> So it's ok when we do it, but bad when > other people do it?
Those "other people" (Tivo/BlueRay/HD-DVD/Zune/PlayStation/Xbox) are using hard-DRM (aka. Treacherous Computing) where the *hardware* refuses to run modified code. By contrast, this proposed GPL-enforcing mechanism is a soft-DRM that allows anyone with mediocre coding skills to remove it. A binary module can even get away with lying about its own license!
Even the current draft of the GPLv3 allows soft-DRM because soft-DRM is so easily circumvented. The only entities hurt by pseudo-enforcing the GPL through soft-DRM are the unscrupulous makers of binary drivers, who are already infringing the GPL. In-house development of binary-only drivers can still continue as usual: all you have to do is not distribute the binary.
Let me quote from what Linus said in an article titled "Torvalds says DRM isn't necessarily bad":
http://news.com.com/Torvalds+says+DRM+isnt+necessarily+bad/2100-7344_3-6034964.html
""" Torvalds gave some examples of areas where he believes it's appropriate for ... a computer to run only software versions that have this digital signature to assure they're authorized. A company might want to distribute a Linux version that loads only kernel modules that have been signed, for example. Or they may want one that marks the kernel as "tainted" if it loads unsigned modules, Torvalds said. """
So why do you say its ok for Tivo to refuse to run FOSS modules on their Treacherous platform, but *not* ok for FOSS developers to uphold their rights? Are sleazy corporations subject to a different set of laws or morals than us common folk?
No, laws are generally equitable and strive to provide each and every one of us with the same legal tools. One such tool, the DMCA, has been used far too often by monopolies to exterminate competition and imprison consumers. Its time to give these monopolies a piece of their own medicine. They either lobby politicians to abolish the DMCA or they open-source the Linux drivers that they distribute. Now thats a fair deal if I ever saw one!
PS: I encourage Greg and all developers who were initially in favor of enforcing the GPL-only module policy to stand strong on this important issue.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |