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]

Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>
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, 21 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:

> 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.

I think their earlier versions did say this.

> 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.

DRM does have some legitimate uses, for example redhat installations not 
installing unsigned software is a form of DRM

> 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.

this is exactly what most of the people who are arguing against this 
provision are saying.

David Lang
-
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/