linux-kernel - Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

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]

Message-ID: <20070621180538.GE10008@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:05:38 -0400
From:	lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)
To:	david@...g.hm
Cc:	Michael Poole <mdpoole@...ilus.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Tomas Neme <lacrymology@...il.com>,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:51:06AM -0700, david@...g.hm wrote:
> you snippede the bit about not knowing how to stop it

I did?  As far as I can tell I quoted it all.  What did I miss?

> they call the section the anti-tivoization, how much more explicit can 
> they get?

They could be as explicit as: 
You can't use this code if you cooporate with anyone that requires
DRM systems.

All their attempts to define user devices and such is just going to
screw up and miss some things they wanted covered, and disallow things
they didn't intend to disallow (assuming there is any such thing).

> by the way, just in case anyone is misunderstanding me. I don't believe 
> for a moment that all these anti-tamper features actually work in the real 
> world (the PS3 hacking kits are proof of the lengths people will go to to 
> make the 'hard' hardware-level hacking trivial to do) but the approach 
> needs to be at secure modulo hardware tampering or software bugs.

DRM is completely pointless.  It only stops casual end users from doing
things.  It doesn't stop anyone with any technical clue from doing
things.  I keep hoping one day the people in charge at the big media
companies will understand this, and stop asking for people to implement
it.  Of course in the mean time there are companies perfectly willing to
claim to have unbreakable DRM for sale, while knowing full well (if they
are competent) that it is a lie.  So as long as the people in charge at
big media are clueless about technology, and as long as there are
companies willing to lie to them for money, then we will probably
continue to have DRM crap to deal with.

I don't think the GPLv3 is the place to try to remove DRM.  What the FSF
should be doing is try to educate the people who are advocating the use
of DRM about the fact that it can't ever work.  You can make more and
more stupid laws about how people can't remove the DRM, but people who
break copyright obviously already are breaking the law, so what is the
point in having more lows for them to break.  That is where this problem
should be fought, not in the GPLv3.  The GPLv3 is never going to solve
the problem, only educating people can do that.

--
Len Sorensen
-
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/