Re: GPL V3 and Linux

[Ian Kester-Haney <ikesterhaney@gmail.com>]

Allowing for the playing of DRM protected content is accepted.  While
it is sad to see big business rule the day, it is still copyrighted
works we are talking about.  GPL v3 says that the use of DRM in or
around the GPLv3 software would be a direct violation and therfore
illegal under the GPL liscense.  Respecting the limits setup by the
DRM or ACS would be a proactive step in making linux more corporate
friendly.  Should the individuals producing, directing and starring in
movies and music be penalized for the abuses of the recording
industry.  Piracy does exist and supporting the real creative works of
others is important.

According to the Managed Copy Protection in upcoming HD-DVD and
Blu-Ray discs, if the channel between digital display devices is not
authenticated as direct to display, the resolution would be cut to
prevent electronic copies from being easily made.

I seruiosly doubt that anyone commited to the Open Source community
would condone piracy, just as I am sure that Protection schemes always
break down in the end.  It is sometimes irresponsible to circumvent
methods designed to protect peoples copyright.  The viral liscensing
in the GPL v 2 allows for the best integration with 3rd party
applications.
The GPLv3 would not allow any copyrighted materials under DRM to be
viewed, one could even argue that protected PDF files might constitute
DRM and not be allowed under the new GPL.  I think that subverting the
efforts of companies and artists to protect their works is
unnaceptable.  Public crap about hacking iTunes to get unprotected
files is detrimental to the Open Source Community.  It should be noted
that DRM is not inherently bad, implementations are currently pretty
crappy, but surely an open source DRM could be presented, and a step
to make that happen would be to keep the Kernel under GPLv2.

On 1/24/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
> >>>except in very special circumstances, governments usually
> >>>take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>      I guess I can't figure out what you could possibly mean by the word "right"
> >>such that the phrase "inherent rights to kill" is meaningful. Perhaps you
> >>could clarify.
> >>
> >>      DS
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Simple, from Government 101. Suppose you start a new country unencumbered
> >with rules and laws. You have "total" freedom, therefore all rights.
> >Because you believe that everybody is "good" (you decide what that means)
> >and would, therefore, never do anything "bad", you don't need any
> >laws.
> >
> >Sooner or later somebody does something "bad" (like kills somebody).
> >So, you make a law against killing. As you make that first law, you
> >have restricted rights. That's what laws do, they restrict rights.
> >
> >
>
> Say rather than restrict rights they define where your rights end and
> the rights
> of another person begin. Rather they "balance" rights by drawing a line
> between
> the rights of individuals and the rights of the state. The complex case
> is something
> called a "compelling interest". i.e. The government has a compelling
> interest to
> protect citizens from killing each other.
>
> >Unfortunately, it never stops with the "obviously necessary"
> >laws. Eventually, every time somebody believes he or she has been
> >harmed somehow, the cry goes out; "There ought to be a law....".
> >Some  goody-twoshoes in the government makes a new law. Eventually,
> >there are so many laws that there is no freedom whatsoever.
> >
> >
> >
> There are so many laws, you need to have courts in order to perform
> "balancing tests" between the rights of individuals (courts of equity)
> and the rights of the governement (compelling interests vs. the rights
> of Individuals)
>
> >Most laws, designed to protect, have far-reaching consequences that
> >actually cause more problems than they are supposed to solve. That's
> >the nature of Law and Government in general. That's why it's important
> >to control (reduce) the number of laws that exist and control the
> >size of government. Of course, once the government controls the schools
> >all is lost.
> >
> >
> >
> Why Dick, we have something in common -- we are both libertarians (political
> party that believes less laws and governemtn control is a very good thing).
>
> Jeff
>
> >Cheers,
> >Dick Johnson
> >Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.54 BogoMips).
> >Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
> >.
> >
> >****************************************************************
> >The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
> >
> >Thank you.
> >-
> >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/
> >
> >
> >
>
> -
> 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/
>