Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions

[James Blackwell]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:50:11AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:13:04AM -0500, James Blackwell wrote:
> > My favorite example is the Tivo. The Tivo relies heavily on free software
> > (its a GNU/Linux system). As such, one can damand (and will get) the
> > source in preferred form for the Tivo. This doesn't mean anything under
> > gplv2 though because the binaries are DRM signed and replacing their
> > authorized version with your unsigned version will result in a tivo which
> > will not boot.
> > 
> > With the DRM clause in the GPL, Tivo will either have to forgo gplv3
> > licensed software or provide free software which allows anybody to replace
> > the signed-by-them free software on their machines with signed-by-you
> > software on their machines.
> 
> What this says is:
> 
> You may not take GPLed software and use it on the Playstation because
> Sony, a third party over which you have no control, has implemented
> DRM measures in the hardware which will only run signed binaries. Even
> if you publish every scrap of information you posess under an
> unrestrictive license, you still can't do it.

This is _almost_ true. The draft doen't say 'you can't'. The draft says
that if you do, you have to provide the tools to sign new versions.  I.E.
you can't distribute gpled on DRM systems unless the opportunity for
anybody to replace it exists.

> It's punishing users for an externality. That makes no sense. The
> people who are punished have no control or influence over the
> matter. Sony does not care that nobody can run GPLed software on it,
> they never wanted to anyway, so they aren't punished.

I can see your viewpoint. I'd argue that if you can't compile new free
software for the machine, you're already locked out.


> Furthermore, all Microsoft has to do is to get Palladium as a required
> hardware component in every PC, and then you can't have GPLed software
> on your PC any more, even if you were willing to pay to get it
> there. That makes them *want* to lock down the system, it doesn't make
> them want to free it up.

I don't think Intel (who was at the conference) would refuse to boot
unsigned software. It doesn't make sense to their business model because
they derive much, too much revenue from systems that have no plans on the
table to support DRM.  DRM doesn't work quite the way you discuss.
Palladium won't prevent you from breaking the chain of trust; rather, if
you run something untrusted, you're prevented from accessing anything
trusted until reboot.  you reboot if you run something untrusted.  Its
like a one-way door of sorts.  This will happen regardless of the gplv3,
because the content providers (such as the RIAA)  wants to do things like
charging you a nickel each time you listen to a song and to make sure that
nobody can play unauthorized content.


> Not every system created is used solely by the people who created it.


> 
> -- 
> Andrew Suffield



> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
> 
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

-- 
James Blackwell's home :  http://jblack.linuxguru.net
Gnupg 06357400   F-print AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature