Torvolds on GPLv3

[Kym Farnik]

On 10/3/06, Christopher Yeoh <cyeoh at samba.org> wrote:
> At simpler level it already has been a problem - eg not being able to
> boot unsigned kernels on newer version Tivos.
>
> The source code is available, but you can't effectively modify it or
> even just recompile it as you won't be able run it on your own
> hardware. (With the Tivo case I think someone managed to break it
> eventually through a hardware hack)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think Linus was not too fussed about this
(correct me if I am wrong).

I think it makes a mockery of F/OSS to lock a distribution like Tivo do.

I understand the GPLv3 DRM provisions as being there to prevent the
Tivo situation - but not to prevent F/OSS being used to play / handle
DRM content.

Theoretically it should be possible to implement a F/OSS DRM player
that would use some form of PKI type licensing to lock the content.
Of couse it would be easy to then change that code to undo the DRM
lock on the content.  Much like the recent hack to Windows Media
Player which allows you to strip the DRM from the content.

The bigger issue is - should the GPL be used as a generic weapon
against DRM?  And when does the RMS / FSF political agenda leak into
OSS?   Free v Open?

Like Linus said - Authors matter.  Authors have a choice of how they
(C) their creations. If an author does not want to make their content
"free" then that needs to be respected.

On the other hand, having purchase a license to a piece of content I
should be able to have fair use of that content (albeit not yet in
.au).  I do burn copies of audio CD's I've purchased for my car.
Primarily so that when they get damaged (scratched, cooked in the sun
etc.) I don't lose my investment.   Ideally I should be able to do the
same with downloaded content.

Too many competing interests here.  Authors rights. V Consumer rights.

-- 
Regards, Kym Farnik
mailto:kym.farnik at gmail.com
mailto:kym at farnik.com
http://www.farnik.com
Phone:  +61 8 8265 5324
Mobile: 0438 014 007