Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:29:04 -0700 (PDT) | From | david@lang ... | Subject | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| |
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:51:06AM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: >> you snippede the bit about not knowing how to stop it > > I did? As far as I can tell I quoted it all. What did I miss? > >> they call the section the anti-tivoization, how much more explicit can >> they get? > > They could be as explicit as: > You can't use this code if you cooporate with anyone that requires > DRM systems.
I think their earlier versions did say this.
> All their attempts to define user devices and such is just going to > screw up and miss some things they wanted covered, and disallow things > they didn't intend to disallow (assuming there is any such thing). > >> by the way, just in case anyone is misunderstanding me. I don't believe >> for a moment that all these anti-tamper features actually work in the real >> world (the PS3 hacking kits are proof of the lengths people will go to to >> make the 'hard' hardware-level hacking trivial to do) but the approach >> needs to be at secure modulo hardware tampering or software bugs. > > DRM is completely pointless. It only stops casual end users from doing > things. It doesn't stop anyone with any technical clue from doing > things. I keep hoping one day the people in charge at the big media > companies will understand this, and stop asking for people to implement > it. Of course in the mean time there are companies perfectly willing to > claim to have unbreakable DRM for sale, while knowing full well (if they > are competent) that it is a lie. So as long as the people in charge at > big media are clueless about technology, and as long as there are > companies willing to lie to them for money, then we will probably > continue to have DRM crap to deal with.
DRM does have some legitimate uses, for example redhat installations not installing unsigned software is a form of DRM
> I don't think the GPLv3 is the place to try to remove DRM. What the FSF > should be doing is try to educate the people who are advocating the use > of DRM about the fact that it can't ever work. You can make more and > more stupid laws about how people can't remove the DRM, but people who > break copyright obviously already are breaking the law, so what is the > point in having more lows for them to break. That is where this problem > should be fought, not in the GPLv3. The GPLv3 is never going to solve > the problem, only educating people can do that.
this is exactly what most of the people who are arguing against this provision are saying.
David Lang - 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/
| |