From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030193AbWAXPtG (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:49:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030359AbWAXPtF (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:49:05 -0500 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:45528 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030193AbWAXPtE (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:49:04 -0500 Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux From: Alan Cox To: Ian Kester-Haney Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <441e43c90601231755qaddb557r7f102d9c1f79ad5@mail.gmail.com> References: <200601212043.k0LKhG4w003290@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <87ek2y8n1f.fsf@basilikum.skogtun.org> <441e43c90601231755qaddb557r7f102d9c1f79ad5@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:49:22 +0000 Message-Id: <1138117763.14675.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Llu, 2006-01-23 at 19:55 -0600, Ian Kester-Haney wrote: > Linux shouldn;t move to the GPL3 for the very reason that the DRM > restrictions would make linux incompatible with soon to be released The DRM restrictions mostly only restate some of the less clear effects of the GPL. The GPL v2 already requires all the keys etc since it requires the scripts to build. It just makes it clearer. > displays. Also Nvidia and such would not be able to make binary > drivers available. The GPL doesn't permit them to anyway. If they are legal then it is because they are not derivative works which forms an implicit barrier in copyright law. Essentially copyright law limits itself to works based on other works. So as an author of a book I can say "You may not copy this book" but I cannot (in copyright enforced agreement) say "You may not write a book on this subject if you read mine", only to control works based upon mine in a material way (which is what "derivative work" is all about). That also means for example that a GPL OS running a non-derivative application has no power to forbid that application from using DRM itself. Now there is a case where it get much messier - GPL with exceptions/LGPL being the clear one. A glibc that prohibited linking with DRM using code would raise much more complicated problems, but that is for the glibc/FSF list to argue over and does need addressing sensibly. > The GNU/Linux community needs to work with the MPAA, RIAA and > other DRM players and work to support basic restrictions on copying > content while preserving the Creator/Companies right to sustain their > works. What on earth makes you think those bodies want creators to have any rights. You've obviously never watched creators and the "industry" fighting each other. Anyway fighting DRM is actually helping even the music "industry" if H. Valarian's analysis is correct. Free Software is about -freedom- that means the freedom to do things like play music you own the rights to play and the freedom to distribute music you have the right to distribute. The dream of big music industry is mandatory DRM where there is no way for an artist to escape their clutches and publish music without them getting a very large cut of, if not all the profits. Much of the big music industry today is like vanity publishing, they sign you up, bill you for the costs of making the recordings, screw you on royalty deals then charge you the remainder the royalties didn't cover. So why should we work with the RIAA members (especially as there is good evidence to suggest that one of them stole GPL code for a proprietary DRM system) ? Free means that everyone must be able to use Linux Alan