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
_______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
