linux-kernel - Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:10:17 -0400
From:	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...izon.net>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Michiel de Boer <x@...elhomicide.demon.nl>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...eleye.com>
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

On Monday 25 September 2006 15:46, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>Neil Brown wrote:
>> But maybe I am just misinformed.  Maybe there are dozens of different
>> manufacturers making devices that use DRM to prohibit freedom despite
>> using GPL code, and maybe there are hundreds of submarine patents
>> owned by distributors of GPL code and embodied in that code that the
>> owners are going to start suing us overs.... Is there a list of these
>> somewhere?
>
>At least for patents, lawyers scream bloody murder if a list of patents
>is posted.  Once that is done, people can no longer claim ignorance of a
>patent.

Thats their problem, they created this mess in the first place.  I can 
recall buying, years ago, things whose makers label devoted more text area 
to listing the applicable patents either pending or granted on the device 
the label was attached to than was devoted to the makers logo itself.  Now 
it probably takes whole pages of 4 pt pica text with the patent 
proliferation ad adsurdium thats taken place in the last 40 years...  Bah.  
All created to make sure the legal profession never starves.

>>> What is the stance of the developer team / kernel maintainers on DRM,
>>
>> While I cannot speak for other developers (and sometimes have trouble
>> speaking for myself), one stance I have often heard is that DRM is
>> simply a tool - one that is largely based on cryptography which is
>> just another tool.  They can have good uses and bad uses just like the
>> TCP/IP stack (think 'spam').  So code to implement then would (if of
>> suitable quality) be allowed into the kernel.  If you want to make DRM
>> illegal, speak to your member-of-parliament, not your code developers.
>
>This is a KEY POINT: There can be good DRM as well as bad DRM.
>
>	Jeff
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
> in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/