On Friday 25 Apr 2003 12:53 am, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > >>> I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux!
> > >>
> > >>thanks for such a clear statement.
> > >
> > >Anybody would think Linux was written solely by Linus, the way His
> > >words are taken as summarising the intent of all its authors...
>
> Firstly, let's be clear I do actually agree with Linus. The GPL is
> not strong enough to prevent DRM usage, in my opinion.
>
> (Aside: It's not a very convinced opinion, though, nor would I be
> unhappy if a future license were able to prevent free software being
> the basis for devices which it is _illegal_ to reprogram, except under
> very strict conditions.
>
> I consider software barriers fair game, whereas threat of
> imprisonment is a very serious matter. Then again, think about
> tamper-proof cameras for evidence gathering against abuse by
> authorities - that's a great use of a tamper-proof device, if you can
> trust it).
>
> In response to the person who thanked Linus, fair enough. It was a
> good thing to do.
>
> However, Linus' statements are sometimes interpreted as allowing or
> disallowing various things as he interprets the GPL - and it is dodgy
> ground for a business to build much on that, because Linus' opinion on
> the license is just that: his opinion. If he were the sole author, or
> represented all the authors, his opinion would, I believe, hold more
> legal weight than it does. But he isn't.
>
> I just wanted to point that out, in case the person who thanked him
> for the clear statement took the statement as meaning it was a good
> idea to build a business which depends on that.
>
> Timothy Miller wrote:
> > You are free to make a fork of the Linux tree for which DRM is NOT ok.
> >
> > Likewise, Linus is free to allow or disallow whatever he feels like in
> > HIS tree.
>
> Secondly, this is not logically valid. It doesn't work like that.
>
> If Linus' interpretation of the GPL is a fair assessment, then I am
> _not_ free to fork the Linux tree and make DRM not ok for the fork.
>
> I'd be free to fork the tree and attach a differing _opinion_ to the
> license, but I cannot add further licensing clauses. The GPL forbids
> this.
>
> For the same reason, Linus is _not_ free to allow or disallow whatever
> he feels like in his tree, either.
>
> In principle. In pracice I suspect whatever Linus says goes simply
> because he's the de facto leader and nobody with any clout disagrees
> strongly enough to contest him. If there were ever a big fork over
> some major ethical issue, that would change.
>
> Thirdly, keep in mind that all the above is just my opinion. I could
> be mistaken, or irrelevant :)
>
> h.a.n.d.,
> -- Jamie
The thing is that Linus' tree is the "main" tree, and It should remain that
way so that linux is "one". Linus' _HAS_ the right to do anything he wants
with his tree, and all the distributors will take _his_ tree and the thing we
all dread might happen ("you have to have version 12 of red hat linux
_signed_ kernel to run this thing"). You _ARE_ allowed to have your _OWN_
tree without the stuff that you think is not right, but that won't help the
situation (because that thing you want to run demands a signed kernel)
I think we have a problem here...
-- Key fingerprint = A0F8 9D33 45D0 9B0C 7135 4E88 5E08 2EFF A938 9713- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 22:00:18 EST