On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:34 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > 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?

That's the seller's problem, not the user's problem. The user should
never be "owned" by the seller.

> > 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.

This are not good reasons. "Hack resistance, safety critical stuff and
etc" do not equate with DRM. In fact, DRM harms this features since by
design someone else controls the key. In the case of computers there's a
master DRM certificate root. The user is never in full control of _his_

DRM is theft.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to