Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 
> 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.

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3301105877.html

> 
> 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?

Run that modified software on some other competing DRM-less hardware?

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

For good reasons. Hack-resistant safety critical stuff and etc. And 
for TiVos (and alike) both hardware and controlling software is a 
loss leader. They want the boxes to be used as intended to generate 
profits. My, what a felony it is in the GNU land.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/occ/dmca2000/DiMA.html

-----
The technology to secure the first sale privilege exists today. As 
will be explained further below, copyrighted content can be delivered 
to the consumer with digital rights management ("DRM") systems that 
enable secure electronic transfers of possession or ownership, and 
that protect against unauthorized retention of the transferred copy. 
Extending the first sale doctrine to the electronic environment will 
provide the incentive for development of newer, more flexible, and 
more efficient DRM tools. 
-----