Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030305AbWAXDIx (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:08:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030307AbWAXDIx (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:08:53 -0500 Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.72]:43767 "EHLO smtpout.mac.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030305AbWAXDIw (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:08:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: <441e43c90601231755qaddb557r7f102d9c1f79ad5@mail.gmail.com> References: <200601212043.k0LKhG4w003290@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <87ek2y8n1f.fsf@basilikum.skogtun.org> <441e43c90601231755qaddb557r7f102d9c1f79ad5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kyle Moffett Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:08:45 -0500 To: Ian Kester-Haney X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 6182 Lines: 146 On Jan 23, 2006, at 20:55, Ian Kester-Haney wrote: > Linux shouldn;t move to the GPL3 for the very reason that the DRM > restrictions would make linux incompatible with soon to be released > displays. I'm sorry, what are you saying here? I've not heard about these soon- to-be-released displays, could you elucidate, possibly summarizing or linking to references? > Also Nvidia and such would not be able to make binary drivers > available. In many peoples eyes, this would be a _good_ thing, besides, it's not clear whether or not their binary drivers are legal _now_, without concern for their status under the GPLv3 > Copyright for one work is set forward in law. My view is that > Artists and their sponsors deserve the right to prevent piracy. Have you tried describing music "piracy" to a small child (say, age 6) in a way that distinguishes it from "sharing your things with other people"? It's rather difficult, possibly even impossible. Many people argue that with modern technology, this distinction has become artificial and an artifact of an aging business model. A number of artists who promote some music sharing have been doing very well. > In my view the Open Source Community have an incompatible attitude. I will ignore the second bit, since it's mostly a matter of opinion, but the Open Source Community (especially the Linux Community) values copyright extremely highly. In fact, it is this copyright that makes the Linux Kernel sources a true democracy. You cannot relicense the whole without agreement from all (or an extremely large majority bordering on "all") of the developers consent. > In my mind the buying of a DVD means that I watch it on DVD players > be it on my computer or on the TV. Or, according to Fair Use as set down in a number of court cases, make a single copy for backup, show privately to friends, convert to an alternative format for viewing in a different way or with other equipment. > While I beleive that I should be able to watch my DVDs on a linux > based system, it behooves the open source community to support it > in a legal way. I go to the store, I find a black box on the shelf, I pick it up, go to the cashier, pay for it, and leave the store. At that point, I've purchased an object and may do whatever I like with said object. I never signed any license or filled out any forms prior to paying money for it, and there was no condition that I do so, therefore no _license_ conditions apply. On the other hand, copying the DVD and giving a copy to all your friends is _distributing_ it and therefore covered by _copyright_ law (not license/contract law), which makes it illegal for me to do so (although my personal opinion is that needs careful review and possible revision). > Cracking Access Control Sytems might be fun, but it only generates > huge controversy in concerned industries. The industries do not matter. The point of the government is to help and protect the _people_. This means that to a limited extent, the government protects individuals copyrights, and allows corporations some rights (because they provide jobs, services, etc). This does not mean that the government should do anything the industry wants even though hundreds of millions of people are breaking that law on a daily basis. Something that widespread (especially given the lack of issues arising thereof) indicates that the _law_ is wrong, not the many millions doing the breaking. This bends more towards the copyright issues I talk about above, but applies here too. Besides, a DRM system is pointless and futile; it's trying to protect data from people by giving them the encrypted data, the algorithm, and the key. Any cryptographer will tell you that you are bound to lose from the start. > An Open Source Access Control System that is respected by the FOSS > community would be a great diplomatic way to allow for more access > to content. Open Source Access Control System: if (access_allowed(media_descriptor, user_data)) { provide_data(media_descriptor); } My 3-line patch to "fix" it to let me watch my German DVD in the US: --- oldfile +++ newfile -if (access_allowed(media_descriptor, user_data)) { provide_data(media_descriptor); -} This is a _fundamentally_ _flawed_ idea. > My personal view is that copying for my own personal use is ok Good > however the converting of such material in a way not granted to me > by the Creator is not ethical. Why does the creator have any say in what you can do with it personally? I'm legally allowed to buy a copy of MS Windows and burn it for symbolic value; why the hell would we want to allow a *CORPORATION* (Read: bunch of greedy rich executives) control what you can do with stuff. Heck, we don't trust the _government_ (Read: bunch of greedy rich lawyers), or sometimes even one's personal _church_ to control. > The GNU/Linux community needs to work with the MPAA, RIAA and other > DRM players and work to support basic restrictions on copying > content while preserving the Creator/Companies right to sustain > their works. We don't _need_ to work with anybody, we're just converting abstract mathematical algorithms to a more practically useable form and publishing the result. The fact that somebody with lawlessness in mind could do something illegal with our formalized codified published math files is totally irrelevant. In the US (where I live, can't speak for other countries) we don't blame the gun manufacturers for what people do with submachine guns, so why should we blame the software developers (Read: practical mathematicians) for what people do with their programs? Cheers, Kyle Moffett -- Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible -- Alan Kay - 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/