Nuttig ... Over de implicaties van DRMs (met -volgens de FSF Free 
Software Foundation- de "R" van "Restrictions") op Vrije Softwazre... :


   Title     Stallman, Torvalds, Moglen share views on DRM and GPLv3
   Date      2006.08.09 16:00
   Author    Shashank Sharma

   With the recent release of the [1]second draft of the GNU General
   Public License version 3 (GPLv3), digital rights management (DRM) is
   back in the news. The new draft may raise concerns about the rewording
   of section 3 of the license, which deals with DRM. The [2]Free
   Software Foundation dislikes the term "[3]digital rights management"
   and instead choose to call it digital "restrictions" management. But
   many people don't understand the implications of DRM on free software
   like Linux.

   To understand why FSF thinks of DRM as restricting users' freedom, one
   needs to understand the meaning of [4]copyleft and the essence of the
   GPL. This license upheld the four provisions of copyleft:
   (a) the freedom to use the software,
   (b) the freedom to copy and share the software,
   (c) the freedom to modify the software (this requires the source code
   to be available), and
   (d) the freedom to run and distribute modified software.

   The use of DRM to disallow freedoms (c) and (d) is what FSF doesn't
   like. Richard Stallman (RMS), founder of the FSF, calls this situation
   [5]Tivoization. The term originates from [6]TiVo, a digital video
   recording device that allows users to record television programs to an
   internal hard disk for later viewing. Tivo runs on Linux-based
   software, which means that it is governed by the GPL. That is, the
   source code is available, the users have the right to modify the
   source code, and they have the right to run the modified source code.

   But with TiVo this doesn't happen.

   While one can modify the source code of TiVo's Linux-based software,
   one can't run it. The product's DRM enforcement prevents users from
   running modified versions of the code on their systems. This conflicts
   with the freedoms and provisions of the GPL. The DRM in this regard
   acts as a restriction; users are restricted from exercising the right
   to run the modified source code.

   Signing keys

   The makers of TiVo include a digital key into the software, somewhat
   similar to the md5sum value that people can check after they download
   software. Users can compare the md5sum of the download against the
   md5sum value listed on the site from which the software came in order
   to make sure they are getting the complete, genuine thing.

   In the case of TiVo, the digital key makes sure that the software was
   written by the makers of TiVo. If you change the source code and
   recompile it, the digital keys will no longer match, and when the
   system sees that, it will prevent you from running the modified

   Tivoization doesn't apply just to TiVo, but to all instances of DRM
   usage that restrict the freedoms offered to the users by GPL.

   GPLv3 explicitly asks software makers to provide whatever digital keys
   they use such that people who wish to run modified versions of the
   software can do so by using this key on their modified version. At the
   [7]3rd international conference on GPLv3, held in Barcelona in June,
   RMS said, "They can design the hardware so that it requires the
   binaries to be signed by a certain signature key in order to run, but
   they must give you the signature key so that you can sign your
   modified binaries. They must give you whatever it takes to authorize
   your version so that it will run."

   But Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, has a problem with this. He
   says that he himself signs the Linux kernel, and that that's his way
   of telling everyone, "You can trust this, it's from me." In an
   [8]email message to the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML) on 23 April,
   he says that there are two types of keys: "One is an external key that
   is applied _to_ the kernel (OK, and outside the license), and the
   other one is embedding a key _into_ the kernel."

   GPLv3 says that if any GPLed software carries an embedded key, this
   key should me made available to the users, but it makes no demands on
   the first kind of key. Linus has said that he would never distribute
   his signing keys, but the GPLv3 does not require him to release them.
   The key he talks about only describe the trustworthiness of the
   kernel. It in no way affects the freedoms of copyleft. It's only the
   embedded keys, which can be used to nullify the freedoms offered by
   copyleft, that need to be released.

   Linus has repeatedly claimed that it is not for a license to decide
   how a manufacturer uses digital keys. He says the key are firmware,
   and therefore a software license has no scope or reason for
   controlling this.

   Eben Moglen addressed that concern during the conference in Barcelona.
   Moglen, general counsel of the Free Software Foundation and chairman
   of Software Freedom Law Center, said, "You will hear a lot of talk
   about DRM in which it is suggested that we are somehow trying to use a
   software licence to address non-software issues. Nothing could be
   further from the truth; we are addressing a software issue.... And by
   the way, what you are not allowed to do by illegally modifying the
   licence, you are not allowed to do by modifying the hardware so that
   the licence can be evaded safely. It's a straightforward proposition:
   you can't do it this way and you can't do it that way either."

   GPLv3 not alone

   Contrary to common belief, GPLv3 is not the first license to denounce
   DRM. [9]Against DRM 2.0 is a free copyleft license for art works; it
   cannot be used for software. Section 6 of this license states:

   This license is incompatible with any technology, device or component
   that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or
   restrict acts which are authorised or not authorised by licensor: this
   incompatibility causes the inapplicability of the license to the work.

   In particular:
   a. it is not possible to release validly under this license works or
   derivative works whose access control mechanism and/or copy control
   mechanism prevents or restricts quantitatively and/or qualitatively
   access to, fruition, copy, modification and/or sharing of them;
   b. in conformity with this license, it is not allowed to prevent or
   restrict quantitatively and/or qualitatively access to, fruition,
   copy, modification, and/or sharing of works or derivative works
   through an access control mechanism and/or a copy control mechanism;
   c. in conformity with this license, it is not allowed to prevent or
   restrict the exercise of a granted right through any digital, analog
   or physical method.

   Even the [10]Creative Common Attribution-ShareAlike license includes
   an anti-DRM clause. Section 4.a states:

   You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
   publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures
   that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with
   the terms of this License Agreement.

   "Technological measures" refer to DRM. The second draft of GPLv3 has
   similar wording. Section 3 is titled "No Denying Users' Rights through
   Technical Measures."


   The FSF and Stallman have explained many times that they believe there
   is nothing wrong with DRM itself; they only wish to protect the
   freedoms and provisions offered by the GPL. As long as the use of DRM
   does not hinder the four freedoms of copyleft, it's fine. GPLv3 takes
   steps to clarifying that.

   Moglen recently said, "If you're keeping the right to modify and not
   conveying that right to modify, you're violating the licence." The FSF
   says, "GPLv3 does not prohibit the implementation of DRM features, but
   prevents them from being imposed on users in a way that they cannot
   remove." Moglen further added that it'd be fine for manufacturers to
   nullify warranty and not provide support if modified software is used.

   The [11]4th international conference, to be held in Bangalore, India
   on 23-24 August will have extensive discussions on DRM.

   [12]Shashank Sharma is studying for a degree in computer science. He
   specializes in writing about free and open source software for new


    1. "second draft" -
    2. "Free Software Foundation" -
    3. "digital rights management" -
    4. "copyleft" -
    5. "Tivoization" -
    6. "TiVo" -
    7. "3rd international conference" -
    8. "email message" -
    9. "Against DRM 2.0" -
   10. "Creative Common Attribution-ShareAlike" -
   11. "4th international conference" -
   12. "Shashank Sharma" -

             © Copyright 2006 - NewsForge, All Rights Reserved

   printed from [13]NewsForge, [14]Stallman, Torvalds, Moglen share views
   on DRM and GPLv3 on 2006-08-14 08:50:32


   Visible links

   Hidden links:


BLinuXForum discussielijst
Per E-mail aanmelden :
   'mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Per E-mail afmelden :
   'mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Archieven :
Oudere (Yahoogroups) archieven :
Zoeken in de archieven :
Bookmarks :
NieuwsLink, heet van de naald :\=kaal

Antwoord per e-mail aan