Re: Abolishing the DMCA (was GPL only modules)
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:09:06PM -0800, Michael ODonald wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over > > the rights expressly granted by copyright law. > > The best ways to get rich corporations on our side in fighting the > DMCA is to use the DMCA to hurt their profits. Companies that rely on > binary drivers would have several options: > > 1) Lobby politicians to repeal the DMCA, thereby allowing the > companies to *internally* circumvent Linuxs GPL-only > pseudo-restriction all they want by simply changing the source code. > > 2) Release the binary drivers as open source or use their economic > clout to pressure the makers of the binary drivers. > > 3) Use FOSS-friendly hardware. > > Im sorry, but theres currently no economic push for repealing the > DMCA; the only people trying to abolish it are idealists who are > easily out-bought by the media cartel. This is our only chance to put > some corporate money muscle behind the otherwise doomed anti-DMCA > movement. 4) make no effort to support Linux You're not the center of the world, never forget it ! Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Abolishing the DMCA
On Dec 14, 2006, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you missed the point that my patch prevents valid usages of > non-GPL modules from happening, which is not acceptable. What if you changed your patch so as to only permit loading of possibly-infringing drivers after some flag in /proc is set, and logging to the console a message explaining (i) why such drivers might be infringing and how to contact the copyright holders to get the infringement stopped, and (ii) how to get it loaded if you believe it's ok. Then the patch would change from a probably-harmful DRM technique to an educational tool, that wouldn't impose any major inconvenience to those who are entitled to use the combination of code that can't be distributed. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Abolishing the DMCA (was GPL only modules)
> The best ways to get rich corporations on our side in fighting the > DMCA is to use the DMCA to hurt their profits. Companies that rely on > binary drivers would have several options: > > 1) Lobby politicians to repeal the DMCA, They already are. The tech industry is mostly anti DMCA and there are plenty of deeply proprietary companies who fought against the DMCA, are fighting the US broadcast flag idiocy and so on. So you'd be fighting the wrong people. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Abolishing the DMCA (was GPL only modules)
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:09:06PM -0800, Michael ODonald wrote: > PS: I encourage Greg and all developers who were initially in favor > of enforcing the GPL-only module policy to stand strong on this > important issue. I think you missed the point that my patch prevents valid usages of non-GPL modules from happening, which is not acceptable. The GPL comes into play when the code is distributed, not when it is run. Because of this, such a check like I did hurts people who are complying by the GPL license of the kernel. thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Abolishing the DMCA (was GPL only modules)
Linus Torvalds wrote: > DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over > the rights expressly granted by copyright law. The best ways to get rich corporations on our side in fighting the DMCA is to use the DMCA to hurt their profits. Companies that rely on binary drivers would have several options: 1) Lobby politicians to repeal the DMCA, thereby allowing the companies to *internally* circumvent Linuxs GPL-only pseudo-restriction all they want by simply changing the source code. 2) Release the binary drivers as open source or use their economic clout to pressure the makers of the binary drivers. 3) Use FOSS-friendly hardware. Im sorry, but theres currently no economic push for repealing the DMCA; the only people trying to abolish it are idealists who are easily out-bought by the media cartel. This is our only chance to put some corporate money muscle behind the otherwise doomed anti-DMCA movement. And just to make it clear: Gregs proposal calls for a soft-DRM that is by definition easily circumvented the only thing that prevents companies from removing it is the blasted DMCA. Once the DMCA is gone, so will be the soft-DRM. > So it's ok when we do it, but bad when > other people do it? Those "other people" (Tivo/BlueRay/HD-DVD/Zune/PlayStation/Xbox) are using hard-DRM (aka. Treacherous Computing) where the *hardware* refuses to run modified code. By contrast, this proposed GPL-enforcing mechanism is a soft-DRM that allows anyone with mediocre coding skills to remove it. A binary module can even get away with lying about its own license! Even the current draft of the GPLv3 allows soft-DRM because soft-DRM is so easily circumvented. The only entities hurt by pseudo-enforcing the GPL through soft-DRM are the unscrupulous makers of binary drivers, who are already infringing the GPL. In-house development of binary-only drivers can still continue as usual: all you have to do is not distribute the binary. Let me quote from what Linus said in an article titled "Torvalds says DRM isn't necessarily bad": http://news.com.com/Torvalds+says+DRM+isnt+necessarily+bad/2100-7344_3-6034964.html """ Torvalds gave some examples of areas where he believes it's appropriate for ... a computer to run only software versions that have this digital signature to assure they're authorized. A company might want to distribute a Linux version that loads only kernel modules that have been signed, for example. Or they may want one that marks the kernel as "tainted" if it loads unsigned modules, Torvalds said. """ So why do you say its ok for Tivo to refuse to run FOSS modules on their Treacherous platform, but *not* ok for FOSS developers to uphold their rights? Are sleazy corporations subject to a different set of laws or morals than us common folk? No, laws are generally equitable and strive to provide each and every one of us with the same legal tools. One such tool, the DMCA, has been used far too often by monopolies to exterminate competition and imprison consumers. Its time to give these monopolies a piece of their own medicine. They either lobby politicians to abolish the DMCA or they open-source the Linux drivers that they distribute. Now thats a fair deal if I ever saw one! PS: I encourage Greg and all developers who were initially in favor of enforcing the GPL-only module policy to stand strong on this important issue. Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Abolishing the DMCA (was GPL only modules)
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:09:06PM -0800, Michael ODonald wrote: Linus Torvalds wrote: DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over the rights expressly granted by copyright law. The best ways to get rich corporations on our side in fighting the DMCA is to use the DMCA to hurt their profits. Companies that rely on binary drivers would have several options: 1) Lobby politicians to repeal the DMCA, thereby allowing the companies to *internally* circumvent Linuxs GPL-only pseudo-restriction all they want by simply changing the source code. 2) Release the binary drivers as open source or use their economic clout to pressure the makers of the binary drivers. 3) Use FOSS-friendly hardware. Im sorry, but theres currently no economic push for repealing the DMCA; the only people trying to abolish it are idealists who are easily out-bought by the media cartel. This is our only chance to put some corporate money muscle behind the otherwise doomed anti-DMCA movement. 4) make no effort to support Linux You're not the center of the world, never forget it ! Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Abolishing the DMCA (was GPL only modules)
Linus Torvalds wrote: DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over the rights expressly granted by copyright law. The best ways to get rich corporations on our side in fighting the DMCA is to use the DMCA to hurt their profits. Companies that rely on binary drivers would have several options: 1) Lobby politicians to repeal the DMCA, thereby allowing the companies to *internally* circumvent Linuxs GPL-only pseudo-restriction all they want by simply changing the source code. 2) Release the binary drivers as open source or use their economic clout to pressure the makers of the binary drivers. 3) Use FOSS-friendly hardware. Im sorry, but theres currently no economic push for repealing the DMCA; the only people trying to abolish it are idealists who are easily out-bought by the media cartel. This is our only chance to put some corporate money muscle behind the otherwise doomed anti-DMCA movement. And just to make it clear: Gregs proposal calls for a soft-DRM that is by definition easily circumvented the only thing that prevents companies from removing it is the blasted DMCA. Once the DMCA is gone, so will be the soft-DRM. So it's ok when we do it, but bad when other people do it? Those other people (Tivo/BlueRay/HD-DVD/Zune/PlayStation/Xbox) are using hard-DRM (aka. Treacherous Computing) where the *hardware* refuses to run modified code. By contrast, this proposed GPL-enforcing mechanism is a soft-DRM that allows anyone with mediocre coding skills to remove it. A binary module can even get away with lying about its own license! Even the current draft of the GPLv3 allows soft-DRM because soft-DRM is so easily circumvented. The only entities hurt by pseudo-enforcing the GPL through soft-DRM are the unscrupulous makers of binary drivers, who are already infringing the GPL. In-house development of binary-only drivers can still continue as usual: all you have to do is not distribute the binary. Let me quote from what Linus said in an article titled Torvalds says DRM isn't necessarily bad: http://news.com.com/Torvalds+says+DRM+isnt+necessarily+bad/2100-7344_3-6034964.html Torvalds gave some examples of areas where he believes it's appropriate for ... a computer to run only software versions that have this digital signature to assure they're authorized. A company might want to distribute a Linux version that loads only kernel modules that have been signed, for example. Or they may want one that marks the kernel as tainted if it loads unsigned modules, Torvalds said. So why do you say its ok for Tivo to refuse to run FOSS modules on their Treacherous platform, but *not* ok for FOSS developers to uphold their rights? Are sleazy corporations subject to a different set of laws or morals than us common folk? No, laws are generally equitable and strive to provide each and every one of us with the same legal tools. One such tool, the DMCA, has been used far too often by monopolies to exterminate competition and imprison consumers. Its time to give these monopolies a piece of their own medicine. They either lobby politicians to abolish the DMCA or they open-source the Linux drivers that they distribute. Now thats a fair deal if I ever saw one! PS: I encourage Greg and all developers who were initially in favor of enforcing the GPL-only module policy to stand strong on this important issue. Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Abolishing the DMCA (was GPL only modules)
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:09:06PM -0800, Michael ODonald wrote: PS: I encourage Greg and all developers who were initially in favor of enforcing the GPL-only module policy to stand strong on this important issue. I think you missed the point that my patch prevents valid usages of non-GPL modules from happening, which is not acceptable. The GPL comes into play when the code is distributed, not when it is run. Because of this, such a check like I did hurts people who are complying by the GPL license of the kernel. thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Abolishing the DMCA (was GPL only modules)
The best ways to get rich corporations on our side in fighting the DMCA is to use the DMCA to hurt their profits. Companies that rely on binary drivers would have several options: 1) Lobby politicians to repeal the DMCA, They already are. The tech industry is mostly anti DMCA and there are plenty of deeply proprietary companies who fought against the DMCA, are fighting the US broadcast flag idiocy and so on. So you'd be fighting the wrong people. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Abolishing the DMCA
On Dec 14, 2006, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you missed the point that my patch prevents valid usages of non-GPL modules from happening, which is not acceptable. What if you changed your patch so as to only permit loading of possibly-infringing drivers after some flag in /proc is set, and logging to the console a message explaining (i) why such drivers might be infringing and how to contact the copyright holders to get the infringement stopped, and (ii) how to get it loaded if you believe it's ok. Then the patch would change from a probably-harmful DRM technique to an educational tool, that wouldn't impose any major inconvenience to those who are entitled to use the combination of code that can't be distributed. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
