Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 01:36 -0500, D.C. Parris wrote:
> I am curious to know what people think about Linus Torvalds' comments on the
> anti-DRM clause in the GPLv3 draft.  According to Linus, the GPLv3 (as is)
> could cause problems, i.e., when needing to run signed code in the kernel. 
> Giving up your private key would make signing the code a moot point.  

Linus did not, at the time of those statements, understand that clause.

The clause says that IF a CERTAIN private KEY is REQUIRED, then you have
to PROVIDE that KEY.

This is for the case of Digital Restrictions Management enabled hardware
that will only load software signed with that KEY.

What good is the software if you can modify it to satisfy your needs but
are unable to satisfy your needs because you can't run it without
signing it again?

The problem is that in DRM the owner of the machine doesn't control the
KEY. Someone else does.

Rui

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part