lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
    On Thursday 02 February 2006 04:37, Pierre Ossman wrote:
    >Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Pierre Ossman wrote:
    >>> The point is not only getting access to the source code, but also
    >>> being able to change it. Being able to freely study the code is
    >>> only half of the beauty of the GPL. The other half, being able to
    >>> change it, can be very effectively stopped using DRM.
    >>
    >> No it cannot.
    >>
    >> Sure, DRM may mean that you can not _install_ or _run_ your changes
    >> on somebody elses hardware. But it in no way changes the fact that
    >> you got
    >
    >I don't consider things I've bought to be somebody elses hardware. The
    >whole attitude of the big manufacturer that kindly gives me permission
    >to use their product only how they see fit is very disgusting to me.
    >
    >> The difference? The hardware may only run signed kernels. The fact
    >> that the hardware is closed is a _hardware_ license issue. Not a
    >> software license issue. I'd suggest you take it up with your
    >> hardware vendor, and quite possibly just decide to not buy the
    >> hardware. Vote with your feet. Join the OpenCores groups. Make your
    >> own FPGA's.
    >
    >I'm concerned that in a few years time such systems will be rare and
    >hard to come by (possibly even illegal). I find such system pissing
    > all over the spirit of the GPL.

    And I too see this scenario developing as the years go by, prodded to
    keep it in motion at every twitch of a muscle to do other wise by the
    likes of M$ because it cements the last brick into his domination of
    the world scene. It scares me bad enough to keep my powder dry & in
    good supply if you get my drift. DRM-less hardware will vanish from
    the supply chain unless smuggled in from au or nz. And I do mean
    smuggled, with severe penalties for being caught at it.

    > To me, the GPL has always been about
    > the freedom of modifying (in place, not making a clone).
    >
    >It's a fine line before we are in the territory of restricting what
    >software can be used for. But for me this is not about restricting
    > their rights as much as it is preventing them from restricting mine.
    >
    Right on.

    >> And it's important to realize that signed kernels that you can't run
    >> in modified form under certain circumstances is not at all a bad
    >> idea in many cases.
    >>
    >> For example, distributions signing the kernel modules (that are
    >> distributed under the GPL) that _they_ have compiled, and having
    >> their kernels either refuse to load them entirely (under a "secure
    >> policy") or marking the resulting kernel as "Tainted" (under a "less
    >> secure" policy) is a GOOD THING.
    >
    >I dislike the former but the latter is acceptable (and, as you say, in
    >some cases desirable). There is a big difference between refusing to
    > run and printing/logging warnings.
    >
    >> Notice how the current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat
    >> would have to distribute their private keys so that anybody sign
    >> their own versions of the modules they recompile, in order to
    >> re-create their own versions of the signed binaries that Red Hat
    >> creates. That's INSANE.

    Where are the guys in the white jackets when we need them?

    >> Btw, what about signed RPM archives? How well do you think a secure
    >> auto-updater would work if it cannot trust digital signatures?
    >
    >I'm arguing the principle here, not the wording of the current draft.
    >Signatures that are required for execution should be covered, those
    > that result in warnings should not be. Imagine the shit storm if Red
    > Hat decided to ship an rpm that didn't allow packages that weren't
    > signed by them.
    >
    >It's basically about control. I do not find it reasonable to allow the
    >vendor control of what goes or not on systems I've bought. They're
    > free to put systems in place so they can detect that I've fiddled
    > with it so they can deny me support. But if they want to make a
    > completely closed system then they'll have to develop it on their own
    > and not use my code. "Look but don't touch" is not sufficient for me.

    Amen. And on that point, we need a better method to detect that they
    have 'borrowed' FOSS code, and an expensive lawsuit settled in FOSS
    favor to set an enforcement example, but I have no imagination of a
    method they couldn't just as easily remove IF they had a coder worthy
    of the name of coder who wanted to be so larsonous.

    >Rgds
    >Pierre
    >
    >
    >-
    >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/

    --
    Cheers, Gene
    People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
    'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
    stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-)
    Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
    message by Gene Heskett are:
    Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-02 15:48    [W:0.032 / U:59.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site