February 3, 2006 12:14 PM PST

Torvalds says DRM isn't necessarily bad

Related Stories

Sun considers GPL 3 license for Solaris

January 30, 2006

Torvalds: No GPL 3 for Linux

January 26, 2006

Defender of the GPL

January 19, 2006

Public debate on GPL 3 draft begins

January 16, 2006

Sprucing up open source's GPL foundation

December 23, 2004
Provisions against digital rights management in a draft update to the General Public License could undermine computer security, Linus Torvalds said this week in e-mails reflecting the Linux leader's pragmatic philosophy.

"I think a lot of people may find that the GPLv3 'anti-DRM' measures aren't all that wonderful after all," Torvalds said in a posting Wednesday to the Linux kernel mailing list. "Digital signatures and cryptography aren't just 'bad DRM.' They very much are 'good security' too."

The Free Software Foundation is in the process of revising the GPL, a seminal document that not only governs thousands of open-source projects but also functions as the constitution of the free software movement. One of the major new provisions in the proposed GPL version 3 is designed to prevent use of GPL software in conjunction with digital rights management. DRM technology does everything from encrypting movies and music to permitting only a digitally signed software to run on a specific computing device.

Torvalds gave some examples of areas where he believes it's appropriate for secret digital keys to be used to sign software, or 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.

He added: "The current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat would have to distribute their private keys, so that anybody can sign their own versions of the modules they recompile, in order to re-create their own versions of the signed binaries that Red Hat creates. That's insane."

In January, Torvalds said he plans to keep the Linux kernel under the current version 2 of the GPL. That was seen as something of a rebuff to the Free Software Foundation and its president, Richard Stallman.

The foundation added the anti-DRM provision in part so companies such as TiVo wouldn't be able to continue their current practice of using only authorized versions of Linux. The move restricts software freedoms that the foundation considers essential.

But Torvalds said he believes it's not the software programmer's place to tell hardware designers what to do; if a hardware company's proprietary practices are objectionable, programmers should simply buy another company's hardware, Torvalds said.

"I literally feel that we do not--as software developers--have the moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are trying to show others that co-operation and openness works better," Torvalds said in one e-mail.

In a later e-mail, Torvalds elaborated on his pragmatic attitude and opined that it's part of the reason for Linux's achievements.

"A lot of people see the GPL as a 'crusading' license, and I think that's partly because the FSF really has been acting like a crusader," Torvalds wrote. "But I think that one of the main reasons Linux has been successful is that I don't think that the Linux community really is into crusading (some small parts of it are, but it's not the main reason). I think Linux has made the GPL more 'socially acceptable,' by being a hell of a lot less religious about it than the FSF was."

The GPL 3 draft goes beyond Torvalds' prime licensing goal of reciprocity, he said.

"GPLv2 is fair. It asks others to give back exactly what I myself offer: the source code to play with," Torvalds said. "The GPLv3 fundamentally changes that balance, in my opinion. It asks for more than it gives. It no longer asks for just source back, it asks for control over whatever system you used the source in."

When it comes using DRM to encrypt digital content such as movies, Torvalds suggested in another e-mail that people take a different approach: employ a license from a group such as the Creative Commons that requires content to remain open.

"If enough interesting content is licensed that way, DRM eventually becomes marginalized. Yes, it takes decades, but that's really no different at all from how the GPL works," Torvalds said.

And he said the power of entrenched media companies doesn't just come through encryption.

"As long as you expect Disney to feed your brain and just sit there on your couch, Disney and company will always be able to control the content you see," Torvalds said. "DRM is the smallest part of it. The crap we see and hear every day (regardless of any protection) is a much bigger issue."

See more CNET content tagged:
Linus Torvalds, GPL, Free Software Foundation, GPLv3, anti-DRM

46 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
DRM is all sorts of wrong
He says they are not crusaders, but if open source does not stand up to this who will. I thought Trovalds had a firm stand against DRM and GPLv3. It is a sad sad day.
Posted by BrokenLink (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE
I think Linus's problem with this is that the provision is to wide and effects other areas like encrypting files and setting their permissions, common and necessary feature on multi-user OS's.
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Link Flag
DRM is all sorts of wrong
He says they are not crusaders, but if open source does not stand up to this who will. I thought Trovalds had a firm stand against DRM and GPLv3. It is a sad sad day.
Posted by BrokenLink (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE
I think Linus's problem with this is that the provision is to wide and effects other areas like encrypting files and setting their permissions, common and necessary feature on multi-user OS's.
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Link Flag
Respect for Linus++
Linus is absolutely correct in his opinions. The FSF does come on way too strong. I appreciate his stance even though he knows he will come under attack from some people. He seems to understand the balance between software, hardware, and content creators. They are all worthless without the others.

Thus, Respect for Linus++;
Posted by (18 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Respect for Linus++
Linus is absolutely correct in his opinions. The FSF does come on way too strong. I appreciate his stance even though he knows he will come under attack from some people. He seems to understand the balance between software, hardware, and content creators. They are all worthless without the others.

Thus, Respect for Linus++;
Posted by (18 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Everyone go under the Creative Commons
It protects your rights and your Art while being realistic about allowing people to freely trade online. The Internet is a new reality and if you don't except it noone will ever hear or see your workand the crappy artist will remain up top.

Also I might agree with Linux here in that I think there could be a good form of DRM, i think if the software contract is abused then the contractor has the right to diable the software in any way possible.
Posted by Blito (436 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Everyone go under the Creative Commons
It protects your rights and your Art while being realistic about allowing people to freely trade online. The Internet is a new reality and if you don't except it noone will ever hear or see your workand the crappy artist will remain up top.

Also I might agree with Linux here in that I think there could be a good form of DRM, i think if the software contract is abused then the contractor has the right to diable the software in any way possible.
Posted by Blito (436 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Torvalds a technical, not a policy person.
Reading the article and Linus's postings I am not convinced that Linux understands the differences between the uses of the term "Technical Measures" (Such as cryptography and digital signatures) which have legitimate non-controversial uses, and "DRM" which is the highly controversial (ab)use of technical measures to control the private activities of owners of tools.

Uses and Abuses of Technical Protection Measures (TPMs)
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/1109" target="_newWindow">http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/1109</a>

Have I misread the posting? I don't think I have, but I also don't expect Linus to be an expert in this area. We wouldn't call a plumber to do out taxes, so we shouldn't expect the highly competent technical and organizational skills that Linus has to translate to an understanding of policy and technology law.

I think we will have a problem with the policy side if Linus Torvalds doesn't fully understand the legal implications of this discussion, and is being seen as a leader in this area.

GPL v2 was written in a different legal context. Changes in the law, including the 1996 WIPO treaties, has created a gaping "legal loophole" in the copyleft provisions of the GPL. Copyleft is intended to protect the intent that if the current version is Free Software that any derivatives are also free software, but the 1996 treaties created a legal loophole where the license allows you the "freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software", but with the inclusion of DRM the law does not allow you to exercise that freedom.


The GPLv3 is no more an activist license than GPLv2, and it is simply a method to close these legal loopholes. Either people support the copyleft provisions of the GPL or they do not, and all this worrying about the versions is a distraction.
Posted by Russell McOrmond (63 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Torvalds a technical, not a policy person.
Reading the article and Linus's postings I am not convinced that Linux understands the differences between the uses of the term "Technical Measures" (Such as cryptography and digital signatures) which have legitimate non-controversial uses, and "DRM" which is the highly controversial (ab)use of technical measures to control the private activities of owners of tools.

Uses and Abuses of Technical Protection Measures (TPMs)
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/1109" target="_newWindow">http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/1109</a>

Have I misread the posting? I don't think I have, but I also don't expect Linus to be an expert in this area. We wouldn't call a plumber to do out taxes, so we shouldn't expect the highly competent technical and organizational skills that Linus has to translate to an understanding of policy and technology law.

I think we will have a problem with the policy side if Linus Torvalds doesn't fully understand the legal implications of this discussion, and is being seen as a leader in this area.

GPL v2 was written in a different legal context. Changes in the law, including the 1996 WIPO treaties, has created a gaping "legal loophole" in the copyleft provisions of the GPL. Copyleft is intended to protect the intent that if the current version is Free Software that any derivatives are also free software, but the 1996 treaties created a legal loophole where the license allows you the "freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software", but with the inclusion of DRM the law does not allow you to exercise that freedom.


The GPLv3 is no more an activist license than GPLv2, and it is simply a method to close these legal loopholes. Either people support the copyleft provisions of the GPL or they do not, and all this worrying about the versions is a distraction.
Posted by Russell McOrmond (63 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Why is Linus Torvalds trying to destroy Linux?
I mean, I know Linus isnt a great programmer - he states that himself. Though his organizational accomplishment so far, in fathering Linux, has been amazing.

And, I know Linus didnt actually write Linux - it was written by thousands of other people.

But, he was the person who got the whole mini-Unix on a PC ball rolling, and kept it on a good track for so long. So, why is Linus Torvalds, apparently, trying so desperately to destroy Linux now?

Is he just tired of it?

Why else would he pull so many bone-headed stunts which are guaranteed to completely eliminate any chance that Linux has?

Why is Linus eagerly introducing, and frantically defending, so many proprietary elements to the Linux development community? - Is he trying to break the "openness" which is the only real advantage that Linux has against the Microsoft monopoly? Does he think that Linux can hope to tackle the Microsoft behemoth by adopting their business-tactics, and proprietary-strategies? Well, I have news for him, that approach wont work. Microsoft has proven that they play that game better than anybody else. Nor, is any company going to best Microsoft, as king of the hill, by playing by Microsofts rules. So, no, Redhat isnt going to become the next Microsoft, and neither is anyone else. No one entity is going to make as much money, or accumulate as much power, as Microsoft has, as long as Microsofts practices are the accepted model. And frankly, thats a good thing. If Microsoft wins, I wouldnt expect Linux, or any other real competition, to be allowed to survive - that is simply not Microsofts -MO-. And if Microsoft finally loses in the market, it wont be to yet another proprietary, closed-source, anti-consumer, type of product which does it.

And, another thing...

Why is Linus claiming that DRM has anything to do with security - when the two are totally unrelated? In fact, claiming that DRM is related to security was just another Microsoft fabrication, in the first place.

Finally...

Why is Linus suddenly talking about "trust" as an aspect of the Linux OS? - Linux is already far more secure than Windows. And, as far as any hope of being part of the "Trusted Computing" environment, most people understand that Microsoft created that little pearl solely to establish even greater control over customers and the industry. If that werent the real reason, then Microsoft would not have spent so much energy making sure that the so-called "Trusted Computing Alliance" would absolutely -not- allow the "trust" standard to encompass any generally, non-proprietary, software-based strategies. The reason behind this is simply that it would have allowed competitors, like Linux, an opening in the computer-industry ecosystem.

So, again I ask, why is Linus being so foolish?
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Completely absurd
"Why is Linus claiming that DRM has anything to do with security - when the two are totally unrelated? In fact, claiming that DRM is related to security was just another Microsoft fabrication, in the first place."

What do you think the permission and user grouping system in Linux and other Unix systems is? It's a form of DRM for the sys admin. In a multi-user enviroment it's necessary and desirable to have the ability to restrict access to certain file and applications etc by user. We all know how good running with admin all the time is. *sarcasm


"as far as any hope of being part of the "Trusted Computing" environment, most people understand that Microsoft created that little pearl solely to establish even greater control over customers and the industry."

Trusted Computing was not thought up by Microsoft.

As for the rest of your rant I believe it demonstrats a fundamental misunderstand of what being said likely due to lack of know about the GPL and Linux.
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Link Flag
Why is Linus Torvalds trying to destroy Linux?
I mean, I know Linus isnt a great programmer - he states that himself. Though his organizational accomplishment so far, in fathering Linux, has been amazing.

And, I know Linus didnt actually write Linux - it was written by thousands of other people.

But, he was the person who got the whole mini-Unix on a PC ball rolling, and kept it on a good track for so long. So, why is Linus Torvalds, apparently, trying so desperately to destroy Linux now?

Is he just tired of it?

Why else would he pull so many bone-headed stunts which are guaranteed to completely eliminate any chance that Linux has?

Why is Linus eagerly introducing, and frantically defending, so many proprietary elements to the Linux development community? - Is he trying to break the "openness" which is the only real advantage that Linux has against the Microsoft monopoly? Does he think that Linux can hope to tackle the Microsoft behemoth by adopting their business-tactics, and proprietary-strategies? Well, I have news for him, that approach wont work. Microsoft has proven that they play that game better than anybody else. Nor, is any company going to best Microsoft, as king of the hill, by playing by Microsofts rules. So, no, Redhat isnt going to become the next Microsoft, and neither is anyone else. No one entity is going to make as much money, or accumulate as much power, as Microsoft has, as long as Microsofts practices are the accepted model. And frankly, thats a good thing. If Microsoft wins, I wouldnt expect Linux, or any other real competition, to be allowed to survive - that is simply not Microsofts -MO-. And if Microsoft finally loses in the market, it wont be to yet another proprietary, closed-source, anti-consumer, type of product which does it.

And, another thing...

Why is Linus claiming that DRM has anything to do with security - when the two are totally unrelated? In fact, claiming that DRM is related to security was just another Microsoft fabrication, in the first place.

Finally...

Why is Linus suddenly talking about "trust" as an aspect of the Linux OS? - Linux is already far more secure than Windows. And, as far as any hope of being part of the "Trusted Computing" environment, most people understand that Microsoft created that little pearl solely to establish even greater control over customers and the industry. If that werent the real reason, then Microsoft would not have spent so much energy making sure that the so-called "Trusted Computing Alliance" would absolutely -not- allow the "trust" standard to encompass any generally, non-proprietary, software-based strategies. The reason behind this is simply that it would have allowed competitors, like Linux, an opening in the computer-industry ecosystem.

So, again I ask, why is Linus being so foolish?
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Completely absurd
"Why is Linus claiming that DRM has anything to do with security - when the two are totally unrelated? In fact, claiming that DRM is related to security was just another Microsoft fabrication, in the first place."

What do you think the permission and user grouping system in Linux and other Unix systems is? It's a form of DRM for the sys admin. In a multi-user enviroment it's necessary and desirable to have the ability to restrict access to certain file and applications etc by user. We all know how good running with admin all the time is. *sarcasm


"as far as any hope of being part of the "Trusted Computing" environment, most people understand that Microsoft created that little pearl solely to establish even greater control over customers and the industry."

Trusted Computing was not thought up by Microsoft.

As for the rest of your rant I believe it demonstrats a fundamental misunderstand of what being said likely due to lack of know about the GPL and Linux.
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Link Flag
FUD and name calling
I am sorry, but this old "FSF are religious crusaders" sounds more like FUD and name calling than constructive criticism to me.

Just because he happens to disagree with the FSF's views and methods and fails to understand them doesn't make it fair of him to go around and humiliate those views as religious gibberish that you should just dismiss without even listening to it, because this is exactly the effect of such FUD, and a desired one as it seems.

I would agree with this comment: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.cbsi.com/5208-7344-0.html?forumID=1&#38;threadID=13699&#38;messageID=110697&#38;start=-192" target="_newWindow">http://news.cbsi.com/5208-7344-0.html?forumID=1&#38;threadID=13699&#38;messageID=110697&#38;start=-192</a>

I indeed think Linus just fails to understand the scope of GPLv3 DRM provisions. Besides, this was just a first draft of the license and nothing is set in stone. He doesn't need to so bluntly dismiss it right away. Why not come and post some constructive criticism and suggestions on how to improve the license? I know, this article about what he said helps too as I'm sure FSF guys will take notice, but this old to an extent even immature style is unnecessary.

Thanks
Daniel
Posted by cosmicall (27 comments )
Reply Link Flag
re: FUD and name calling
"Just because he happens to disagree with the FSF's views and methods and fails to understand them doesn't make it fair of him to go around and humiliate those views as religious gibberish that you should just dismiss without even listening to it, because this is exactly the effect of such F
FUD, and a desired one as it seems."

If he really has become senile enough to support the strangulation of data that is the main target of the companies that think they can still make money by charging per copy (or even these days per *viewing*) then it is time he was forcibly retired. He is now an infiltrator of the freedom movement, and while I wouldn't call for his execution as the traitor he obviously is, he should be wheeled off quietly to a retirement home.

Graham

Graham
Posted by perplexicon (7 comments )
Link Flag
FUD and name calling
I am sorry, but this old "FSF are religious crusaders" sounds more like FUD and name calling than constructive criticism to me.

Just because he happens to disagree with the FSF's views and methods and fails to understand them doesn't make it fair of him to go around and humiliate those views as religious gibberish that you should just dismiss without even listening to it, because this is exactly the effect of such FUD, and a desired one as it seems.

I would agree with this comment: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.cbsi.com/5208-7344-0.html?forumID=1&#38;threadID=13699&#38;messageID=110697&#38;start=-192" target="_newWindow">http://news.cbsi.com/5208-7344-0.html?forumID=1&#38;threadID=13699&#38;messageID=110697&#38;start=-192</a>

I indeed think Linus just fails to understand the scope of GPLv3 DRM provisions. Besides, this was just a first draft of the license and nothing is set in stone. He doesn't need to so bluntly dismiss it right away. Why not come and post some constructive criticism and suggestions on how to improve the license? I know, this article about what he said helps too as I'm sure FSF guys will take notice, but this old to an extent even immature style is unnecessary.

Thanks
Daniel
Posted by cosmicall (27 comments )
Reply Link Flag
re: FUD and name calling
"Just because he happens to disagree with the FSF's views and methods and fails to understand them doesn't make it fair of him to go around and humiliate those views as religious gibberish that you should just dismiss without even listening to it, because this is exactly the effect of such F
FUD, and a desired one as it seems."

If he really has become senile enough to support the strangulation of data that is the main target of the companies that think they can still make money by charging per copy (or even these days per *viewing*) then it is time he was forcibly retired. He is now an infiltrator of the freedom movement, and while I wouldn't call for his execution as the traitor he obviously is, he should be wheeled off quietly to a retirement home.

Graham

Graham
Posted by perplexicon (7 comments )
Link Flag
not immature
Alright. I take back that "immature" statement. I've read those emails in full and I can see he argues with some reasonable arguments, although I still think he fails to see the point as well as understand the purpose of DRM provisions in GPLv3 properly.

And I also still think that just putting FSF in a "religious crusaders" category is completely unjustified.
Posted by cosmicall (27 comments )
Reply Link Flag
not immature
Alright. I take back that "immature" statement. I've read those emails in full and I can see he argues with some reasonable arguments, although I still think he fails to see the point as well as understand the purpose of DRM provisions in GPLv3 properly.

And I also still think that just putting FSF in a "religious crusaders" category is completely unjustified.
Posted by cosmicall (27 comments )
Reply Link Flag
OK... Heres the real story on Torvalds position...
Linus wants Linux to be interoperable with "Trusted Computing". Very shortly, according to those promoting "TC" and "DRM", all computers will have "TPMs" (Trusted Platform Modules). These devices facilitate the identification of hardware, authentication of users, encryption of content and data, and verification of "Software State" (...in other words, is ALL of the hardware and software "approved" and "user un-modified", I.E. "Trusted" or not?). This technology has, in fact, already being adopted by Microsoft, Intel, HP, Cisco, Dell, Apple, etc., and now apparently Linux.

But, in order to use the "TPMs", and the "...Trusted Computing certificate-authorities" (which will soon be necessary to access virtually ALL "digital content" and external-networks) Linux must contain "secure, closed-source, proprietary" modules. The creators of this technology have refused to allow any other approach.

The primary uses of such technologies is actually "DRM", in the form licensing and use-control. Though "security" is the big CATCH-PHRASE which is being used to fast-track this agenda, this "trusted computing" environment will actually, primarily, allow "software producers", "ISPs" (Internet Service Providers), and "content creators" to control virtually every aspect of computer-use. As an added incentive, it will also allow a far greater "granularity" to "...billing for Intellectual-Property use". Additionally, (and this is, apparently, the governments central interest in "Trusted Computing") it will also allow the tracking of virtually all computer-activities, both "online" and, potentially (dependent upon closed-code within the OSes and applications), offline activities as well.

In short, soon (as envisioned by the advocates of "Trusted Computing") in order to use your computer, you will have to be BIOMETRICALLY identified (part of both "Vista", and the general "TPM" technology). Your certificates, and licenses must be in order. You must be running approved, and validated DRM. And, in order to access the Internet at all, you will have to be running an "approved" system which complies with all "identification", and "DRM" requirements. Microsoft (according to their "Roadmaps") considers this to be a huge opportunity to further entrench "Microsoft-technologies" in the computer-industry. This is also, apparently, why Microsoft just spent so much energy in Washington preventing the creation of a Federal-law which would have prevented "ISPs" from being able to force consumers to use specific hardware and software, if they wanted to use the Internet.

Frankly, I just dont understand why anyone would think that ANY consumer-control would be allowed to exist, at all, in such an environment. So, why would anyone support this (unless they hoped to benefit from everyone elses loss, ...or simply felt powerless to stop it)?


I suggest that anyone concerned by any of this do some searches on...

"Trusted Computing"
"TPM"
"BIOMETRIC ID"
"Trusted Networking"
"DRM"

You should be especially attentive to the press releases from the actual companies involved, and the various "Road Maps" which have already been presented.
Posted by Gayle Edwards (262 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If true, there will be a bonanza for Hackers....
...providing all the techniques to defeat the TPM, DRM, TCm etc.
crap if it is really coming our way. I just might be first in line.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
OK... Heres the real story on Torvalds position...
Linus wants Linux to be interoperable with "Trusted Computing". Very shortly, according to those promoting "TC" and "DRM", all computers will have "TPMs" (Trusted Platform Modules). These devices facilitate the identification of hardware, authentication of users, encryption of content and data, and verification of "Software State" (...in other words, is ALL of the hardware and software "approved" and "user un-modified", I.E. "Trusted" or not?). This technology has, in fact, already being adopted by Microsoft, Intel, HP, Cisco, Dell, Apple, etc., and now apparently Linux.

But, in order to use the "TPMs", and the "...Trusted Computing certificate-authorities" (which will soon be necessary to access virtually ALL "digital content" and external-networks) Linux must contain "secure, closed-source, proprietary" modules. The creators of this technology have refused to allow any other approach.

The primary uses of such technologies is actually "DRM", in the form licensing and use-control. Though "security" is the big CATCH-PHRASE which is being used to fast-track this agenda, this "trusted computing" environment will actually, primarily, allow "software producers", "ISPs" (Internet Service Providers), and "content creators" to control virtually every aspect of computer-use. As an added incentive, it will also allow a far greater "granularity" to "...billing for Intellectual-Property use". Additionally, (and this is, apparently, the governments central interest in "Trusted Computing") it will also allow the tracking of virtually all computer-activities, both "online" and, potentially (dependent upon closed-code within the OSes and applications), offline activities as well.

In short, soon (as envisioned by the advocates of "Trusted Computing") in order to use your computer, you will have to be BIOMETRICALLY identified (part of both "Vista", and the general "TPM" technology). Your certificates, and licenses must be in order. You must be running approved, and validated DRM. And, in order to access the Internet at all, you will have to be running an "approved" system which complies with all "identification", and "DRM" requirements. Microsoft (according to their "Roadmaps") considers this to be a huge opportunity to further entrench "Microsoft-technologies" in the computer-industry. This is also, apparently, why Microsoft just spent so much energy in Washington preventing the creation of a Federal-law which would have prevented "ISPs" from being able to force consumers to use specific hardware and software, if they wanted to use the Internet.

Frankly, I just dont understand why anyone would think that ANY consumer-control would be allowed to exist, at all, in such an environment. So, why would anyone support this (unless they hoped to benefit from everyone elses loss, ...or simply felt powerless to stop it)?


I suggest that anyone concerned by any of this do some searches on...

"Trusted Computing"
"TPM"
"BIOMETRIC ID"
"Trusted Networking"
"DRM"

You should be especially attentive to the press releases from the actual companies involved, and the various "Road Maps" which have already been presented.
Posted by Gayle Edwards (262 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If true, there will be a bonanza for Hackers....
...providing all the techniques to defeat the TPM, DRM, TCm etc.
crap if it is really coming our way. I just might be first in line.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
Torvalds says DRM isn't necessarily bad
" Frankly, I just dont understand why anyone would think that ANY consumer-control would be allowed to exist, at all, in such an environment. So, why would anyone support this (unless they hoped to benefit from everyone elses loss, ...or simply felt powerless to stop it) "

The obvious answer is that our previous hero has been bought out by the monetary forces that desire control over our every movement. He obviously actively wants to allow the big companirs to control our data, and has given up on the freedom that Linux once stood for. The only solution is to abandon Linus along with the DRM rubbish. He has just become a representative of the enemy. We will get along just fine without him.

Graham
Posted by perplexicon (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Wow, I'm just stunned
... by the level of FUD posting going on in here.

Are you all employees of M$? RIAA? MPAA?

What Torvalds said was that in certain cases he can see DRM as useful, even needed. But for Linux it is counter to his goal of 100% free and shared software. That is why he doesn't plan on using GPLv3 as it stands in the linux kernel development process.

In fact he states quite clearly that his goal is 100% reciprocity right here:

"I don't ask for control over their other projects (be they hardware or software), and I don't ask for control over copyrights (in the kernel, people are _encouraged_ to keep their copyrights, rather than signing them over to me).

I only ask for exact reciprocity of what I give: the license for me to freely use the changes to source code that I initiated."

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0602.0/0722.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0602.0/0722.html</a>

To force all software developers to restrict the use of their programs via DRM is counter to the very essence of OSS. It removes that openness that is the pillar of the OSS movement. Every developer could 'lock' there code under the guise of DRM and their 'right' to only let those they select to work on it or even for the software it's self to work only on "approved" hardware. Linus doesn't want that to be the case for the linux kernel. It should work on ANY system and ANY hardware without limitations or restrictions based on the falseness of DRM 'control'.

If you can't see the pit falls then either you are blind or a tool of a company bent on dominating the general public (RIAA would love you). Thank goodness Linus can see past the smoke and mirrors that are being put up to cause more FUD.

Simply amazing.

I'm so glad Linus is still on the side of freedom and can see the bigger picture.
Posted by Far Star (82 comments )
Link Flag
Torvalds says DRM isn't necessarily bad
" Frankly, I just dont understand why anyone would think that ANY consumer-control would be allowed to exist, at all, in such an environment. So, why would anyone support this (unless they hoped to benefit from everyone elses loss, ...or simply felt powerless to stop it) "

The obvious answer is that our previous hero has been bought out by the monetary forces that desire control over our every movement. He obviously actively wants to allow the big companirs to control our data, and has given up on the freedom that Linux once stood for. The only solution is to abandon Linus along with the DRM rubbish. He has just become a representative of the enemy. We will get along just fine without him.

Graham
Posted by perplexicon (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Wow, I'm just stunned
... by the level of FUD posting going on in here.

Are you all employees of M$? RIAA? MPAA?

What Torvalds said was that in certain cases he can see DRM as useful, even needed. But for Linux it is counter to his goal of 100% free and shared software. That is why he doesn't plan on using GPLv3 as it stands in the linux kernel development process.

In fact he states quite clearly that his goal is 100% reciprocity right here:

"I don't ask for control over their other projects (be they hardware or software), and I don't ask for control over copyrights (in the kernel, people are _encouraged_ to keep their copyrights, rather than signing them over to me).

I only ask for exact reciprocity of what I give: the license for me to freely use the changes to source code that I initiated."

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0602.0/0722.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0602.0/0722.html</a>

To force all software developers to restrict the use of their programs via DRM is counter to the very essence of OSS. It removes that openness that is the pillar of the OSS movement. Every developer could 'lock' there code under the guise of DRM and their 'right' to only let those they select to work on it or even for the software it's self to work only on "approved" hardware. Linus doesn't want that to be the case for the linux kernel. It should work on ANY system and ANY hardware without limitations or restrictions based on the falseness of DRM 'control'.

If you can't see the pit falls then either you are blind or a tool of a company bent on dominating the general public (RIAA would love you). Thank goodness Linus can see past the smoke and mirrors that are being put up to cause more FUD.

Simply amazing.

I'm so glad Linus is still on the side of freedom and can see the bigger picture.
Posted by Far Star (82 comments )
Link Flag
Huh?
I think someone needs to let Torvalds know his comments are increasingly becoming odd.

There is a certain amount of goodwill towards this guy for giving us Linux, but he is increasingly saying the strangest stuff.

I don't want to be over-critical of someone who has done the world a pretty decent favour, but I can't help thinking that perhaps he'd be better off if he stepped out of the limelight and concentrated on what he does best.
Posted by ajbright (447 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Huh?
I think someone needs to let Torvalds know his comments are increasingly becoming odd.

There is a certain amount of goodwill towards this guy for giving us Linux, but he is increasingly saying the strangest stuff.

I don't want to be over-critical of someone who has done the world a pretty decent favour, but I can't help thinking that perhaps he'd be better off if he stepped out of the limelight and concentrated on what he does best.
Posted by ajbright (447 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.