On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:21:07AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:53:52AM -0600, Dax Kelson wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > 
> > > Your post shows that you think that the reaction is bad and you even say
> > > that the reaction is likely.  You vigourously disagree with my conclusions
> > > as to why the reaction is happening, I see that.  OK, so let's try it
> > > with a question rather than a statement: why are things like the DMCA and
> > > DRM happening?  It isn't the open source guys pushing those, obviously,
> > > it's the corporations.  So why are they doing it?
> > 
> > DRM/DMCA do nothing to address reimplementation (it can't, see all 
> > previous posts on how it is a LEGAL activity).
> > 
> > In my observation, DRM/DMCA addresses unauthorized audio and video content
> > copying.
> > 
> > So, if Open Source is all about reimplementation, and DRM/DMCA is about 
> > "protecting" audio/video content, where is the connection?
> 
> "Trusted Computing/Palladium" stuff is clearly headed in the direction
> of encrypting everything, the only place it lands unencrypted is on
> your display.  I thought that fell under the heading of DRM but maybe
> I'm mistaken.
> 
> I believe the point of that is "huh, people are going to copy our program?
> OK, well, we're a monopoly, you have use our programs to generate the
> data, we encrypt the data and poof! the reimplemented programs are
> worthless".
> 
> That line of reasoning, by the way, only works if they are a monopoly,
> i.e., it doesn't work real well for BK, there are lots of other source
> management systems.  But it works very well for things like Word,
> that's a de facto standard, contrary to what some people here believe
> it is bloody difficult to negotiate a contract in anything but Word.
> Try sending a lawyer anything else and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> So I don't agree that the DRM stuff is all about protecting audio/video
> content at all, I think it goes much further than that.  Maybe I'm
> wrong, maybe DRM isn't all about that, but the point remains that there
> is lots of activity in the directions I'm describing and whether it
> falls under DRM, DMCA, Trusted Computing, Palladium, of BuzzWord2000,
> the activity exists.  And I think it exists at least in part because
> of the threat of the open source reimplementations.  I'm starting to
> think I'm the only person on this list who thinks that, that may be,
> but in the business world that I move in pretty much everyone thinks that.
> 
> The open source thing is a new twist, it's changing the playing field.
> That can be good (it has been so far) but it can be bad too if the
> corporations get all paranoid, which is what they look like to me.
> 
> What you do about it is an open question.  My thought has been to focus
> on creating new stuff that creates its own world of users and advocates.
> Going back to Word, if there was a word processing system that was better
> than Word and people switched to it, then any attempt by Microsoft to lock
> up the data is irrelevant.  Apply that pattern to any application which
> operates on data - if you let any corporation have the best technology and
> become a monopoly then they can lock up the data and you're shut out of
> the game.  That's one of the reasons I sort of think the BK clone attempts
> are pointless, we can change the file format or encrypt it and unless
> there is some other compelling reason to use the clone, it's irrelevant.
> On the other hand, make something different and better and BK becomes
> irrelevant (unless we do leapfrog with some new feature/whatever).
> 
> That's what I meant by chasing.  If you are chasing the leader you are
> automatically more at risk because you are trying to play in the leader's
> playing field and they can change the rules to screw you up.  You build
> a better playing field and you turn the tables, now the leader is the
> follower and they have to play by your rules.
> -- 
> ---
> Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm
> -
> 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/



What about the people who cannot use bk because the license doesn't permit
them?They feed off the hourly kernel.org snapshots?
The BK clone doesn't have to be a clone always, but it has to start off with
that coz thats what is being used for linux currently. Maybe that won't be
requiredif you change the license to a bit more friendlier one.

This thread has become a few metres long now, but it as simple as 'open source
for better software, hidden source for better chances of making money'

-
-