Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756237AbXFUS3A (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:29:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752566AbXFUS2w (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:28:52 -0400 Received: from dsl081-033-126.lax1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.33.126]:51588 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752433AbXFUS2v (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:28:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:29:04 -0700 (PDT) From: david@lang.hm X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Lennart Sorensen cc: Michael Poole , "H. Peter Anvin" , Tomas Neme , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 In-Reply-To: <20070621180538.GE10008@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Message-ID: References: <87sl8ms9z5.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> <87k5tys8w5.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> <87645is82q.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> <20070621171612.GC10008@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20070621174332.GD10008@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20070621180538.GE10008@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2805 Lines: 58 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:51:06AM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: >> you snippede the bit about not knowing how to stop it > > I did? As far as I can tell I quoted it all. What did I miss? > >> they call the section the anti-tivoization, how much more explicit can >> they get? > > They could be as explicit as: > You can't use this code if you cooporate with anyone that requires > DRM systems. I think their earlier versions did say this. > All their attempts to define user devices and such is just going to > screw up and miss some things they wanted covered, and disallow things > they didn't intend to disallow (assuming there is any such thing). > >> by the way, just in case anyone is misunderstanding me. I don't believe >> for a moment that all these anti-tamper features actually work in the real >> world (the PS3 hacking kits are proof of the lengths people will go to to >> make the 'hard' hardware-level hacking trivial to do) but the approach >> needs to be at secure modulo hardware tampering or software bugs. > > DRM is completely pointless. It only stops casual end users from doing > things. It doesn't stop anyone with any technical clue from doing > things. I keep hoping one day the people in charge at the big media > companies will understand this, and stop asking for people to implement > it. Of course in the mean time there are companies perfectly willing to > claim to have unbreakable DRM for sale, while knowing full well (if they > are competent) that it is a lie. So as long as the people in charge at > big media are clueless about technology, and as long as there are > companies willing to lie to them for money, then we will probably > continue to have DRM crap to deal with. DRM does have some legitimate uses, for example redhat installations not installing unsigned software is a form of DRM > I don't think the GPLv3 is the place to try to remove DRM. What the FSF > should be doing is try to educate the people who are advocating the use > of DRM about the fact that it can't ever work. You can make more and > more stupid laws about how people can't remove the DRM, but people who > break copyright obviously already are breaking the law, so what is the > point in having more lows for them to break. That is where this problem > should be fought, not in the GPLv3. The GPLv3 is never going to solve > the problem, only educating people can do that. this is exactly what most of the people who are arguing against this provision are saying. David Lang - 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/