On Jan 23, 2006, at 20:55, Ian Kester-Haney wrote:
Linux shouldn;t move to the GPL3 for the very reason that the DRM
restrictions would make linux incompatible with soon to be released
displays.
I'm sorry, what are you saying here? I've not heard about these soon-
to-be-released displays, could you elucidate, possibly summarizing or
linking to references?
Also Nvidia and such would not be able to make binary drivers
available.
In many peoples eyes, this would be a _good_ thing, besides, it's not
clear whether or not their binary drivers are legal _now_, without
concern for their status under the GPLv3
Copyright for one work is set forward in law. My view is that
Artists and their sponsors deserve the right to prevent piracy.
Have you tried describing music "piracy" to a small child (say, age
6) in a way that distinguishes it from "sharing your things with
other people"? It's rather difficult, possibly even impossible.
Many people argue that with modern technology, this distinction has
become artificial and an artifact of an aging business model. A
number of artists who promote some music sharing have been doing very
well.
In my view the Open Source Community have an incompatible attitude.
I will ignore the second bit, since it's mostly a matter of opinion,
but the Open Source Community (especially the Linux Community) values
copyright extremely highly. In fact, it is this copyright that makes
the Linux Kernel sources a true democracy. You cannot relicense the
whole without agreement from all (or an extremely large majority
bordering on "all") of the developers consent.
In my mind the buying of a DVD means that I watch it on DVD players
be it on my computer or on the TV.
Or, according to Fair Use as set down in a number of court cases,
make a single copy for backup, show privately to friends, convert to
an alternative format for viewing in a different way or with other
equipment.
While I beleive that I should be able to watch my DVDs on a linux
based system, it behooves the open source community to support it
in a legal way.
I go to the store, I find a black box on the shelf, I pick it up, go
to the cashier, pay for it, and leave the store. At that point, I've
purchased an object and may do whatever I like with said object. I
never signed any license or filled out any forms prior to paying
money for it, and there was no condition that I do so, therefore no
_license_ conditions apply.
On the other hand, copying the DVD and giving a copy to all your
friends is _distributing_ it and therefore covered by _copyright_ law
(not license/contract law), which makes it illegal for me to do so
(although my personal opinion is that needs careful review and
possible revision).
Cracking Access Control Sytems might be fun, but it only generates
huge controversy in concerned industries.
<Biased Personal Opinion>
The industries do not matter. The point of the government is to help
and protect the _people_. This means that to a limited extent, the
government protects individuals copyrights, and allows corporations
some rights (because they provide jobs, services, etc). This does
not mean that the government should do anything the industry wants
even though hundreds of millions of people are breaking that law on a
daily basis. Something that widespread (especially given the lack of
issues arising thereof) indicates that the _law_ is wrong, not the
many millions doing the breaking. This bends more towards the
copyright issues I talk about above, but applies here too.
</Biased Personal Opinion>
Besides, a DRM system is pointless and futile; it's trying to protect
data from people by giving them the encrypted data, the algorithm,
and the key. Any cryptographer will tell you that you are bound to
lose from the start.
An Open Source Access Control System that is respected by the FOSS
community would be a great diplomatic way to allow for more access
to content.
Open Source Access Control System:
if (access_allowed(media_descriptor, user_data)) {
provide_data(media_descriptor);
}
My 3-line patch to "fix" it to let me watch my German DVD in the US:
--- oldfile
+++ newfile
-if (access_allowed(media_descriptor, user_data)) {
provide_data(media_descriptor);
-}
This is a _fundamentally_ _flawed_ idea.
My personal view is that copying for my own personal use is ok
Good
however the converting of such material in a way not granted to me
by the Creator is not ethical.
Why does the creator have any say in what you can do with it
personally? I'm legally allowed to buy a copy of MS Windows and burn
it for symbolic value; why the hell would we want to allow a
*CORPORATION* (Read: bunch of greedy rich executives) control what
you can do with stuff. Heck, we don't trust the _government_ (Read:
bunch of greedy rich lawyers), or sometimes even one's personal
_church_ to control.
The GNU/Linux community needs to work with the MPAA, RIAA and other
DRM players and work to support basic restrictions on copying
content while preserving the Creator/Companies right to sustain
their works.
We don't _need_ to work with anybody, we're just converting abstract
mathematical algorithms to a more practically useable form and
publishing the result. The fact that somebody with lawlessness in
mind could do something illegal with our formalized codified
published math files is totally irrelevant. In the US (where I live,
can't speak for other countries) we don't blame the gun manufacturers
for what people do with submachine guns, so why should we blame the
software developers (Read: practical mathematicians) for what people
do with their programs?
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible
-- Alan Kay
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
