* Houston, I think we have a problem [not found] <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304232012400.19176-100000@home.transmeta.co m> @ 2003-04-27 10:52 ` Mike Galbraith 2003-04-27 14:41 ` Martin J. Bligh 2003-04-28 6:15 ` Jan Harkes 0 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Mike Galbraith @ 2003-04-27 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Linus Torvalds [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3408 bytes --] <SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!> Hi Folks, I don't generally squeak unless I'm pretty darn sure I see a genuine problem. I think I see one right now, so here I am squeaking my little lungs out ;-) Perhaps I'm being stupid, and if that's the case, someone please apply a size 15EE boot vigorously to my tail-feathers (jump-start brain), and I'll shut up. The problem I see is terrible terrible semaphore starvation. It comes in two varieties, and might apply to other locks as well [1]. Variety 1 is owners of semaphores being sent off to the expired array, which happens with remarkable frequency. This variant is the lesser of the two evils, because here at least you have _some_ protection via EXPIRED_STARVING(), even if you have interactive tasks doing round robin. The worst variant is when you have a steady stream of tasks being upgraded to TASK_INTERACTIVE() while someone of low/modest priority has a semaphore downed... the poor guy can (seemingly) wait for _ages_ to get a chance to release it, and will starve all comers in the meantime. I regularly see a SCHED_RR and mlockall() vmstat stall for several seconds, and _sometimes_ my poor little box goes utterly insane and stalls vmstat for over a MINUTE [2]. To reproduce this 100% of the time, simply compile virgin 2.5.68 up/preempt, reduce your ram to 128mb, and using gcc-2.95.3 as to not overload the vm, run a make -j30 bzImage in an ext3 partition on a P3/500 single ide disk box. No, you don't really need to meet all of those restrictions... you'll see the problem on a big hairy chested box as well, just not as bad as I see it on my little box. The first symptom of the problem you will notice is a complete lack of swap activity along with highly improbable quantities of unused ram were all those hungry cc1's getting regular CPU feedings. If the huge increase in hold time (induced by a stream of elevated priority tasks who may even achieve their elevated status via _one_ wakeup), is the desired behavior now, so be it. If that's the case, someone please say so, that I may cease and desist fighting with the dang thing. I'm having lots of fun mind you, but testing is supposed to be mind-numbingly boring ;-) Anyway, grep for pid:prio pair 301:-2 in the attached log to see vmstat being nailed for over 8 seconds. Then, grep for pid:prio pair 1119:23 to see a task holding up a parade for 7 seconds. The patch I used to generate this log is also attached for idiot-reproachment purposes. (um, don't anyone try running it on an SMP or NUMA beast [those folks would surely know better, but...] as it's highly likely to explode violently) halbaderi, -Mike 1. I'm pretty sure it does... might really be that Heisenberg fellow messing with me again. 2. The 100% simple and effective way to "fix" this problem for this work load is to "just say no" to coughing up more than HZ worth of cpu time in activate_task(). This seems perfectly obvious and correct to me... though I'll admit it would seem much _more_ perfectly obvious and correct if MAX_SLEEP_AVG were 11000 instead of 10000... or maybe even 40000. Whatever. I posted one X-patch that worked pretty darn well, but nobody tried it. Not even the folks who were _griping_ about interactivity, fairness and whatnot. How boring. btw, what happens when kjournald yields and goes off to expired land? see log2.txt [-- Attachment #2: log.txt --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 14389 bytes --] 1131:18 starved 5 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 5152 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1132:18 starved 5 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 5178 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1093:18 starved 5 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 5204 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1067:18 starved 5 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 5230 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1142:22 starved 1 secs by 1133:23 who last ran 5613 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 396:15 starved 2 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 5767 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1139:21 starved 2 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 5767 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 301:-2 starved 3 secs by 1137:21 who last ran 3667 ticks ago. semaphore downed at arch/i386/kernel/sys_i386.c:58. 1079:16 starved 6 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 6155 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1131:17 starved 6 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 6181 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] <7>1132:17 starved 6 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 6205 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1093:17 starved 6 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 6233 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1067:17 starved 6 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 6259 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1142:21 starved 2 secs by 1133:23 who last ran 6708 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 396:15 starved 3 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 6773 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1139:20 starved 3 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 6773 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 301:-2 starved 4 secs by 1137:21 who last ran 4667 ticks ago. semaphore downed at arch/i386/kernel/sys_i386.c:58. 1079:15 starved 7 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 7181 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1131:16 starved 7 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 7228 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1132:16 starved 7 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 7254 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1093:16 starved 7 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 7281 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1067:16 starved 7 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 7307 ticks ago. sh R C5D95E10 92758188 1119 1118 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011677a>] io_schedule+0xe/0x18 [<c0143bee>] __wait_on_buffer+0xa2/0xbc [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0116e34>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<c0144c83>] __bread_slow+0x73/0x94 [<c0144ebe>] __bread+0x2a/0x34 [<c0177c31>] ext3_get_inode_loc+0xe1/0x140 [<c0178619>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x1d/0x94 [<c01786aa>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x1a/0x34 [<c0174f74>] ext3_new_inode+0x714/0x7f0 [<c017ac95>] ext3_create+0x8d/0x180 [<c014f46a>] vfs_create+0xae/0xd4 [<c014f82d>] open_namei+0x1ad/0x4a8 [<c0142073>] filp_open+0x3b/0x5c [<c014249b>] sys_open+0x37/0x70 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1142:20 starved 3 secs by 1133:23 who last ran 7716 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 396:15 starved 4 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 28 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 1139:19 starved 4 secs by 1119:23 who last ran 42 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 301:-2 starved 5 secs by 1137:21 who last ran 5667 ticks ago. sh R 00000073 1546400 1137 396 1090 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c0108c09>] need_resched+0x27/0x32 [<c013007b>] __set_page_dirty_buffers+0xd3/0x114 [<c0138314>] do_mmap_pgoff+0x14c/0x608 [<c0139735>] mprotect_fixup+0x119/0x134 [<c010e011>] old_mmap+0x115/0x164 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at arch/i386/kernel/sys_i386.c:58. 301:-2 starved 6 secs by 1137:21 who last ran 6672 ticks ago. sh R 00000073 1546400 1137 396 1090 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c0108c09>] need_resched+0x27/0x32 [<c013007b>] __set_page_dirty_buffers+0xd3/0x114 [<c0138314>] do_mmap_pgoff+0x14c/0x608 [<c0139735>] mprotect_fixup+0x119/0x134 [<c010e011>] old_mmap+0x115/0x164 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at arch/i386/kernel/sys_i386.c:58. 301:-2 starved 7 secs by 1137:21 who last ran 7677 ticks ago. sh R 00000073 1546400 1137 396 1090 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c0108c09>] need_resched+0x27/0x32 [<c013007b>] __set_page_dirty_buffers+0xd3/0x114 [<c0138314>] do_mmap_pgoff+0x14c/0x608 [<c0139735>] mprotect_fixup+0x119/0x134 [<c010e011>] old_mmap+0x115/0x164 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at arch/i386/kernel/sys_i386.c:58. 301:-2 starved 8 secs by 1137:21 who last ran 8682 ticks ago. sh R 00000073 1546400 1137 396 1090 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c0108c09>] need_resched+0x27/0x32 [<c013007b>] __set_page_dirty_buffers+0xd3/0x114 [<c0138314>] do_mmap_pgoff+0x14c/0x608 [<c0139735>] mprotect_fixup+0x119/0x134 [<c010e011>] old_mmap+0x115/0x164 [<c0108cbf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at arch/i386/kernel/sys_i386.c:58. [-- Attachment #3: diag.diff --] [-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 13472 bytes --] --- ./lib/rwsem.c.org Mon Feb 10 19:37:57 2003 +++ ./lib/rwsem.c Sun Apr 27 06:56:41 2003 @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ #define RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE 0x00000002 }; +extern void show_task(struct task_struct *tsk); + #if RWSEM_DEBUG #undef rwsemtrace void rwsemtrace(struct rw_semaphore *sem, const char *str) @@ -126,6 +128,7 @@ { struct task_struct *tsk = current; signed long count; + int ticks = 0; set_task_state(tsk,TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); @@ -150,7 +153,17 @@ for (;;) { if (!waiter->flags) break; - schedule(); + if (!schedule_timeout(1000) && sem->owner) { + struct task_struct *tsk = (struct task_struct *) sem->owner; + ticks += 1000; + printk(KERN_DEBUG "%d:%d starved %d secs by %d:%d who last ran %lu ticks ago.\n", + current->pid, current->prio - 100, ticks/HZ, tsk->pid, + tsk->prio - 100, jiffies - tsk->last_run); + if (ticks >= 5000) + show_task(sem->owner); + printk(KERN_DEBUG "semaphore downed at %s:%d.\n\n", + sem->file, sem->line); + } set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); } --- ./arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c.org Mon Feb 10 19:38:28 2003 +++ ./arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c Sun Apr 27 06:29:27 2003 @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ struct task_struct *tsk = current; DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, tsk); unsigned long flags; + int ticks = 0; tsk->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE; spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait.lock, flags); @@ -79,7 +80,17 @@ sem->sleepers = 1; /* us - see -1 above */ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait.lock, flags); - schedule(); + if (!schedule_timeout(1000) && sem->owner) { + struct task_struct *tsk = (struct task_struct *) sem->owner; + ticks += 1000; + printk(KERN_DEBUG "%d:%d starved %d secs by %d:%d who last ran %lu ticks ago.\n", + current->pid, current->prio - 100, ticks/HZ, tsk->pid, + tsk->prio - 100, jiffies - tsk->last_run); + if (ticks >= 5000) + show_task(sem->owner); + printk(KERN_DEBUG "semaphore downed at %s:%d.\n\n", + sem->file, sem->line); + } spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait.lock, flags); tsk->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE; @@ -96,6 +107,7 @@ struct task_struct *tsk = current; DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, tsk); unsigned long flags; + int ticks = 0; tsk->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait.lock, flags); @@ -132,7 +144,17 @@ sem->sleepers = 1; /* us - see -1 above */ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait.lock, flags); - schedule(); + if (!schedule_timeout(1000) && sem->owner) { + struct task_struct *tsk = (struct task_struct *) sem->owner; + ticks += 1000; + printk(KERN_DEBUG "%d:%d starved %d secs by %d:%d who last ran %lu ticks ago.\n", + current->pid, current->prio - 100, ticks/HZ, tsk->pid, + tsk->prio - 100, jiffies - tsk->last_run); + if (ticks >= 5000) + show_task(sem->owner); + printk(KERN_DEBUG "semaphore downed at %s:%d.\n\n", + sem->file, sem->line); + } spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait.lock, flags); tsk->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; --- ./include/linux/fs.h.org Fri Apr 25 11:35:25 2003 +++ ./include/linux/fs.h Fri Apr 25 12:29:03 2003 @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ #include <linux/cache.h> #include <linux/radix-tree.h> #include <linux/kobject.h> +#include <linux/sched.h> #include <asm/atomic.h> struct iovec; --- ./include/linux/rwsem.h.org Mon Feb 10 19:38:17 2003 +++ ./include/linux/rwsem.h Fri Apr 25 07:55:15 2003 @@ -38,18 +38,26 @@ /* * lock for reading */ -static inline void down_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem) +static inline void _down_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem) { might_sleep(); rwsemtrace(sem,"Entering down_read"); __down_read(sem); rwsemtrace(sem,"Leaving down_read"); } +#define down_read(sem) \ +do { \ + _down_read((sem)); \ + current->sem_count++; \ + (sem)->owner = current; \ + (sem)->file = __FILE__; \ + (sem)->line = __LINE__; \ +} while(0); /* * trylock for reading -- returns 1 if successful, 0 if contention */ -static inline int down_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem) +static inline int _down_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem) { int ret; rwsemtrace(sem,"Entering down_read_trylock"); @@ -57,22 +65,41 @@ rwsemtrace(sem,"Leaving down_read_trylock"); return ret; } +#define down_read_trylock(sem) \ +({ \ + int _ret =_down_read_trylock((sem)); \ + if (_ret) { \ + current->sem_count++; \ + (sem)->owner = current; \ + (sem)->file = __FILE__; \ + (sem)->line = __LINE__; \ + } \ + _ret; \ +}) /* * lock for writing */ -static inline void down_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem) +static inline void _down_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem) { might_sleep(); rwsemtrace(sem,"Entering down_write"); __down_write(sem); rwsemtrace(sem,"Leaving down_write"); } +#define down_write(sem) \ +do { \ + _down_write((sem)); \ + current->sem_count++; \ + (sem)->owner = current; \ + (sem)->file = __FILE__; \ + (sem)->line = __LINE__; \ +} while (0); /* * trylock for writing -- returns 1 if successful, 0 if contention */ -static inline int down_write_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem) +static inline int _down_write_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem) { int ret; rwsemtrace(sem,"Entering down_write_trylock"); @@ -80,26 +107,49 @@ rwsemtrace(sem,"Leaving down_write_trylock"); return ret; } +#define down_write_trylock(sem) \ +({ \ + int _ret = _down_write_trylock((sem)); \ + if (_ret) { \ + current->sem_count++; \ + (sem)->owner = current; \ + (sem)->file = __FILE__; \ + (sem)->line = __LINE__; \ + } \ + _ret; \ +}) /* * release a read lock */ -static inline void up_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem) +static inline void _up_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem) { rwsemtrace(sem,"Entering up_read"); __up_read(sem); rwsemtrace(sem,"Leaving up_read"); } +#define up_read(sem) \ +do { \ + current->sem_count--; \ + (sem)->owner = NULL; \ + _up_read((sem)); \ +} while(0); /* * release a write lock */ -static inline void up_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem) +static inline void _up_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem) { rwsemtrace(sem,"Entering up_write"); __up_write(sem); rwsemtrace(sem,"Leaving up_write"); } +#define up_write(sem) \ +do { \ + current->sem_count--; \ + (sem)->owner = NULL; \ + _up_write((sem)); \ +} while(0); /* * downgrade write lock to read lock --- ./include/linux/sched.h.org Fri Apr 25 06:24:33 2003 +++ ./include/linux/sched.h Fri Apr 25 07:59:50 2003 @@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ #define MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT LONG_MAX extern signed long FASTCALL(schedule_timeout(signed long timeout)); asmlinkage void schedule(void); +extern void show_task(task_t *p); struct namespace; @@ -322,6 +323,7 @@ unsigned long ptrace; int lock_depth; /* Lock depth */ + int sem_count; /* NR semaphores held */ int prio, static_prio; struct list_head run_list; --- ./include/asm-i386/rwsem.h.org Fri Apr 25 06:22:19 2003 +++ ./include/asm-i386/rwsem.h Fri Apr 25 07:56:57 2003 @@ -64,6 +64,9 @@ #if RWSEM_DEBUG int debug; #endif + void *owner; + char *file; + int line; }; /* --- ./include/asm-i386/semaphore.h.org Fri Apr 25 10:50:46 2003 +++ ./include/asm-i386/semaphore.h Fri Apr 25 11:57:28 2003 @@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ #ifdef WAITQUEUE_DEBUG long __magic; #endif + void *owner; + char *file; + int line; }; #ifdef WAITQUEUE_DEBUG @@ -111,7 +114,7 @@ * "__down_failed" is a special asm handler that calls the C * routine that actually waits. See arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c */ -static inline void down(struct semaphore * sem) +static inline void _down(struct semaphore * sem) { #ifdef WAITQUEUE_DEBUG CHECK_MAGIC(sem->__magic); @@ -130,12 +133,20 @@ :"c" (sem) :"memory"); } +#define down(sem) \ +do { \ + _down((sem)); \ + current->sem_count++; \ + (sem)->owner = current; \ + (sem)->file = __FILE__; \ + (sem)->line = __LINE__; \ +} while (0); /* * Interruptible try to acquire a semaphore. If we obtained * it, return zero. If we were interrupted, returns -EINTR */ -static inline int down_interruptible(struct semaphore * sem) +static inline int _down_interruptible(struct semaphore * sem) { int result; @@ -158,12 +169,23 @@ :"memory"); return result; } +#define down_interruptible(sem) \ +({ \ + int _ret = _down_interruptible((sem)); \ + if (!_ret) { \ + (sem)->owner = current; \ + current->sem_count++; \ + (sem)->file = __FILE__; \ + (sem)->line = __LINE__; \ + } \ + _ret; \ +}) /* * Non-blockingly attempt to down() a semaphore. * Returns zero if we acquired it */ -static inline int down_trylock(struct semaphore * sem) +static inline int _down_trylock(struct semaphore * sem) { int result; @@ -186,6 +208,17 @@ :"memory"); return result; } +#define down_trylock(sem) \ +({ \ + int _ret = _down_trylock((sem)); \ + if (!_ret) { \ + (sem)->owner = current; \ + current->sem_count++; \ + (sem)->file = __FILE__; \ + (sem)->line = __LINE__; \ + } \ + _ret; \ +}) /* * Note! This is subtle. We jump to wake people up only if @@ -193,7 +226,7 @@ * The default case (no contention) will result in NO * jumps for both down() and up(). */ -static inline void up(struct semaphore * sem) +static inline void _up(struct semaphore * sem) { #ifdef WAITQUEUE_DEBUG CHECK_MAGIC(sem->__magic); @@ -212,6 +245,12 @@ :"c" (sem) :"memory"); } +#define up(sem) \ +do { \ + current->sem_count--; \ + (sem)->owner = NULL; \ + _up((sem)); \ +} while (0); #endif #endif --- ./fs/fat/misc.c.org Fri Apr 25 12:24:19 2003 +++ ./fs/fat/misc.c Fri Apr 25 12:24:33 2003 @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ * and date_dos2unix for date==0 by Igor Zhbanov(bsg@uniyar.ac.ru) */ +#include <linux/sched.h> #include <linux/fs.h> #include <linux/msdos_fs.h> #include <linux/buffer_head.h> --- ./kernel/fork.c.org Fri Apr 25 06:24:34 2003 +++ ./kernel/fork.c Fri Apr 25 07:41:35 2003 @@ -854,6 +854,7 @@ p->cutime = p->cstime = 0; p->array = NULL; p->lock_depth = -1; /* -1 = no lock */ + p->sem_count = 0; p->start_time = get_jiffies_64(); p->security = NULL; --- ./kernel/printk.c.org Fri Apr 25 06:24:34 2003 +++ ./kernel/printk.c Fri Apr 25 08:04:29 2003 @@ -510,8 +510,10 @@ console_may_schedule = 0; up(&console_sem); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&logbuf_lock, flags); +#if 0 if (wake_klogd && !oops_in_progress && waitqueue_active(&log_wait)) wake_up_interruptible(&log_wait); +#endif } /** console_conditional_schedule - yield the CPU if required --- ./kernel/sched.c.org Fri Apr 25 06:24:34 2003 +++ ./kernel/sched.c Sun Apr 27 07:00:04 2003 @@ -75,6 +75,8 @@ #define STARVATION_LIMIT (10*HZ) #define NODE_THRESHOLD 125 +#define TIMESLICE_GRANULARITY (HZ/20 ?: 1) + /* * If a task is 'interactive' then we reinsert it in the active * array after it has expired its current timeslice. (it will not @@ -1248,6 +1250,27 @@ enqueue_task(p, rq->expired); } else enqueue_task(p, rq->active); + } else { + /* + * Prevent a too long timeslice allowing a task to monopolize + * the CPU. We do this by splitting up the timeslice into + * smaller pieces. + * + * Note: this does not mean the task's timeslices expire or + * get lost in any way, they just might be preempted by + * another task of equal priority. (one with higher + * priority would have preempted this task already.) We + * requeue this task to the end of the list on this priority + * level, which is in essence a round-robin of tasks with + * equal priority. + */ + if (0 && !(p->time_slice % TIMESLICE_GRANULARITY) && + (p->array == rq->active)) { + dequeue_task(p, rq->active); + set_tsk_need_resched(p); + p->prio = effective_prio(p); + enqueue_task(p, rq->active); + } } out: spin_unlock(&rq->lock); @@ -1993,6 +2016,10 @@ if (likely(!rt_task(current))) { dequeue_task(current, array); enqueue_task(current, rq->expired); + if (current->sem_count) { + printk(KERN_DEBUG "%d yielded holding sem.\n", current->pid); + show_task(current); + } } else { list_del(¤t->run_list); list_add_tail(¤t->run_list, array->queue + current->prio); @@ -2155,7 +2182,7 @@ return list_entry(p->sibling.next,struct task_struct,sibling); } -static void show_task(task_t * p) +void show_task(task_t * p) { unsigned long free = 0; task_t *relative; --- ./kernel/ksyms.c.org Fri Apr 25 06:24:34 2003 +++ ./kernel/ksyms.c Fri Apr 25 07:49:02 2003 @@ -466,6 +466,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(interruptible_sleep_on); EXPORT_SYMBOL(interruptible_sleep_on_timeout); EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule); +EXPORT_SYMBOL(show_task); #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT EXPORT_SYMBOL(preempt_schedule); #endif [-- Attachment #4: log2.txt --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1845 bytes --] 29 yielded holding sem. kjournald R current 4182741476 29 1 123 28 (L-TLB) Call Trace: [<c01348e9>] shrink_cache+0x229/0x284 [<c011985a>] release_console_sem+0x4e/0xa0 [<c011977f>] printk+0x147/0x178 [<c011977f>] printk+0x147/0x178 [<c012bb9e>] __print_symbol+0x106/0x113 [<c012bb9e>] __print_symbol+0x106/0x113 [<c012bb9e>] __print_symbol+0x106/0x113 [<c012728b>] kernel_text_address+0x2f/0x3b [<c01092ac>] show_trace+0x3c/0x8c [<c010931a>] show_trace_task+0x1e/0x24 [<c0116f23>] show_task+0x1cb/0x1d4 [<c0116b45>] sys_sched_yield+0x95/0xe4 [<c0116bc7>] yield+0x17/0x1c [<c012fb08>] __alloc_pages+0x218/0x254 [<c012c810>] find_or_create_page+0x3c/0xac [<c0145699>] grow_dev_page+0x21/0x128 [<c0145831>] __getblk_slow+0x91/0xfc [<c0145be2>] __getblk+0x2e/0x38 [<c0187bb9>] journal_get_descriptor_buffer+0x35/0x54 [<c0184cb9>] journal_commit_transaction+0x675/0x1253 [<c0115ea2>] schedule+0x28e/0x338 [<c0187547>] kjournald+0xff/0x1e8 [<c0187448>] kjournald+0x0/0x1e8 [<c0187430>] commit_timeout+0x0/0x10 [<c0107111>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xc 29 yielded holding sem. kjournald R current 4182741476 29 1 123 28 (L-TLB) Call Trace: [<c010931a>] show_trace_task+0x1e/0x24 [<c0116f23>] show_task+0x1cb/0x1d4 [<c0116b45>] sys_sched_yield+0x95/0xe4 [<c0116bc7>] yield+0x17/0x1c [<c012fb08>] __alloc_pages+0x218/0x254 [<c012c810>] find_or_create_page+0x3c/0xac [<c0145699>] grow_dev_page+0x21/0x128 [<c0145831>] __getblk_slow+0x91/0xfc [<c0145be2>] __getblk+0x2e/0x38 [<c0187bb9>] journal_get_descriptor_buffer+0x35/0x54 [<c0184cb9>] journal_commit_transaction+0x675/0x1253 [<c0115ea2>] schedule+0x28e/0x338 [<c0187547>] kjournald+0xff/0x1e8 [<c0187448>] kjournald+0x0/0x1e8 [<c0187430>] commit_timeout+0x0/0x10 [<c0107111>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Houston, I think we have a problem 2003-04-27 10:52 ` Houston, I think we have a problem Mike Galbraith @ 2003-04-27 14:41 ` Martin J. Bligh 2003-04-27 17:25 ` Mike Galbraith 2003-04-28 5:17 ` Mike Galbraith 2003-04-28 6:15 ` Jan Harkes 1 sibling, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-04-27 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Galbraith, linux-kernel; +Cc: Linus Torvalds > To reproduce this 100% of the time, simply compile virgin 2.5.68 > up/preempt, reduce your ram to 128mb, and using gcc-2.95.3 as to not > overload the vm, run a make -j30 bzImage in an ext3 partition on a P3/500 > single ide disk box. No, you don't really need to meet all of those > restrictions... you'll see the problem on a big hairy chested box as > well, just not as bad as I see it on my little box. The first symptom of > the problem you will notice is a complete lack of swap activity along > with highly improbable quantities of unused ram were all those hungry > cc1's getting regular CPU feedings. Yes, that's why I don't use ext3 ;-) It's known broken, akpm is fixing it. M. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Houston, I think we have a problem 2003-04-27 14:41 ` Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-04-27 17:25 ` Mike Galbraith 2003-04-27 17:29 ` Martin J. Bligh 2003-04-28 5:17 ` Mike Galbraith 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Mike Galbraith @ 2003-04-27 17:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin J. Bligh; +Cc: linux-kernel, Linus Torvalds At 07:41 AM 4/27/2003 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > To reproduce this 100% of the time, simply compile virgin 2.5.68 > > up/preempt, reduce your ram to 128mb, and using gcc-2.95.3 as to not > > overload the vm, run a make -j30 bzImage in an ext3 partition on a P3/500 > > single ide disk box. No, you don't really need to meet all of those > > restrictions... you'll see the problem on a big hairy chested box as > > well, just not as bad as I see it on my little box. The first symptom of > > the problem you will notice is a complete lack of swap activity along > > with highly improbable quantities of unused ram were all those hungry > > cc1's getting regular CPU feedings. > >Yes, that's why I don't use ext3 ;-) It's known broken, akpm is fixing it. I'm not at all convinced (must say I wouldn't mind at _all_ being convinced) that it's ext3... that just _seems_ to be worst easily reproducible case for some un-(expletive deleted)-known reason. -Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Houston, I think we have a problem 2003-04-27 17:25 ` Mike Galbraith @ 2003-04-27 17:29 ` Martin J. Bligh 2003-04-27 17:41 ` Mike Galbraith 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-04-27 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Galbraith; +Cc: linux-kernel >> > To reproduce this 100% of the time, simply compile virgin 2.5.68 >> > up/preempt, reduce your ram to 128mb, and using gcc-2.95.3 as to not >> > overload the vm, run a make -j30 bzImage in an ext3 partition on a >> > P3/500 single ide disk box. No, you don't really need to meet all of >> > those restrictions... you'll see the problem on a big hairy chested >> > box as well, just not as bad as I see it on my little box. The first >> > symptom of the problem you will notice is a complete lack of swap >> > activity along with highly improbable quantities of unused ram were >> > all those hungry cc1's getting regular CPU feedings. >> >> Yes, that's why I don't use ext3 ;-) It's known broken, akpm is fixing >> it. > > I'm not at all convinced (must say I wouldn't mind at _all_ being > convinced) that it's ext3... that just _seems_ to be worst easily > reproducible case for some un-(expletive deleted)-known reason. Well, that's easy to test. Mount the fs as ext2, and see if it goes away. If it's your rootfs, it's too stupid to sniff your fstab at r/w remount time (or give you the correct info from "mount", so be careful), so you have to append rootfstype=ext2 to the kernel command line. M. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Houston, I think we have a problem 2003-04-27 17:29 ` Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-04-27 17:41 ` Mike Galbraith 2003-04-27 17:54 ` Mike Galbraith 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Mike Galbraith @ 2003-04-27 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin J. Bligh; +Cc: linux-kernel At 10:29 AM 4/27/2003 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >> > To reproduce this 100% of the time, simply compile virgin 2.5.68 > >> > up/preempt, reduce your ram to 128mb, and using gcc-2.95.3 as to not > >> > overload the vm, run a make -j30 bzImage in an ext3 partition on a > >> > P3/500 single ide disk box. No, you don't really need to meet all of > >> > those restrictions... you'll see the problem on a big hairy chested > >> > box as well, just not as bad as I see it on my little box. The first > >> > symptom of the problem you will notice is a complete lack of swap > >> > activity along with highly improbable quantities of unused ram were > >> > all those hungry cc1's getting regular CPU feedings. > >> > >> Yes, that's why I don't use ext3 ;-) It's known broken, akpm is fixing > >> it. > > > > I'm not at all convinced (must say I wouldn't mind at _all_ being > > convinced) that it's ext3... that just _seems_ to be worst easily > > reproducible case for some un-(expletive deleted)-known reason. > >Well, that's easy to test. Mount the fs as ext2, and see if it goes away. Sure, btdt very first thing, and that's why I'm not convinced that ext3 is the core problem. I see "it" in ext2 as well, just less so. -Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Houston, I think we have a problem 2003-04-27 17:41 ` Mike Galbraith @ 2003-04-27 17:54 ` Mike Galbraith 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Mike Galbraith @ 2003-04-27 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Martin J. Bligh At 07:41 PM 4/27/2003 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: >At 10:29 AM 4/27/2003 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: >> >> > To reproduce this 100% of the time, simply compile virgin 2.5.68 >> >> > up/preempt, reduce your ram to 128mb, and using gcc-2.95.3 as to not >> >> > overload the vm, run a make -j30 bzImage in an ext3 partition on a >> >> > P3/500 single ide disk box. No, you don't really need to meet all of >> >> > those restrictions... you'll see the problem on a big hairy chested >> >> > box as well, just not as bad as I see it on my little box. The first >> >> > symptom of the problem you will notice is a complete lack of swap >> >> > activity along with highly improbable quantities of unused ram were >> >> > all those hungry cc1's getting regular CPU feedings. >> >> >> >> Yes, that's why I don't use ext3 ;-) It's known broken, akpm is fixing >> >> it. >> > >> > I'm not at all convinced (must say I wouldn't mind at _all_ being >> > convinced) that it's ext3... that just _seems_ to be worst easily >> > reproducible case for some un-(expletive deleted)-known reason. >> >>Well, that's easy to test. Mount the fs as ext2, and see if it goes away. > > >Sure, btdt very first thing, and that's why I'm not convinced that ext3 is >the core problem. I see "it" in ext2 as well, just less so. P.S. I'm fishing for hints. I'm (severely) hooked by the problem. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Houston, I think we have a problem 2003-04-27 14:41 ` Martin J. Bligh 2003-04-27 17:25 ` Mike Galbraith @ 2003-04-28 5:17 ` Mike Galbraith 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Mike Galbraith @ 2003-04-28 5:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin J. Bligh; +Cc: linux-kernel, Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1204 bytes --] At 07:41 AM 4/27/2003 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > To reproduce this 100% of the time, simply compile virgin 2.5.68 > > up/preempt, reduce your ram to 128mb, and using gcc-2.95.3 as to not > > overload the vm, run a make -j30 bzImage in an ext3 partition on a P3/500 > > single ide disk box. No, you don't really need to meet all of those > > restrictions... you'll see the problem on a big hairy chested box as > > well, just not as bad as I see it on my little box. The first symptom of > > the problem you will notice is a complete lack of swap activity along > > with highly improbable quantities of unused ram were all those hungry > > cc1's getting regular CPU feedings. > >Yes, that's why I don't use ext3 ;-) It's known broken, akpm is fixing it. He might be interested in the attached then. (It illustrates the one wakeup thingie I'm muttering and mumbling about nicely too. Both of the players are going to have 3 seconds to ruin everyone else's day. This is why I turned the problem upside-down in my experiment... if your shell and it's kids aren't maxed out when this happens, interactivity turns el-stinko) I'll go back to my corner now and play quietly ;-) -Mike [-- Attachment #2: xx.txt --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1934 bytes --] 6623:21 starved 1 secs by 6619:21 who last ran 2172 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 6623:20 starved 2 secs by 6619:21 who last ran 3172 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 6623:19 starved 3 secs by 6619:21 who last ran 4172 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 6623:18 starved 4 secs by 6619:21 who last ran 5172 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 6623:17 starved 5 secs by 6619:21 who last ran 6183 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 6623:16 starved 6 secs by 6619:21 who last ran 7203 ticks ago. semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 6623:15 starved 7 secs by 6619:21 who last ran 8223 ticks ago. as D 00000286 4269393680 6619 6476 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c0116317>] sleep_on+0x5b/0x84 [<c0115f90>] default_wake_function+0x0/0x1c [<c0182430>] start_this_handle+0x140/0x234 [<c01825ff>] journal_start+0x93/0xc8 [<c017d64a>] ext3_journal_start+0x2a/0x4c [<c017be4d>] ext3_create+0x31/0x198 [<c015022d>] vfs_create+0xad/0xd4 [<c01505eb>] open_namei+0x197/0x480 [<c0142d26>] filp_open+0x3a/0x5c [<c014314f>] sys_open+0x37/0x74 [<c0108ebb>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. 6623:15 starved 8 secs by 6619:15 who last ran 547 ticks ago. as D 000BDE11 4269393680 6619 6476 (NOTLB) Call Trace: [<c011fd1a>] schedule_timeout+0x7e/0xa8 [<c011fc8c>] process_timeout+0x0/0x10 [<c0107d0a>] __down+0x9e/0x1a8 [<c0115f90>] default_wake_function+0x0/0x1c [<c010802b>] __down_failed+0xb/0x14 [<c01844ca>] .text.lock.transaction+0x5/0x15b [<c01825ff>] journal_start+0x93/0xc8 [<c017d64a>] ext3_journal_start+0x2a/0x4c [<c017be4d>] ext3_create+0x31/0x198 [<c015022d>] vfs_create+0xad/0xd4 [<c01505eb>] open_namei+0x197/0x480 [<c0142d26>] filp_open+0x3a/0x5c [<c014314f>] sys_open+0x37/0x74 [<c0108ebb>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb semaphore downed at fs/namei.c:1249. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Houston, I think we have a problem 2003-04-27 10:52 ` Houston, I think we have a problem Mike Galbraith 2003-04-27 14:41 ` Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-04-28 6:15 ` Jan Harkes 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jan Harkes @ 2003-04-28 6:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Galbraith; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 12:52:49PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > <SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!> <description> Hehe, at first I thought you were describing the excessive flamewars where someone of 'low priority' downs a semaphore (flameworthy topic) which then 'starves' useful discussions for several days. One good thing is that is looks like fewer core developers seem to get sucked up in these nowadays. (perhaps they have switched to some lockless RCU scheme?) In any case, I have seen minute long stalls with 100% cpu usage about 3 or 4 times. I believe it started around the time the interactive scheduler changes went in. One time it looked like the xserver, the windowmanager and an inactive xterm were having a foodfight (when the stall cleared a top showed 50%/25%/25% cpu usage for those processes). Interestingly this was right after a reboot, so most of the 1GB of memory was not used. Jan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Flame Linus to a crisp! @ 2003-04-24 3:59 Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 4:40 ` Joel Jaeggli ` (12 more replies) 0 siblings, 13 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 3:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kernel Mailing List Ok, there's no way to do this gracefully, so I won't even try. I'm going to just hunker down for some really impressive extended flaming, and my asbestos underwear is firmly in place, and extremely uncomfortable. I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux! There, I've said it. I'm out of the closet. So bring it on... I've had some private discussions with various people about this already, and I do realize that a lot of people want to use the kernel in some way to just make DRM go away, at least as far as Linux is concerned. Either by some policy decision or by extending the GPL to just not allow it. In some ways the discussion was very similar to some of the software patent related GPL-NG discussions from a year or so ago: "we don't like it, and we should change the license to make it not work somehow". And like the software patent issue, I also don't necessarily like DRM myself, but I still ended up feeling the same: I'm an "Oppenheimer", and I refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for whatever you want to - which very much includes things I don't necessarily personally approve of. The GPL requires you to give out sources to the kernel, but it doesn't limit what you can _do_ with the kernel. On the whole, this is just another example of why rms calls me "just an engineer" and thinks I have no ideals. [ Personally, I see it as a virtue - trying to make the world a slightly better place _without_ trying to impose your moral values on other people. You do whatever the h*ll rings your bell, I'm just an engineer who wants to make the best OS possible. ] In short, it's perfectly ok to sign a kernel image - I do it myself indirectly every day through the kernel.org, as kernel.org will sign the tar-balls I upload to make sure people can at least verify that they came that way. Doing the same thing on the binary is no different: signing a binary is a perfectly fine way to show the world that you're the one behind it, and that _you_ trust it. And since I can imaging signing binaries myself, I don't feel that I can disallow anybody else doing so. Another part of the DRM discussion is the fact that signing is only the first step: _acting_ on the fact whether a binary is signed or not (by refusing to load it, for example, or by refusing to give it a secret key) is required too. But since the signature is pointless unless you _use_ it for something, and since the decision how to use the signature is clearly outside of the scope of the kernel itself (and thus not a "derived work" or anything like that), I have to convince myself that not only is it clearly ok to act on the knowledge of whather the kernel is signed or not, it's also outside of the scope of what the GPL talks about, and thus irrelevant to the license. That's the short and sweet of it. I wanted to bring this out in the open, because I know there are people who think that signed binaries are an act of "subversion" (or "perversion") of the GPL, and I wanted to make sure that people don't live under mis-apprehension that it can't be done. I think there are many quite valid reasons to sign (and verify) your kernel images, and while some of the uses of signing are odious, I don't see any sane way to distinguish between "good" signers and "bad" signers. Comments? I'd love to get some real discussion about this, but in the end I'm personally convinced that we have to allow it. Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private keys in the binary. You can sign the binary that is a result of the build process, but you can _not_ make a binary that is aware of certain keys without making those keys public - because those keys will obviously have been part of the kernel build itself. So don't get these two things confused - one is an external key that is applied _to_ the kernel (ok, and outside the license), and the other one is embedding a key _into_ the kernel (still ok, but the GPL requires that such a key has to be made available as "source" to the kernel). Linus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 4:40 ` Joel Jaeggli 2003-04-24 4:43 ` Greg KH ` (11 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Joel Jaeggli @ 2003-04-24 4:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List I'm not philosophically opposed to DRM systems. What I am concerned with is being made a prisoner by my applications. So, if the kernel I run has to be signed by the someone my proprietary application vendor trusts, so that I can view a piece of data provided by a third party, that limits the freedom I have to choose what I put in my kernel. In some circumstances I might be willing to forgo that freedom, but as a general rule I see it as an unfortunate instrustion. Signatures for the purposes of establishing the identity of authors, and the intactness or binary or sources packages. are a seperate issue, I support that entirely... joelja On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Ok, > there's no way to do this gracefully, so I won't even try. I'm going to > just hunker down for some really impressive extended flaming, and my > asbestos underwear is firmly in place, and extremely uncomfortable. > > I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux! > > There, I've said it. I'm out of the closet. So bring it on... > > I've had some private discussions with various people about this already, > and I do realize that a lot of people want to use the kernel in some way > to just make DRM go away, at least as far as Linux is concerned. Either by > some policy decision or by extending the GPL to just not allow it. > > In some ways the discussion was very similar to some of the software > patent related GPL-NG discussions from a year or so ago: "we don't like > it, and we should change the license to make it not work somehow". > > And like the software patent issue, I also don't necessarily like DRM > myself, but I still ended up feeling the same: I'm an "Oppenheimer", and I > refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for > whatever you want to - which very much includes things I don't necessarily > personally approve of. > > The GPL requires you to give out sources to the kernel, but it doesn't > limit what you can _do_ with the kernel. On the whole, this is just > another example of why rms calls me "just an engineer" and thinks I have > no ideals. > > [ Personally, I see it as a virtue - trying to make the world a slightly > better place _without_ trying to impose your moral values on other > people. You do whatever the h*ll rings your bell, I'm just an engineer > who wants to make the best OS possible. ] > > In short, it's perfectly ok to sign a kernel image - I do it myself > indirectly every day through the kernel.org, as kernel.org will sign the > tar-balls I upload to make sure people can at least verify that they came > that way. Doing the same thing on the binary is no different: signing a > binary is a perfectly fine way to show the world that you're the one > behind it, and that _you_ trust it. > > And since I can imaging signing binaries myself, I don't feel that I can > disallow anybody else doing so. > > Another part of the DRM discussion is the fact that signing is only the > first step: _acting_ on the fact whether a binary is signed or not (by > refusing to load it, for example, or by refusing to give it a secret key) > is required too. > > But since the signature is pointless unless you _use_ it for something, > and since the decision how to use the signature is clearly outside of the > scope of the kernel itself (and thus not a "derived work" or anything like > that), I have to convince myself that not only is it clearly ok to act on > the knowledge of whather the kernel is signed or not, it's also outside of > the scope of what the GPL talks about, and thus irrelevant to the license. > > That's the short and sweet of it. I wanted to bring this out in the open, > because I know there are people who think that signed binaries are an act > of "subversion" (or "perversion") of the GPL, and I wanted to make sure > that people don't live under mis-apprehension that it can't be done. > > I think there are many quite valid reasons to sign (and verify) your > kernel images, and while some of the uses of signing are odious, I don't > see any sane way to distinguish between "good" signers and "bad" signers. > > Comments? I'd love to get some real discussion about this, but in the end > I'm personally convinced that we have to allow it. > > Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private > keys in the binary. You can sign the binary that is a result of the build > process, but you can _not_ make a binary that is aware of certain keys > without making those keys public - because those keys will obviously have > been part of the kernel build itself. > > So don't get these two things confused - one is an external key that is > applied _to_ the kernel (ok, and outside the license), and the other one > is embedding a key _into_ the kernel (still ok, but the GPL requires that > such a key has to be made available as "source" to the kernel). > > Linus > > - > 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/ > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli Academic User Services joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu -- PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 4:40 ` Joel Jaeggli @ 2003-04-24 4:43 ` Greg KH 2003-04-24 4:57 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 4:54 ` Andre Hedrick ` (10 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2003-04-24 4:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 08:59:45PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private > keys in the binary. You can sign the binary that is a result of the build > process, but you can _not_ make a binary that is aware of certain keys > without making those keys public - because those keys will obviously have > been part of the kernel build itself. The GPL does allow you to embed a public key in the kernel, which could enforce only executables signed with a private key from being run, or only signed modules from being loaded. Both of which are things that I know a lot of people want to do (and I've done in the past, see http://linuxusb.bkbits.net:8080/cryptomark-2.4 for the 2.4 version of a signed binaries are only allowed to run patch.) I know a lot of people can (and do) object to such a potential use of Linux, and I'm glad to see you explicitly state that this is an acceptable use, it helps to clear up the issue. thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 4:43 ` Greg KH @ 2003-04-24 4:57 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 5:02 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 4:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 08:59:45PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private > > keys in the binary. You can sign the binary that is a result of the build > > process, but you can _not_ make a binary that is aware of certain keys > > without making those keys public - because those keys will obviously have > > been part of the kernel build itself. > > The GPL does allow you to embed a public key in the kernel Absolutely. That's why I said "private key". It's clearly ok to embed any number of keys you damn well want inside the kernel itself - it's just that the GPL requires that they be made available as source, so by implication they had damn well better be public. So yes, it's perfectly fine to embed a public key inside the kernel, and use that public key to verify some external private key. > I know a lot of people can (and do) object to such a potential use of > Linux, and I'm glad to see you explicitly state that this is an > acceptable use, it helps to clear up the issue. The reason I want to make it very explicit is that I know (judging from the private discussions I've had over the last few weeks) that a lot of people think that the GPL can be interpreted in such a way that even just the act of signing a binary would make the key used for the signing be covered by the GPL. Which obviously would make the act of signing something totally pointless. And even if some lawyer could interpret it that way (and hey, they take limbo classes in law school explicitly to make sure that the lawyers _are_ flexible enough. Really! Look it up in the dictionary - right next to "gullible"), I wanted to make sure that we very explicitly do NOT interpret it that way. Because signing is (at least right now) the only way to show that you trust something. And if you can't show that you trust something, you can't have any real security. The problem with security, of course, is exactly _whom_ the security is put in place to protect. But that's not a question that we can (or should) try to answer in a license. That's a question that you have to ask yourself when (and if) you're presented with such a device. Linus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 4:57 ` Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 5:02 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-04-24 5:39 ` viro 2003-04-24 10:54 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana 0 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-04-24 5:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Linus Torvalds wrote: If signing something with a public key, makes they GPL, this would be ridicolous. I mean, when I use GPL mutt & GPL GnuPG and whatever. Point for me is, that with a DRM you could 100% verify that foreign module Y is 100% from company Z. Or that binary product F is 100% from the company and can be trusted to run here or there. I think the major problem with DRM is the negative vibration it bringts with its very stupid use in all kind of Mass Media Music/Movie industry. Which is in a kind of ultimate end-of-its-days panic. > Because signing is (at least right now) the only way to show that you > trust something. And if you can't show that you trust something, you can't > have any real security. so should we start to sign all our emails? so we know we trust each other? - -- Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration ========================================================== Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703 Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343 http://www.tequila.jp ========================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+p2/9jBz/yQjBxz8RAtyMAKDUNJHWC3qRBtHgyVsT+S9d+VxeOQCeNMHU u5QZX8ds7DS1r8rsYgSsQUw= =vZBn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 5:02 ` Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-04-24 5:39 ` viro 2003-04-24 5:56 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 2003-04-24 9:46 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-04-24 10:54 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana 1 sibling, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: viro @ 2003-04-24 5:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Clemens Schwaighofer; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 02:02:54PM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote: > Point for me is, that with a DRM you could 100% verify that foreign > module Y is 100% from company Z. Or that binary product F is 100% from > the company and can be trusted to run here or there. Excuse me, but I don't get the last part. You know that F had been built in environment of unspecified degree of security from source that had been kept in <---> written by programmers you don't know who had been hired in conformace with criteria <---> and released after passing QA of unknown quality (but you can bet that they had missed some security holes in the past) under a license that almost certainly disclaims any responsibility. Care to explain how does one get from the trust in above to "trusted to run"? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 5:39 ` viro @ 2003-04-24 5:56 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 2003-04-24 8:46 ` Dax Kelson 2003-04-24 9:46 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-04-24 5:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: viro; +Cc: Clemens Schwaighofer, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 876 bytes --] On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 06:39:50 BST, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk said: > Excuse me, but I don't get the last part. You know that > F had been built in environment of unspecified degree of security > from source that had been kept in <---> > written by programmers you don't know > who had been hired in conformace with criteria <---> > and released after passing QA of unknown quality (but you can bet > that they had missed some security holes in the past) > under a license that almost certainly disclaims any responsibility. > > Care to explain how does one get from the trust in above to "trusted to run"? On top of which, if a buffer overflow is found, the exploit will run in the context of the signed program. What it *does* mean is that once the ankle-biting script kiddie breaks in, the kernel will hopefully refuse to run their unsigned exploits. [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 5:56 ` Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-04-24 8:46 ` Dax Kelson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Dax Kelson @ 2003-04-24 8:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Valdis.Kletnieks Cc: viro, Clemens Schwaighofer, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On top of which, if a buffer overflow is found, the exploit will run in > the context of the signed program. Two examples I can think of right now: 1. Manipulated 007 save games files can subvert the Xbox when they overflow the trusted game. 2. The "hack resistant" series 2 Tivo boxes can be subverted by a insecure, signed Linux kernel. The Tivo kernel is signed with ElGamal, and the Tivo firmware will refuse to run a non-signed kernel and initrd image. The initrd image has SHA1 hashes of all the bootup config files, binaries and and a hash checker. The idea here is that Tivo can control what is executed. Turns out Tivo signed a kernel+initrd that wasn't locked down properly. Oops! This kernel+initrd package has become a hot commodity. The pieces that come together are: 1. All directories/files are verified EXCEPT stuff on /var - However, none of the hash checked boot scripts reference anything on /var 2. Users can control what command line is passed to the kernel 3. Users can put the Tivo hard drive in a PC and put stuff on /var. Finally, Tivo didn't validate/scrub the kernel command line properly, and people were able to get their own daemons and code running, stored on /var, by passing BASH_ENV with a funky value to the kernel. Dax Kelson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 5:39 ` viro 2003-04-24 5:56 ` Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-04-24 9:46 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-04-24 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: viro; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 02:02:54PM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote: >>Point for me is, that with a DRM you could 100% verify that foreign >>module Y is 100% from company Z. Or that binary product F is 100% from >>the company and can be trusted to run here or there. > > Excuse me, but I don't get the last part. You know that > F had been built in environment of unspecified degree of security > from source that had been kept in <---> > written by programmers you don't know > who had been hired in conformace with criteria <---> > and released after passing QA of unknown quality (but you can bet > that they had missed some security holes in the past) > under a license that almost certainly disclaims any responsibility. > > Care to explain how does one get from the trust in above to "trusted to run"? I am sorry, I read some other posts that came in after I sent this, one which explains the true status of DRM, which I was not aware of. Seems to me that it is a super flawed system, far from what it should be. Well ... this puts total different weight on the "urge" to put it into the kernel, if it is flawed that much. - -- Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration ========================================================== Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703 Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343 http://www.tequila.jp ========================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+p7KCjBz/yQjBxz8RAry9AJ4x/m8NU/YYDSlTNc+WmlcTytNV9gCdEKen 7DeQZU/syw7wNAV+ke8XS9w= =dHj9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 5:02 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-04-24 5:39 ` viro @ 2003-04-24 10:54 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana 2003-04-25 0:07 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Felipe Alfaro Solana @ 2003-04-24 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Clemens Schwaighofer; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 07:02, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote: > > Because signing is (at least right now) the only way to show that you > > trust something. And if you can't show that you trust something, you > can't > > have any real security. > > so should we start to sign all our emails? so we know we trust each other? Can I trust you? Uhmm... Are you really Clemens? Please, prove it with this simply challenge: what was the kernel version that first introduced explicit return codes in drivers for stating that an IRQ was handled? ;-) All of this DRM stuff gives me headaches. -- Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Linux Registered User #287198 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 10:54 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana @ 2003-04-25 0:07 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-04-25 0:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Felipe Alfaro Solana; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote: > On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 07:02, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote: > > Can I trust you? Uhmm... Are you really Clemens? Please, prove it with > this simply challenge: what was the kernel version that first introduced > explicit return codes in drivers for stating that an IRQ was handled? > ;-) I am Clemens, because I really don't know these important details :D > All of this DRM stuff gives me headaches. I think it give all thinking people headache, doesn't it? Especially when you see why it should be used. To control everybody. No wonder they keep the education budged low in ALL countries around the world ... panem et circences - -- Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration ========================================================== Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703 Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343 http://www.tequila.jp ========================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+qHxOjBz/yQjBxz8RAleaAJ9E0J4kqRrhlij6zNu/GMw/xA0xMQCfYBZ5 Ht8vluzC8L8EiM2XZmOzZUk= =pLkV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 4:40 ` Joel Jaeggli 2003-04-24 4:43 ` Greg KH @ 2003-04-24 4:54 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-04-24 5:16 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 5:02 ` Mark J Roberts ` (9 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-04-24 4:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List Linus, First Point: DRM is going to happen regardless. Fact: NCITS T10 adopted MMC3 which is part of SCSI Fact: MMC3 is the home of CSS. Fact: SCSI by default supports DRM because of MMC3, see /dev/sg. Second Point: ATA is a state machine driven protocol. Fact: DRM requires an alternative state machine. Fact: Hollywood forced this issue not Linus or me. Third Point: DRM would be more difficult, had I not introduced Taskfile. Fact: By forcing the native driver to execute a command sequencer, DRM requires more than simple command operations. Fact: DRM would have happend regardless, so the best one can do is attempt to manage the mess. Fourth Point: The Electronic Frontier Foundation is to BLAME! Fact: I single handed forced Intel, IBM, Toshiba, and Matshustia to agree to an on-off mode for DRM with enduser control lock outs. Fact: Feb 2001, EFF played a wild card and destroyed the deal. Fact: IBM (4C) withdraws proposal, under firestorm. Fact: April 2001, General Purpose Commands happen, Son-of-CPRM. Fact: GPC creates 16-19 flavors of DRM with backdoor renable register banging methods. I can not show the unpublished version of the of the proposal, unless 4C agrees to disclose. Given the simple fact CPRM/DRM is present now, the only solution was to control it. I and a few others on the NCITS T13 committee with the help of MicroSoft had managed to make it so the enduser could disable the feature set. Again this is all about choice not single minded dictatorships of nothing or nothing, aka EFF. The simple fact is some people may want to use DRM, and to prevent them is to cause a license twist on GPL. So now everyone has to live with the fact that DRM is here and it is now in the hardware. Now the digital signing issue as a means to protect possible embedded or distribution environments is needed. DRM cuts two ways and do not forget it! We as the opensouce community can use DRM as a means to allow or deny an operation. Now the time has come to determine how to use this tool. Like fire, control DRM/CPRM and you recieve benefits. Let it run wild and you will be burned. For those not aware, each and every kernel you download from K.O is DRM signed as a means to authenticate purity. I suspect, this will fall in to the same arena as LSM, and that is where I am going to move to push it. DRM/CPRM has its use, and if managed well and open we can exploit it in ways that may even cause Hollywood people to back off. Regards, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group PS: If this turns into a flame fest, the absolute seriousness of this issue will be lost. I have rented a blowtorch and flamethrower, and prepared to destroy people who attempt to make this messy. One of the last things I will do before stepping to the side, will be to resolve this issue in a constructive way. So if it turns nasty, I am here for the long haul, and it has been almost two years since I have scourched lkml. This is not how I wanted to go out or move on to the next issue. On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Ok, > there's no way to do this gracefully, so I won't even try. I'm going to > just hunker down for some really impressive extended flaming, and my > asbestos underwear is firmly in place, and extremely uncomfortable. > > I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux! > > There, I've said it. I'm out of the closet. So bring it on... > > I've had some private discussions with various people about this already, > and I do realize that a lot of people want to use the kernel in some way > to just make DRM go away, at least as far as Linux is concerned. Either by > some policy decision or by extending the GPL to just not allow it. > > In some ways the discussion was very similar to some of the software > patent related GPL-NG discussions from a year or so ago: "we don't like > it, and we should change the license to make it not work somehow". > > And like the software patent issue, I also don't necessarily like DRM > myself, but I still ended up feeling the same: I'm an "Oppenheimer", and I > refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for > whatever you want to - which very much includes things I don't necessarily > personally approve of. > > The GPL requires you to give out sources to the kernel, but it doesn't > limit what you can _do_ with the kernel. On the whole, this is just > another example of why rms calls me "just an engineer" and thinks I have > no ideals. > > [ Personally, I see it as a virtue - trying to make the world a slightly > better place _without_ trying to impose your moral values on other > people. You do whatever the h*ll rings your bell, I'm just an engineer > who wants to make the best OS possible. ] > > In short, it's perfectly ok to sign a kernel image - I do it myself > indirectly every day through the kernel.org, as kernel.org will sign the > tar-balls I upload to make sure people can at least verify that they came > that way. Doing the same thing on the binary is no different: signing a > binary is a perfectly fine way to show the world that you're the one > behind it, and that _you_ trust it. > > And since I can imaging signing binaries myself, I don't feel that I can > disallow anybody else doing so. > > Another part of the DRM discussion is the fact that signing is only the > first step: _acting_ on the fact whether a binary is signed or not (by > refusing to load it, for example, or by refusing to give it a secret key) > is required too. > > But since the signature is pointless unless you _use_ it for something, > and since the decision how to use the signature is clearly outside of the > scope of the kernel itself (and thus not a "derived work" or anything like > that), I have to convince myself that not only is it clearly ok to act on > the knowledge of whather the kernel is signed or not, it's also outside of > the scope of what the GPL talks about, and thus irrelevant to the license. > > That's the short and sweet of it. I wanted to bring this out in the open, > because I know there are people who think that signed binaries are an act > of "subversion" (or "perversion") of the GPL, and I wanted to make sure > that people don't live under mis-apprehension that it can't be done. > > I think there are many quite valid reasons to sign (and verify) your > kernel images, and while some of the uses of signing are odious, I don't > see any sane way to distinguish between "good" signers and "bad" signers. > > Comments? I'd love to get some real discussion about this, but in the end > I'm personally convinced that we have to allow it. > > Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private > keys in the binary. You can sign the binary that is a result of the build > process, but you can _not_ make a binary that is aware of certain keys > without making those keys public - because those keys will obviously have > been part of the kernel build itself. > > So don't get these two things confused - one is an external key that is > applied _to_ the kernel (ok, and outside the license), and the other one > is embedding a key _into_ the kernel (still ok, but the GPL requires that > such a key has to be made available as "source" to the kernel). > > Linus > > - > 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/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 4:54 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-04-24 5:16 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 13:08 ` Shawn 2003-04-24 17:32 ` Andreas Boman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 5:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > Now the digital signing issue as a means to protect possible embedded or > distribution environments is needed. DRM cuts two ways and do not forget > it! This is _the_ most important part to remember. Security is a two-edged sword. It can be used _for_ you, and it can be used _against_ you. A fence keeps the bad guys out, but by implication the bad guys can use it to keep _you_ out, too. The technology itself is pretty neutral, and I'm personally pretty optimistic that _especially_ in an open-source environment we will find that most of the actual effort is going to be going into making security be a _pro_consumer_ thing. Security for the user, not to screw the user. Put another way: I'd rather embrace it for the positive things it can do for us, than have _others_ embrace it for the things it can do for them. > For those not aware, each and every kernel you download from K.O is DRM > signed as a means to authenticate purity. Yup. And pretty much every official .rpm or .deb package (source and binary) is already signed by the company that made that package, for _your_ protection. This is already "accepted practice", so allowing signing is not something new per se, including on a binary level. So what I hope this discussion brings as news is to make people aware of it. And that very much includes making people aware of the fact that there are some scary sides to signing stuff - and that they're par for the course, and part of the package. I know for a fact that a number of people were hoping for the upsides without any of the downsides. That's not how it works. Linus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 5:16 ` Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 13:08 ` Shawn 2003-04-24 20:12 ` Kenneth Johansson 2003-04-24 17:32 ` Andreas Boman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Shawn @ 2003-04-24 13:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Andre Hedrick, Kernel Mailing List Ever notice Linus has a very distinct writing style? _under_scores_ and: colons. (Underscored colons sound ouchy!) Signatures after three tabs... He has very clear and logic oriented writing style, yet unique somehow. You can almost here him talk when you read a _Linus_ message. There's only one Linus: Let's keep it that way! Let's sign him with gpg and take measures so that he _only_ operates in _good_ mode on DRM enabled LKML. Shawn On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 01:16, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > > Now the digital signing issue as a means to protect possible embedded or > > distribution environments is needed. DRM cuts two ways and do not forget > > it! > > This is _the_ most important part to remember. > > Security is a two-edged sword. It can be used _for_ you, and it can be > used _against_ you. A fence keeps the bad guys out, but by implication the > bad guys can use it to keep _you_ out, too. > > The technology itself is pretty neutral, and I'm personally pretty > optimistic that _especially_ in an open-source environment we will find > that most of the actual effort is going to be going into making security > be a _pro_consumer_ thing. Security for the user, not to screw the user. > > Put another way: I'd rather embrace it for the positive things it can do > for us, than have _others_ embrace it for the things it can do for them. > > > For those not aware, each and every kernel you download from K.O is DRM > > signed as a means to authenticate purity. > > Yup. And pretty much every official .rpm or .deb package (source and > binary) is already signed by the company that made that package, for > _your_ protection. This is already "accepted practice", so allowing > signing is not something new per se, including on a binary level. > > So what I hope this discussion brings as news is to make people aware of > it. And that very much includes making people aware of the fact that there > are some scary sides to signing stuff - and that they're par for the > course, and part of the package. I know for a fact that a number of > people were hoping for the upsides without any of the downsides. That's > not how it works. > > Linus > > - > 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 13:08 ` Shawn @ 2003-04-24 20:12 ` Kenneth Johansson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Kenneth Johansson @ 2003-04-24 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shawn; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 15:08, Shawn wrote: > Ever notice Linus has a very distinct writing style? _under_scores_ > and: colons. (Underscored colons sound ouchy!) _this_ is underline if you have a mail reader that understand that kind of thing. *bold* and /italic/ there probably is more but I no longer remember. Have not used a mailer that understand that type of encoding since I used fidonet in the 80s. Perhaps you should file a bug for evolution :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 5:16 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 13:08 ` Shawn @ 2003-04-24 17:32 ` Andreas Boman 2003-04-24 17:41 ` William Lee Irwin III 2003-04-26 17:05 ` Riley Williams 1 sibling, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Andreas Boman @ 2003-04-24 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Andre Hedrick, Kernel Mailing List On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 01:16, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > > Now the digital signing issue as a means to protect possible embedded or > > distribution environments is needed. DRM cuts two ways and do not forget > > it! > > This is _the_ most important part to remember. > > Security is a two-edged sword. It can be used _for_ you, and it can be > used _against_ you. A fence keeps the bad guys out, but by implication the > bad guys can use it to keep _you_ out, too. > > The technology itself is pretty neutral, and I'm personally pretty > optimistic that _especially_ in an open-source environment we will find > that most of the actual effort is going to be going into making security > be a _pro_consumer_ thing. Security for the user, not to screw the user. > Ofcourse the efforts by the OSS community will focus on security for the user, and better security is something we all want. No arguments there. > Put another way: I'd rather embrace it for the positive things it can do > for us, than have _others_ embrace it for the things it can do for them. I agree that the licence does/should not disallow signing. However I don't see how that is tied to "the current DRM initiative" though (perhaps im just clueless, I have no doubt that you know more of the details of DRM than I do). We can do this today. There are patches out there that let the kernel refuse to run unsigned userspace code. Hardware dongles have been in existence for eons. It seems to me that embracing DRM will in the near future allow linux distro vendors to ship signed binaries, to allow their users to use any online services that will require a DRM operating system. Perhaps that is the positive things you refer to. Further in the future it will allow linux to exist as a current OS, after we get DRM enabled hardware that refuse to boot unsigned kernels. Larger linux vendors can afford to have their kernels (and userspace) signed by $signing_entity. Perhaps they will be able to purchase some 'licence to sign' on their own from hardware vendors, and not have to wait a few months to get that latest kernel with the 2 liner buffer overflow patch released. > > For those not aware, each and every kernel you download from K.O is DRM > > signed as a means to authenticate purity. > > Yup. And pretty much every official .rpm or .deb package (source and > binary) is already signed by the company that made that package, for > _your_ protection. This is already "accepted practice", so allowing > signing is not something new per se, including on a binary level. Sure, but today a signed kernel from $vendor doesnt prevent me from running a program I compiled myself, the signature only shows me that the kernel infact came from $vendor and if I trust that vendor, I can now trust that kernel. > So what I hope this discussion brings as news is to make people aware of > it. And that very much includes making people aware of the fact that there > are some scary sides to signing stuff I don't feel signing stuff has any scary sides. The scary part is that *my* signature will be worthless, and I'm scared that in 10 years I wont be able to boot my own kernels, or run my own userspace code. In the near future I'm worried about the fact that I could become second class netizen if I dont run a signed $large_linux_vendor kernel and userspace chain all the way up to a signed mozilla. I quite like paying my bills on-line. Ofcourse thoose things would most likely happen weather linux embraced DRM or not, exept that if linux did not allow signing we would all be forced to use another operating system, exept on that one still working old slow quad xeon box that really doesnt do much, it cant even connect to the internet since its packets arent signed, but its a fun toy to play with and think about the good 'ol days when we could boot linux. > - and that they're par for the > course, and part of the package. I know for a fact that a number of > people were hoping for the upsides without any of the downsides. That's > not how it works. I believe the proverb goes: "Du kan inte äta kakan och ha den kvar." (You can't eat the cookie and still have it left). Andreas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 17:32 ` Andreas Boman @ 2003-04-24 17:41 ` William Lee Irwin III 2003-04-24 19:39 ` Balram Adlakha 2003-04-26 17:05 ` Riley Williams 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-04-24 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andreas Boman; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Andre Hedrick, Kernel Mailing List On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 01:32:55PM -0400, Andreas Boman wrote: > Ofcourse thoose things would most likely happen weather linux embraced > DRM or not, exept that if linux did not allow signing we would all be > forced to use another operating system, exept on that one still working > old slow quad xeon box that really doesnt do much, it cant even connect > to the internet since its packets arent signed, but its a fun toy to > play with and think about the good 'ol days when we could boot linux. That's pretty much my fear (in which worst-case scenario I just quit). -- wli ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 17:41 ` William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-04-24 19:39 ` Balram Adlakha 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Balram Adlakha @ 2003-04-24 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Thursday 24 Apr 2003 11:11 pm, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 01:32:55PM -0400, Andreas Boman wrote: > > Ofcourse thoose things would most likely happen weather linux embraced > > DRM or not, exept that if linux did not allow signing we would all be > > forced to use another operating system, exept on that one still working > > old slow quad xeon box that really doesnt do much, it cant even connect > > to the internet since its packets arent signed, but its a fun toy to > > play with and think about the good 'ol days when we could boot linux. > > That's pretty much my fear (in which worst-case scenario I just quit). Me too, I hope this thing doesn't happen or I would be left with my 686 running NetBSD :( ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 17:32 ` Andreas Boman 2003-04-24 17:41 ` William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-04-26 17:05 ` Riley Williams 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Riley Williams @ 2003-04-26 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andreas Boman, Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Andre Hedrick, Kernel Mailing List Hi all. >>> For those not aware, each and every kernel you download from >>> K.O is DRM signed as a means to authenticate purity. >> Yup. And pretty much every official .rpm or .deb package (source >> and binary) is already signed by the company that made that >> package, for _your_ protection. This is already "accepted >> practice", so allowing signing is not something new per se, >> including on a binary level. > Sure, but today a signed kernel from $vendor doesn't prevent me > from running a program I compiled myself, the signature only > shows me that the kernel in fact came from $vendor and if I trust > that vendor, I can now trust that kernel. ===8<=== CUT ===>8=== > In the near future I'm worried about the fact that I could become > second class netizen if I don't run a signed $large_linux_vendor > kernel and userspace chain all the way up to a signed mozilla. I > quite like paying my bills on-line. Unless I'm misreading the aim of this discussion to date, the result of this whole flame-thread is quite simple: 1. At the moment, verification companies such as VeriSign have an uphill struggle to get people to sign up with them, as people are in general willing to trust each other. 2. The initiative that Linus started this thread about appears to be an attempt to maximise their profits by making every Thomas, Richard and Henry sign up with all of them in case they wish to run their own software. 3. As a side-effect of this, every software house in the world is to be faced with a bill from each of the verification agencies to be permitted to verify their software, probably with annual renewal fees, the aim being to force all such software houses out of business so Microsoft and their cronies can relax. Pardon me for my cynicism, but to me, this is just "more of the same" rubbish that we have had to put up with from Micro$oft for far too many years... Best wishes from Riley. --- * Nothing as pretty as a smile, nothing as ugly as a frown. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24-Apr-2003 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-24 4:54 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-04-24 5:02 ` Mark J Roberts 2003-04-24 5:13 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-04-24 5:15 ` William Lee Irwin III ` (8 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Mark J Roberts @ 2003-04-24 5:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List Linus Torvalds: > I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux! What specifically are you referring to? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 5:02 ` Mark J Roberts @ 2003-04-24 5:13 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-04-24 5:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kernel Mailing List Mark J Roberts wrote: > Linus Torvalds: > >>I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux! > > > What specifically are you referring to? the fact that he got a call from MPAA ... at night ... things go down the Spiral ... -- Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration ========================================================== Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703 Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343 http://www.tequila.jp ========================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-24 5:02 ` Mark J Roberts @ 2003-04-24 5:15 ` William Lee Irwin III 2003-04-24 5:43 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 7:55 ` Jamie Lokier ` (7 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-04-24 5:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 08:59:45PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Comments? I'd love to get some real discussion about this, but in the end > I'm personally convinced that we have to allow it. > Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private > keys in the binary. You can sign the binary that is a result of the build > process, but you can _not_ make a binary that is aware of certain keys > without making those keys public - because those keys will obviously have > been part of the kernel build itself. > So don't get these two things confused - one is an external key that is > applied _to_ the kernel (ok, and outside the license), and the other one > is embedding a key _into_ the kernel (still ok, but the GPL requires that > such a key has to be made available as "source" to the kernel). I'm not particularly interested in the high-flown moral issues, but this DRM stuff smelled like nothing more than a transparent ploy to prevent anything but bloze from booting on various boxen to me. But I suppose it could be used to force particular versions of Linux to be used, e.g. ones with particular patches that do permissions checks or various things meant to prevent warezing. I'm largely baffled as to what this has to do with Linux kernel hacking, as DRM appeared to me to primarily be hardware- and firmware- level countermeasures to prevent running Linux at all, i.e. boxen we're effectively forbidden from porting to. Even if vendors distribute their own special Linux kernels with patches for anti-warezing checks that boot on the things, the things are basically still just off-limits. I guess there are other subtleties that fall out of it, like the DRM stuff might be the only game in town so just not buying hardware you don't like doesn't work, and just what the heck you paid for if you can't use the stuff the way you want to (in theory, you could buy a disk to use as a hockey puck, but this says you have to have some magic kernel's notion of how to use it), but I'm hard-pressed to get worked up about it. I'll just take up underwater basket weaving and replace my computer with a typewriter and a calculator if it really gets all that bad. -- wli ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 5:15 ` William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-04-24 5:43 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 6:15 ` William Lee Irwin III ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 5:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: William Lee Irwin III; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > I'm not particularly interested in the high-flown moral issues, but > this DRM stuff smelled like nothing more than a transparent ploy to > prevent anything but bloze from booting on various boxen to me. Let's be honest - to some people that is _exactly_ what DRM is. No ifs, buts and maybes. And hey, the fact is (at least as far as I'm concerned), that as long as you make the hardware, you can control what it runs. The GPL requires that you make the software available - but it doesn't require that the hardware be made so that you can always upgrade it. You could write a kernel binary into a ROM, and solder it to the motherboard. That's fine - always has been. As long as you give out the sources to the software, there's nothing that says that the hardware has to be built to make it easy - or even possible - to change the binary there. The beauty of PC's is how _flexible_ they are, and I think a lot of us take that kind of flexibility for granted. But the fact is, 99% of the worlds CPU's tend to go into devices that are _not_ general-purpose or flexible. And it shouldn't offend us (at most it might make us pity the poor hobbled hardware). And there are projects for doing "Open Hardware" (like opencores.org etc), and that may well end up being a hugely important thing to do. But Linux is about open source, not open hardware, and hardware openness has never been a requirement for running Linux. > But I suppose it could be used to force particular versions of Linux > to be used, e.g. ones with particular patches that do permissions > checks or various things meant to prevent warezing. Yes, that too. Or it could well be used to allow _running_ of any version of Linux at all, but maybe the firmware/hardware combination only gives the kernel the keys needed to decrypt incoming cable or satellite feeds if it trusts the kernel. So under such schenarios, you might have a machine that works as a regular PC, but the satellite company requires that only kernels _it_ trusts get to unscrambe the incoming feed. Unfortunate? Yes. I suspect that almost all of us would rather have unlimited feeds, and just take it on trust that people would do the right thing. But I can understand why especially embedded Linux users may want to control these things - and maybe my moral sense is lacking, but I just can't see myself saying "no, you can't use Linux for that". > I'm largely baffled as to what this has to do with Linux kernel > hacking, as DRM appeared to me to primarily be hardware- and firmware- > level countermeasures to prevent running Linux at all, i.e. boxen we're > effectively forbidden from porting to. It has almost zero to do with the kernel code itself, since in the end all the DRM stuff ends up being at a much lower level (actual hardware, as you say, along with things like firmware - bioses etc - that decide on whether to trust what they run). So in that sense I don't believe it has much of anything to do with the kernel: you're very unlikely to see any DRM code show up in the "kernel proper", if that's what you're asking. Although obviously many features in the kernel can be used to _maintain_ DRM control (ie somehting as simple as having file permissions is obviously nothing but a very specific form of rights management). HOWEVER. The discussion really does matter from a "developer expectation" standpoint. There are developers who feel so strongly about DRM that they do not want to have anything to do with systems that could be "subverted" by a DRM check. A long private thread I've had over this issue has convinced me that this is true, and that some people really do expect the GPL to protect them from that worry. And I do not want to have developers who _think_ that they are protected from the kinds of controls that signed binaries together with a fascist BIOS can implement. That just leads to frustration and tears. So I want this issue brought out in the open, so that nobody feels that they are being "taken advantage" of. Again, from personal email discussions I know that this is a real feeling. So I really want to set peoples _expectations_ right. I'd rather lose a developer over a flame-war here on Linux-kernel as a result of this discussion, than having somebody unhappy later on about having "wasted their time" on a project that then allowed things to happen that that developer felt was inherently morally _wrong_. And this is where it touches upon kernel development. Not because I expect to apply DRM patches in the near future or anything like that: but simply because it's better to bring up the issue so that people know where they stand, and not have the wrong expectations of how their code might be used by third parties. Linus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 5:43 ` Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 6:15 ` William Lee Irwin III 2003-04-24 7:44 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 10:57 ` Giuliano Pochini 2003-04-24 22:51 ` Adrian Bunk 2 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-04-24 6:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 10:43:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > So I really want to set peoples _expectations_ right. I'd rather lose a > developer over a flame-war here on Linux-kernel as a result of this > discussion, than having somebody unhappy later on about having "wasted > their time" on a project that then allowed things to happen that that > developer felt was inherently morally _wrong_. > And this is where it touches upon kernel development. Not because I expect > to apply DRM patches in the near future or anything like that: but simply > because it's better to bring up the issue so that people know where they > stand, and not have the wrong expectations of how their code might be used > by third parties. Well, my walking out of computing is tied to complete prevention of kernel hacking on commodity hardware, so you've not lost anything yet. I only really care if it's no longer possible to get a commodity system to run Linux on at all, not about crypto dongles. -- wli ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 6:15 ` William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-04-24 7:44 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 8:03 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List William Lee Irwin III wrote: > Well, my walking out of computing is tied to complete prevention of > kernel hacking on commodity hardware, so you've not lost anything yet. > I only really care if it's no longer possible to get a commodity system > to run Linux on at all, not about crypto dongles. Hi William, If it ever gets that bad, email me and we'll find a way to create hardware without those restrictions, and get it to people who want it. If the hardware that comes out of industry won't let you hack, hey you still have basic materials like SiO2 from the real world to make your own. Tough, but rewarding :) It only gets _really_ bad when it becomes illegal to make your own hardware :( -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 7:44 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 8:03 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 2003-04-25 1:16 ` Jan Harkes 2003-04-24 8:16 ` John Bradford 2003-04-24 18:58 ` Daniel Phillips 2 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2003-04-24 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kernel Mailing List [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1452 bytes --] On Thu, 2003-04-24 08:44:00 +0100, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote in message <20030424074400.GD28253@mail.jlokier.co.uk>: > William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > Well, my walking out of computing is tied to complete prevention of > > kernel hacking on commodity hardware, so you've not lost anything yet. > > I only really care if it's no longer possible to get a commodity system > > to run Linux on at all, not about crypto dongles. > > It only gets _really_ bad when it becomes illegal to make your own > hardware :( We're basically already at that point. IIRC, I've read an article about something called "Super-DMCA" which prevents you (beside other things) to build up "systems" that could scrambl/encrypt sounds for pretected transmission (think VoIP over ssh or something like that in hardware). Even right now, you don't simply have (everywhere on this globe) the right to build a simple piece of hardware protecting your phone calls... This said, it _may_ even be illegal from this point of view to create a "new" general-purpose computer as it could be used for this purpose. Though, IANAL. MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(IRAQ_WAR_2 | DRM | TCPA)); [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 8:03 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2003-04-25 1:16 ` Jan Harkes 2003-04-25 1:35 ` Stan Bubrouski 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Jan Harkes @ 2003-04-25 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kernel Mailing List On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 10:03:26AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > On Thu, 2003-04-24 08:44:00 +0100, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> > wrote in message <20030424074400.GD28253@mail.jlokier.co.uk>: > > It only gets _really_ bad when it becomes illegal to make your own > > hardware :( > > We're basically already at that point. IIRC, I've read an article about > something called "Super-DMCA" which prevents you (beside other things) to > build up "systems" that could scrambl/encrypt sounds for pretected > transmission (think VoIP over ssh or something like that in hardware). If is really is that generic, it would be the final blow to copyright protection. As it also makes it illegal to scramble satellite feeds, pay-only cable tv, or add DRM to music files that are to be distributed across the internet. I haven't read the Super-DMCA, but that interpretation doesn't sound right. What bothers me about DRM schemes is that they typically only protect the rights of one party. Copyrights provided temporary protection under law, what happens when the copyright expires? What happens when congress tags another 30 years to the lifetime of the copyright, and if I move to or go on holiday to another country that has a different copyright expiration date. Are companies required to provide me (as legal owner) of a new copy/CD when my harddrive breaks, as the new harddrive will probably change the 'trusted' signature of my 'legal playback device'. What if I buy a new computer/player, and all my licensed applications have to be resigned? Jan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-25 1:16 ` Jan Harkes @ 2003-04-25 1:35 ` Stan Bubrouski 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Stan Bubrouski @ 2003-04-25 1:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kernel Mailing List Jan Harkes wrote: > Are companies required to provide me (as legal owner) of a new copy/CD > when my harddrive breaks, as the new harddrive will probably change the > 'trusted' signature of my 'legal playback device'. What if I buy a new > computer/player, and all my licensed applications have to be resigned? > Yeah seriously...there are so many issues with DRM that are not clear cut and have yet to be worked out properly. Competing ideas with completely different strategies does not bode well with me. As a consumer the idea is absurd until something stable, legal, AND FAIR is implemented. Until then I don't even want to see this issue again on this list because it is moot. How many DRM prodcts support Linux or even plan to...yeah...most of them are win32 and have no plans for even Macs nevermind Linux... -Stan > Jan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 7:44 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 8:03 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2003-04-24 8:16 ` John Bradford 2003-04-24 8:31 ` Jamie Lokier ` (2 more replies) 2003-04-24 18:58 ` Daniel Phillips 2 siblings, 3 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: John Bradford @ 2003-04-24 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jamie Lokier; +Cc: William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List > > Well, my walking out of computing is tied to complete prevention of > > kernel hacking on commodity hardware, so you've not lost anything yet. > > I only really care if it's no longer possible to get a commodity system > > to run Linux on at all, not about crypto dongles. > > If it ever gets that bad, email me and we'll find a way to create > hardware without those restrictions, and get it to people who want it. > > If the hardware that comes out of industry won't let you hack, hey you > still have basic materials like SiO2 from the real world to make your > own. Tough, but rewarding :) We should be doing this _anyway_. With open hardware designs, there would be no problem with documentation not being available to write drivers. With open hardware designed by Linux developers, we could have hardware _designed_ for Linux. Incidently, using the Transmeta CPUs, is it not possible for the user to replace the controlling software with their own code? I.E. not bother with X86 compatibility at all, but effectively design your own CPU? Couldn't we make the first Lin-PU this way? John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 8:16 ` John Bradford @ 2003-04-24 8:31 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 8:59 ` John Bradford 2003-04-24 8:50 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 14:45 ` Linus Torvalds 2 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 8:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Bradford; +Cc: William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List John Bradford wrote: > With open hardware designs, there would be no problem with > documentation not being available to write drivers. See below... > Incidently, using the Transmeta CPUs, is it not possible for the user > to replace the controlling software with their own code? I.E. not > bother with X86 compatibility at all, but effectively design your own > CPU? Couldn't we make the first Lin-PU this way? In theory; in practice we have no access to documentation. See above... That makes Transmeta part of the _old_ industry :) I believe present Transmeta CPUs are quite specialised for x86 behaviour (memory model etc.) anyway. When you're running on a CPU like that, there's probably little to be gained from changing to a different front-end instruction set. Special tricks like non-cache-ping-ponging locks and faster interrupt handling might improve performance, but probably require a change of the hardware to implement. -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 8:31 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 8:59 ` John Bradford 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: John Bradford @ 2003-04-24 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jamie Lokier Cc: John Bradford, William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List > > With open hardware designs, there would be no problem with > > documentation not being available to write drivers. > > See below... > > > Incidently, using the Transmeta CPUs, is it not possible for the user > > to replace the controlling software with their own code? I.E. not > > bother with X86 compatibility at all, but effectively design your own > > CPU? Couldn't we make the first Lin-PU this way? > > In theory; in practice we have no access to documentation. See above... I'm now stuck in a mail reading loop, with the see above and see belows :-) > That makes Transmeta part of the _old_ industry :) > > I believe present Transmeta CPUs are quite specialised for x86 > behaviour (memory model etc.) anyway. When you're running on a CPU > like that, there's probably little to be gained from changing to a > different front-end instruction set. > > Special tricks like non-cache-ping-ponging locks and faster interrupt > handling might improve performance, but probably require a change of > the hardware to implement. Shame. I guess it wouldn't really have got us any closer to an open hardware design anyway, it just seemed like a nice hack :-). John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 8:16 ` John Bradford 2003-04-24 8:31 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 8:50 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 14:45 ` Linus Torvalds 2 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Bradford; +Cc: William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List John Bradford wrote: > > If the hardware that comes out of industry won't let you hack, hey you > > still have basic materials like SiO2 from the real world to make your > > own. Tough, but rewarding :) > > We should be doing this _anyway_. > > With open hardware designs, there would be no problem with > documentation not being available to write drivers. Open hardware design has a long way to come along, but the real problem is that making hardware is very expensive - because it is actually very difficult and depends upon enormous global industries. Even making a one-off PCB is very expensive compared with buying commodity hardware that does interesting stuff. I was looking at various lumps of wood, metal and plastic around my home and realised that I'd have a hard time making _anything_ that I use daily, let alone computer hardware. I'd love to find a cheaper, more accessible way of manufacturing hardware than is available to individuals at present. In principle, the industry which can make things could make use of open source designs, and then sell them to us. I'm not sure how to make that come about, or how to make those things readily extendable by enthusiastic users - to close the loop. -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 8:16 ` John Bradford 2003-04-24 8:31 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 8:50 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 14:45 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 15:00 ` Jeff Garzik 2003-04-24 19:03 ` Daniel Phillips 2 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Bradford; +Cc: Jamie Lokier, William Lee Irwin III, Kernel Mailing List On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, John Bradford wrote: > > Incidently, using the Transmeta CPUs, is it not possible for the user > to replace the controlling software with their own code? I.E. not > bother with X86 compatibility at all, but effectively design your own > CPU? Couldn't we make the first Lin-PU this way? Well, I have to say that Transmeta CPU's aren't exactly known for their openness ;) Also, the native mode is not very pleasant at all, and it really is designed for translation (and with a x86 flavour, too). You might as well think of it as a microcode on steroids. If open hardware is what you want, FPGA's are actually getting to the point where you can do real CPU's with them. They won't be gigahertz, and they won't have big nice caches (but hey, you might make something that clocks fairly close to memory speeds, so you might not care about the latter once you have the former). They're even getting reasonably cheap. Linus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 14:45 ` Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 15:00 ` Jeff Garzik 2003-04-24 19:03 ` Daniel Phillips 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jeff Garzik @ 2003-04-24 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds Cc: John Bradford, Jamie Lokier, William Lee Irwin III, Kernel Mailing List On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 07:45:16AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, John Bradford wrote: > > Incidently, using the Transmeta CPUs, is it not possible for the user > > to replace the controlling software with their own code? I.E. not > > bother with X86 compatibility at all, but effectively design your own > > CPU? Couldn't we make the first Lin-PU this way? > If open hardware is what you want, FPGA's are actually getting to the > point where you can do real CPU's with them. They won't be gigahertz, and Yep. Check out http://www.opencores.org/ At least one CPU there already can boot Linux. I'm waiting for the day, in fact, when somebody will use the OpenCores tech to build an entirely open system... They seem to have most of the pieces done already, though I dunno how applicable Wishbone technology is to PC-like systems. Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 14:45 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 15:00 ` Jeff Garzik @ 2003-04-24 19:03 ` Daniel Phillips 2003-04-24 19:32 ` Timothy Miller 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Daniel Phillips @ 2003-04-24 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds, John Bradford Cc: Jamie Lokier, William Lee Irwin III, Kernel Mailing List On Thu 24 Apr 03 16:45, Linus Torvalds wrote: > If open hardware is what you want, FPGA's are actually getting to the > point where you can do real CPU's with them. They won't be gigahertz, and > they won't have big nice caches (but hey, you might make something that > clocks fairly close to memory speeds, so you might not care about the > latter once you have the former). > > They're even getting reasonably cheap. The big problem with FPGAs at the moment is that the vendors want you to use their tools, which come with license agreements that limit your options in arbitrary ways, otherwise this would be peachy. Regards, Daniel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 19:03 ` Daniel Phillips @ 2003-04-24 19:32 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 19:22 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 19:39 ` Balram Adlakha 0 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-24 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Linus Torvalds, John Bradford, Jamie Lokier, William Lee Irwin III, Kernel Mailing List Daniel Phillips wrote: >On Thu 24 Apr 03 16:45, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > >>If open hardware is what you want, FPGA's are actually getting to the >>point where you can do real CPU's with them. They won't be gigahertz, and >>they won't have big nice caches (but hey, you might make something that >>clocks fairly close to memory speeds, so you might not care about the >>latter once you have the former). >> >>They're even getting reasonably cheap. >> >> > >The big problem with FPGAs at the moment is that the vendors want you to use >their tools, which come with license agreements that limit your options in >arbitrary ways, otherwise this would be peachy. > > > > For their smaller devices, Xilinx has a free "WebPack" which is a complete Verilog synthesizer (I don't know if it does VHDL), as well as place & route, of course. I think it'll do up to Virtex II 250. It also tends use fewer gates for a given design than the version of Leonardo Spectrum we have. It just doesn't have a simulator, which is vital to any good development process. Also, the Web Pack only runs under Windows. Maybe it'll work with WINE? I've been working on my own 32-bit CPU design for FPGA lately. Maybe we can get Linux to run on it. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 19:32 ` Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-24 19:22 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 20:19 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 20:35 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 19:39 ` Balram Adlakha 1 sibling, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Timothy Miller Cc: Daniel Phillips, John Bradford, Jamie Lokier, William Lee Irwin III, Kernel Mailing List On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Timothy Miller wrote: > > For their smaller devices, Xilinx has a free "WebPack" which is a > complete Verilog synthesizer (I don't know if it does VHDL), as well as > place & route, of course. I think it'll do up to Virtex II 250. It > also tends use fewer gates for a given design than the version of > Leonardo Spectrum we have. It just doesn't have a simulator, which is > vital to any good development process. Also, the Web Pack only runs > under Windows. Maybe it'll work with WINE? It does work with wine - but it's sad how horrible the command line tools are (they were apparently first done under UNIX, and then ported to Windows, and they got the Windows command line interface and trying to use them in a sane way with Wine is not exactly much fun). But yes, with Wine and a few scripts you can actually make the tools usable under Linux - I tried them out and had a small silly "pong" game running on one of those things (a 100k device on one of the cheap development boards). I have to admit that I would hate to actually use those tools for any real work, though. Linus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 19:22 ` Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 20:19 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 20:35 ` Timothy Miller 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 20:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Timothy Miller, Daniel Phillips, John Bradford, William Lee Irwin III, Kernel Mailing List Linus Torvalds wrote: > > For their smaller devices, Xilinx has a free "WebPack" which is a > > complete Verilog synthesizer (I don't know if it does VHDL), as well as > > place & route, of course. I think it'll do up to Virtex II 250. It > > also tends use fewer gates for a given design than the version of > > Leonardo Spectrum we have. It just doesn't have a simulator, which is > > vital to any good development process. Also, the Web Pack only runs > > under Windows. Maybe it'll work with WINE? > > It does work with wine - but it's sad how horrible the command line tools > are (they were apparently first done under UNIX, and then ported to > Windows, and they got the Windows command line interface and trying to use > them in a sane way with Wine is not exactly much fun). > > But yes, with Wine and a few scripts you can actually make the tools > usable under Linux - I tried them out and had a small silly "pong" game > running on one of those things (a 100k device on one of the cheap > development boards). The dongled tools don't work under Wine. Thankfully they are rarer nowadays. Because of a dongle, I had to write a server which ran on Windows and accepted FPGA compilation commands, so I could invoke a client from a Makefile on a Linux box. What is really shitty is that you can't make the FPGA compilers do anything fundamentally new and better. Such as taking full advantage of the FPGA's architecture in ways that the manufacturer hasn't considered. You have the equivalent of a closed source compiler & linker. But you don't get access to the "assembler" level so if you want to design a new language and compile that, you must target a language that the FPGA synthesis tool accepts. I.e. you don't get to tweak the placement of wires & logic in enough interesting ways. Unfortunately, that makes a big different to performance on an FPGA, because the "wires" are generally slower than the logic blocks. (That said, it is no more secret than the Pentium's microcode or Transmeta's VLIW code. FPGA tweaking has much more potential, though, IMHO). > I have to admit that I would hate to actually use those tools for any real > work, though. The last tool vendor I spoke too wanted US$100,000 for their tool. I declined. I've heard you get a more satisfying engineering experience from the $100,000 tools. From a vendor, though :) -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 19:22 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 20:19 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 20:35 ` Timothy Miller 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-24 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Daniel Phillips, John Bradford, Jamie Lokier, William Lee Irwin III, Kernel Mailing List Linus Torvalds wrote: >On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Timothy Miller wrote: > > >>For their smaller devices, Xilinx has a free "WebPack" which is a >>complete Verilog synthesizer (I don't know if it does VHDL), as well as >>place & route, of course. I think it'll do up to Virtex II 250. It >>also tends use fewer gates for a given design than the version of >>Leonardo Spectrum we have. It just doesn't have a simulator, which is >>vital to any good development process. Also, the Web Pack only runs >>under Windows. Maybe it'll work with WINE? >> >> > >It does work with wine - but it's sad how horrible the command line tools >are (they were apparently first done under UNIX, and then ported to >Windows, and they got the Windows command line interface and trying to use >them in a sane way with Wine is not exactly much fun). > >But yes, with Wine and a few scripts you can actually make the tools >usable under Linux - I tried them out and had a small silly "pong" game >running on one of those things (a 100k device on one of the cheap >development boards). > >I have to admit that I would hate to actually use those tools for any real >work, though. > > > Where I work we have used the Web Pack (5.1, I believe) for "real work", although you can't trust its static timing. Beyond a certain utilization, it completely lies to you, and we can't get it to work right, no matter how much we over-constrain a design. All we can do is synthesize and then thoroughly test in real hardware (which isn't hard to do when all you're doing is a simple pixel-processing pipeline -- either it works, or you get obvious sprinkless all over the monitor screen). If that doesn't work, we get really clever to reduce area, or we go to a bigger device. What can you do with free but closed-source software? :) Designing for FPGA's is a real pain. Although the ASIC I did was a lot more complex, the process was a lot more straight-forward and the tools didn't lie to you. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 19:32 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 19:22 ` Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 19:39 ` Balram Adlakha 2003-04-24 21:02 ` Jamie Lokier 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Balram Adlakha @ 2003-04-24 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Friday 25 Apr 2003 1:02 am, Timothy Miller wrote: > Daniel Phillips wrote: > >On Thu 24 Apr 03 16:45, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >>If open hardware is what you want, FPGA's are actually getting to the > >>point where you can do real CPU's with them. They won't be gigahertz, and > >>they won't have big nice caches (but hey, you might make something that > >>clocks fairly close to memory speeds, so you might not care about the > >>latter once you have the former). > >> > >>They're even getting reasonably cheap. > > > >The big problem with FPGAs at the moment is that the vendors want you to > > use their tools, which come with license agreements that limit your > > options in arbitrary ways, otherwise this would be peachy. > > For their smaller devices, Xilinx has a free "WebPack" which is a > complete Verilog synthesizer (I don't know if it does VHDL), as well as > place & route, of course. I think it'll do up to Virtex II 250. It > also tends use fewer gates for a given design than the version of > Leonardo Spectrum we have. It just doesn't have a simulator, which is > vital to any good development process. Also, the Web Pack only runs > under Windows. Maybe it'll work with WINE? > > I've been working on my own 32-bit CPU design for FPGA lately. Maybe we > can get Linux to run on it. :) By the way, I'm just curious, I don't have much knowledge of this, can anyone create a processor with the x86 instruction set and sell it? Like did AMD and transmeta and all get a license from Intel? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 19:39 ` Balram Adlakha @ 2003-04-24 21:02 ` Jamie Lokier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Balram Adlakha; +Cc: linux-kernel Balram Adlakha wrote: > By the way, I'm just curious, I don't have much knowledge of this, > can anyone create a processor with the x86 instruction set and sell > it? Like did AMD and transmeta and all get a license from Intel? Please, somebody answer this question. The good folks at Transmeta should know the answer. I'm really intersted as I want to do exactly this eventually. Perhaps the constraints are different when software binary translation is used? I.e. I could sell a non-x86 cpu and give away an x86 translator without needing a license from Intel, presumably? -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 7:44 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 8:03 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 2003-04-24 8:16 ` John Bradford @ 2003-04-24 18:58 ` Daniel Phillips 2003-04-24 21:08 ` Jamie Lokier 2 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Daniel Phillips @ 2003-04-24 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jamie Lokier, William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List On Thu 24 Apr 03 09:44, Jamie Lokier wrote: > It only gets _really_ bad when it becomes illegal to make your own > hardware :( Actually, that's where we were a few years ago with hardware, because nearly anything anybody would want to print on a wafer was covered by patents or copyrights. It's getting better by leaps and bounds. Now, a lot of patents have expired, a lot of non-proprietary cores are available, and it's mainly the EDM tools that are non-free. That's where we coders can help. Until the EDM tools get free, their current owners will continue to dictate what you can and can't design. Regards, Daniel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 18:58 ` Daniel Phillips @ 2003-04-24 21:08 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 21:37 ` Timothy Miller 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Phillips Cc: William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Thu 24 Apr 03 09:44, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > It only gets _really_ bad when it becomes illegal to make your own > > hardware :( > > Actually, that's where we were a few years ago with hardware, because nearly > anything anybody would want to print on a wafer was covered by patents or > copyrights. It's getting better by leaps and bounds. Now, a lot of patents > have expired, a lot of non-proprietary cores are available, and it's mainly > the EDM tools that are non-free. That's where we coders can help. Suppose I did want to print some wafers. Suppose, also, that I had developed a method that didn't require a $10M+ factory. (Also suppose I had _very_ steady hands, no dandruff, and my garden shed was big enough :) I'm curious - how do I go about learning what I do and don't need patent licenses for making chips, without spending an absurd sum on legal fees? -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 21:08 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 21:37 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 21:30 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-25 6:08 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 0 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-24 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Daniel Phillips, William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List Jamie Lokier wrote: > > >Suppose I did want to print some wafers. > >Suppose, also, that I had developed a method that didn't require a >$10M+ factory. > >(Also suppose I had _very_ steady hands, no dandruff, and my garden >shed was big enough :) > >I'm curious - how do I go about learning what I do and don't need >patent licenses for making chips, without spending an absurd sum on >legal fees? > We could always consider wiring everything up with discrete logic. Anyone got any spare 74138's? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 21:37 ` Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-24 21:30 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 21:38 ` John Bradford 2003-04-24 21:42 ` Russell King 2003-04-25 6:08 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 1 sibling, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Timothy Miller Cc: Daniel Phillips, William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List Timothy Miller wrote: > We could always consider wiring everything up with discrete logic. > Anyone got any spare 74138's? I need 1 billion of them please, and I need the overclockable ones :) -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 21:30 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 21:38 ` John Bradford 2003-04-25 3:20 ` Shawn 2003-04-25 14:03 ` Mike Dresser 2003-04-24 21:42 ` Russell King 1 sibling, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: John Bradford @ 2003-04-24 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Timothy Miller, Daniel Phillips, William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List > > We could always consider wiring everything up with discrete logic. > > Anyone got any spare 74138's? > > I need 1 billion of them please, and I need the overclockable ones :) Why not just buy one of those 100-in-1 electronics kits from your local electonics hobbyist store, and make your very own wire wrap CPU? John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 21:38 ` John Bradford @ 2003-04-25 3:20 ` Shawn 2003-04-25 5:47 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-25 14:03 ` Mike Dresser 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Shawn @ 2003-04-25 3:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Bradford Cc: Jamie Lokier, Timothy Miller, Daniel Phillips, William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List I'd like to see an x86 completely in perf board. I thought my high school digital electronics type stuff looked bad... On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 17:38, John Bradford wrote: > > > We could always consider wiring everything up with discrete logic. > > > Anyone got any spare 74138's? > > > > I need 1 billion of them please, and I need the overclockable ones :) > > Why not just buy one of those 100-in-1 electronics kits from your > local electonics hobbyist store, and make your very own wire wrap CPU? > > John. > - > 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-25 3:20 ` Shawn @ 2003-04-25 5:47 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-25 7:02 ` John Bradford 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-25 5:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shawn Cc: John Bradford, Timothy Miller, Daniel Phillips, William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List Shawn wrote: > I'd like to see an x86 completely in perf board. I thought my high > school digital electronics type stuff looked bad... You could do it nowadays using dynamic binary translation, and an absurdly simple CPU capable of accessing a large memory. You'd need a DIMM for the large memory, but get away with discrete logic for the CPU if you really wanted to. At perf board sizes using discrete logic, expect it run run quite slow :) -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-25 5:47 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-25 7:02 ` John Bradford 2003-04-25 8:05 ` Simple x86 Simulator (was: Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!) Steven Augart 2003-04-25 8:52 ` Flame Linus to a crisp! Helge Hafting 0 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: John Bradford @ 2003-04-25 7:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Shawn, John Bradford, Timothy Miller, Daniel Phillips, William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List > > I'd like to see an x86 completely in perf board. I thought my high > > school digital electronics type stuff looked bad... > > You could do it nowadays using dynamic binary translation, and an > absurdly simple CPU capable of accessing a large memory. You'd need a > DIMM for the large memory, but get away with discrete logic for the > CPU if you really wanted to. > > At perf board sizes using discrete logic, expect it run run quite slow :) Could we not take this idea to it's logical extreme, and simply calculate the results of every opcode, on every value, for every state of all of the registers, and store them in an array of DIMMs, and simply look up the necessary results? I.E. a cpu which is one _huge_ look up table :-). John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Simple x86 Simulator (was: Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!) 2003-04-25 7:02 ` John Bradford @ 2003-04-25 8:05 ` Steven Augart 2003-04-25 15:38 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-25 8:52 ` Flame Linus to a crisp! Helge Hafting 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Steven Augart @ 2003-04-25 8:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Bradford, Kernel Mailing List We could not. Consider just the 8 32-bit-wide legacy x86 registers, excluding the MMX and FPU registers: (AX, BX, CX, DX, BP, SI, DI, SP). 32 bits x 8 = 2^256 independent states to look up in the table, each state having 256 bits of information. 2^264 total bits of information needed. Assume 1 GB dimms (2^30 * 8 bits each = 2^33 bits of info), with a volume of 10 cm^3 per DIMM (including a tiny amount of space for air circulation.). Need 34508731733952818937173779311385127262255544860851932776 cubic kilometers of space. Considerably larger than the volume of the earth, although admittedly smaller than the total volume of the universe. --Steven Augart John Bradford wrote: >>>I'd like to see an x86 completely in perf board. I thought my high >>>school digital electronics type stuff looked bad... >>> >>> >>You could do it nowadays using dynamic binary translation, and an >>absurdly simple CPU capable of accessing a large memory. You'd need a >>DIMM for the large memory, but get away with discrete logic for the >>CPU if you really wanted to. >> >>At perf board sizes using discrete logic, expect it run run quite slow :) >> >> > >Could we not take this idea to it's logical extreme, and simply >calculate the results of every opcode, on every value, for every state >of all of the registers, and store them in an array of DIMMs, and >simply look up the necessary results? I.E. a cpu which is one _huge_ >look up table :-). > >John. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple x86 Simulator (was: Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!) 2003-04-25 8:05 ` Simple x86 Simulator (was: Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!) Steven Augart @ 2003-04-25 15:38 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-25 16:10 ` John Bradford 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-25 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Steven Augart; +Cc: John Bradford, Kernel Mailing List Steven Augart wrote: > We could not. Consider just the 8 32-bit-wide legacy x86 registers, > excluding the MMX and FPU registers: > (AX, BX, CX, DX, BP, SI, DI, SP). 32 bits x 8 = 2^256 independent > states to look up in the table, each state having 256 bits of > information. 2^264 total bits of information needed. Assume 1 GB > dimms (2^30 * 8 bits each = 2^33 bits of info), with a volume of 10 > cm^3 per DIMM (including a tiny amount of space for air circulation.). > Need 34508731733952818937173779311385127262255544860851932776 cubic > kilometers of space. > > Considerably larger than the volume of the earth, although admittedly > smaller than the total volume of the universe. > --Steven Augart > > If this could be done, someone would have done it already. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple x86 Simulator (was: Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!) 2003-04-25 15:38 ` Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-25 16:10 ` John Bradford 2003-04-25 11:44 ` Antonio Vargas 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: John Bradford @ 2003-04-25 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Timothy Miller; +Cc: Steven Augart, John Bradford, Kernel Mailing List > > We could not. Consider just the 8 32-bit-wide legacy x86 registers, > > excluding the MMX and FPU registers: > > (AX, BX, CX, DX, BP, SI, DI, SP). 32 bits x 8 = 2^256 independent > > states to look up in the table, each state having 256 bits of > > information. 2^264 total bits of information needed. Assume 1 GB > > dimms (2^30 * 8 bits each = 2^33 bits of info), with a volume of 10 > > cm^3 per DIMM (including a tiny amount of space for air circulation.). > > Need 34508731733952818937173779311385127262255544860851932776 cubic > > kilometers of space. > > > > Considerably larger than the volume of the earth, although admittedly > > smaller than the total volume of the universe. > > --Steven Augart > > If this could be done, someone would have done it already. It's certainly possible to implement most of the functionality of a very simple processor this way, but applying the idea to an X86 compatible processor was a joke. What interests me now is whether we could cache the results of certain opcode strings in a separate memory area. Say for example, you have a complicated routine that runs in to hundreds of opcodes, which is being applied to large amounts of data, word by word. If one calculation doesn't depend on another, you could cache the results, and then merely fetch them from the results cache when the input data repeats itself. I.E. the processor dynamically makes it's own look-up tables. John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple x86 Simulator (was: Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!) 2003-04-25 16:10 ` John Bradford @ 2003-04-25 11:44 ` Antonio Vargas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Antonio Vargas @ 2003-04-25 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Bradford; +Cc: Timothy Miller, Steven Augart, Kernel Mailing List On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 05:10:44PM +0100, John Bradford wrote: > > > We could not. Consider just the 8 32-bit-wide legacy x86 registers, > > > excluding the MMX and FPU registers: > > > (AX, BX, CX, DX, BP, SI, DI, SP). 32 bits x 8 = 2^256 independent > > > states to look up in the table, each state having 256 bits of > > > information. 2^264 total bits of information needed. Assume 1 GB > > > dimms (2^30 * 8 bits each = 2^33 bits of info), with a volume of 10 > > > cm^3 per DIMM (including a tiny amount of space for air circulation.). > > > Need 34508731733952818937173779311385127262255544860851932776 cubic > > > kilometers of space. > > > > > > Considerably larger than the volume of the earth, although admittedly > > > smaller than the total volume of the universe. > > > --Steven Augart > > > > If this could be done, someone would have done it already. > > It's certainly possible to implement most of the functionality of a > very simple processor this way, but applying the idea to an X86 > compatible processor was a joke. > > What interests me now is whether we could cache the results of certain > opcode strings in a separate memory area. > > Say for example, you have a complicated routine that runs in to > hundreds of opcodes, which is being applied to large amounts of data, > word by word. If one calculation doesn't depend on another, you could > cache the results, and then merely fetch them from the results cache > when the input data repeats itself. > > I.E. the processor dynamically makes it's own look-up tables. This is called dynamic programming and is done by keeping a cache for previous results. Take for example a simple fibonacci function: int fib(n){ return fib(n-2) + fib(n-1); } Now hook up a direct-mapped cache: int cache[65536]; int fib(n){ int x = cache[n]; if(x) return x; x = fib(n-2) + fib(n-1); cache[n] = x; return x; } Of course, this limits the range too much, so coding a LRU or some other cache system would consume less memory and give better speed. Your idea, applying this to general hardware execution could be _really_ nice in fact :) Greets, Antonio. ps. I recall that todays hardware does it for some stuff: the TBL cache replaces an expensive and sometimes complex page-table-tree walk (m68030 mmu-docs come to mind) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-25 7:02 ` John Bradford 2003-04-25 8:05 ` Simple x86 Simulator (was: Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!) Steven Augart @ 2003-04-25 8:52 ` Helge Hafting 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Helge Hafting @ 2003-04-25 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Bradford; +Cc: linux-kernel John Bradford wrote: > Could we not take this idea to it's logical extreme, and simply > calculate the results of every opcode, on every value, for every state > of all of the registers, and store them in an array of DIMMs, and > simply look up the necessary results? I.E. a cpu which is one _huge_ > look up table :-). You can, if you can keep the internal state sufficiently small. Say we want to keep the internal state down to 32 bit, using a 16GB lookup table. (4G*32bit) What would the state be? Perhaps one general-purpose 8-bit register, a 16-bit program counter and 8 bits left for the current opcode & flags. Less opportunities than a 6502, but it'd sure be fast. Helge Hafting ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 21:38 ` John Bradford 2003-04-25 3:20 ` Shawn @ 2003-04-25 14:03 ` Mike Dresser 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Mike Dresser @ 2003-04-25 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Bradford; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, John Bradford wrote: > > > We could always consider wiring everything up with discrete logic. > > > Anyone got any spare 74138's? > > > > I need 1 billion of them please, and I need the overclockable ones :) > > Why not just buy one of those 100-in-1 electronics kits from your > local electonics hobbyist store, and make your very own wire wrap CPU? They don't usually come with the needed 70W .01 ohm resistor you'd need to completely emulate a modern cpu. Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 21:30 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 21:38 ` John Bradford @ 2003-04-24 21:42 ` Russell King 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Russell King @ 2003-04-24 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Timothy Miller, Daniel Phillips, William Lee Irwin III, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 10:30:02PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Timothy Miller wrote: > > We could always consider wiring everything up with discrete logic. > > Anyone got any spare 74138's? > > I need 1 billion of them please, and I need the overclockable ones :) Ah, you want the 74AC138 version then for fast propagation. (3 to 8 line decoders/demultiplexers don't have a clock input, so "overclockable ones" is rather meaningless.) 8) Is it just me or are we wandering off topic here? -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 21:37 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 21:30 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-25 6:08 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 2003-04-25 11:46 ` Antonio Vargas 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2003-04-25 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kernel Mailing List [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 657 bytes --] On Thu, 2003-04-24 17:37:59 -0400, Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com> wrote in message <3EA85937.3050109@techsource.com>: > Jamie Lokier wrote: > We could always consider wiring everything up with discrete logic. > Anyone got any spare 74138's? Erm, we'd try to get speeds about MHz, not Hz or kHz for the whole processor:) MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(IRAQ_WAR_2 | DRM | TCPA)); [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-25 6:08 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2003-04-25 11:46 ` Antonio Vargas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Antonio Vargas @ 2003-04-25 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kernel Mailing List On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:08:05AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > On Thu, 2003-04-24 17:37:59 -0400, Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com> > wrote in message <3EA85937.3050109@techsource.com>: > > Jamie Lokier wrote: > > > We could always consider wiring everything up with discrete logic. > > Anyone got any spare 74138's? > > Erm, we'd try to get speeds about MHz, not Hz or kHz for the whole > processor:) Slower hardware means we _really_ notice and _enjoy_ optimisations :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 5:43 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 6:15 ` William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-04-24 10:57 ` Giuliano Pochini 2003-04-24 22:51 ` Adrian Bunk 2 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Giuliano Pochini @ 2003-04-24 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kernel Mailing List, Kernel Mailing List, William Lee Irwin III On 24-Apr-2003 Linus Torvalds wrote: >> I'm not particularly interested in the high-flown moral issues, but >> this DRM stuff smelled like nothing more than a transparent ploy to >> prevent anything but bloze from booting on various boxen to me. > > Let's be honest - to some people that is _exactly_ what DRM is. No ifs, > buts and maybes. > > And hey, the fact is (at least as far as I'm concerned), that as long as > you make the hardware, you can control what it runs. > > The GPL requires that you make the software available - but it doesn't > require that the hardware be made so that you can always upgrade it. Free software is free. You can do anything with it, the only contraint is it must stay free. But cryptography plays a bad role here. Someone can make hw that accepts only that peice of signed free software. You have the hw, you have the binaries, you have the sources. But the sources are completely useless. GPL allows the user to modify it, but the hw doesn't run the modified copy. DRM can turns free software into half-proprietary software. I don't like it at all, but I don't see any solution. Bye. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 5:43 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 6:15 ` William Lee Irwin III 2003-04-24 10:57 ` Giuliano Pochini @ 2003-04-24 22:51 ` Adrian Bunk 2 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Adrian Bunk @ 2003-04-24 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: William Lee Irwin III, Kernel Mailing List On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 10:43:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >... > And hey, the fact is (at least as far as I'm concerned), that as long as > you make the hardware, you can control what it runs. >... Linux is currently widely used and through this there comes some power. Let me try to make examples where this might be important: Fact is: Cryptographic hardware isn't science fiction. It's not an unsolvable technical problem to build a computer and to ensure that only $signed_kernel with $binary_only_module loaded and no other modules loaded runs on this computer. Two examples that might make it very important whether the licence of Linux allows things like: 1. all the companies participating in TCPA agree that only selected signed kernels run on future hardware 2. [less likely] a big country like the USA makes a law that every OS must include a backdoor that allows unnoticed access for the NSA (it sounds strange but considering the DMCA and current legislative proposals in the USA I wouldn't say this is completely impossible) That's the point where the fact that Linux is used in many companies including big ones becomes important: For companies it wouldn't be a big problem to use only signed kernels in a scenario like the first one above (because of support rules of companies like Oracle or SAP they are already often tied to some specific kernels) if the licence of Linux allows it. If the licence of Linux doesn't allow this it would make many of the big companies using Linux to opposers of such a proposal. > Linus cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-24 5:15 ` William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-04-24 7:55 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 8:37 ` Andreas Jellinghaus ` (6 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List Linus Torvalds wrote: [a message which I found quite surreal] I felt as though I were reading on of those April 1st fake Linus emails. But my sleep cycle is so screwed everything feels like that today :) I don't mind if commodity hardware becomes DRM-locked, like the X-box, so long as it remains legal to develop alternative hardware. 20 years ago it would have been a real problem, but I think we have access to enough computing and communications resource today that we could actually develop alternate hardware if needed - if there enough motivation. Not there will ever be a need - see how virtually all the DVD players you can buy have "play any region" back doors. If there were lots of manufacturers of things like the X-box (as you'd expect for a 2006 PC), expect to see some of them putting DRM-disabler back doors in. The scary part is when it becomes illegal to use those back doors, or (much worse IMHO) illegal to make your own equipment. [Oh, I see that has already begun. Shit!] On a related note, it's World Intellectual Property Day this Saturday: http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/index.html?wipo_content_frame=/about-ip/en/world_ip/2003/index.htm [Personally I find WIPO's cute fluffy leaflets about protecting the small inventor from the big sharks rather creepy. They start with generalities about one-man designers in poorest Africa, and how they can protect their designs from being ripped off. Then lead to examples of where this has worked, and the inventors in the examples are all huge companies with familiar names, the very companies I see as big sharks. Ah well.] -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-24 7:55 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 8:37 ` Andreas Jellinghaus 2003-04-24 8:59 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 8:57 ` Arjan van de Ven ` (5 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Andreas Jellinghaus @ 2003-04-24 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel In ka.lists.linux.kernel, you wrote: > I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux! thanks for such a clear statement. Andreas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 8:37 ` Andreas Jellinghaus @ 2003-04-24 8:59 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 12:52 ` Andreas Jellinghaus 2003-04-24 15:37 ` Timothy Miller 0 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andreas Jellinghaus; +Cc: linux-kernel Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: > In ka.lists.linux.kernel, you 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... -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 8:59 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 12:52 ` Andreas Jellinghaus 2003-04-24 15:37 ` Timothy Miller 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Andreas Jellinghaus @ 2003-04-24 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jamie Lokier; +Cc: linux-kernel On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 10:59, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: > > In ka.lists.linux.kernel, you 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 if someone is so stupid to think that linux was written by a single person, he would surely name "bill gates". Andreas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 8:59 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 12:52 ` Andreas Jellinghaus @ 2003-04-24 15:37 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 18:35 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-24 19:23 ` Flame Linus to a crisp! Jamie Lokier 1 sibling, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-24 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jamie Lokier; +Cc: Andreas Jellinghaus, linux-kernel Jamie Lokier wrote: >Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: > > >>In ka.lists.linux.kernel, you 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... > > > > 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 15:37 ` Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-24 18:35 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-24 20:46 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 22:29 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-24 19:23 ` Flame Linus to a crisp! Jamie Lokier 1 sibling, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-04-24 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Timothy Miller Cc: Jamie Lokier, Andreas Jellinghaus, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Iau, 2003-04-24 at 16:37, 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. Actually no. Either its allowed by the GPL or its not. There are good reasons to think that may ways of doing it are not (The GPL defines source as including installation instructions). However thats a debate for lawyers, and you can have the debate as long as you like but it doesn't change what the GPL says.. Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 18:35 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-04-24 20:46 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 20:50 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 22:29 ` Werner Almesberger 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-24 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Jamie Lokier, Andreas Jellinghaus, Linux Kernel Mailing List Alan Cox wrote: >On Iau, 2003-04-24 at 16:37, 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. >> >> > >Actually no. > >Either its allowed by the GPL or its not. There are good reasons to >think that may ways of doing it are not (The GPL defines source >as including installation instructions). However thats a debate for >lawyers, and you can have the debate as long as you like but it doesn't >change what the GPL says.. > > > > > Certainly. But say the GPL allows it, and say Linus decides he wants it. There's nothing stopping someone else from forking it and deciding they'll never accept any DRM-related code into their fork. Now, here's something for the lawyers to try to do: determine that the GPL _requires_ DRM. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 20:46 ` Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-24 20:50 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 21:03 ` Chris Adams 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Timothy Miller; +Cc: Alan Cox, Andreas Jellinghaus, Linux Kernel Mailing List Timothy Miller wrote: > Certainly. But say the GPL allows it, and say Linus decides he wants > it. There's nothing stopping someone else from forking it and deciding > they'll never accept any DRM-related code into their fork. True but if the GPL allows, nobody could prevent their fork becoming the heart of a DRM-locked product, either. I wonder whether the FSF shouldn't fork the GPLv3 into two versions, according to what philosophy GPLv2 users would like to adopt for their own projects :) (In principle, only the FSF is able to alter the license of a many-authored GPL'd project like Linux. It would be unfortunate if they used that special status to promote an agenda which a large number existing GPL users disliked). -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 20:50 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 21:03 ` Chris Adams 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Chris Adams @ 2003-04-24 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Once upon a time, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> said: >I wonder whether the FSF shouldn't fork the GPLv3 into two versions, >according to what philosophy GPLv2 users would like to adopt for their >own projects :) (In principle, only the FSF is able to alter the >license of a many-authored GPL'd project like Linux. It would be >unfortunate if they used that special status to promote an agenda >which a large number existing GPL users disliked). They can't affect the license of Linux because COPYING included with the kernel says: Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. Now, IIRC, that paragraph was added after the fact, so someone could go back to a version before that paragraph and fork under a new version of the GPL, however they could not take any code from the current versions of the kernel. About 20% of the files in the kernel include the "at your option" clause (this is from looking at the source to RH's 2.4.20-8). -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 18:35 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-24 20:46 ` Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-24 22:29 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-24 22:41 ` Jamie Lokier ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-24 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Timothy Miller, Jamie Lokier, Andreas Jellinghaus, Linux Kernel Mailing List Alan Cox wrote: > Either its allowed by the GPL or its not. A more important barrier than what the GPL allows might be what the Linux community accepts. If some DRM extensions are never accepted by enough of the "mainstream", they will fail to work. The main problem I see with accepting DRM functionality is that it will encourage frivolous uses of DRM, just because it's possible then. Just like most vendors instinctively default to closed source. It's also worth to keep in mind that such decisions are frequently taken by people with very different agendas, e.g. if "protected by DRM" is perceived to appeal to analysts, shareholders or potential shareholders, it may quickly become policy in many companies, just like patents did. - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 22:29 ` Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-24 22:41 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 22:54 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-24 22:41 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 14:21 ` Matthias Andree 2 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Werner Almesberger Cc: Alan Cox, Timothy Miller, Andreas Jellinghaus, Linux Kernel Mailing List Werner Almesberger wrote: > Just like most vendors instinctively default to closed source. Quite. Businesses instinctively do what they believe is in their best interests, and sometimes it is important to have constraints which cause businesses to function in our mutual best interest, which businesses are often not well placed to perceive. > It's also worth to keep in mind that such decisions are frequently > taken by people with very different agendas, e.g. if "protected by > DRM" is perceived to appeal to analysts, shareholders or potential > shareholders, it may quickly become policy in many companies, just > like patents did. In this regard, analysts, shareholders, consumers etc. are just like business, acting in their own percieved best interest. Change the rules against the status quo and they all complain, but it is just change and they also all adapt to it. That is business too. -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 22:41 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 22:54 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-25 0:26 ` Jamie Lokier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-24 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Alan Cox, Timothy Miller, Andreas Jellinghaus, Linux Kernel Mailing List Jamie Lokier wrote: > Change the rules against the status quo and they all complain, but it > is just change and they also all adapt to it. That is business too. In some cases, they show remarkable reluctance to embrace change, though. Just consider the enthusiastic response of RIAA, MPAA, etc. to how the Internet has improved everybody's ability to distribute information. Anyway, the question is then what the current trends are. As Linus has pointed out, there are desirable and there are undesirable uses of DRM. If endorsing DRM will just get us flooded with the undesirable ones, plus an insignificant number of the desirable ones, we'll have made a lousy deal. - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 22:54 ` Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-25 0:26 ` Jamie Lokier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-25 0:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Werner Almesberger Cc: Alan Cox, Timothy Miller, Andreas Jellinghaus, Linux Kernel Mailing List Werner Almesberger wrote: > > Change the rules against the status quo and they all complain, but it > > is just change and they also all adapt to it. That is business too. > > In some cases, they show remarkable reluctance to embrace change, > though. Just consider the enthusiastic response of RIAA, MPAA, etc. > to how the Internet has improved everybody's ability to distribute > information. IMHO the RIAA and MPAA are playing their role perfectly. While they _may_ represent pure greed, that greed produces things - mass market music and films, mass market "stardom" to believe in and follow - that large numbers of people still want, even though there are plenty of readily available alternatives. So long as people want the things that RIAA and MPAA are involved in creating, but do not want to pay for it, _and_ for the most part just want to copy because they enjoy saving money, rather than really thinking through how to create a better, fluffier world, with sustainable economics in a new form, then the RIAA and MPAA _must_ do what they do - a role is created, and they fulfil it. Just ignore the RIAA and MPAA, and listen/watch other stuff. There's plenty of it. And support the creators of stuff you like. If only a few people do that, they may end up stuck in paid-for laws. If a lot of people do it, though, problem solved. IMVHO of course :) -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 22:29 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-24 22:41 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 22:41 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 14:21 ` Matthias Andree 2 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-04-24 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Werner Almesberger Cc: Timothy Miller, Jamie Lokier, Andreas Jellinghaus, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Iau, 2003-04-24 at 23:29, Werner Almesberger wrote: > It's also worth to keep in mind that such decisions are frequently > taken by people with very different agendas, e.g. if "protected by > DRM" is perceived to appeal to analysts, shareholders or potential > shareholders, it may quickly become policy in many companies, just > like patents did. Abusing DRM is a direct economic winner for anyone who does, thats precisely the problem. Its also an economic loss for everyone who isn't able to abuse it. The latter tend to be have less influence with the US government. With DRM the music industry can prevent artists from doing independant publishing by making the case that "unprotected music is pirate" and "mandating only signed music can be played". Without it they are doomed not because of piracy but because they are less efficient than the alternatives - to many bands less efficient right now than giving the stuff away. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 22:29 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-24 22:41 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 22:41 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-04-27 14:21 ` Matthias Andree 2003-04-27 16:13 ` Stephan von Krawczynski ` (2 more replies) 2 siblings, 3 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Matthias Andree @ 2003-04-27 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Werner Almesberger wrote: > A more important barrier than what the GPL allows might be what the > Linux community accepts. If some DRM extensions are never accepted > by enough of the "mainstream", they will fail to work. > > The main problem I see with accepting DRM functionality is that it > will encourage frivolous uses of DRM, just because it's possible > then. Just like most vendors instinctively default to closed > source. > > It's also worth to keep in mind that such decisions are frequently > taken by people with very different agendas, e.g. if "protected by > DRM" is perceived to appeal to analysts, shareholders or potential > shareholders, it may quickly become policy in many companies, just > like patents did. It seems that the people who form the "market" (and buy shares, write analyses, buy CDs/DVDs) need to be told the implications of buying copy-protected material or material that enforces to boot only particlular kernels or whatever. The problem is that those in favor of (ab)using DRM to fortifying their monopoly don't tell you where the other side of the knife cuts. Those analysts and shareholders are only interested in local, egoistic optima; Microsoft will tell us that DRM brings "security" -- but they won't tell all the details, say, you can only play $MEDIA if $COMPANY allows it. The hard part about this discussion is not the technical one, but the social one, tell those people who just go to a shop what can happen if they buy a copy-protected CD, and what can happen if they tolerate their members of parliament voting in favor of DMCA-like laws (such as the new German copyright act that doesn't allow you to enforce your right to fair use, to a private copy of your CD for your car audio, if the vendor puts protection in place) or voting in favor of big companies rather than companies. The common people need to understand that their rights are being taken away, and that these rights are tied to their money. I haven't seen copy-protected CDs being sold cheaper than unprotected CDs (which would make some sense, because after the companies' logic, this will rise the sales). This is the example that has been established, others are to come. The sharks (see Jamie's WIPO comments) will know how to defend their territory. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-27 14:21 ` Matthias Andree @ 2003-04-27 16:13 ` Stephan von Krawczynski 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy [not found] ` <20030427171007$6d24@gated-at.bofh.it> 2 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Stephan von Krawczynski @ 2003-04-27 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Andree; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 16:21:06 +0200 Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> wrote: > The hard part about this discussion is not the technical one, but the > social one, tell those people who just go to a shop what can happen if > they buy a copy-protected CD, and what can happen if they tolerate their > members of parliament voting in favor of DMCA-like laws Please stop being naive. In case nobody told you: we are not living in a democracy here (in Germany), but something that can best be qualified as party-oligarchy. This is why your MoP is not interested at all in your "tolerance" of his voting. He does not need you (or your vote) for making his living, he needs his party, and that's it. Regards, Stephan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 14:21 ` Matthias Andree 2003-04-27 16:13 ` Stephan von Krawczynski @ 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 17:04 ` Ben Collins ` (15 more replies) [not found] ` <20030427171007$6d24@gated-at.bofh.it> 2 siblings, 16 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-27 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 04:21:06PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > It seems that the people who form the "market" (and buy shares, write > analyses, buy CDs/DVDs) need to be told the implications of buying > copy-protected material or material that enforces to boot only > particlular kernels or whatever. This is in the "it's too late to fix it" category but here's my opinion about all this digital rights stuff. There is much hand wringing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that the evil corporations are locking things up with DRM as well as various laws like the DMCA. People talk about their "rights" being violated, about how awful this all is, etc, etc, etc. What seems to be forgotten is that the people who are locking things up are the people who own those things and the people who are complaining are the people who got those things, illegally, for free. There seems to be a wide spread feeling that whenever anything desirable comes along it is OK to take it if you want it. Napster is a good example. I don't like the record companies any better than anyone else but they do own the material and you either respect the rules or the record companies will lock it up and force you to respect the rules. The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. This community thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful. Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you will see people saying "we'll clone it". That's not unique to BK, it's the same with anything else which is viewed as useful. And nobody sees anything wrong with that, or copying music, whatever. "If it's useful, take it" is the attitude. This problem is pervasive, it's not just a handful of people. Upon the advice of several of the leading kernel developers, I contacted Pavel's boss at SuSE and said "how about you nudge Pavel onto something more productive" and he said that he couldn't control Pavel. That's nonsense and everyone knows that. If one of my employees were doing something like that, it would be trivial to say "choose between your job and that". But Garloff just shrugged it off as not his problem. Corporations are certainly watching things like our efforts with BitKeeper, as well as the other companies who are trying to play nice with the open source world. What are they learning? That if you don't lock it up, the open source world has no conscience, no respect, and will steal anything that isn't locked down. Show me a single example of the community going "no, we can't take that, someone else did all the work to produce it, we didn't". Good luck finding it. Instead you get "hey, that's cool, let's copy it". With no acknowledgement that the creation of the product took 100x the effort it takes to copy the product. Do you think that corporations are going sit by and watch you do that and do nothing to stop you? Of course they aren't, they have a strong self preservation instinct and they have the resources to apply to the problem. The DMCA, DRM, all that stuff is just the beginning. You will respond with all sorts of clever hacks to get around it and they will respond with even more clever hacks to stop you. They have both more resources and more at stake so they will win. The depressing thing is that it is so obvious to me that the corporations will win, they will protect themselves, they have the money to lobby the government to get the laws they want and build the technology they need. The more you push back the more locked up things will become. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-27 17:04 ` Ben Collins 2003-04-27 17:34 ` Michael Buesch ` (14 subsequent siblings) 15 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Ben Collins @ 2003-04-27 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Linux Kernel Mailing List > The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing > factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. This community > thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful. > Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you > will see people saying "we'll clone it". That's not unique to BK, > it's the same with anything else which is viewed as useful. And nobody > sees anything wrong with that, or copying music, whatever. "If it's > useful, take it" is the attitude. Cloning is not illegal, nor is it something that the DMCA/DRM is supposed to protect against. Wanting things for free is not illegal, nor does it contribute to illegal behavior. Larry, I do take a bit of offense to your blanket statement, basically calling me a thief. I don't pirate software, I respect copyrights (I don't use BK anymore even under the free license, because I respect your license/copyrights). I pay for my music, even though I do convert it to mp3 so I can fit 130 songs on a CDR to play in my truck. That's not illegal. Yeah, I've used the mp3 trading to download music for some of my old CD's that are now too scratched up to backup. That's perfectly moral, even if it becomes illegal. Maybe one day it wont be legal. The music companies will sell media that is easily damaged so that people will have a lifecycle for their purchased music. Or maybe they'll make you pay per play, or charge you a subscription for "1000 song playlists". Call me paranoid. Plain and simple, I am not a contributing factor to the DMCA/DRM. And claiming that the community that I take great pride in being a part of is in fact nothing but a bunch of thieves with low morals just pisses me off. Putting all of us on the same level as the zero-day-warez groups is pretty fucked up. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 17:04 ` Ben Collins @ 2003-04-27 17:34 ` Michael Buesch 2003-04-27 18:41 ` Henrik Persson 2003-04-27 17:35 ` Måns Rullgård ` (13 subsequent siblings) 15 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Michael Buesch @ 2003-04-27 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: linux-kernel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 27 April 2003 18:59, Larry McVoy wrote: > The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing > factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. This community > thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful. Oh no. My opinion points exactly 180 degrees to the other side. You can't say: "The whole community is evil" if only a few people are. And IMHO that are only a _few_ people. I think most people of the opensource community know exactly about copyrights and so on and don't violate them. > Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you > will see people saying "we'll clone it". That's not unique to BK, > it's the same with anything else which is viewed as useful. And nobody > sees anything wrong with that, or copying music, whatever. "If it's > useful, take it" is the attitude. But: They don't illegaly steal bk. They make their own software for which _they_ own the copyright. I think it is their good right to do so. > Corporations are certainly watching things like our efforts with > BitKeeper, as well as the other companies who are trying to play nice > with the open source world. What are they learning? That if you don't > lock it up, the open source world has no conscience, no respect, and will > steal anything that isn't locked down. Show me a single example of the > community going "no, we can't take that, someone else did all the work > to produce it, we didn't". Good luck finding it. Instead you get "hey, > that's cool, let's copy it". With no acknowledgement that the creation > of the product took 100x the effort it takes to copy the product. I see no problem here. But in the future software patents will prevent it :P - -- Regards Michael Büsch http://www.8ung.at/tuxsoft 19:24:16 up 7:31, 1 user, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.07 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+rBSdoxoigfggmSgRAhJnAJ9LmwYmgV5aYD0ao/DVOdIN0f+ieACghWUL fPZm/m0G2+yaszGn7fD7hio= =rIkH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 17:34 ` Michael Buesch @ 2003-04-27 18:41 ` Henrik Persson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Henrik Persson @ 2003-04-27 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:34:07 +0200 Michael Buesch <fsdeveloper@yahoo.de> wrote: > Oh no. My opinion points exactly 180 degrees to the other side. > You can't say: "The whole community is evil" if only a few people are. > And IMHO that are only a _few_ people. > I think most people of the opensource community know exactly about > copyrights and so on and don't violate them. And some of us just doesn't respect the opinion that everything can and should be patented, that you can own abstract things as information etc. IMHO it's great that there exists people who revolt against the corporations by breaking copyrights just for the sake of it. ;) -- Henrik Persson nix@socialism.nu http://nix.badanka.com PGP-key: http://nix.badanka.com/pgp PGP-KeyID: 0x43B68116 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 17:04 ` Ben Collins 2003-04-27 17:34 ` Michael Buesch @ 2003-04-27 17:35 ` Måns Rullgård 2003-04-27 17:49 ` Mirar ` (3 more replies) 2003-04-27 18:07 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Matthias Schniedermeyer ` (12 subsequent siblings) 15 siblings, 4 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Måns Rullgård @ 2003-04-27 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> writes: > The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing > factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. This community > thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful. > Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you > will see people saying "we'll clone it". That's not unique to BK, > it's the same with anything else which is viewed as useful. And nobody > sees anything wrong with that, or copying music, whatever. "If it's > useful, take it" is the attitude. AFAIK, BK is not covered by patents. This means that anyone can legally write software with similar functionality, without doing anything illegal, or (IMHO) immoral, as long as no code is copied from the original product. This applies to other progams, as well. I don't see anything wrong with taking inspiration from other programs, when writing your own. Sure, it might not take the same effort to create a program similar to an already existing one, as to think of totally new, great idea for how to do something. With your reasoning, all version control programs are stolen from the first one, whatever that was (does anyone remember?). > Corporations are certainly watching things like our efforts with > BitKeeper, as well as the other companies who are trying to play nice > with the open source world. What are they learning? That if you don't > lock it up, the open source world has no conscience, no respect, and will > steal anything that isn't locked down. Show me a single example of the > community going "no, we can't take that, someone else did all the work > to produce it, we didn't". Good luck finding it. Instead you get "hey, > that's cool, let's copy it". With no acknowledgement that the creation > of the product took 100x the effort it takes to copy the product. Nowdays very few programs show any genuinely new ideas. For the greater part, they are new implementations of very old concepts. Take Microsoft. They produce operating systems and word processors. They were not by far the first to do either of these. Actually, I can't think of anything where MS has come up with something really new. The idea of using a display (possibly graphical) with multiple windows was at one time such a new thing. This does not mean that any subsequent implementation of such a system is copied, or stolen, from the original inventor (who was that?). If an idea is special enough, it can be patented. This protects it from being used by anyone else for some time. Good examples are MPEG video compression and RSA cryptography. Fortunately, not everything can be patented. -- Måns Rullgård mru@users.sf.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 17:35 ` Måns Rullgård @ 2003-04-27 17:49 ` Mirar 2003-04-27 23:15 ` H. Peter Anvin 2003-04-27 17:59 ` Michael Buesch ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Mirar @ 2003-04-27 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Måns Rullgård; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Linux Kernel Mailing List > With your reasoning, all version control programs are stolen from > the first one, whatever that was (does anyone remember?). It's bound to be something related to RCS (which CVS was built on). > The idea of using a display (possibly graphical) with multiple > windows was at one time such a new thing. This does not mean that > any subsequent implementation of such a system is copied, or stolen, > from the original inventor (who was that?). Xerox. (Yes, same X as in X11, if I understand correctly.) I think they gave the idea away freely to Apple. /Mirar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 17:49 ` Mirar @ 2003-04-27 23:15 ` H. Peter Anvin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: H. Peter Anvin @ 2003-04-27 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Followup to: <m13ck3de5b.fsf@orchid.mirar.org> By author: Mirar <mirar+linuxkernel@mirar.org> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > Xerox. (Yes, same X as in X11, if I understand correctly.) > I think they gave the idea away freely to Apple. > X was named so because it was the successor to a windowing system named W. -hpa -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 17:35 ` Måns Rullgård 2003-04-27 17:49 ` Mirar @ 2003-04-27 17:59 ` Michael Buesch 2003-04-27 21:28 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-28 1:48 ` rmoser 3 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Michael Buesch @ 2003-04-27 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Måns Rullgård; +Cc: Larry McVoy, linux-kernel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 27 April 2003 19:35, Måns Rullgård wrote: > when writing your own. Sure, it might not take the same effort to > create a program similar to an already existing one, as to think of > totally new, great idea for how to do something. With your reasoning, > all version control programs are stolen from the first one, whatever > that was (does anyone remember?). That's exactly the way evolution works. Examples? Take apes and make humans out of them... :) Linux ist "stolen" from Unix. Without "stealing", no evolution and no progress. - -- Regards Michael Büsch http://www.8ung.at/tuxsoft 19:55:03 up 8:02, 1 user, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+rBqZoxoigfggmSgRArtGAJ9HOMRjb06wlc9n2drd2tj7kL9cjACdEXDM c9vm/qj/mYhb1Suv1XVgR+8= =SwD9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 17:35 ` Måns Rullgård 2003-04-27 17:49 ` Mirar 2003-04-27 17:59 ` Michael Buesch @ 2003-04-27 21:28 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-28 1:48 ` rmoser 3 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-04-27 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Måns Rullgård; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sul, 2003-04-27 at 18:35, Måns Rullgård wrote: > AFAIK, BK is not covered by patents. This means that anyone can > legally write software with similar functionality, without doing > anything illegal, or (IMHO) immoral, as long as no code is copied from >From conversations with Larry a long time ago I believe this is not the case wrt to BK and patents. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 17:35 ` Måns Rullgård ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 21:28 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-04-28 1:48 ` rmoser 2003-04-28 9:05 ` Måns Rullgård 2003-04-28 10:44 ` The X-Window System John Bradford 3 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: rmoser @ 2003-04-28 1:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mru; +Cc: linux-kernel *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 4/27/2003 at 7:35 PM mru@users.sourceforge.net wrote: >Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> writes: > >> The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing >> factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. This community >> thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful. >> Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you >> will see people saying "we'll clone it". That's not unique to BK, >> it's the same with anything else which is viewed as useful. And nobody >> sees anything wrong with that, or copying music, whatever. "If it's >> useful, take it" is the attitude. > >AFAIK, BK is not covered by patents. This means that anyone can >legally write software with similar functionality, without doing >anything illegal, or (IMHO) immoral, as long as no code is copied from >the original product. This applies to other progams, as well. I >don't see anything wrong with taking inspiration from other programs, >when writing your own. Sure, it might not take the same effort to >create a program similar to an already existing one, as to think of >totally new, great idea for how to do something. With your reasoning, >all version control programs are stolen from the first one, whatever >that was (does anyone remember?). > >> Corporations are certainly watching things like our efforts with >> BitKeeper, as well as the other companies who are trying to play nice >> with the open source world. What are they learning? That if you don't >> lock it up, the open source world has no conscience, no respect, and will >> steal anything that isn't locked down. Show me a single example of the >> community going "no, we can't take that, someone else did all the work >> to produce it, we didn't". Good luck finding it. Instead you get "hey, >> that's cool, let's copy it". With no acknowledgement that the creation >> of the product took 100x the effort it takes to copy the product. > >Nowdays very few programs show any genuinely new ideas. For the >greater part, they are new implementations of very old concepts. Take >Microsoft. They produce operating systems and word processors. They >were not by far the first to do either of these. Actually, I can't >think of anything where MS has come up with something really new. The >idea of using a display (possibly graphical) with multiple windows was >at one time such a new thing. wtf? Wasn't that W? (the W windowing system) > This does not mean that any subsequent >implementation of such a system is copied, or stolen, from the >original inventor (who was that?). I dunno. Lemme see... http://new.linuxnow.com/docs/content/XWindow-User-HOWTO-html/XWindow-User-HOWTO-2.html The X Window System was developed in the Laboratory for Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as part of project Athena in cooperation with DEC, and first released in 1984. The project lead of the main development was Robert Scheifler, and the origins of X owe much debt to the ``W'' Windowing package, developed by Paul Asente at Stanford. In September of 1987, MIT issued the first release of the X11 that we know and use today. As of X11R2, control passed from MIT to the X Consortium, formed in January of 1988. So there you have it. Paul Asente, as far back as I can see. There is one other good tip on that page: And remember, it's called X Window, not X Windows! > If an idea is special enough, it >can be patented. This protects it from being used by anyone else for >some time. Good examples are MPEG video compression and RSA >cryptography. Fortunately, not everything can be patented. > >-- >Måns Rullgård >mru@users.sf.net >- >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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-28 1:48 ` rmoser @ 2003-04-28 9:05 ` Måns Rullgård 2003-04-28 10:44 ` The X-Window System John Bradford 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Måns Rullgård @ 2003-04-28 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rmoser; +Cc: linux-kernel rmoser <mlmoser@comcast.net> writes: > >Nowdays very few programs show any genuinely new ideas. For the > >greater part, they are new implementations of very old concepts. Take > >Microsoft. They produce operating systems and word processors. They > >were not by far the first to do either of these. Actually, I can't > >think of anything where MS has come up with something really new. The > >idea of using a display (possibly graphical) with multiple windows was > >at one time such a new thing. > > wtf? Wasn't that W? (the W windowing system) Read carefully again. I did *not* say that MS invented window systems, quite the contrary. What I said, was that the invention, whenever it took place and whoever the inventor, was, at that time, a new thing. All later window systems are, in Larry's sense, copies of the first one. -- Måns Rullgård mru@users.sf.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* The X-Window System 2003-04-28 1:48 ` rmoser 2003-04-28 9:05 ` Måns Rullgård @ 2003-04-28 10:44 ` John Bradford 2003-04-28 14:37 ` Herman Oosthuysen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: John Bradford @ 2003-04-28 10:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rmoser; +Cc: mru, linux-kernel > And remember, it's called X Window, not X Windows! No, it is _not_. Neither 'X Windows' nor 'X Window' are correct ways to refer to that software. Read the manual page for X. John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: The X-Window System 2003-04-28 10:44 ` The X-Window System John Bradford @ 2003-04-28 14:37 ` Herman Oosthuysen 2003-04-28 16:28 ` uaca 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Herman Oosthuysen @ 2003-04-28 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Good grief. It's not Mexico, its the Federation of Mexican States. Its not America, its the United States of America. Its not... Come on! John Bradford wrote: > No, it is _not_. Neither 'X Windows' nor 'X Window' are correct ways > to refer to that software. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: The X-Window System 2003-04-28 14:37 ` Herman Oosthuysen @ 2003-04-28 16:28 ` uaca 2003-05-06 3:55 ` Miles Bader 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: uaca @ 2003-04-28 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Herman Oosthuysen; +Cc: linux-kernel On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 08:37:06AM -0600, Herman Oosthuysen wrote: > Good grief. It's not Mexico, its the Federation of Mexican States. Its > not America, its the United States of America. Its not... well... I don't think that "America" is a good example there are a lot countries/population in America not in the USA Ulisses > > Come on! > > John Bradford wrote: > >No, it is _not_. Neither 'X Windows' nor 'X Window' are correct ways > >to refer to that software. > > - > 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/ -- Debian GNU/Linux: a dream come true ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Computers are useless. They can only give answers." Pablo Picasso ---> Visita http://www.valux.org/ para saber acerca de la <--- ---> Asociación Valenciana de Usuarios de Linux <--- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: The X-Window System 2003-04-28 16:28 ` uaca @ 2003-05-06 3:55 ` Miles Bader 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2003-05-06 3:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: uaca; +Cc: Herman Oosthuysen, linux-kernel uaca@alumni.uv.es writes: > well... I don't think that "America" is a good example > > there are a lot countries/population in America not in the USA I know this gets some people's knickers in a twist, but in normal English usage, `America' means the USA. [In practice this isn't even confusing because it's pretty rare to refer to both North and South America together as a unit, and then most people seem to use `the Americas'] -Miles -- Would you like fries with that? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 17:35 ` Måns Rullgård @ 2003-04-27 18:07 ` Matthias Schniedermeyer 2003-04-27 18:35 ` Chris Adams ` (11 subsequent siblings) 15 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Matthias Schniedermeyer @ 2003-04-27 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Linux Kernel Mailing List <...> You aren't any better(tm). I guess there was SCM Software before Bitkeeper, so your are "cloning" other people concepts yourself. (At least in the beginning.) When you count every lego-brick in the software, how many of them are "original" (=100% invented by Bitmover. Including the ideas. Excluding the ones that you only weren't aware of existing)? 0.01%? Bis denn -- Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 18:07 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Matthias Schniedermeyer @ 2003-04-27 18:35 ` Chris Adams 2003-04-27 18:50 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 18:47 ` William Lee Irwin III ` (10 subsequent siblings) 15 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Chris Adams @ 2003-04-27 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Once upon a time, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> said: >What seems to be forgotten is that the people who are locking things up >are the people who own those things and the people who are complaining >are the people who got those things, illegally, for free. Stop right there - you are wrong. That is just the corporate party line used to justify stripping consumers of their rights. In the US (I don't know about the rest of the world), we have a legal right (upheld many times by the courts) to "fair use". Much of the DRM is a way for companies to deny the people that buy a product their legal fair use rights. This has been through the courts numerous times with VCRs and photocopiers. I am allowed to make copies for personal use, such as taking an audio CD and creating MP3s so I can listen on another device. Music companies and the RIAA are trying to remove that right. I have a TiVo so I can watch TV at my convenience instead of some network programmer's idea of when I should watch, but some networks want to ban TiVo-like devices as well (despite "time shifting" with VCRs having been upheld by the courts as fair use). I want to play DVDs under Linux legally. According to the laws, I've bought the DVD and the right to play it (and even make backup copies under fair use). However, the DVD consortium has restricted my (court upheld) right to do this. The DMCA just adds criminal enforcement for this. >Napster is a good example. I don't >like the record companies any better than anyone else but they do own >the material and you either respect the rules or the record companies >will lock it up and force you to respect the rules. The way a lot of people USED Napster was illegal. That doesn't mean that Napster should be made illegal. Also, there are plenty of civil laws regarding copyright infringement; why do we need additional laws making it also a criminal offense? >The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing >factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. This community >thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful. >Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you >will see people saying "we'll clone it". Again - stop right there. Reverse engineering to copy something has been upheld by the courts many times. We probably wouldn't be here if Compaq, Phoenix, and others hadn't reverse engineered the IBM PC BIOS. The patent side of things protects against this; is BK covered by any patents? You have every right to defend your trademark (and you should, or it becomes diluted). Unless BK is covered by one or more patents, you have no right to tell people they can't take their time reverse engineering it (if it takes as many man-years to build as you say, why do you worry?). >That's not unique to BK, >it's the same with anything else which is viewed as useful. And nobody >sees anything wrong with that, or copying music, whatever. "If it's >useful, take it" is the attitude. By your logic, why do you support Linux? It is just copying Unix. >This problem is pervasive, it's not just a handful of people. Upon the >advice of several of the leading kernel developers, I contacted Pavel's >boss at SuSE and said "how about you nudge Pavel onto something more >productive" and he said that he couldn't control Pavel. Why don't YOU don't something more productive with your time other than call someone's boss and complain? >That's nonsense >and everyone knows that. If one of my employees were doing something >like that, it would be trivial to say "choose between your job and that". >But Garloff just shrugged it off as not his problem. Get a life. Are you going to call Transmeta and complain about Linus working on something that rips off SCO's "intellectual property" (some of which may even be covered by patents, something BK doesn't have)? You chose to step into the frying pan; don't complain about the heat. >Corporations are certainly watching things like our efforts with >BitKeeper, as well as the other companies who are trying to play nice >with the open source world. What are they learning? That if you don't >lock it up, the open source world has no conscience, no respect, and will >steal anything that isn't locked down. Show me a single example of the >community going "no, we can't take that, someone else did all the work >to produce it, we didn't". There are things that Red Hat won't ship because they are protected under patents (good or bad). Patents are the protection the US system offers; if you don't come up with something original enough to rate a patent, then anyone can copy it. >Good luck finding it. Instead you get "hey, >that's cool, let's copy it". With no acknowledgement that the creation >of the product took 100x the effort it takes to copy the product. Please name something that "the creation of the product took 100x the effort it takes to copy". How much effort has gone into Linux, Wine, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice, etc. that originally was targeted to copy another product? >Do you think that corporations are going sit by and watch you do that and >do nothing to stop you? Of course they aren't, they have a strong self >preservation instinct and they have the resources to apply to the problem. >The DMCA, DRM, all that stuff is just the beginning. You will respond >with all sorts of clever hacks to get around it and they will respond >with even more clever hacks to stop you. They have both more resources >and more at stake so they will win. No, because a growing number of people won't play their game. People are already bringing challenges to the DMCA, as more people realize the implications of it. >The depressing thing is that it is so obvious to me that the corporations >will win, they will protect themselves, they have the money to lobby the >government to get the laws they want and build the technology they need. >The more you push back the more locked up things will become. Then you have nothing to worry about, since you are one of the corporations. You can "lock up" BK and try to silence the critics (as you have already said you've gone after at least one person). -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 18:35 ` Chris Adams @ 2003-04-27 18:50 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 19:11 ` Davide Libenzi ` (8 more replies) 0 siblings, 9 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-27 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chris Adams; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 01:35:53PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: [rant, missed the point, thought it was about BK] Sorry to pick on Chris, but his is the best example of what most of the replies have been saying. I should have never brought BK into the conversation, it was just an example. Remove all references to BK and what you are left with is: 1) Corporations are threatened when people copy their content and/or products. 2) Corporations have a lot of money which they use to get the government to create laws to protect the corporate interests. 3) Corporations have a lot of money which they use to create technology which will remove threats to the corporation. 4) The more you inist that you are doing nothing wrong the more motivated the corporation becomes to stop you. This isn't a BK thing, we don't have lobbyists in Washington get laws passed on our behalf. This is my private opinion based on observing what's happened in the last five years or so. The world is moving more and more towards a place where IP is the significant source of revenue. Microsoft successfully made the case that if they were broken up it would damage world economy. So thinking and laws will evolve to accomodate this new world wherein IP is a critical factor. What I'm trying to say is that I think that the organizations which *create* the IP will vigorously defend that. The more you try and circumvent that the more draconian they will get. If you want to win, you win by being a creator, not a copier. That's the point. In my opinion, chasing the leader and copying them is a losing strategy and always has been. The successes have been when someone creates something new. So for both historical reasons and current reasons, copying as a strategy looks flawed. And depressing if I'm right that the corporations will just encrypt all the data so that copying the program is pointless. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 18:50 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-27 19:11 ` Davide Libenzi 2003-04-27 20:13 ` Frank van Maarseveen ` (7 subsequent siblings) 8 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Davide Libenzi @ 2003-04-27 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > Microsoft successfully made the case that if they were broken up it would > damage world economy. So thinking and laws will evolve to accomodate > this new world wherein IP is a critical factor. It'd be nice to have a look at a world where all the scientists that *really* left some kind of trace in this planet would have kept their IP for their own. Or, for example, if E.Myers would have kept the algorithm that you're very likely using in BK for diffing, for his own. - Davide ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 18:50 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 19:11 ` Davide Libenzi @ 2003-04-27 20:13 ` Frank van Maarseveen 2003-04-27 20:34 ` walt ` (6 subsequent siblings) 8 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Frank van Maarseveen @ 2003-04-27 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:50:37AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > > This isn't a BK thing, we don't have lobbyists in Washington get laws > passed on our behalf. This is my private opinion based on observing > what's happened in the last five years or so. The world is moving more > and more towards a place where IP is the significant source of revenue. In general, maybe. In software business I think the world is moving towards making money out of services rather than IP. On another perspective, something which is often underestimated is the fact that the cost of copying software (programs, music etc.) has no relation whatsoever with the "value" of the software itself. This is not a permit to copy -- it is an observation about the properties of software in general. This is a very strong property and I think that any attempt to resist this "law of nature" will ultimately be futile. -- Frank ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 18:50 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 19:11 ` Davide Libenzi 2003-04-27 20:13 ` Frank van Maarseveen @ 2003-04-27 20:34 ` walt 2003-04-27 21:26 ` Alan Cox ` (5 subsequent siblings) 8 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: walt @ 2003-04-27 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Larry McVoy wrote: > ...If you want to win, you win by being a creator, not a copier... DisneyCorp was a prime mover behind the DMCA (or so I'm told), so let's take them as an example. They have been a copier of artistic material for decades -- one of the biggest ever. They 'improve' the material they copy and then make a fortune by clever marketing and by charging whatever the market will bear -- a market historically controlled by the producer of the product because there was, until very recently, no aftermarket. You had to buy from the producer because you couldn't buy the product from anyone else -- until now. My point is that the mind-boggling wealth produced from mass-marketed entertainment products has been generated by strict control of the means of distribution -- printing press, airwaves, film, records, tape, CD's, and now, finally, the internet. Oops. Well, they don't control that last one, come to think of it. And that is the big problem for monopolists like Disney -- they can't control the supply of their product and thus they can't control the price either. The artificial scarcity of their product is over at last, due entirely to advances in technology. The question for society to answer is whether this is an evil fact or a good fact. I think most people think it good, not evil, and therefore the technology will not be going away anytime soon. The media producers, therefore, are going to lose this battle to prop up the price of their product to artificially high levels. They have the money to buy legislation only because they have had strict control of the means of distribution of their own product which has made them artificially wealthy. This is now changing and they had better adapt or they will perish. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 18:50 ` Larry McVoy ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 20:34 ` walt @ 2003-04-27 21:26 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 22:07 ` Ross Vandegrift ` (4 subsequent siblings) 8 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-04-27 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Chris Adams, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sul, 2003-04-27 at 19:50, Larry McVoy wrote: > If you want to win, you win by being a creator, not a copier. That's the > point. In my opinion, chasing the leader and copying them is a losing > strategy and always has been. The successes have been when someone > creates something new. So for both historical reasons and current reasons, > copying as a strategy looks flawed. And depressing if I'm right that the > corporations will just encrypt all the data so that copying the program > is pointless. You forget that there is no point creating anything new when you can't interoperate, if need be by copying. What good would BK be if it didnt work with GNU emacs, couldnt talk via the internet and refused to work with a GNU C compiler ? Even if you rewrote the lot, would you run your own telco, build your own computers ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 18:50 ` Larry McVoy ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 21:26 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-04-27 22:07 ` Ross Vandegrift 2003-04-27 22:32 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 22:34 ` Matthias Andree ` (3 subsequent siblings) 8 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Ross Vandegrift @ 2003-04-27 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Chris Adams, linux-kernel On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:50:37AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > 1) Corporations are threatened when people copy their content and/or > products. > 2) Corporations have a lot of money which they use to get the government > to create laws to protect the corporate interests. > 3) Corporations have a lot of money which they use to create technology > which will remove threats to the corporation. > 4) The more you inist that you are doing nothing wrong the more motivated > the corporation becomes to stop you. [snip] > What I'm trying to > say is that I think that the organizations which *create* the IP will > vigorously defend that. The more you try and circumvent that the more > draconian they will get. I think that you simply meant in your email to identify free software as a cause for this paranoia. I can kinda see the logic, and you might be right. But what I think what fired up many other readers (and me as well, until I read your reply), is that your email reads like the solution is to stop making free software/independant music/etc and just pay for what we're offered. After all, individual creations will only serve to increase the paranoia of the corporations. If you're offering that as a solution, you're far crazier than even the most vicious anti-BK people have claimed. -- Ross Vandegrift ross@willow.seitz.com A Pope has a Water Cannon. It is a Water Cannon. He fires Holy-Water from it. It is a Holy-Water Cannon. He Blesses it. It is a Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He Blesses the Hell out of it. It is a Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He has it pierced. It is a Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He makes it official. It is a Canon Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. Batman and Robin arrive. He shoots them. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 22:07 ` Ross Vandegrift @ 2003-04-27 22:32 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 22:05 ` Alan Cox ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-27 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ross Vandegrift; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Chris Adams, linux-kernel On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:50:37AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > > 1) Corporations are threatened when people copy their content and/or > > products. > > 2) Corporations have a lot of money which they use to get the government > > to create laws to protect the corporate interests. > > 3) Corporations have a lot of money which they use to create technology > > which will remove threats to the corporation. > > 4) The more you inist that you are doing nothing wrong the more motivated > > the corporation becomes to stop you. > [snip] > > What I'm trying to > > say is that I think that the organizations which *create* the IP will > > vigorously defend that. The more you try and circumvent that the more > > draconian they will get. > > I think that you simply meant in your email to identify free software as > a cause for this paranoia. I can kinda see the logic, and you might be > right. Whew. At least I'm not totally crazy, one person saw what I was saying. I don't think it is exclusively the open source folks that have the business guys worried, they are also worried about the illegal wholesale replication of the software which occurs in places like China. > But what I think what fired up many other readers (and me as well, until > I read your reply), is that your email reads like the solution is to > stop making free software/independant music/etc and just pay for what > we're offered. After all, individual creations will only serve to increase > the paranoia of the corporations. If that's what you heard, I didn't get across what I meant. In the business world, it's a well established fact that you don't win by copying the leader, the leader will always out distance you. My message was that instead of sitting around copying other people's programs, it would be far more interesting if the open source community came up with original works on their own. That's how you win. It's a lot more work but when you win, you really win. In the copying model, you are always playing catchup to the leader. By the way, I wouldn't object to the copying so much if I didn't see it as a threat to the open source community itself. I take the long view which says that if you look far enough out, if the open source community is successful enough, there won't be anything left to copy. That's not a problem except that the commercial companies are spending the R&D to create new stuff and the open source guys using the proprietary programs as a roadmap to make a free version. Not a problem until you go looking for a business model based on open source which can generate the revenue that it takes to do something new. Nobody has in the many years I've pointed out this problem. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 22:32 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-27 22:05 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 23:28 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 9:06 ` Eric W. Biederman ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-04-27 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Ross Vandegrift, Chris Adams, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sul, 2003-04-27 at 23:32, Larry McVoy wrote: > If that's what you heard, I didn't get across what I meant. In the > business world, it's a well established fact that you don't win by > copying the leader, the leader will always out distance you. Very few companies win by being the leader. You win by letting someone else create the market then jumping on them with lots of money, sharp marketing and business sense. > My message was that instead of sitting around copying other people's > programs, it would be far more interesting if the open source community > came up with original works on their own. Lots of Linux stuff is new and unique - from doing threading right to stuff like IP Masquerading, to the Glibc extensions to make internationalisation actually sane. > I take the long view > which says that if you look far enough out, if the open source community > is successful enough, there won't be anything left to copy. Like the patent office head who proposed closing it because nothing was left to invent > That's not a problem except that the commercial companies are spending > the R&D to create new stuff and the open source guys using the proprietary > programs as a roadmap to make a free version. Not a problem until you go > looking for a business model based on open source which can generate the > revenue that it takes to do something new. Nobody has in the many years > I've pointed out this problem. Your economic model is flawed because if something needs doing enough someone will pay to do it. The moment the value exceeds the cost it should happen. Government keeps raising the cost of doing anything but sitting at home watching TV but even with that factor included people will pay the cost when it is needed. Its also not clear that open source companies will replicate everything or have the ability to do so. Even without US patent bogons its doubtful that open source is going to replace Oracle in a hurry. It takes time for stuff to become commodity. As to using one companies lessons to do your work, how much did BK learn from what *didn't* work well in Clearcase. Rather a lot I believe. That learning fuels innovation. Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 22:05 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-04-27 23:28 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 0:06 ` Ross Vandegrift ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-27 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Larry McVoy, Ross Vandegrift, Chris Adams, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:05:15PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > Your economic model is flawed because if something needs doing enough > someone will pay to do it. The moment the value exceeds the cost it > should happen. Explain to me how BK would have happened under your (non flawed) model. Before we gave it to you, you had no idea how to do it. It cost millions to get it to the point that you could see that it was valuable by using it. If I had said "Hey, Red Hat, how about you give me $8M so I can go build you the perfect SCM tool" you would have laughed your ass off. As would any other company, the amount of money it takes to do something new is not a working amount for a single customer. Under your model, only incremental change will occur, no customer is ever going to fund the large amounts required for truly new work. > As to using one companies lessons to do your work, how much did BK learn > from what *didn't* work well in Clearcase. Rather a lot I believe. That > learning fuels innovation. Maybe it fuels you, it certainly doesn't fuel me. As far as I know, nobody who works here has ever run clearcase or looked at their file formats. All of the clearcase knowledge I have has come indirectly through customers who have told me how it works. At this point I have a pretty good idea how it works but at no time did we ever attempt to emulate or improve on clearcase. A lot of people who work here have commented that they like working here because we don't back away from the hard problems. We don't work at things by going "hmm, clearcase does it this way, let's see if we can do better". Linus told us he'd use BK when it was the best and what we thought he meant "best" meant "it can be no better", not "well, it's better than all the other crap out there". The way we work is to imagine perfection and then try and build that. I'm really not interested in how CVS does it or how ClearCase does it, I already know they do it wrong. I'm much more interested in the definition of "best". What is the best answer? OK, let's build that. The fact that we took that approach is the main reason we're in business today, there are literally hundreds of competitors out there, so if we are only slightly better do you think anyone would know we existed? Not a chance. I'll bet you I can name at least 20 and probably more like 200 SCM companies you've never heard of. We weren't interested in being number 201 in that list. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 23:28 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-28 0:06 ` Ross Vandegrift 2003-04-28 11:03 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-29 18:06 ` Timothy Miller 2 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Ross Vandegrift @ 2003-04-28 0:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Alan Cox, Larry McVoy, Chris Adams, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 04:28:35PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > Maybe it fuels you, it certainly doesn't fuel me. As far as I know, > nobody who works here has ever run clearcase or looked at their file > formats. All of the clearcase knowledge I have has come indirectly > through customers who have told me how it works. At this point I have > a pretty good idea how it works but at no time did we ever attempt to > emulate or improve on clearcase. Well, but if you made a more advanced SCM tool, then yes, you improved on Clearcase. Therein lies the flaw in your arguement - you're saying the community needs to start really innovating, but really - what's innovation? If BK is better off because of user feedback, and you said above those users used Clearcase, BK is at least part a copy of Clearcase. There's no way around that - every person who creates has influences. In BK's case that influence is indirect, but c'mon - without that feedback, which is based on Clearcase, BK would be something different. You're asking people to not have any influences. > I'm much more interested in the definition of "best". > What is the best answer? OK, let's build that. How did you find that "best", if it didn't come failed attempts? Were you born with an image of the ideal SCM tool in your head? Did you stumble upon it in the woods one day? I don't see how the idea could've developed without influences. -- Ross Vandegrift ross@willow.seitz.com A Pope has a Water Cannon. It is a Water Cannon. He fires Holy-Water from it. It is a Holy-Water Cannon. He Blesses it. It is a Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He Blesses the Hell out of it. It is a Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He has it pierced. It is a Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He makes it official. It is a Canon Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. Batman and Robin arrive. He shoots them. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 23:28 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 0:06 ` Ross Vandegrift @ 2003-04-28 11:03 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-29 18:06 ` Timothy Miller 2 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-04-28 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Ross Vandegrift, Chris Adams, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Llu, 2003-04-28 at 00:28, Larry McVoy wrote: > Under your model, only incremental change will occur, no customer is > ever going to fund the large amounts required for truly new work. Or customers do it in groups, or they keep it proprietary. The value leak of commoditization is slow. I also don't believe in truely new work. Everything is a new light on a pile of existing technology Whats BK but a collision between graph theory, CVS and distributed resolution stuff. The result of that collision is possibly the worlds best VCS, but its built on a thousand or more years of maths, it requires the entire science of computer hardware to run, and the chips it runs on require several thousand years of material science. On the scale of what it takes to make BK actually useful your work is but a tiny spec in the big picture, like Linux like all these things. People seem to lose the picture of the smaller things they rely on. Remember the subroutine - someone invented that, BK builds on that knowledge. How about floating point maths, turning machines .... > The fact that we took that approach is the main reason we're in business > today, there are literally hundreds of competitors out there, so if we > are only slightly better do you think anyone would know we existed? > Not a chance. I'll bet you I can name at least 20 and probably more > like 200 SCM companies you've never heard of. We weren't interested in > being number 201 in that list. Which requires you are not a commodity product. What is funny here is that open source probably isn't your nemesis. Before open source commoditizes your market space cheap foreign labour and more tax efficient and business efficient non US companies will probably do so with cheaper proprietary applications. When we first discussed bitkeeper and you talked about licensing issues I said the same - the GPL generally doesn't fit "best in field", be that Oracle or BK. It's up to you to ensure the other 200 VCS vendors don't run you down. Most of them want to be #1 too Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 23:28 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 0:06 ` Ross Vandegrift 2003-04-28 11:03 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-04-29 18:06 ` Timothy Miller 2 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-29 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy Cc: Alan Cox, Ross Vandegrift, Chris Adams, Linux Kernel Mailing List Larry McVoy wrote: >On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:05:15PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > >>Your economic model is flawed because if something needs doing enough >>someone will pay to do it. The moment the value exceeds the cost it >>should happen. >> >> > >Explain to me how BK would have happened under your (non flawed) model. >Before we gave it to you, you had no idea how to do it. It cost >millions to get it to the point that you could see that it was valuable >by using it. > >If I had said "Hey, Red Hat, how about you give me $8M so I can go >build you the perfect SCM tool" you would have laughed your ass off. >As would any other company, the amount of money it takes to do something >new is not a working amount for a single customer. > >Under your model, only incremental change will occur, no customer is >ever going to fund the large amounts required for truly new work. > > Many open source projects start out as entirely new ideas, but admittedly, they then taken on an entirely evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) approach to improvement afterwards. The theoretical advantage is that global revolutionary change can occur through fast enough evolution. Is Linux 2.5.68 revolutionarily better than Linux 1.2? I'd say so, but it got there through evolutionary, incremental change. Keep in mind that evolution itself is driven by lots of mini-revolutions. So when Ingo developed his O(1) scheduler, he completely replaced the existing one. Sure he borrowed ideas, but that always happens. The point is that the old one was ripped out and a new one was inserted. An incremental change for Linux was caused by a revolutionary change to the process scheduler. The idea of an O(1) scheduler may not be revolutionary in the grand scheme of all of computer science. But that doesn't make it any less important to us or any less useful to the world. Sometimes, the evolution just doesn't happen fast enough. GNOME and KDE will both get there... eventually. But they're not fast enough to make Linux viable yet on the desktop. I can't begin to tell you how much effort it's taken for me to get Blue Curve and other GNOME-oriented or Red Hat-oriented (I know the difference) stuff with RH9 to behave the way I want it to. Actually, it still doesn't. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 22:32 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 22:05 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-04-28 9:06 ` Eric W. Biederman 2003-04-28 14:55 ` Michael Buesch 2003-04-28 20:04 ` Matthias Schniedermeyer 3 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Eric W. Biederman @ 2003-04-28 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Ross Vandegrift, Chris Adams, linux-kernel Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> writes: > > My message was that instead of sitting around copying other people's > programs, it would be far more interesting if the open source community > came up with original works on their own. That's how you win. It's a > lot more work but when you win, you really win. In the copying model, > you are always playing catchup to the leader. > > By the way, I wouldn't object to the copying so much if I didn't see it > as a threat to the open source community itself. I take the long view > which says that if you look far enough out, if the open source community > is successful enough, there won't be anything left to copy. I have to laugh because of a conversation I recently had with the Intel BIOS guys. I was describing some of the more important features of LinuxBIOS and they said: "Yeah we are working on that..." Copying goes both ways. Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 22:32 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 22:05 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-28 9:06 ` Eric W. Biederman @ 2003-04-28 14:55 ` Michael Buesch 2003-04-28 20:04 ` Matthias Schniedermeyer 3 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Michael Buesch @ 2003-04-28 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: linux-kernel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 28 April 2003 00:32, Larry McVoy wrote: > If that's what you heard, I didn't get across what I meant. In the > business world, it's a well established fact that you don't win by > copying the leader, the leader will always out distance you. > > My message was that instead of sitting around copying other people's > programs, it would be far more interesting if the open source community > came up with original works on their own. That's how you win. It's a > lot more work but when you win, you really win. In the copying model, > you are always playing catchup to the leader. Yea, but what about first copying _and then_, when it works stable, improving it? In the end, we'll have the better product. > That's how you win. ! But I also don't share the opinion, that the leader will "win". Have the original Unix-developers really won? I don't think so. The real winners are todays Un*ces. - -- Regards Michael Büsch http://www.8ung.at/tuxsoft 16:40:07 up 53 min, 1 user, load average: 1.05, 1.03, 0.95 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+rUDroxoigfggmSgRAohpAJ9v0b7PM7O31FE/GFoYrPwPKQ/6PwCfWYq6 2kHhcejAO4CsJNtfibYVc8I= =GPkc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 22:32 ` Larry McVoy ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-28 14:55 ` Michael Buesch @ 2003-04-28 20:04 ` Matthias Schniedermeyer 2003-04-28 20:18 ` Larry McVoy 3 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Matthias Schniedermeyer @ 2003-04-28 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Ross Vandegrift, Larry McVoy, Chris Adams, linux-kernel On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 03:32:55PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > I don't think it is exclusively the open source folks that have the > business guys worried, they are also worried about the illegal wholesale > replication of the software which occurs in places like China. apples? pears? 100% copy or "binary clone" of a software is illegal, thats correct. Reimplementing the "ideas" behind a software is legal. Otherweise there wouldn't be Bitkeeper. "100% original invention" is impossibel today. At least for a "nontrivial" software. And i guess Bitkeeper isn't "trivial" (-> it's more than a oneliner). Bis denn -- Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-28 20:04 ` Matthias Schniedermeyer @ 2003-04-28 20:18 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 20:22 ` Chris Adams 2003-04-28 22:16 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-28 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Schniedermeyer Cc: Larry McVoy, Ross Vandegrift, Chris Adams, linux-kernel On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 10:04:24PM +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 03:32:55PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > I don't think it is exclusively the open source folks that have the > > business guys worried, they are also worried about the illegal wholesale > > replication of the software which occurs in places like China. > > apples? pears? > > 100% copy or "binary clone" of a software is illegal, thats correct. > > Reimplementing the "ideas" behind a software is legal. Sometimes. If you sit down with product A and use it in the process of creating product B which does what product A does, the courts have held that you can't copy look-and-feel for example. Independent derivation of the same thing is fine but just blatent copying is not. It's true that you can copy the "math" as it were. But look and feel isn't math. The fact that you can be sued over look and feel is one of the reasons that people do "clean room" reimplementations; if you can prove you never saw WhizzWidget2000 and you reimplemented it then you are safe from any such suit. Proving clean room is not easy, especially if the product is widely available. Look at the suits between intel and some of the chip clones and you'll see what I mean. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-28 20:18 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-28 20:22 ` Chris Adams 2003-04-28 21:24 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 22:16 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Chris Adams @ 2003-04-28 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, linux-kernel Once upon a time, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> said: > Sometimes. If you sit down with product A and use it in the process > of creating product B which does what product A does, the courts have > held that you can't copy look-and-feel for example. Please site a successful ruling to that effect. In the two most well-known look-and-feel court cases, Apple lost their suit against Microsoft, and Lotus lost theirs (on appeal) against Borland. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-28 20:22 ` Chris Adams @ 2003-04-28 21:24 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 21:40 ` Roman Zippel 2003-04-28 22:13 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-28 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chris Adams; +Cc: Larry McVoy, linux-kernel On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:22:31PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> said: > > Sometimes. If you sit down with product A and use it in the process > > of creating product B which does what product A does, the courts have > > held that you can't copy look-and-feel for example. > > Please site a successful ruling to that effect. In the two most > well-known look-and-feel court cases, Apple lost their suit against > Microsoft, and Lotus lost theirs (on appeal) against Borland. It was written up on slashdot in the last year or so, I think it was some GUI thing maybe with Adobe. Poke around, if you can't find it I'll go look. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-28 21:24 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-28 21:40 ` Roman Zippel 2003-04-28 22:13 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Roman Zippel @ 2003-04-28 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Chris Adams, linux-kernel Hi, On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > > Please site a successful ruling to that effect. In the two most > > well-known look-and-feel court cases, Apple lost their suit against > > Microsoft, and Lotus lost theirs (on appeal) against Borland. > > It was written up on slashdot in the last year or so, I think it was > some GUI thing maybe with Adobe. Poke around, if you can't find it > I'll go look. That one involved patents: http://news.com.com/2100-1040-898061.html bye, Roman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-28 21:24 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 21:40 ` Roman Zippel @ 2003-04-28 22:13 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-04-28 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Chris Adams, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Llu, 2003-04-28 at 22:24, Larry McVoy wrote: > It was written up on slashdot in the last year or so, I think it was > some GUI thing maybe with Adobe. Poke around, if you can't find it > I'll go look. This was patents on aspects of UI ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-28 20:18 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 20:22 ` Chris Adams @ 2003-04-28 22:16 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-29 0:09 ` Larry McVoy 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-04-28 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy Cc: Matthias Schniedermeyer, Ross Vandegrift, Chris Adams, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Llu, 2003-04-28 at 21:18, Larry McVoy wrote: > from any such suit. Proving clean room is not easy, especially if the > product is widely available. Look at the suits between intel and > some of the chip clones and you'll see what I mean. You think the chip suits have anything to do with law as opposed to business techniques to slow each other down. Count just how few of them actually ended up in court. I think it speaks for itself. Please don't confuse lawsuits and law, the former is merely a business strategy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-28 22:16 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-04-29 0:09 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-29 4:07 ` Dax Kelson ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-29 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Larry McVoy, Matthias Schniedermeyer, Ross Vandegrift, Chris Adams, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:16:00PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: [How he knows more about the law, and everything else, than I, for one, do] Look, Alan et al, you keep wanting to make this a BK thing and/or tell me how I've got my head screwed on wrong and I'm finding it a bit tedious. The point you are missing, utterly and completely, is that I am someone who has been a member of this "community" for a long time and I'm also running a business. There aren't a huge number of people doing both and there is even a smaller number willing to waste their time trying to help out on this list. I have a pretty good idea of how you look at things and I am developing a pretty good idea of how businesses look at things. That might be useful to you, in one person you have access to both perspectives. If I tell you that businesses will look at things a certain way perhaps that should have a little more credibility than Microsoft telling you how their new feature is for your own good. Then again, given the response, maybe not. I've tried to tell you how the businesses will see things because that is information that you might not already have and their actions can cause you grief. You make plenty of noise about how you hate the corporate things that they do yet when I try and explain why they are doing those things, from their perspective, you shoot the messenger. This constant "I know how the law works and you don't" is no match for "Microsoft has enough money to change the law". There was this little anti-trust case, maybe you heard of it, it was obvious that they should have lost and they didn't. How does your opinion, which would clearly have been that they should have lost, reconcile with the fact that they didn't lose? I don't get it, you apparently see something I don't. What makes it frustrating is that I used to share a lot of your opinions but in the process of running a business I learned a fair amount which changed my perspective. Unfortunately, you are doing a great job of directing the discussion away from any of that information. I don't know what to say to make the information more interesting to you and maybe I should accept the fact that you don't want to hear it. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 0:09 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-29 4:07 ` Dax Kelson 2003-04-29 5:08 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-29 16:40 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-04-29 5:59 ` Theodore Ts'o 2003-04-29 14:35 ` Alan Cox 2 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Dax Kelson @ 2003-04-29 4:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy Cc: Alan Cox, Matthias Schniedermeyer, Ross Vandegrift, Chris Adams, Linux Kernel Mailing List Your complaint/observation about cloning/re-implementation is recognized. The counter claims are: 1. Unless patents are involved, it is perfectly LEGAL. 2. Virtually nothing is original to begin with. 3. The practice is hardly unique to Open Source developers. Your statement about being part of the community AND a business owner is recognized. Yes, this gives you insight that a pure hobbies Open Source developer might not have. Are you the only one? No. Does this mean everyone should accept everything you say without analysis? No. Moving back to the statements *you made* that started this whole thread. What exactly are you trying to say about an Open Source relation to software theft (warezing), Audio/Video theft, high asian piracy rates and DRM? These are all things you brought up, but I couldn't recognize any coherent statement here. Further, you also stated, "The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts." Please explain. Dax ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 4:07 ` Dax Kelson @ 2003-04-29 5:08 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-29 16:40 ` Scott Robert Ladd 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-29 5:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dax Kelson Cc: Larry McVoy, Alan Cox, Matthias Schniedermeyer, Ross Vandegrift, Chris Adams, Linux Kernel Mailing List > Your complaint/observation about cloning/re-implementation is recognized. > > The counter claims are: > > 1. Unless patents are involved, it is perfectly LEGAL. > 2. Virtually nothing is original to begin with. > 3. The practice is hardly unique to Open Source developers. Me: Action A is leading to reaction B which you don't want. You: Action A is perfectly legal, etc., etc. Me: It's not about whether it is legal or not, it's about reaction B. You: Action A is perfectly legal, etc., etc. Me: Reaction B is what you don't want, it's behaviour A which is the cause. You: Action A is perfectly legal, etc., etc. Me: You keep missing the point about the reaction B. You: Action A is perfectly legal, etc., etc. Me: Err, umm, how many times do I have to tell you it is the reaction that is what you want to avoid? You: Action A is perfectly legal, etc., etc. Me: Sigh. I think the point that you are missing is that if the corporations are threatened by your actions they will take steps to remove that threat. The various IP protection changes which we are seeing are those steps. People keep telling me how I don't understand the legality of the threats and I keep telling them that the world evolves, we're in a world which is moving more and more towards a place where much of the economy is based on IP, not physical goods. As that happens the laws will be evolved to protect the owners of the IP, technology will evolve to protect that IP, everything becomes about the IP. To the extent that the corporations view your actions as a threat, they will react. Consider at Microsoft Word, if you don't talk Word you don't do business. So if Microsoft gets really nervous about their office monopoly what is to prevent them from encrypting the data? You can build all the Word compatible programs you want and it won't do a bit of good if you can't read the data. It's the data, not the program, which is valuable. He who owns the data wins. Office is more than proof. It's my belief that the more you chase the leaders, the more the leaders will lock up what gives them that lead. Various people on this list have said that the lockup will fail, it will be too inconvenient. I don't buy it for a second. If only the Word binaries can read Word documents, that doesn't cause the users any headaches, they can still get their job done. So how do you win? Create a *better* answer. Chasing is a waste of your time, all that happens is that the people being chased will do a little work to make it impossible to get at the data produced by their tools. You win by being a leader, not following a leader. It's not that hard to lead, you just need to decide to do it. Look at Word. What's wrong with it? Well, it's a binary file format, you can't version control it in a meaningful way, there is no way to merge diverged docs, so development on any doc is single threaded. Suppose you made an ascii file format (me being the geek I am, I'd use troff as the back end but that's just me), add version control (RCS would be good enough), made a 3 way merge tool, TADA, you have just parallelized documentation (never mind that we had this in the 70's and Microsoft screwed it up). There is a huge, huge market for this sort of thing. Instead of actually making real progress, people work on reimplementation of the same thing. Doomed, the leader changes a few things, you're incompatible, you lose because noone can open their files in your tool. The problem, in my not so respected opinion, is that the open source community is good at chasing and hasn't figured out how to lead. Linux is a hell of a success story but it's still Unix. It's a nice Unix, I much prefer it over any other but I could just as easily live on MacOS X if I had to, the processors are fast enough for what I do. But Linux isn't really the issue, the OS has never been the issue, it's always been the applications. And there, again, we see reimplementation of proprietary apps and infrastructure. When Microsoft is following Mono rather than the other way around, then the tide will have changed. As long as you chase them, you're bound to lose. We may now return to our regularly scheduled thread of how I don't get that reimplementation is perfectly legal and I'll go do some real work... -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 4:07 ` Dax Kelson 2003-04-29 5:08 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-29 16:40 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-04-29 21:45 ` Helge Hafting 2003-04-30 9:58 ` Jamie Lokier 1 sibling, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-04-29 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Dax Kelson wrote: > What exactly are you trying to say about an Open Source relation to > software theft (warezing), Audio/Video theft, high asian piracy rates > and DRM? These are all things you brought up, but I couldn't > recognize any coherent statement here. The coherency you seek lies in seeing a common thread of wanting something for nothing. Free software developers often clone products developed by commercial companies; this is taking a free ride (something for nothing) on the R&D budget of the corporation. The effort that goes into designing quality software isn't just coding -- it's also research, design, focus groups, testing, and QA. I think it is quite reasonable for commercial entities to protect their investment in time, effort, and personnel. "Free-as-in-liberty" software is just one of several factors that influence companies to protect themselves. Merchants put alarms and bars on their stores, in response to crime; software and IP companies buy legislation to protect their property as well. That property is the basis of their income -- and not all IP companies are unsympathetic, multinational corporations like Microsoft. Many, many small companies, authors, and artists depend on their IP for an income. Understanding your opponent is the first step to converting an enemy to a friend. As it stands now, the confrontational attitude of many free software advocates is counterproductive. The more adversarial "free" software advocates act, the more companies will use money and law to protect themselves. This isn't about right-and-wrong, it's about power. That, perhaps, is the most painful lesson I learned in my years as an activist. It doesn't matter if Microsoft *should* have been convicted in the U.S. anti-trust suite -- that *fact* is, they got away with it. It doesn't matter if every international court said that my friends were being mistreated by the U.S. government -- because the U.S. government could safely ignore those courts. If "right" wants to win out over "wrong", it must find power. If you don't have money or political clout, you need to find power elsewhere. But simply claiming "I'm right" -- even if you are -- isn't going to stop the corporate steamroller from flattening your band wagon. -- Scott Robert Ladd Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com) Professional programming for science and engineering; Interesting and unusual bits of very free code. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 16:40 ` Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-04-29 21:45 ` Helge Hafting 2003-04-30 9:58 ` Jamie Lokier 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Helge Hafting @ 2003-04-29 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Scott Robert Ladd; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:40:48PM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: [...] > The coherency you seek lies in seeing a common thread of wanting > something for nothing. Free software developers often clone products > developed by commercial companies; this is taking a free ride (something > for nothing) on the R&D budget of the corporation. The effort that goes > into designing quality software isn't just coding -- it's also research, > design, focus groups, testing, and QA. I think it is quite reasonable > for commercial entities to protect their investment in time, effort, and > personnel. > Except that this isn't "something for nothing". The free clone is the price paid - it is available for everybody, including that company. Companies are free to use free linux distributions, and get a lot that way. Helge Hafting ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 16:40 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-04-29 21:45 ` Helge Hafting @ 2003-04-30 9:58 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-30 15:06 ` Scott Robert Ladd 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-30 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Scott Robert Ladd; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Dax Kelson wrote: > >What exactly are you trying to say about an Open Source relation to > >software theft (warezing), Audio/Video theft, high asian piracy rates > >and DRM? These are all things you brought up, but I couldn't > >recognize any coherent statement here. > > The coherency you seek lies in seeing a common thread of wanting > something for nothing. Free software developers often clone products > developed by commercial companies; this is taking a free ride (something > for nothing) on the R&D budget of the corporation. Who, exactly, do you think creates resources in the first place which form the basis of commercial software which is eventually cloned? A significant portion is from tax-funded univerities and research labs. > The effort that goes into designing quality software isn't just > coding -- it's also research, design, focus groups, testing, and QA. You think people writing Free Software don't do these things? You think that billions of dollars worth of activity isn't spend on developing Free Software? > I think it is quite reasonable for commercial entities to protect > their investment in time, effort, and personnel. Likewise people who put enormous effort into developing free software, whether they are commercial entities or not - it is reasonable for them to protect their investment. Unfortunately some other entities want to deprive free software authors of the fruits of their work. Think about it. It cuts both ways. > Understanding your opponent is the first step to converting an enemy to > a friend. As it stands now, the confrontational attitude of many free > software advocates is counterproductive. The more adversarial "free" > software advocates act, the more companies will use money and law to > protect themselves. This is true, but it is true both ways. The more companies are adversarial by using money and law to protect themselves, the more free software advocates feel the need to have a confrontational attitude. I'm not advocating confrontational - just pointing out that the natural consequences we observe apply to _both_ sides of the debate. There's a lesson in this for smart commercial entities: don't antagonise open source folks, cooperate with them, and they will give back to you. > This isn't about right-and-wrong, it's about power. That, perhaps, is > the most painful lesson I learned in my years as an activist. > [snipped] My sympathies to all activists everywhere. I have a Jewish friend who is a peace activist in Palestine right now, and two of her co-activists were recently killed there. Kinda puts things into perspective. > If "right" wants to win out over "wrong", it must find power. If you > don't have money or political clout, you need to find power elsewhere. > But simply claiming "I'm right" -- even if you are -- isn't going to > stop the corporate steamroller from flattening your band wagon. Actually, it just might. Free Software / Open Source is such a tremendous force for good - because it speaks to basic human desires for freedom to do our own thing - that it is a source of power unto itself :) Not because it claims to be right. But because it _is_ right :) -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-30 9:58 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-30 15:06 ` Scott Robert Ladd 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-04-30 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jamie Lokier; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Jamie Lokier wrote: > Scott Robert Ladd wrote: >>The coherency you seek lies in seeing a common thread of wanting >>something for nothing. Free software developers often clone products >>developed by commercial companies; this is taking a free ride (something >>for nothing) on the R&D budget of the corporation. > > Who, exactly, do you think creates resources in the first place which > form the basis of commercial software which is eventually cloned? > > A significant portion is from tax-funded univerities and research labs. And where do you think taxes come from? Somebody pays for everything; there's no such thing as a free lunch. >>The effort that goes into designing quality software isn't just >>coding -- it's also research, design, focus groups, testing, and QA. > > You think people writing Free Software don't do these things? You > think that billions of dollars worth of activity isn't spend on > developing Free Software? Certainly, free software does some of these thing; it varies greatly from individual to indvidual, but we all contribute time, code, and knowledge. Sadly, society tends to measure contributions in dollars and cents, given that we need those dollars and cents to feed, clothe, and house ourselves. >>I think it is quite reasonable for commercial entities to protect >>their investment in time, effort, and personnel. > > Likewise people who put enormous effort into developing free software, > whether they are commercial entities or not - it is reasonable for > them to protect their investment. > > Unfortunately some other entities want to deprive free software > authors of the fruits of their work. Think about it. It cuts both ways. I couldn't agree more. >>Understanding your opponent is the first step to converting an enemy to >>a friend. As it stands now, the confrontational attitude of many free >>software advocates is counterproductive. The more adversarial "free" >>software advocates act, the more companies will use money and law to >>protect themselves. > > This is true, but it is true both ways. The more companies are > adversarial by using money and law to protect themselves, the more > free software advocates feel the need to have a confrontational > attitude. > > I'm not advocating confrontational - just pointing out that the > natural consequences we observe apply to _both_ sides of the debate. > > There's a lesson in this for smart commercial entities: don't > antagonise open source folks, cooperate with them, and they will give > back to you. Once again, I agree. My original article was in response to statements about commercial developers; indeed, the issue cuts both ways. >>This isn't about right-and-wrong, it's about power. That, perhaps, is >>the most painful lesson I learned in my years as an activist. >>[snipped] > > My sympathies to all activists everywhere. I have a Jewish friend who > is a peace activist in Palestine right now, and two of her > co-activists were recently killed there. Kinda puts things into > perspective. Damned right. >>If "right" wants to win out over "wrong", it must find power. If you >>don't have money or political clout, you need to find power elsewhere. >>But simply claiming "I'm right" -- even if you are -- isn't going to >>stop the corporate steamroller from flattening your band wagon. > > Actually, it just might. Free Software / Open Source is such a > tremendous force for good - because it speaks to basic human desires > for freedom to do our own thing - that it is a source of power unto itself :) > > Not because it claims to be right. But because it _is_ right :) That's why I'm here. I don't know about other people's motivations, but my involvement in free software stems from a recognition of its potential. But just because free software *is* right doesn't mean it will succeed in the long run... we need to be very certain of our motivations and actions. ..Scott -- Scott Robert Ladd Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com) Professional programming for science and engineering; Interesting and unusual bits of very free code. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 0:09 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-29 4:07 ` Dax Kelson @ 2003-04-29 5:59 ` Theodore Ts'o 2003-04-29 16:41 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-04-29 14:35 ` Alan Cox 2 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Theodore Ts'o @ 2003-04-29 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Alan Cox, Larry McVoy, Matthias Schniedermeyer, Ross Vandegrift, Chris Adams, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:09:04PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > This constant "I know how the law works and you don't" is no match for > "Microsoft has enough money to change the law". There was this little > anti-trust case, maybe you heard of it, it was obvious that they should > have lost and they didn't. How does your opinion, which would clearly > have been that they should have lost, reconcile with the fact that they > didn't lose? I don't get it, you apparently see something I don't. Well, there is the question about whether Microsoft would really want a law which made it illegal to duplicate the (unpatented) design of a competitor's product, given that Microsoft does that *all* the time. (Think Lotus 1-2-3 and Excel, just to name one example.) In the business world, engineers purchase competitors' products and rip them apart to see what makes them tick *all* *the* *time*. Ford does it GM cars, and Crystler does it to Toyota cars, etc., etc. Anything important where they don't want that to happen is patented. So I would find it very hard to believe that Microsoft or any other corporate lobbiest would try to convince their national legislature to pass laws that would prohibit some open source developer from cloning and/or reverse-engineering BitKeeper. After all, that would also outlaw a good part of what goes on all the time in the corporate world... - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 5:59 ` Theodore Ts'o @ 2003-04-29 16:41 ` Scott Robert Ladd 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-04-29 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Well, there is the question about whether Microsoft would really want > a law which made it illegal to duplicate the (unpatented) design of a > competitor's product, given that Microsoft does that *all* the time. The law is not applied equally, however. Microsoft has the resources to fight any action taken against it; thus, a law that restricts you (with your limited resources) may not hinder Microsoft at all. > In the business world, engineers purchase competitors' products and > rip them apart to see what makes them tick *all* *the* *time*. Ford > does it GM cars, and Crystler does it to Toyota cars, etc., etc. > Anything important where they don't want that to happen is patented. Precisely. I've done this myself with various pieces of technology. The problem is a broken patent system that allows common knowledge to be "protected." I've strongly considered trying to get a patent on B-trees or QuickSort, just to see if the patent office is as foolish as they seem. The reason I can tear down the engine on my truck is because it poses no threat to the manufacturer; no one has a patent on the concept of a piston (though they may patent a specific *type* of piston.) The problem today is that the patent office will honor almost anything with a patent; if cars were software, Ford would have a patent on pistons that would prevent GM from building V-8s. There is nothing wrong with the original conception of patents and copyrights: the protection of IP creators to profit from their work before it enters the public domain in a reasonable time period. Sadly, corporations have legal rights, and the money to pervert the process. Patents and copyrights need to be fixed, not destroyed. ..Scott -- Scott Robert Ladd Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 0:09 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-29 4:07 ` Dax Kelson 2003-04-29 5:59 ` Theodore Ts'o @ 2003-04-29 14:35 ` Alan Cox 2 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-04-29 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy Cc: Matthias Schniedermeyer, Ross Vandegrift, Chris Adams, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Maw, 2003-04-29 at 01:09, Larry McVoy wrote: > The point you are missing, utterly and completely, is that I am someone > who has been a member of this "community" for a long time and I'm also > running a business. Been there. Ran a profitable open source company. Now work for a NASD listed one, still meet real businesses of all sizes. I don't see the relevance of that to the current Larry rantings about innovation. Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 18:50 ` Larry McVoy ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 22:07 ` Ross Vandegrift @ 2003-04-27 22:34 ` Matthias Andree 2003-04-27 22:51 ` Matthew Kirkwood ` (2 subsequent siblings) 8 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Matthias Andree @ 2003-04-27 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Chris Adams On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > 1) Corporations are threatened when people copy their content and/or > products. The problem you're not seeing is: how much of that "content/products" is taken from other products? > 2) Corporations have a lot of money which they use to get the government > to create laws to protect the corporate interests. So make the last step, abolish elections, they're just show to pretend there were a democracy. The government does not have the right to act in the corporate interests, look at the consitution and see what oath is prescribed. Provided your country is a democracy, officials will have to swear to serve the people and only the people and its good, turn away damage and all that. Lopsided constructs "but the corporations make jobs" are then often used to bully/get bullied into making corporate friendly decisions without checking if they are for the good of the people. > 3) Corporations have a lot of money which they use to create technology > which will remove threats to the corporation. Granted. > 4) The more you inist that you are doing nothing wrong the more motivated > the corporation becomes to stop you. 5) Corporations that make products tailored to the (potential) customers' needs may not have to think about #4 at all. > This isn't a BK thing, we don't have lobbyists in Washington get laws > passed on our behalf. This is my private opinion based on observing > what's happened in the last five years or so. The world is moving more > and more towards a place where IP is the significant source of revenue. IP is not the thing that let society come to life the way it is now. Societies have started to work our way because specializing people and trading goods freed resources that were to the good of everybody. If hunters go hunting not just for themselves, but share their prey and get tools (say, bow and arrow) in return for food, they get more efficient. This hasn't been about intellectual property, but sharing knowledge. What do you think will happen when basic arithmetics become IP? Why do you think basic arithmetics are public knowledge rather than IP? Why do you think it should remain this way -- or changed? If I invent something *really* new, then I'd think granting a patent for like 10 years might be worthwhile (with some exceptions, say for medicine: the state should always have the right to buy out a patent from a corp by covering the development costs and then releasing the patent). Just letting something evolve or tuning something that already exists is not worth a patent -- not even copyright protection (which happens with much of the music nowadays...) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 18:50 ` Larry McVoy ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 22:34 ` Matthias Andree @ 2003-04-27 22:51 ` Matthew Kirkwood 2003-04-27 23:53 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 11:38 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 2003-04-29 14:21 ` Timothy Miller 8 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Matthew Kirkwood @ 2003-04-27 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: Please excuse the aggressive trimming, but I don't think I'm affecting the intent of your works. > 1) Corporations are threatened when people copy their content and/or > products. I think that the word "copy" may be a significant cause of artificial disagreement here. I, for one, find it just as misleading as "free" (is it as-in-beer or as-in-speech?). Larry -- would you be willing, in future postings of this nature, to distinguish "duplicate" and "reimplement"? (Perhaps someone else will find better, more obviously different, words, but that's the best I can do today.) If you did this, at least the discussions about whether you refer to copyright or patents would disappear. Matthew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 22:51 ` Matthew Kirkwood @ 2003-04-27 23:53 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 0:00 ` rmoser 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-27 23:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthew Kirkwood; +Cc: Larry McVoy, linux-kernel On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:51:58PM +0100, Matthew Kirkwood wrote: > On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > > Please excuse the aggressive trimming, but I don't think I'm > affecting the intent of your works. I agree, what you did is fine, great in fact. Thanks. > > 1) Corporations are threatened when people copy their content and/or > > products. > > I think that the word "copy" may be a significant cause > of artificial disagreement here. I, for one, find it just > as misleading as "free" (is it as-in-beer or as-in-speech?). > > Larry -- would you be willing, in future postings of this > nature, to distinguish "duplicate" and "reimplement"? A very good point, you're right. And it's worse because I use "copying" to mean two different things depending on context. To clarify: in general, when I'm talking about copying, what I mean depends on whether I'm talking about content or software programs. For content, copying means the act of generating a new copy of the content (copying mp3 files via Napster like services, for example). For programs, which is usually what I'm talking about, I mean the act of sitting down and trying to make a new program which does the same thing as the old program. I think some people may think that I mean redistribution when I say copying and I almost never am talking about that. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 23:53 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-28 0:00 ` rmoser [not found] ` <20030428001001.GP23068@work.bitmover.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: rmoser @ 2003-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: linux-kernel Just some clarification, this thread is generating excessive traffic. Is this actually a useful topic, or are you just having a flamewar? If it's just a big argument, can you stop? Like, get your own list, put all the participants on it, and flame there. If it's relavent, then get to the point. --Bluefox Icy *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 4/27/2003 at 4:53 PM Larry McVoy wrote: >On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:51:58PM +0100, Matthew Kirkwood wrote: >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: >> >> Please excuse the aggressive trimming, but I don't think I'm >> affecting the intent of your works. > >I agree, what you did is fine, great in fact. Thanks. > >> > 1) Corporations are threatened when people copy their content >and/or >> > products. >> >> I think that the word "copy" may be a significant cause >> of artificial disagreement here. I, for one, find it just >> as misleading as "free" (is it as-in-beer or as-in-speech?). >> >> Larry -- would you be willing, in future postings of this >> nature, to distinguish "duplicate" and "reimplement"? > >A very good point, you're right. And it's worse because I use "copying" >to mean two different things depending on context. > >To clarify: in general, when I'm talking about copying, what I mean depends >on whether I'm talking about content or software programs. For content, >copying means the act of generating a new copy of the content (copying >mp3 files via Napster like services, for example). For programs, which >is usually what I'm talking about, I mean the act of sitting down and >trying to make a new program which does the same thing as the old program. > >I think some people may think that I mean redistribution when I say >copying and I almost never am talking about that. >-- >--- >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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20030428001001.GP23068@work.bitmover.com>]
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] [not found] ` <20030428001001.GP23068@work.bitmover.com> @ 2003-04-28 0:19 ` rmoser 2003-04-28 0:37 ` Larry McVoy 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: rmoser @ 2003-04-28 0:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: linux-kernel No need to get indignant. Just that these messages generally go: <Message 1> You're copying things, you're breaking the law, you're going to be nailed <Message 2> Well what are we going to do about it? <Message 3> Stop! <Message 4> We can't we ahve to make this work with that. <Message 5> Do it some other way you're doing foo bar baz <Message 6> We are not foo! Define bar and wtf is baz? <Message 7> Bar is biz, baz is delta, your economic model is flawed, you can't think, you're stupid ..... Or something like that. I mean it's ignorable for a while but God, like I can't find 10 contiguous messages from the past 2 days (I signed on on friday) that doesn't include this thread. The past few hours have it where it's trouble finding a group of 10 messages where less than 8 are this thread. It's just getting excessive. I'm expecting to see <Message 200> Shut up moron! <message 201> Hah! Call me a moron 2!$*head? You can't code worth balls! <Message 202> Can't code? I'll show you you ba@$!4%! ...... some time soon --Bluefox Icy *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 4/27/2003 at 5:10 PM Larry McVoy wrote: >Jeeze, buddy, sorry to waste your time. I'll go kill myself now. >Not. Get a life. If you don't like a thread, kill it. If you >don't like me, add me to your procmailrc. But since I've been >around working on Linux and stuff that predates Linux by about >10 years or so, maybe I'll just post whatever the heck I feel >like and if you don't like it, well, gosh, darn, I'm sooooo >sorry I've wasted your time, but I really could care less. >I certainly hope that's OK with you, but if not, oh, darn. > >On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 08:00:23PM -0400, rmoser wrote: >> Just some clarification, this thread is generating excessive traffic. >> Is this actually a useful topic, or are you just having a flamewar? >> If it's just a big argument, can you stop? Like, get your own list, >> put all the participants on it, and flame there. >> >> If it's relavent, then get to the point. >> >> --Bluefox Icy >> >> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** >> >> On 4/27/2003 at 4:53 PM Larry McVoy wrote: >> >> >On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:51:58PM +0100, Matthew Kirkwood wrote: >> >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: >> >> >> >> Please excuse the aggressive trimming, but I don't think I'm >> >> affecting the intent of your works. >> > >> >I agree, what you did is fine, great in fact. Thanks. >> > >> >> > 1) Corporations are threatened when people copy their content >> >and/or >> >> > products. >> >> >> >> I think that the word "copy" may be a significant cause >> >> of artificial disagreement here. I, for one, find it just >> >> as misleading as "free" (is it as-in-beer or as-in-speech?). >> >> >> >> Larry -- would you be willing, in future postings of this >> >> nature, to distinguish "duplicate" and "reimplement"? >> > >> >A very good point, you're right. And it's worse because I use "copying" >> >to mean two different things depending on context. >> > >> >To clarify: in general, when I'm talking about copying, what I mean >depends >> >on whether I'm talking about content or software programs. For content, >> >copying means the act of generating a new copy of the content (copying >> >mp3 files via Napster like services, for example). For programs, which >> >is usually what I'm talking about, I mean the act of sitting down and >> >trying to make a new program which does the same thing as the old >program. >> > >> >I think some people may think that I mean redistribution when I say >> >copying and I almost never am talking about that. >> >-- >> >--- >> >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/ >> >> >> >> - >> 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/ > >-- >--- >Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-28 0:19 ` rmoser @ 2003-04-28 0:37 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 0:40 ` rmoser 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-28 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rmoser; +Cc: Larry McVoy, linux-kernel On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 08:19:18PM -0400, rmoser wrote: [whine whine whine] FYI, this person just posted a private email to a public list. Personally, I don't care, I try not to send private mails that I wouldn't want to see out in public, and I stand 100% behind what I said to him in private. In fact, I feel more strongly about it now than I did before. On the other hand, it might be useful information that this person doesn't seem to understand the rules of the road, i.e., what is private remains private. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-28 0:37 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-28 0:40 ` rmoser 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: rmoser @ 2003-04-28 0:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: linux-kernel Well I didn't read the header! :D Geeze. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 4/27/2003 at 5:37 PM Larry McVoy wrote: >On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 08:19:18PM -0400, rmoser wrote: >[whine whine whine] > > >FYI, this person just posted a private email to a public list. > >Personally, I don't care, I try not to send private mails that I wouldn't >want to see out in public, and I stand 100% behind what I said to him >in private. In fact, I feel more strongly about it now than I did before. > >On the other hand, it might be useful information that this person doesn't >seem to understand the rules of the road, i.e., what is private remains >private. >-- >--- >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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 18:50 ` Larry McVoy ` (6 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 22:51 ` Matthew Kirkwood @ 2003-04-28 11:38 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 2003-04-29 14:21 ` Timothy Miller 8 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2003-04-28 11:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1042 bytes --] On Sun, 2003-04-27 11:50:37 -0700, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote in message <20030427185037.GA23581@work.bitmover.com>: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 01:35:53PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > > If you want to win, you win by being a creator, not a copier. That's the > point. In my opinion, chasing the leader and copying them is a losing That's half of it. Creating something oftenly goes along with copying parts of other things. Without the idea of version control (which you for sure didn't invent) BK wouldn't be there. Distributed repositories aren't that new, too. For example, I'm using rsync'ed CVS repositories since quite some time... So creating and copying are quite connected to each other... MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(IRAQ_WAR_2 | DRM | TCPA)); [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 18:50 ` Larry McVoy ` (7 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-28 11:38 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2003-04-29 14:21 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-29 14:27 ` Henrik Persson 2003-04-30 8:39 ` Jamie Lokier 8 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-29 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Chris Adams, linux-kernel I have known a lot of incredibly creative people who have never shared their ideas with anyone because they feared others would steal their ideas and not give credit where it's due. Maybe you think they're crazy for thinking that way, but evidence abounds that that sort of thing happens all the time. It's very sad that so many brilliant ideas have never been shared with the world. What do the "information wants to be free" people have to say to those people who know they're going to be ripped off if they open their mouths? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 14:21 ` Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-29 14:27 ` Henrik Persson 2003-04-29 19:56 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-30 8:39 ` Jamie Lokier 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Henrik Persson @ 2003-04-29 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Timothy Miller; +Cc: linux-kernel On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:21:19 -0400 Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com> wrote: > I have known a lot of incredibly creative people who have never shared > their ideas with anyone because they feared others would steal their > ideas and not give credit where it's due. Maybe you think they're crazy > > for thinking that way, but evidence abounds that that sort of thing > happens all the time. It's very sad that so many brilliant ideas have > never been shared with the world. What do the "information wants to be > free" people have to say to those people who know they're going to be > ripped off if they open their mouths? Newton had a lot of rather unique ideas he never published.. But in his time no one did own information. ;) And to those people who are so terribly afraid of being "ripped-off" I can only say that every poet, every programmer, every human being is a theif in that sense. If they are afraid that other people will take their ideas and make money of it - just put it under the GPL? ;) Could you be a bit more elaborative when it comes to the term "ripped off"? -- Henrik Persson nix@socialism.nu http://nix.badanka.com PGP-key: http://nix.badanka.com/pgp PGP-KeyID: 0x43B68116 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 14:27 ` Henrik Persson @ 2003-04-29 19:56 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-29 20:35 ` Henrik Persson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-29 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Henrik Persson; +Cc: linux-kernel Henrik Persson wrote: >On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:21:19 -0400 >Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com> wrote: > > > >>I have known a lot of incredibly creative people who have never shared >>their ideas with anyone because they feared others would steal their >>ideas and not give credit where it's due. Maybe you think they're crazy >> >>for thinking that way, but evidence abounds that that sort of thing >>happens all the time. It's very sad that so many brilliant ideas have >>never been shared with the world. What do the "information wants to be >>free" people have to say to those people who know they're going to be >>ripped off if they open their mouths? >> >> > >Newton had a lot of rather unique ideas he never published.. But in his >time no one did own information. ;) > >And to those people who are so terribly afraid of being "ripped-off" I can >only say that every poet, every programmer, every human being is a theif >in that sense. If they are afraid that other people will take their ideas >and make money of it - just put it under the GPL? ;) > >Could you be a bit more elaborative when it comes to the term "ripped >off"? > > > Like in movies where: - kid A writes a book report - kid B copies it - kid B gives the book report in class before kid A - kid A gets an F because he can't give his report Mind you, this may be a very childish way of looking at things. I PERSONALLY don't expect a problem. I've released code under GPL before, and people respected, to my knowledge, my copyright. They were thankful and appreciated using what I wrote. I loved the whole experience. But I have a strong enough sort of personality that I would go on the offensive were someone to steal my work, take credit for what I did, etc. Some people are much more timid. Rather than damning them for being timid, those of us who can understand how they feel should try to help so that they will share their ideas with us. The fear exists because this kind of theft happens, and not just among children. Keep in mind that being introverted is normal and common. Being timid, on the other hand, is something completely different and can be the result of some sort of past trauma. People try to share and get burned, so they don't share anymore. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 19:56 ` Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-29 20:35 ` Henrik Persson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Henrik Persson @ 2003-04-29 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:56:12 -0400 Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com> wrote: > Like in movies where: > - kid A writes a book report > - kid B copies it > - kid B gives the book report in class before kid A > - kid A gets an F because he can't give his report Ah, allright. > Mind you, this may be a very childish way of looking at things. I > PERSONALLY don't expect a problem. I've released code under GPL before, > and people respected, to my knowledge, my copyright. They were thankful > and appreciated using what I wrote. I loved the whole experience. But > I have a strong enough sort of personality that I would go on the > offensive were someone to steal my work, take credit for what I did, > etc. Some people are much more timid. Rather than damning them for > being timid, those of us who can understand how they feel should try to > help so that they will share their ideas with us. > > The fear exists because this kind of theft happens, and not just among > children. I can see what you mean. Personally, neither do I expect a problem. And if it did become a problem, I wouldn't care very much. If I knew that someone stole my work and took credit for it, I would flame him somewhere public, just to let the world know, but it wouldn't keep me up at night. But there is another view at this problem. When money gets involved. If someone is stealing your code and is making money of it. Most people I know would react in a very offensive way. But I wouldn't. I did never expect to get any money out of it, so well. ;) Or.. Err. On the second thought, I would flame them too, I guess. Darn. > Keep in mind that being introverted is normal and common. Being timid, > on the other hand, is something completely different and can be the > result of some sort of past trauma. People try to share and get burned, > so they don't share anymore. We will just have to be pedagogical. We'll have to try to help them overcome their fear of those pirates, as you said. I think that it might be enough for some people to raise the question "Does it really matter? At least _you_ know you did this." -- Henrik Persson nix@socialism.nu http://nix.badanka.com PGP-key: http://nix.badanka.com/pgp PGP-KeyID: 0x43B68116 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 14:21 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-29 14:27 ` Henrik Persson @ 2003-04-30 8:39 ` Jamie Lokier 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-30 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Timothy Miller; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Chris Adams, linux-kernel Timothy Miller wrote: > I have known a lot of incredibly creative people who have never shared > their ideas with anyone because they feared others would steal their > ideas and not give credit where it's due. Indeed so have I. For the most part those people weren't very successful in business. > Maybe you think they're crazy for thinking that way, but evidence > abounds that that sort of thing happens all the time. It's very sad > that so many brilliant ideas have never been shared with the world. It's very sad that people stay on abusive relationships, or continue to fight one another long after they need to. It is hard to sympathise with people who seem to keep choosing that, though. > What do the "information wants to be free" people have to say to > those people who know they're going to be ripped off if they open > their mouths? Larry hit the nail on the head by pointing out that it's irrelevant what you _want_, consequences just are whether you acknowledge them or not. The rest of the world will go on creating brilliant things whether the "incredibly creative" people share their variants of ideas or not. It is their choice, to share or not to share. The world will not stop creating and sharing just because some people are too scared to, just as it will not stop just because a large proportion live in fear of other things. Yes it's very sad when someone creative is too scared to share their brilliance. We should not engineer a system of punishment so that those people can be happy at the expense of _other_ brilliantly creative people though! Nonetheless, credit for creativity is very important and a formal system to represent it might be worth creating. (Such as a library of registered creations.) How to get from here to there... that's a big one. I think we here in open source are an essential ingredient in that direction, and part of a diverse movement so large it is difficult to perceive the whole of it. Money is not enough - money is anonymous and does _not_ give credit where it is due. Seriously! How many commercial things do you see where the people who created them are completely unknown? How many creative people do you know who will not share their ideas despite financial reward, because they want personal credit too? I know one very well. Something is desirable to ensure credit stays with creative people enough that they feel happy to share. But it should not be something which frightens _other_ brilliantly creative people - that would also be very sad! -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 18:35 ` Chris Adams @ 2003-04-27 18:47 ` William Lee Irwin III 2003-04-27 18:56 ` Werner Almesberger ` (9 subsequent siblings) 15 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-04-27 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 09:59:59AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > Do you think that corporations are going sit by and watch you do that and > do nothing to stop you? Of course they aren't, they have a strong self > preservation instinct and they have the resources to apply to the problem. > The DMCA, DRM, all that stuff is just the beginning. You will respond > with all sorts of clever hacks to get around it and they will respond > with even more clever hacks to stop you. They have both more resources > and more at stake so they will win. > The depressing thing is that it is so obvious to me that the corporations > will win, they will protect themselves, they have the money to lobby the > government to get the laws they want and build the technology they need. > The more you push back the more locked up things will become. They can drop down all the crypto dongles they want for mp3's/DVD's etc. and I don't care; I buy all my stuff anyway. What I _do_ care about is that this looks like it'll be used to stop me from running Linux altogether. -- wli ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 18:47 ` William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-04-27 18:56 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-27 19:20 ` Geert Uytterhoeven ` (8 subsequent siblings) 15 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-27 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Linux Kernel Mailing List Larry McVoy wrote: > What seems to be forgotten is that the people who are locking things up > are the people who own those things Ownership is a cultural concept and the understanding of who owns what, and what they're allowed to do with it, vary widely. If I was your theocrat, and I decreed that any software written in my theocracy belongs to the church (e.g. because all the works of man belong to whatever deity or deities this theocracy believes in), would you be pleased with this ? (If not, I'll have you burnt for heresy, so you're better smiling when handing over your work :-) > But Garloff just shrugged it off as not his problem. On the other hand, I'm sure you'll be eager to comply with any orders he may have for your employees. > The more you push back the more locked up things will become. Yes, Larry, so give up the futile struggle, and open source BK :-) - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy ` (6 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 18:56 ` Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-27 19:20 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2003-04-27 21:30 ` Jon Portnoy ` (7 subsequent siblings) 15 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2003-04-27 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing > factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. This community > thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful. Ugh, this sounds almost as bad as the press release of the MPAA's lawsuit against DeCSS in 2000! That one stated that the goals of the Open Source community are the illegal distribution of as much copyright-protected content as possible... Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy ` (7 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 19:20 ` Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2003-04-27 21:30 ` Jon Portnoy 2003-04-27 21:32 ` Alan Cox ` (6 subsequent siblings) 15 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jon Portnoy @ 2003-04-27 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 04:21:06PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > > It seems that the people who form the "market" (and buy shares, write > > analyses, buy CDs/DVDs) need to be told the implications of buying > > copy-protected material or material that enforces to boot only > > particlular kernels or whatever. > > This is in the "it's too late to fix it" category but here's my opinion > about all this digital rights stuff. > > There is much hand wringing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that > the evil corporations are locking things up with DRM as well as various > laws like the DMCA. People talk about their "rights" being violated, > about how awful this all is, etc, etc, etc. > > What seems to be forgotten is that the people who are locking things up > are the people who own those things and the people who are complaining > are the people who got those things, illegally, for free. There seems > to be a wide spread feeling that whenever anything desirable comes along > it is OK to take it if you want it. Napster is a good example. I don't > like the record companies any better than anyone else but they do own > the material and you either respect the rules or the record companies > will lock it up and force you to respect the rules. > > The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing > factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. This community > thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful. > Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you > will see people saying "we'll clone it". That's not unique to BK, > it's the same with anything else which is viewed as useful. And nobody > sees anything wrong with that, or copying music, whatever. "If it's > useful, take it" is the attitude. You're comparing illegally stealing something already made to making something that behaves similarly to something that exists? > > This problem is pervasive, it's not just a handful of people. Upon the > advice of several of the leading kernel developers, I contacted Pavel's > boss at SuSE and said "how about you nudge Pavel onto something more > productive" and he said that he couldn't control Pavel. That's nonsense > and everyone knows that. If one of my employees were doing something > like that, it would be trivial to say "choose between your job and that". > But Garloff just shrugged it off as not his problem. Larry, why do you want other people to be as much of an apparent asshole as you are? When you're trying to get someone's boss to extort them into stopping a personal project, you're going way too far. You really feel _that_ threatened by Pavel's project that you feel a need to try to get leverage over Pavel via his boss? > > Corporations are certainly watching things like our efforts with > BitKeeper, as well as the other companies who are trying to play nice > with the open source world. What are they learning? That if you don't > lock it up, the open source world has no conscience, no respect, and will > steal anything that isn't locked down. Show me a single example of the > community going "no, we can't take that, someone else did all the work > to produce it, we didn't". Good luck finding it. Instead you get "hey, > that's cool, let's copy it". With no acknowledgement that the creation > of the product took 100x the effort it takes to copy the product. No conscience and no respect? Maybe you just have no respect for us. Maybe if you had respect for us, we'd respect you in return. Instead you're here ranting about how we're a bunch of thieves while you're trying to get everyone else to behave unethical and extort their employees. Wow, you're just a paragon of virtue, Larry. I wish we could all be nicer to wonderful people like you. > > Do you think that corporations are going sit by and watch you do that and > do nothing to stop you? Of course they aren't, they have a strong self > preservation instinct and they have the resources to apply to the problem. > The DMCA, DRM, all that stuff is just the beginning. You will respond > with all sorts of clever hacks to get around it and they will respond > with even more clever hacks to stop you. They have both more resources > and more at stake so they will win. Why aren't they winning so far? They don't have more resources. You mean that they have more money (and more money at stake). Apparently judging by the fact that the RIAA, MPAA, et al aren't "winning," "our" clever hacks (who and what are you referring to here exactly?) are "winning." "They have the guns, but we have the numbers" > > The depressing thing is that it is so obvious to me that the corporations > will win, they will protect themselves, they have the money to lobby the > government to get the laws they want and build the technology they need. > The more you push back the more locked up things will become. Wow, I wish they'd get it over with. Are they just faking the current "losing" trend? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy ` (8 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 21:30 ` Jon Portnoy @ 2003-04-27 21:32 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 22:36 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 22:07 ` Matthias Andree ` (5 subsequent siblings) 15 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-04-27 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sul, 2003-04-27 at 17:59, Larry McVoy wrote: > What seems to be forgotten is that the people who are locking things up > are the people who own those things Untrue. If I buy an X-box who owns it ? If I sold you a house and it had a room in it I didnt let you have access to with one way mirrors out watching all your activity would you be upset ? (and dont argue you wouldnt buy it - there wont be any other house types) > it is OK to take it if you want it. Napster is a good example. I don't > like the record companies any better than anyone else but they do own > the material and you either respect the rules or the record companies > will lock it up and force you to respect the rules. They want to lock it up as much to keep out small players as to stop piracy. Not that they shouldn't be allowed to stop piracy > factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. This community > thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful. > Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you > will see people saying "we'll clone it". That's not unique to BK, Build something making the same things possible and then more. But then thats exactly what BK did. Does that make you a crook ? Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 21:32 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-04-27 22:36 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 21:56 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 23:35 ` Matthias Andree 0 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-27 22:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Linux Kernel Mailing List > > factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. This community > > thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful. > > Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you > > will see people saying "we'll clone it". That's not unique to BK, > > Build something making the same things possible and then more. But then > thats exactly what BK did. Does that make you a crook ? If I had been sitting there with a copy of clearcase or reverse engineering from the data stored by clearcase, I'm pretty sure rational would have something to say about it. But you are still missing the point. As long as the feeling is that it is OK to reverse engineer by staring at the file formats, the corporations will respond by encrypting the data you want to stare at. In other words, it's pretty much hopeless to try and catch up that way, you might as well go try and build something better from the start. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 22:36 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-04-27 21:56 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 23:08 ` Matthew Kirkwood 2003-04-27 23:35 ` Matthias Andree 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-04-27 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sul, 2003-04-27 at 23:36, Larry McVoy wrote: > But you are still missing the point. As long as the feeling is that it is > OK to reverse engineer by staring at the file formats, the corporations > will respond by encrypting the data you want to stare at. And government if it is smart will reply by enforcing reverse engineering rights *for compatibility* (not cloning), or business (the surviving bits anyway) will figure it out and do it themselves. > In other words, it's pretty much hopeless to try and catch up that way, > you might as well go try and build something better from the start. You have to interoperate to do that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 21:56 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-04-27 23:08 ` Matthew Kirkwood 2003-04-27 22:16 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Matthew Kirkwood @ 2003-04-27 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Linux Kernel Mailing List On 27 Apr 2003, Alan Cox wrote: [ playing John Humphries today ] > > But you are still missing the point. As long as the feeling is that > > it is OK to reverse engineer by staring at the file formats, the > > corporations will respond by encrypting the data you want to stare at. > > And government if it is smart will reply by enforcing reverse > engineering rights *for compatibility* (not cloning), or business (the > surviving bits anyway) will figure it out and do it themselves. Alan -- could you please explain what you see as the real differences between reverse engineering for "compatibility" and for "cloning"? It isn't obvious to me that there is a line-in-the-sand. For example, a Word document extractor like "wv" is not nearly as useful without an attached word processor (be it or not that your intention is to save in that format). > > In other words, it's pretty much hopeless to try and catch up that way, > > you might as well go try and build something better from the start. > > You have to interoperate to do that. Is that really true? It may make sense for a lot of consumer applications, but does it really apply to source control? Isn't it the case that sometimes features are more compelling than compatibility? Matthew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 23:08 ` Matthew Kirkwood @ 2003-04-27 22:16 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-04-27 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthew Kirkwood; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Llu, 2003-04-28 at 00:08, Matthew Kirkwood wrote: > > And government if it is smart will reply by enforcing reverse > > engineering rights *for compatibility* (not cloning), or business (the > > surviving bits anyway) will figure it out and do it themselves. > > Alan -- could you please explain what you see as the real > differences between reverse engineering for "compatibility" > and for "cloning"? > > It isn't obvious to me that there is a line-in-the-sand. Oh indeed it is not. Have a look at EU reverse engineering law and caselaw if you are really that curious to see where the line lands (I'm not). A lot of it depends how you define "a product". Writing a tool to extract BK repositories into an open format (ok except that BK is basically already in an open format at the moment but suppose it changed..) would be an obvious example. You might however get your backside kicked if you had people reverse engineer BK and then write a copy of it. It isnt entirely that complex: Are a laser printer and its ink cartridge two products, or a mobile phone and its battery ? Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 22:36 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 21:56 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-04-27 23:35 ` Matthias Andree 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Matthias Andree @ 2003-04-27 23:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel Mailing List; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Alan Cox, Larry McVoy On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > But you are still missing the point. As long as the feeling is that it is > OK to reverse engineer by staring at the file formats, the corporations > will respond by encrypting the data you want to stare at. > > In other words, it's pretty much hopeless to try and catch up that way, > you might as well go try and build something better from the start. Wouldn't you still want to import "old" data into the new BetterApp? Changes of the format or interface are painful, we've seen this with the network filtering in Linux several times, 2.0 had ipfwadm, 2.2 had ipchains, 2.4 has compatibility interfaces for either and its native netfilter... There must have been a better reason to add compatibility than just "because we could do it." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy ` (9 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 21:32 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-04-27 22:07 ` Matthias Andree 2003-04-28 0:36 ` Scott Robert Ladd ` (4 subsequent siblings) 15 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Matthias Andree @ 2003-04-27 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel Mailing List; +Cc: Larry McVoy On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > There is much hand wringing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that > the evil corporations are locking things up with DRM as well as various > laws like the DMCA. People talk about their "rights" being violated, > about how awful this all is, etc, etc, etc. I have had the right to run any software I wish on my PeeCee. The people locking down music with DRM and CD playback protection, whatever, have explicitly stated that they aren't interested in pressing Red Book compliant CDs. I am not going to ask EMI or Universal if they want me to play their CD in my car audio or CD-ROM drive, I'm just doing it. If they are telling my "our CD isn't going to play in your computer", they can keep it to themselves and plug it into their backs. I bought the CD, and the implicit right to the information contained on the CD. I'm not sharing my CDs in P2P networks, and I do have the right to make a backup copy of a CD (at least, that was the situation a month ago, I'd need to check again, but the new German copyright act is inconsistent anyways) for my private purposes (of course, selling the copies without consent of the copyright holder hasn't been allowed for the past decades). The current law _effectively_ undermines my right to a backup. This hasn't yet addressed fair use, and I'm not going into fair use here. > What seems to be forgotten is that the people who are locking things up > are the people who own those things and the people who are complaining > are the people who got those things, illegally, for free. There seems I'd very much like to give the original artist and record engineers and stuff twice of what they're getting now, and instead give the useless record company nothing. CD forth or back. The problem is to draw the proper line around property, and find a consensus in society who can own what information. Imagine someone would "own" basic arithmetics. You can't imagine that, because that's essential and public knowledge. Where are you going to draw the line between public and private property? The moment DRM is extended on other information than just entertainment, it's going to get really threatening to the basics of society in general. We've had this discussion before about patents, so I'm not going over all the arguments which are virtually the same, only technically enforced rather than by means of registering your "invention" with the patent and trademark office. > to be a wide spread feeling that whenever anything desirable comes along > it is OK to take it if you want it. Napster is a good example. I don't > like the record companies any better than anyone else but they do own > the material and you either respect the rules or the record companies > will lock it up and force you to respect the rules. They are to make serious product offers first. :-> Seriously, if someone offers a "pay per listen/view", that's fine if it has an adequate price. I still expect an offer of a "flat rate" (such as the CD) that I can listen to/view for my private use as often as I want. I understand that'll cost like 10 or 30 times "single view", but ... (see below) > The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing > factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. This community > thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful. Open Source is about copying what you find useful; information for the most part (and the one who makes the copy pays for it, the information is free and with some licenses meant to remain free). > Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you > will see people saying "we'll clone it". That's not unique to BK, > it's the same with anything else which is viewed as useful. And nobody > sees anything wrong with that, or copying music, whatever. "If it's > useful, take it" is the attitude. ... believing that DRM and TCPA and sequels will just be about only permitting to consume what you've paid for is not my belief. > This problem is pervasive, it's not just a handful of people. Upon the > advice of several of the leading kernel developers, I contacted Pavel's > boss at SuSE and said "how about you nudge Pavel onto something more > productive" and he said that he couldn't control Pavel. That's nonsense > and everyone knows that. If one of my employees were doing something > like that, it would be trivial to say "choose between your job and that". > But Garloff just shrugged it off as not his problem. So there. You aren't telling SuSE any more about they deal with people who have SuSE mail addresses (and possibly work contracts) than Richard M. Stallman or I are telling you to open source Bitkeeper: you don't think it's right, you're not doing it. (And given that Pavel's week has 168 hours minus sleep and eating and all that, leaves like 100 hours for him to use, and SuSE could control half than that and less, they'd be idiots to tell Pavel what he cannot do in his spare time.) > that's cool, let's copy it". With no acknowledgement that the creation > of the product took 100x the effort it takes to copy the product. Now that's thin ice you've set your foot upon; I'd like to challenge that with "has BitMover invented source code and revision management"? Certainly not. Has BitMover invented distributed development? Neither. So watch out. I do acknowledge that I've yet to see something working as smooth as BitKeeper for merges of distributed repos, but then again, I haven't seen anything else than RCS, CVS and BK. > Do you think that corporations are going sit by and watch you do that and > do nothing to stop you? Of course they aren't, they have a strong self > preservation instinct and they have the resources to apply to the problem. > The DMCA, DRM, all that stuff is just the beginning. You will respond > with all sorts of clever hacks to get around it and they will respond > with even more clever hacks to stop you. They have both more resources > and more at stake so they will win. They can have their rights, but no more. DMCA is currently being abused to hinder research and publishing results thereof, and DMCA and patents are also actively being abused to protect usury (think printer ink). Such abuse won't grow people's acceptance of such laws and patents. After all, the whole argument is about taking away, locking away and selling. We know Communism has failed for various reasons, but sharing certain kind of information has advantages, for example it prevents reinventing the wheel, and if products (closed source software) are copied then there must have been a reason for that, say, the original (protected by patent or whatever) was too expensive or too restrictive or whatever. > The depressing thing is that it is so obvious to me that the corporations > will win, they will protect themselves, they have the money to lobby the > government to get the laws they want and build the technology they need. That's the real problem here. Most industry nations claim democracy, but they act contrary to people's will. If the people's will evidently is "give us free music", one might consider rising taxes on certain products and have the state pay for the artists. I know this phrase is reaching far too short and such things aren't going to happen without another bloody revolution, but just give it a thought as a model that is outside what you're used to. What I'd also like to see is many small companies rather than few giants, to have real competition and choice. I'll stop now, because that's getting off-topic. Please respond in private mail. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy ` (10 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-27 22:07 ` Matthias Andree @ 2003-04-28 0:36 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-04-28 9:57 ` Stephan von Krawczynski ` (3 subsequent siblings) 15 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-04-28 0:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Larry McVoy wrote: > There seems to be a wide spread feeling that whenever anything > desirable comes along it is OK to take it if you want it. Such attitudes are indicative of a "me first" society, wherein laws only apply if a quilty entity (person or corporation) believes they will suffer consequences for their actions. Recent history shows a strong tendancy for corporations to lie, cheat, and steal whenever they think they can "get away" with it; I don't see the behavior of music downloaders as any more or less noble than the business practices of Microsoft. Many people couch their theft of IP in terms of nobility; they seem themselves as Robin Hoods, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. I've even seen some people state that music piracy is a human rights issue, comparing themselves to civil rights activists. Such claims devalue real human rights abuses in an attempt to validate IP theft. > The depressing thing is that it is so obvious to me that the > corporations will win, they will protect themselves, they have the > money to lobby the government to get the laws they want and build the > technology they need. The more you push back the more locked up > things will become. And it's happened time and time again, in so many areas where personal freedoms stand contrary to the profits of corporations. We exist in a feudal society, whether people wish to recognize it as such or not -- and right now, the Lords are corporations who have the power of law and force on their side. Copyrights and patents were once sound devices for stimulating the development and dissemination of new ideas; the advent of the modern corporation, however, has perverted those fine concepts for selfish goals; government incompetence has allowed the process to degenerate into stupidity, where anyone can patent almost anything. I doubt very much the most music pirates give a damn about the social implications of freedom. In my experience, those who steal IP are just as greedy as the corporations; they want soemthing, so they take it. Theft is theft, whether it's a software corporation stealing someone's GPL code or a college kid downloading a thousand pirated songs. > I don't like the record companies any better than anyone else but > they do own the material and you either respect the rules or the > record companies will lock it up and force you to respect the rules. I'm willing to agree that the current in-your-face tactics of the "free-as-in-liberty" IP movement will accomplish little or nothing in terms of human freedom. That does *not* mean that it is useless to break unjust laws! Revolution is always involves people who foresake the rules and ignore the impositions of powers-that-be. The real question is: What tactics make a revolution effective? In the case of "free" software and IP, I believe the current, confrontation tactics are both ineffective and counterproductive. > The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing > factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. > ... > "If it's useful, take it" is the attitude. Indeed, it is. It amazes me how many students "use" code from my books or web site as their homework. Even more disturbign are the college students who insist that I provide them with free implementations of their homework assignments. By the gods, I've been *threatened* by some of these people, who are likely the same sort who buy term papers and doctoral thesis. Modern society is selfish. And much of the "free" software movement is based on "free-as-in-beer", not "free-as-in-liberty" thinking. > Corporations are certainly watching things like our efforts with > BitKeeper, as well as the other companies who are trying to play nice > with the open source world. What are they learning? That if you > don't lock it up, the open source world has no conscience, no > respect, and will steal anything that isn't locked down. Show me a > single example of the community going "no, we can't take that, > someone else did all the work to produce it, we didn't". And corporations do EXACTLY THE SAME THING. The evil is on both sides of the fence. People think that they have a "right" to steal Windows because Microsoft has acted unethically. Adults pass this "me first" attitude to their children. > Do you think that corporations are going sit by and watch you do that > and do nothing to stop you? Of course they aren't, they have a > strong self preservation instinct and they have the resources to > apply to the problem. The DMCA, DRM, all that stuff is just the > beginning. You will respond with all sorts of clever hacks to get > around it and they will respond with even more clever hacks to stop > you. They have both more resources and more at stake so they will > win. Exactly. Stealing music, software and IP is doomed to fail in terms of "liberating" intellectual property. For a long time, I was involved in a dispute over indigenous land rights; the opponents were multinational mining corporations. They could hire private "security" firms to provide "enforcement." We had international organizations, including the Organization of American States and the UN on our side; the victims won international human rights awards for defending their rights peacefully. We lost. No fanfare, no laser guided bombs; we simply lost because people wore out. Leaders got old, people got tired of "surprise" tax audits, bugged phones, and death threats. The government and corporations imposed their will by force of money and time. And that was a truly *noble* loss for people fighting for their heritage and the purity of their land! If we couldn't win that war, how do a bunch of software thieves and music pirates expect to win against even bigger corporate opponents? Yes, we should fight against the excess of corporate greed-- using a rational battle plan, founded on honest ethics and superior products. -- Scott Robert Ladd Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com) Professional programming for science and engineering; Interesting and unusual bits of very free code. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy ` (11 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-28 0:36 ` Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-04-28 9:57 ` Stephan von Krawczynski 2003-05-06 15:58 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-04-28 11:26 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw ` (2 subsequent siblings) 15 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Stephan von Krawczynski @ 2003-04-28 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 09:59:59 -0700 Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote: > What seems to be forgotten is that the people who are locking things up > are the people who own those things and the people who are complaining > are the people who got those things, illegally, for free. Unfortunately this is plain wrong. I am in fact not interested at all in the P2P stuff. I am interested in simply buying CDs from my favourite bands. And I _hate_ it to constantly swap CDs during car driving. So I make my own samplers, where you basically have to _copy_ the songs onto another media. If they are copy-protected I cannot do that _legally_, because breaking the protection is against DMCA. Now you just created the case where _buying_ something does not make sense any longer. This brings up the simple question: what did you really pay for? In former times you paid for the ability to listen to certain songs. _Now_ you ought to pay for the ability to listen to a certain CD-media. This makes a very fundamental difference. I am not interested in the _media_, I am interested in the _content_ - without technical deficiencies. There's one other thing you have to keep in mind: a lot of artists do have agreements where they are paid for every sold CD which is completely full of their respective songs, but get no money at all from released samplers. This is why I do not buy any samplers at all. I want the _artist_ to get money for his work. If there were another possibility to give the money directly to the artist for his work, I would do that, and buy no records burnt by some RIAA members at all. -- Regards, Stephan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-28 9:57 ` Stephan von Krawczynski @ 2003-05-06 15:58 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-05-07 14:44 ` Stephan von Krawczynski 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-05-06 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com> writes: >copy-protected I cannot do that _legally_, because breaking the protection is >against DMCA. Now you just created the case where _buying_ something does not You live in which country? So why do you care about archaic law in foreign countries? The DMCA doesn't apply (yet) to the E.U. It might be illegal in the UK to drive on the motorway on the right side. This doesn't stop me from doing so over here in Germany. Copying a CD for private use is perfectly legal here in Germany. Copy protecting a CD is also perfectly legal over here in Germany. Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-05-06 15:58 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-05-07 14:44 ` Stephan von Krawczynski 2003-05-07 14:28 ` Alan Cox 2003-05-07 21:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Stephan von Krawczynski @ 2003-05-07 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: hps; +Cc: linux-kernel On Tue, 6 May 2003 15:58:02 +0000 (UTC) "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hps@intermeta.de> wrote: > Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com> writes: > > >copy-protected I cannot do that _legally_, because breaking the protection > >is against DMCA. Now you just created the case where _buying_ something does > >not > > You live in which country? So why do you care about archaic law in > foreign countries? The DMCA doesn't apply (yet) to the E.U. This is not completely true. You can be imprisoned (and "handed over") even as E.U. citizen to US for violation of US laws. E.U. signed a respective agreement. As far as I know no case was filed up to now, but that does not mean it weren't possible. It was obviously a complete brain-damage of the officials to pass something like that, it looked a lot like the ongoing case of giving away all E.U. customer flight data to the US, not only those flighing to the US. And additionally look at the currently ongoing discussion about the second part of the new german Urheberrecht which is said to come somewhen this autumn. There is a clear statement that private copies are illegal after that passed parliament. > Copying a CD for private use is perfectly legal here in Germany. Just wait 6 month and see... -- Regards, Stephan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-05-07 14:44 ` Stephan von Krawczynski @ 2003-05-07 14:28 ` Alan Cox 2003-05-07 21:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-05-07 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephan von Krawczynski; +Cc: hps, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mer, 2003-05-07 at 15:44, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > This is not completely true. You can be imprisoned (and "handed over") even as > E.U. citizen to US for violation of US laws. E.U. signed a respective > agreement. As far as I know no case was filed up to now, but that does not mean > it weren't possible. Only if the crime in question is also a crime in the EU, and a whole list of other conditions about who/where the crime was committed against (and that it doesnt cover crimes with a death sentence). Also even within the EU certain kinds of financial crimes are exempted so that the italians would sign it > > Copying a CD for private use is perfectly legal here in Germany. > > Just wait 6 month and see... Indeed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-05-07 14:44 ` Stephan von Krawczynski 2003-05-07 14:28 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-05-07 21:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-05-07 22:16 ` Alan Cox 2003-05-08 0:33 ` Kurt Wall 1 sibling, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-05-07 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com> writes: >On Tue, 6 May 2003 15:58:02 +0000 (UTC) >"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hps@intermeta.de> wrote: >> Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com> writes: >> >> >copy-protected I cannot do that _legally_, because breaking the protection >> >is against DMCA. Now you just created the case where _buying_ something does >> >not >> >> You live in which country? So why do you care about archaic law in >> foreign countries? The DMCA doesn't apply (yet) to the E.U. >This is not completely true. You can be imprisoned (and "handed over") even as >E.U. citizen to US for violation of US laws. E.U. signed a respective Only if it is a crime by E.U. standards, too. Copying a CD isn't (yet). [...] >of the new german Urheberrecht which is said to come somewhen this autumn. >There is a clear statement that private copies are illegal after that passed >parliament. The proposed change to the german law is consided unconstitutional by many lawyers (and if the current governement is really stupid enough to pass the law, it will almost surely get shot down by the german supreme court. >> Copying a CD for private use is perfectly legal here in Germany. >Just wait 6 month and see... I'm pretty sure that Germany will not get pressured into an US-like DMCA. We will have to obey E.U. law in the end and in the E.U. there are some countries with more backbone than ours (France, e.g. who basically spit on anything that comes out of the U.S....). Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-05-07 21:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-05-07 22:16 ` Alan Cox 2003-05-08 0:33 ` Kurt Wall 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-05-07 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: hps; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List > are some countries with more backbone than ours (France, e.g. who > basically spit on anything that comes out of the U.S....). Its called an independant nuclear deterrent. It scores bonus points during trade negotiations ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-05-07 21:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-05-07 22:16 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-05-08 0:33 ` Kurt Wall 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Kurt Wall @ 2003-05-08 0:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel An unnamed Administration source, Henning P. Schmiedehausen, wrote: % % I'm pretty sure that Germany will not get pressured into an US-like % DMCA. We will have to obey E.U. law in the end and in the E.U. there % are some countries with more backbone than ours (France, e.g. who % basically spit on anything that comes out of the U.S....). That's not backbone, merely knee-jerk reaction. Kurt -- Mandrell: "You know what I think?" Doctor: "Ah, ah that's a catch question. With a brain your size you don't think, right?" -- Dr. Who ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy ` (12 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-28 9:57 ` Stephan von Krawczynski @ 2003-04-28 11:26 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 2003-05-06 15:59 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-04-28 22:50 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-29 14:46 ` Jeffrey Souza 15 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2003-04-28 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel Mailing List [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5426 bytes --] On Sun, 2003-04-27 09:59:59 -0700, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote in message <20030427165959.GC6820@work.bitmover.com>: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 04:21:06PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing > factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. This community > thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful. > Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you > will see people saying "we'll clone it". That's not unique to BK, > it's the same with anything else which is viewed as useful. And nobody > sees anything wrong with that, or copying music, whatever. "If it's > useful, take it" is the attitude. See, the open source (or free source) people are _not_ interested in marketing. They're addicted towards technical evolution. By locking new technologies (like BK) against free use, you slow down evolution of other "products" (it's a word from hell; I'd rather only talk about programs). Well, away from companies and money, what do you think? Would technical evolution get faster if your "idea" is eg. only one year protected? ...if official standards (think C99) and any other books/texts/media would belong to public domain after two years? I think this would fasten evolution in sizes of _magnitudes_! And I consider this a good thing (over giving companies the possibility to rest some time because they earn money with licenses and patents). Instead that, I'd like to express that there's no time to spend on earning money from what _had been done_ but better spending any time on doing further development (and leaving old things off). > This problem is pervasive, it's not just a handful of people. Upon the > advice of several of the leading kernel developers, I contacted Pavel's > boss at SuSE and said "how about you nudge Pavel onto something more > productive" and he said that he couldn't control Pavel. That's nonsense > and everyone knows that. If one of my employees were doing something > like that, it would be trivial to say "choose between your job and that". > But Garloff just shrugged it off as not his problem. I think there's everything alright. Abroad that, why not simply let Pavel do whatever he likes to do at his spare time? > Corporations are certainly watching things like our efforts with > BitKeeper, as well as the other companies who are trying to play nice > with the open source world. What are they learning? That if you don't B > lock it up, the open source world has no conscience, no respect, and will > steal anything that isn't locked down. Show me a single example of the >community going "no, we can't take that, someone else did all the work You see this as stealing. I think of further enhancing what's currently available! Don't rest on what had been done, proceed with evolution! > to produce it, we didn't". Good luck finding it. Instead you get "hey, > that's cool, let's copy it". With no acknowledgement that the creation > of the product took 100x the effort it takes to copy the product. That's what the README and the THANKS file is for. I like reading them a lot. This is, because I have some respect to people starting new ideas. ...and I've got some respect for those who coded it. That's what the AUTHORS file is in place:) > Do you think that corporations are going sit by and watch you do that and > do nothing to stop you? Of course they aren't, they have a strong self They better start developing again. > preservation instinct and they have the resources to apply to the problem. > The DMCA, DRM, all that stuff is just the beginning. You will respond Yes, I fear that. > with all sorts of clever hacks to get around it and they will respond > with even more clever hacks to stop you. They have both more resources > and more at stake so they will win. Why not simply face the _real_ problem? It's like "Is somebody allowed to exclusively earn money from some idea/music/software/... for longer than, say, half a year or a year or the like?" My answer: No. If we socially accept these money-making machines, we accept slowing down the creation of new ideas/music/software/..., just because we give a lot time to their respective creators to wait for money flowing in. > The depressing thing is that it is so obvious to me that the corporations > will win, they will protect themselves, they have the money to lobby the > government to get the laws they want and build the technology they need. > The more you push back the more locked up things will become. Companies will win as long as lawa are like they are just right now (or as long as current direction is kept). Consider the opposite: consider peoples all over the world to think that it would be better to only protect I/M/S/... for half a year; after this time, everything is public domain. (Of course, laws had to be changed for this.) I think this would be a better world's vision than today's view out of my window... MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(IRAQ_WAR_2 | DRM | TCPA)); [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-28 11:26 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2003-05-06 15:59 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2003-05-06 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de> writes: >See, the open source (or free source) people are _not_ interested in >marketing. They're addicted towards technical evolution. By locking new Overgeneralization and wrong assumption. Lots of open source people care tons about marketing. Ask e.g. RedHat or SuSE. Or many of the smaller companies that do open source work. We all have to eat sometimes. Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy ` (13 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-28 11:26 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2003-04-28 22:50 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-29 14:46 ` Jeffrey Souza 15 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-28 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Larry McVoy wrote: > > > >The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing >factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. This community >thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful. >Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you >will see people saying "we'll clone it". That's not unique to BK, >it's the same with anything else which is viewed as useful. And nobody >sees anything wrong with that, or copying music, whatever. "If it's >useful, take it" is the attitude. > Reminds me of Microsoft. > >Corporations are certainly watching things like our efforts with >BitKeeper, as well as the other companies who are trying to play nice >with the open source world. What are they learning? That if you don't >lock it up, the open source world has no conscience, no respect, and will >steal anything that isn't locked down. Show me a single example of the >community going "no, we can't take that, someone else did all the work >to produce it, we didn't". Good luck finding it. Instead you get "hey, >that's cool, let's copy it". With no acknowledgement that the creation >of the product took 100x the effort it takes to copy the product. > Reminds me of Stallman. > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy ` (14 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-28 22:50 ` Timothy Miller @ 2003-04-29 14:46 ` Jeffrey Souza 2003-04-29 15:16 ` venom 2003-04-30 9:35 ` Jamie Lokier 15 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Souza @ 2003-04-29 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel >Upon the > advice of several of the leading kernel developers, I contacted Pavel's > boss at SuSE and said "how about you nudge Pavel onto something more > productive" and he said that he couldn't control Pavel. That's nonsense > and everyone knows that. If one of my employees were doing something > like that, it would be trivial to say "choose between your job and that". > But Garloff just shrugged it off as not his problem. Trying to influence someone's personal project through their boss? Wow. No wonder so few people like you on lkml. Larry, please myob. Cheers, Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 14:46 ` Jeffrey Souza @ 2003-04-29 15:16 ` venom 2003-04-30 9:35 ` Jamie Lokier 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: venom @ 2003-04-29 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeffrey Souza; +Cc: linux-kernel On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Jeffrey Souza wrote: > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:46:43 -0700 > From: Jeffrey Souza <souza@psychopenguin.net> > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] > > >Upon the > > advice of several of the leading kernel developers, I contacted Pavel's > > boss at SuSE and said "how about you nudge Pavel onto something more > > productive" and he said that he couldn't control Pavel. That's nonsense > > and everyone knows that. If one of my employees were doing something > > like that, it would be trivial to say "choose between your job and that". > > But Garloff just shrugged it off as not his problem. > > Trying to influence someone's personal project through their boss? Wow. > No wonder so few people like you on lkml. > well, he's just what in my country is defined as an real aziendal man, hope there are very few aziendal man on lkml, it is a nonsense that a job like Pavel's one should be controlled by a boss. bests Luigi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] 2003-04-29 14:46 ` Jeffrey Souza 2003-04-29 15:16 ` venom @ 2003-04-30 9:35 ` Jamie Lokier 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-30 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeffrey Souza; +Cc: linux-kernel Jeffrey Souza wrote: > >Upon the > > advice of several of the leading kernel developers, I contacted Pavel's > > boss at SuSE and said "how about you nudge Pavel onto something more > > productive" and he said that he couldn't control Pavel. That's nonsense > > and everyone knows that. If one of my employees were doing something > > like that, it would be trivial to say "choose between your job and that". > > But Garloff just shrugged it off as not his problem. > > Trying to influence someone's personal project through their boss? Wow. > No wonder so few people like you on lkml. See, the thing Larry didn't hear was Garloff _actually_ said: "Sorry Larry, I can't [*in good conscience*] control Pavel [*like that*]." No to mention that it _isn't_ Garloff's problem. I wonder who are the "leading kernel developers" that Larry mentions. Probably giggling in the background after their practical joke actually worked :) On a more straight-faced note, perhaps Larry thought a BK clone was being developed _at SuSE_? That would make it a less stupid request. -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20030427171007$6d24@gated-at.bofh.it>]
* Re: Why DRM exists [not found] ` <20030427171007$6d24@gated-at.bofh.it> @ 2003-04-27 20:08 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2003-04-27 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> writes: > The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a > contributing factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts. > This community thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything > that they find useful. Yes, of course. What's so bad about sharing with your friends? If a thing doesn't diminish by sharing, you don't own it properly unless you share it. But it's still illegal in many cases, so the free software people had to start mostly from scratch. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 15:37 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 18:35 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-04-24 19:23 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 19:50 ` Balram Adlakha 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Timothy Miller; +Cc: Andreas Jellinghaus, linux-kernel > >>> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 19:23 ` Flame Linus to a crisp! Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-24 19:50 ` Balram Adlakha 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Balram Adlakha @ 2003-04-24 19:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jamie Lokier; +Cc: linux-kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds ` (6 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-24 8:37 ` Andreas Jellinghaus @ 2003-04-24 8:57 ` Arjan van de Ven 2003-04-24 9:19 ` Russell King 2003-04-24 14:59 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 12:39 ` Mark Mielke ` (4 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2003-04-24 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 983 bytes --] On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 05:59, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > The GPL requires you to give out sources to the kernel, but it doesn't > limit what you can _do_ with the kernel. On the whole, this is just > another example of why rms calls me "just an engineer" and thinks I have > no ideals. The "hot" issue is partially this part of the GPL: For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. where it seems to say that if you need a script to be able to usefully install a self compiled kernel, that script is part of "the sourcecode". Now this of course can't and doesn't mean that people would need to give up their private keys to the public; said "script" of course can also install a second key or disable the keychecking. Or maybe I'm just totally interpreting this wrong. [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 8:57 ` Arjan van de Ven @ 2003-04-24 9:19 ` Russell King 2003-04-24 11:38 ` Shachar Shemesh 2003-04-24 14:59 ` Linus Torvalds 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Russell King @ 2003-04-24 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arjan van de Ven; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 10:57:21AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > where it seems to say that if you need a script to be able to usefully > install a self compiled kernel, that script is part of "the sourcecode". > Now this of course can't and doesn't mean that people would need to give > up their private keys to the public; said "script" of course can also > install a second key or disable the keychecking. > > Or maybe I'm just totally interpreting this wrong. You just arrange for the script to detect whether a private key is present. If none exists, it asks the user whether they want to generate a private key, and then calls gpg with the relevant options to do so. The private key isn't part of the script, nor is it a requirement to be able to (successfully) run the script. Note that the GPL does not say whether the output from the installation script has to be usable with the target hardware. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 9:19 ` Russell King @ 2003-04-24 11:38 ` Shachar Shemesh 2003-04-24 17:46 ` Shachar Shemesh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Shachar Shemesh @ 2003-04-24 11:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Russell King; +Cc: Arjan van de Ven, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List Russell King wrote: >You just arrange for the script to detect whether a private key is >present. If none exists, it asks the user whether they want to generate >a private key, and then calls gpg with the relevant options to do so. > >The private key isn't part of the script, nor is it a requirement to >be able to (successfully) run the script. > >Note that the GPL does not say whether the output from the installation >script has to be usable with the target hardware. > > > >On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 10:57:21AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > >For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code >for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition >files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of >the executable. > > Wouldn't "control ... installation" include the keys too? IANAL, but I am on the board of an NPO that advocates Free and Open Source Software, and that NPO has a lawyer (who is VERY familiar with the GPL). Would it make sense to ask him? After all, that merely means what one lawyer would say. -- Shachar Shemesh Open Source integration consultant Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 11:38 ` Shachar Shemesh @ 2003-04-24 17:46 ` Shachar Shemesh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Shachar Shemesh @ 2003-04-24 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kernel Mailing List; +Cc: Russell King, Arjan van de Ven, Linus Torvalds Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Wouldn't "control ... installation" include the keys too? > > IANAL, but I am on the board of an NPO that advocates Free and Open > Source Software, and that NPO has a lawyer (who is VERY familiar with > the GPL). Would it make sense to ask him? After all, that merely means > what one lawyer would say. > Ok, so I did. The gist of it - a very quick analysis said "no, it does not cover the keys". You can now return to your usual debate. More in details, the keys seem like a late addition to the already compiled kernel, have a standalone existance, and are not even code, and can therefor not be considered "deriviative work". -- Shachar Shemesh Open Source integration consultant Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 8:57 ` Arjan van de Ven 2003-04-24 9:19 ` Russell King @ 2003-04-24 14:59 ` Linus Torvalds 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arjan van de Ven; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List On 24 Apr 2003, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > The "hot" issue is partially this part of the GPL: > > For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code > for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition > files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of > the executable. > > where it seems to say that if you need a script to be able to usefully > install a self compiled kernel, that script is part of "the sourcecode". Yes, that's the part that can be read pretty much any way depending on your mood swings. In particular, just how far does "installation" go? Clearly it doesn't require that you give people ROM masks and soldering irons. Well, clearly to _me_ anyway. So you while you _logically_ may be able to take it to the absurd end ("you need to build me a fab, and make it under the GPL, so that I can 'install' the kernel on the chips"), I'm personally very much against that kind of absurdity. For example, I don't use the Makefile targets to physically install my kernels - I end up doing that by hand, with a few "cp -f ..." things. Does that mean that I'm in violation of the GPL when I give the end result out to somebody? I'd say "clearly not". Don't get me wrong - I don't particularly like magic hardware that only boots signed kernels for some nefarious reasons. But I bet that pretty much _every_ embedded Linux project will have special tools to do the "final install", and I can't for the life of me take the logic that far. That's _doubly_ true as many of the installs are quite benign, and I see a lot of good reasons to sign kernel binaries with your own private key to verify that nobody else has exchanged it with a kernel that is full of trojans. One environment where you might want to do something like that is open access machines at a university, for example. You bolt the machines down, and you make sure that they don't have any trojans - and _clearly_ that has to be allowed by the license. But such a "make the machines be something the _users_ can trust" is 100% indistinguishable from a technical standpoint from something where you "make the machine something that Disney Corp can trust". There is _zero_ technical difference. It's only a matter of intent - and even the intent will be a matter of interpretation. This is why I refuse to disallow even the "bad" kinds of uses - because not allowing them would automatically also mean that "good" uses aren't allowed. Another way of saying it: I refuse to have some license amendment that starts talking about "intent" and "user vs corporations" crap and "moral rights" etc. I think the GPL is too politicised already, I'd rather have it _less_ "crazy talk" than more. Linus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds ` (7 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-24 8:57 ` Arjan van de Ven @ 2003-04-24 12:39 ` Mark Mielke 2003-04-24 15:53 ` Elladan ` (3 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-04-24 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 08:59:45PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux! > There, I've said it. I'm out of the closet. So bring it on... How *DARE* you offer stuff for *FREE* when you have a perfectly decent "GPL-like freedom" license you could enforce? mark (hehe...) -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds ` (8 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-24 12:39 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-04-24 15:53 ` Elladan 2003-04-24 18:31 ` Daniel Phillips ` (2 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Elladan @ 2003-04-24 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List So, there are two basic camps in the whole DRM arena: 1. People who want to somehow make files that only computers they trust can play. 2. People who want to make computers that can refuse to run programs that aren't approved (eg. by the administrator). The DRM scheme you've mentioned (embedding public keys in the kernel, plus hardware support etc.) seem compatible with the second group. However, it fundamentally has some problems with the first group. The way people doing the first group operate is to try to hide secret keys in their software using some trivial obfuscation method. Their software then tries to authenticate that the rest of the system is somehow friendly, and the user has permission to play the file. If the software decides everything is good, it then assents to decrypt the file using the secret keys it has hidden inside it. This is, of course, technically a joke since breaking the DRM is always simply a matter of disassembling their code to find where they hid the key. It's not like a system where everyone in the world has a copy of the secret key on their desk can actually be secure. But anyway... In practice, what these sorts of DRM people are going to want to do with a Linux kernel is build some sort of secret, obfuscated binary-only kernel module which somehow tries to make sure the system is happy and friendly, and then signal to the application that all is well. So, here's a question for you: This clearly looks like it would be legal for the end-user to do, since the end user can use GPL code for any purpose. What about a device manufacturer, though? To keep the key secret, any DRM scheme of this sort of pretty-much guaranteed to involve some sort of binary-only kernel module, possibly shipped in ROM next to the kernel. Can a company actually ship a device of this sort which uses such a binary-only module, and be compatible with the GPL? It seems it could be argued both ways - since the binary module is clearly meant to be linked into the kernel, it could be considered a derivative work if they're packaged together. This isn't quite the same as an end-user deciding to load some module that happens to be sitting around. Alternatively, since the kernel includes a facility to load arbitrary code into its core image at run-time, it could be argued that the binary module is still not a derivative work, just some unrelated code which a proprietary application chooses to insert into the kernel while it's running, using standard kernel system calls. Which interpretation is correct? I'd suspect the latter, otherwise linux distributions may already be in trouble... -J On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 08:59:45PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Ok, > there's no way to do this gracefully, so I won't even try. I'm going to > just hunker down for some really impressive extended flaming, and my > asbestos underwear is firmly in place, and extremely uncomfortable. > > I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux! > > There, I've said it. I'm out of the closet. So bring it on... > > I've had some private discussions with various people about this already, > and I do realize that a lot of people want to use the kernel in some way > to just make DRM go away, at least as far as Linux is concerned. Either by > some policy decision or by extending the GPL to just not allow it. > > In some ways the discussion was very similar to some of the software > patent related GPL-NG discussions from a year or so ago: "we don't like > it, and we should change the license to make it not work somehow". > > And like the software patent issue, I also don't necessarily like DRM > myself, but I still ended up feeling the same: I'm an "Oppenheimer", and I > refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for > whatever you want to - which very much includes things I don't necessarily > personally approve of. > > The GPL requires you to give out sources to the kernel, but it doesn't > limit what you can _do_ with the kernel. On the whole, this is just > another example of why rms calls me "just an engineer" and thinks I have > no ideals. > > [ Personally, I see it as a virtue - trying to make the world a slightly > better place _without_ trying to impose your moral values on other > people. You do whatever the h*ll rings your bell, I'm just an engineer > who wants to make the best OS possible. ] > > In short, it's perfectly ok to sign a kernel image - I do it myself > indirectly every day through the kernel.org, as kernel.org will sign the > tar-balls I upload to make sure people can at least verify that they came > that way. Doing the same thing on the binary is no different: signing a > binary is a perfectly fine way to show the world that you're the one > behind it, and that _you_ trust it. > > And since I can imaging signing binaries myself, I don't feel that I can > disallow anybody else doing so. > > Another part of the DRM discussion is the fact that signing is only the > first step: _acting_ on the fact whether a binary is signed or not (by > refusing to load it, for example, or by refusing to give it a secret key) > is required too. > > But since the signature is pointless unless you _use_ it for something, > and since the decision how to use the signature is clearly outside of the > scope of the kernel itself (and thus not a "derived work" or anything like > that), I have to convince myself that not only is it clearly ok to act on > the knowledge of whather the kernel is signed or not, it's also outside of > the scope of what the GPL talks about, and thus irrelevant to the license. > > That's the short and sweet of it. I wanted to bring this out in the open, > because I know there are people who think that signed binaries are an act > of "subversion" (or "perversion") of the GPL, and I wanted to make sure > that people don't live under mis-apprehension that it can't be done. > > I think there are many quite valid reasons to sign (and verify) your > kernel images, and while some of the uses of signing are odious, I don't > see any sane way to distinguish between "good" signers and "bad" signers. > > Comments? I'd love to get some real discussion about this, but in the end > I'm personally convinced that we have to allow it. > > Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private > keys in the binary. You can sign the binary that is a result of the build > process, but you can _not_ make a binary that is aware of certain keys > without making those keys public - because those keys will obviously have > been part of the kernel build itself. > > So don't get these two things confused - one is an external key that is > applied _to_ the kernel (ok, and outside the license), and the other one > is embedding a key _into_ the kernel (still ok, but the GPL requires that > such a key has to be made available as "source" to the kernel). > > Linus > > - > 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds ` (9 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-24 15:53 ` Elladan @ 2003-04-24 18:31 ` Daniel Phillips 2003-04-24 23:15 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-26 18:21 ` Rik van Riel 2003-04-24 20:16 ` Nils Holland 2003-04-25 4:46 ` My take on Trusted Computing and DRM Joseph Pingenot 12 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Daniel Phillips @ 2003-04-24 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List On Thu 24 Apr 03 05:59, Linus Torvalds wrote: > ...I wanted to bring this out in the open, > because I know there are people who think that signed binaries are an act > of "subversion" (or "perversion") of the GPL, and I wanted to make sure > that people don't live under mis-apprehension that it can't be done. Open source + Linux + DRM could be used to solve the Quake client-side cheating problem: http://catb.org/~esr/writings/quake-cheats.html To join a game, you'd have to be able to prove you're running code that is secure all the way from boot to reboot, where everything from network driver to physics engine is known to be compiled from open source that all participants agree is good. You could call this a "white hat" use of DRM. It's strictly voluntary and nothing mysterious takes over your computer - no spyware, no trojans. Just Linux, drivers, and the game. Granted, this is a pretty theoretical application. Just because of the sheer amount of work needed to put all the pieces in in place, DRM will actually be used a lot more for what is really easy: trampling on fair use rights. But it's not like fair use isn't already being trampled upon, without the aid of DRM. The point of this is that, to be maximally effective, DRM wants to be coupled with open source: with just DRM and no open source, there's no way to achieve the same level of trust. So there is a silver lining, even in this rotten, stinking cloud. Regards, Daniel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 18:31 ` Daniel Phillips @ 2003-04-24 23:15 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-25 11:28 ` Eric W. Biederman ` (2 more replies) 2003-04-26 18:21 ` Rik van Riel 1 sibling, 3 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-24 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List Daniel Phillips wrote: > Open source + Linux + DRM could be used to solve the Quake client-side > cheating problem: Yes, but in return you'd be excluded from playing Quake unless you're running one of those signed kernels or modules. So, if I, say, want to test some TCP fix, new VM feature, file system improvement, etc., none of the applications that rely on DRM would work. This doesn't only affect developers, but also their potential testers. Given that most users will just run a distribution's kernel, with all the right signatures, companies will not perceive the few cases in which their use of DRM causes problems as very important, so they will use DRM. Oh, maybe some developers could be granted the privilege of being able to sign their own kernels or modules. So if you're part of this circle, you'd be fine, right ? No, even this doesn't work, because if you'd leak such a key, you'd certainly get sued for damages. And I don't think many people would feel overly pleased with the idea of being responsible for the safekeeping of the key to a multi-million lawsuit. (And besides, this may turn them into targets for key theft/robbery/extortion.) (There are of course uses of such signatures that would not have those problems. E.g. signatures that prove trustworthiness to the local user, instead of a remote party.) - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 23:15 ` Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-25 11:28 ` Eric W. Biederman 2003-04-27 1:31 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-25 14:37 ` Daniel Phillips 2003-04-26 13:00 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Eric W. Biederman @ 2003-04-25 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Werner Almesberger; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List Werner Almesberger <wa@almesberger.net> writes: > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Open source + Linux + DRM could be used to solve the Quake client-side > > cheating problem: > > Yes, but in return you'd be excluded from playing Quake unless > you're running one of those signed kernels or modules. In this context, the only thing I know has been openly discussed is to have a BIOS that includes a public key of my choosing for authentication. > So, if I, say, want to test some TCP fix, new VM feature, file > system improvement, etc., none of the applications that rely on > DRM would work. This doesn't only affect developers, but also > their potential testers. Not so because in a general purpose system the owners of the system control the keys. > Given that most users will just run a distribution's kernel, with > all the right signatures, companies will not perceive the few > cases in which their use of DRM causes problems as very important, > so they will use DRM. Redhat's kernel is unlikely to get my signature. Possibly at some point there will be a web of trust where that will work but in the first approximation distributors kernels will not load until I sign them. > Oh, maybe some developers could be granted the privilege of being > able to sign their own kernels or modules. So if you're part of > this circle, you'd be fine, right ? No, even this doesn't work, > because if you'd leak such a key, you'd certainly get sued for > damages. And I don't think many people would feel overly pleased > with the idea of being responsible for the safekeeping of the key > to a multi-million lawsuit. (And besides, this may turn them into > targets for key theft/robbery/extortion.) > > (There are of course uses of such signatures that would not have > those problems. E.g. signatures that prove trustworthiness to the > local user, instead of a remote party.) Yes. And there has been some limited discussion on LinuxBIOS list about implementing these. Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-25 11:28 ` Eric W. Biederman @ 2003-04-27 1:31 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-27 1:59 ` David Wagner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-27 1:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric W. Biederman; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Redhat's kernel is unlikely to get my signature. Possibly > at some point there will be a web of trust where that will work > but in the first approximation distributors kernels will not > load until I sign them. Yes, that's exactly the "good" kind of DRM. A few things are special in your case, though: - the "rights owner" and the "user" are the same person - the "user" can be trusted - you control your firmware Does TCPA (I suppose that's what Linus' endorsement of DRM is about) even have the concept of user-installed keys or certificates ? - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-27 1:31 ` Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-27 1:59 ` David Wagner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: David Wagner @ 2003-04-27 1:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Werner Almesberger wrote: >Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Redhat's kernel is unlikely to get my signature. Possibly >> at some point there will be a web of trust where that will work >> but in the first approximation distributors kernels will not >> load until I sign them. > >Yes, that's exactly the "good" kind of DRM. Semantic quibbling: Actually, no, I don't think it is. That's not DRM at all, good or bad. It's just plain old signatures, web of trust, etc. Not everything that uses crypto or code signing is DRM. (We're really getting off-topic now, I suppose.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 23:15 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-25 11:28 ` Eric W. Biederman @ 2003-04-25 14:37 ` Daniel Phillips 2003-04-25 15:17 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 2003-04-25 17:37 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-26 13:00 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Daniel Phillips @ 2003-04-25 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Werner Almesberger; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List On Friday 25 April 2003 01:15, Werner Almesberger wrote: > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Open source + Linux + DRM could be used to solve the Quake client-side > > cheating problem: > > Yes, but in return you'd be excluded from playing Quake unless > you're running one of those signed kernels or modules. > > So, if I, say, want to test some TCP fix, new VM feature, file > system improvement, etc., none of the applications that rely on > DRM would work. This doesn't only affect developers, but also > their potential testers. Yes, Ick. You might see some kind of Linux-Trusted-Quake club rise up, with the specific goal of running cheatless deathmatches, but we are getting very far from reality here. To get cheatless online gaming, you would have to necessarily give up a lot of flexibility. I imagine the likelihood of people running completely separate DRM Linux boxes, just to participate in DRM-controlled online games, is not high. Only when if you are faced with absolute necessity of running DRM, are you actually going to do it by choice. There's going to be a whole pile of new ways for computers to fail to work too, because of this. Then there's the certainty that there will be exploits - the whole concept is inherently fragile, there are just too many parts involved. From a security point of view, we would end up worse off than without it, given a newfound false sense of security. So, just call all of the above a valiant effort on my part to find something good about this. Hopefully, after a few years of silliness and much wasted effort, it will all fade away like copy-protected floppy disks. Regards, Daniel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-25 14:37 ` Daniel Phillips @ 2003-04-25 15:17 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 2003-04-25 17:37 ` Werner Almesberger 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-04-25 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 497 bytes --] On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:37:31 +0200, Daniel Phillips said: > To get cheatless online gaming, you would have to necessarily give up a lot > of flexibility. I imagine the likelihood of people running completely > separate DRM Linux boxes, just to participate in DRM-controlled online games, > is not high. Only when if you are faced with absolute necessity of running > DRM, are you actually going to do it by choice. There's going to be a whole How many people own both a PC and an XBox? [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-25 14:37 ` Daniel Phillips 2003-04-25 15:17 ` Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-04-25 17:37 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-26 21:59 ` Daniel Phillips 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-25 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List Daniel Phillips wrote: > I imagine the likelihood of people running completely separate DRM Linux > boxes, just to participate in DRM-controlled online games, is not high. You could still dual-boot, as many people do today. > the whole concept is inherently fragile, there are just too many parts > involved. ... and companies relying on DRM are likely to distrust Linux for every single such flaw that is found. They'll put up with Windows, because they have to. It all makes sense - in some ugly, twisted way. - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-25 17:37 ` Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-26 21:59 ` Daniel Phillips 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Daniel Phillips @ 2003-04-26 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Werner Almesberger; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List On Friday 25 April 2003 19:37, Werner Almesberger wrote: > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > I imagine the likelihood of people running completely separate DRM Linux > > boxes, just to participate in DRM-controlled online games, is not high. > > You could still dual-boot, as many people do today. Only neanderthals dual-boot ;-) > > the whole concept is inherently fragile, there are just too many parts > > involved. > > ... and companies relying on DRM are likely to distrust Linux for > every single such flaw that is found. They'll put up with Windows, > because they have to. Companies relying on DRM are candidates for Darwin awards, IMHO. However, the pure technical challenge of trying to make DRM work for something, somehow, sometime might be enough to get decent support on Linux. I wonder if the Quake thing is interesting enough to motivate anyone. It could be advertised as "the only place you'll ever get a fair fight". Maybe DRM support is a way for some Linux vendor to differentiate themselves. Now... DRM in Debian? Sounds like an oxymoron. I certainly won't be asking for it. > It all makes sense - in some ugly, twisted way. What seems to be missing is the motivation to get exited about it. Seems to me, I've never bought or played a copy-protected CD, or video disk (took a pass on the whole video disk thing, didn't regret it) or anything else, and it's not because I'm a fanatic about it, it's just that it never made sense. The whole DRM thing is likely to land with a dull thud and be as forgotten as 8 track tapes. It's all just too clunky, and there's nothing in it for the consumer. Regards, Daniel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 23:15 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-25 11:28 ` Eric W. Biederman 2003-04-25 14:37 ` Daniel Phillips @ 2003-04-26 13:00 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2003-04-26 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds 2 siblings, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2003-04-26 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Werner Almesberger; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Werner Almesberger wrote: > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Open source + Linux + DRM could be used to solve the Quake client-side > > cheating problem: > > Yes, but in return you'd be excluded from playing Quake unless > you're running one of those signed kernels or modules. > > So, if I, say, want to test some TCP fix, new VM feature, file > system improvement, etc., none of the applications that rely on > DRM would work. This doesn't only affect developers, but also > their potential testers. Hence the development rate of Linux will go down, since you cannot use your Linux development box running your own development kernel for anything else, since that would require a signed kernel. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-26 13:00 ` Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2003-04-26 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-26 18:41 ` viro ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-26 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.0304261459210.10838-100000@vervain.sonytel.be>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > >Hence the development rate of Linux will go down, since you cannot use your >Linux development box running your own development kernel for anything else, >since that would require a signed kernel. Quite frankly, I suspect a much more likely issue is going to be that DRM doesn't matter at all in the long run. Maybe I'm just a blue-eyed optimist, but all the _bad_ forms of DRM look to be just fundamentally doomed. They are all designed to screw over customers and normal users, and in the world I live in that's not how you make friends (or money, which ends up being a lot more relevant to most companies). Think about it. Successful companies give their customers what they _want_. They don't force-feed them. Look at the total and utter failure of commercial on-line music: the DRM things that has been tried have been complete failures. Why? I'm personally convinced the cost is only a minor issue - the _anti_convenience of the DRM crap (magic file formats that only work with some players etc) is what really kills it in the end. And that's a fundamental flaw in any "bad" DRM. It's not going away. We've seen this before. Remember when dongles were plentiful in the software world? People literally had problems with having dongles on top of dongles to run a few programs. They all died out, simply because consumers _hate_ that kind of lock-in thing. This is part of the reason why I have no trouble with DRM - let the people who want to try it go right ahead. They'll only screw themselves over in the end, because the people who do _not_ try to control their customers will in the end have the superior product. It's that simple. As to the quake-on-PC issue - it's a completely made-up example, but it does show the same thing. Nobody in their right mind would ever _do_ a DRM-enabled quake on a PC, because it limits you too much. PC's are _designed_ ot be flexible - that's what makes the PC's. DRM on a PC is a totally braindead idea, and I _hope_ Microsoft goes down that path because it will kill them in the end. The place where client authentication makes sense is on specialty boxes. On a dedicated game machine it's an _advantage_ to verify the client, exactly to make sure that nobody is cheating. I think products like the PS2 and the Xbox actually make _sense_ - they make it convenient for the user, and yes they use DRM techniques to "remove rights", but that's very much by design and when you buy the box 99.9% of all people buy it _because_ it only does one thing. Linus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-26 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-26 18:41 ` viro 2003-04-26 18:48 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-28 14:20 ` John Stoffel 2003-04-26 19:23 ` Michael Buesch 2003-04-28 10:35 ` Andre Hedrick 2 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: viro @ 2003-04-26 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 06:22:50PM +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > We've seen this before. Remember when dongles were plentiful in the > software world? People literally had problems with having dongles on top > of dongles to run a few programs. They all died out, simply because > consumers _hate_ that kind of lock-in thing. Not all of them. And they had spawned similar software turds - ask any sysadmin who'd dealt with FlexLM and its ilk and you'll hear a _lot_ of horror stories about the induced inconveniencies and breakage. > _designed_ ot be flexible - that's what makes the PC's. DRM on a PC is > a totally braindead idea, and I _hope_ Microsoft goes down that path > because it will kill them in the end. Wolfram Research is still alive. Remember Mathematica? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-26 18:41 ` viro @ 2003-04-26 18:48 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-28 14:20 ` John Stoffel 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-26 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: viro; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 06:22:50PM +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > We've seen this before. Remember when dongles were plentiful in the > > software world? People literally had problems with having dongles on top > > of dongles to run a few programs. They all died out, simply because > > consumers _hate_ that kind of lock-in thing. > > Not all of them. And they had spawned similar software turds - ask > any sysadmin who'd dealt with FlexLM and its ilk and you'll hear a > _lot_ of horror stories about the induced inconveniencies and breakage. But that's exactly my point. These companies are (in the long run) just shooting themselves in the foot. Sure, they still exist. But they are a niche market (and, btw, you can almost always tell which programs still do it: overpriced products for niche markets that don't have enough competition). Any area where there has been even an _ounce_ of competition has dropped the DRM crap like a hot potato, because users wouldn't stand for it. > > _designed_ ot be flexible - that's what makes the PC's. DRM on a PC is > > a totally braindead idea, and I _hope_ Microsoft goes down that path > > because it will kill them in the end. > > Wolfram Research is still alive. Remember Mathematica? And this makes my point invalid exactly _how_? Linus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-26 18:41 ` viro 2003-04-26 18:48 ` Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-28 14:20 ` John Stoffel 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: John Stoffel @ 2003-04-28 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: viro; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel viro> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 06:22:50PM +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> We've seen this before. Remember when dongles were plentiful in the >> software world? People literally had problems with having dongles on top >> of dongles to run a few programs. They all died out, simply because >> consumers _hate_ that kind of lock-in thing. viro> Not all of them. And they had spawned similar software turds - viro> ask any sysadmin who'd dealt with FlexLM and its ilk and you'll viro> hear a _lot_ of horror stories about the induced inconveniencies viro> and breakage. FlexLM is actually a good product in general, it's when it's tied in by a vendor to a Dongle that is sucks. The real horror show in license managers is the GLBD (Global Location Broker) crap from HP/IBM. Thank god FlexLM has mostly killed them off. John John Stoffel - Senior Unix Systems Administrator - Lucent Technologies stoffel@lucent.com - http://www.lucent.com - 978-399-0479 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-26 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-26 18:41 ` viro @ 2003-04-26 19:23 ` Michael Buesch 2003-04-28 10:35 ` Andre Hedrick 2 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Michael Buesch @ 2003-04-26 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: linux-kernel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 26 April 2003 20:22, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Quite frankly, I suspect a much more likely issue is going to be that > DRM doesn't matter at all in the long run. > > Maybe I'm just a blue-eyed optimist, but all the _bad_ forms of DRM look > to be just fundamentally doomed. They are all designed to screw over > customers and normal users, and in the world I live in that's not how > you make friends (or money, which ends up being a lot more relevant to > most companies). IMHO it's totally impossible at the moment to predict what will happen to DRM in the future. It can turn the "good" or "bad" way, but nobody can _yet_ say, which way it'll go. When it's forseeable, it'll be to late to act against it, if it goes the "bad" one. > Think about it. Successful companies give their customers what they > _want_. They don't force-feed them. Look at the total and utter > failure of commercial on-line music: the DRM things that has been tried > have been complete failures. Why? I'm personally convinced the cost is > only a minor issue - the _anti_convenience of the DRM crap (magic file > formats that only work with some players etc) is what really kills it in > the end. > > And that's a fundamental flaw in any "bad" DRM. It's not going away. > > We've seen this before. Remember when dongles were plentiful in the > software world? People literally had problems with having dongles on top > of dongles to run a few programs. They all died out, simply because > consumers _hate_ that kind of lock-in thing. > > This is part of the reason why I have no trouble with DRM - let the > people who want to try it go right ahead. They'll only screw themselves > over in the end, because the people who do _not_ try to control their > customers will in the end have the superior product. It's that simple. Maybe this is only a local problem to germany (I don't think so :) ), but almost all people I know don't want to know what their computer does and how it does it. They only want to "write their e-mails" or only want to "surf in the internet". They don't care about if they do it with, or without DRM. IMHO exactly this is the danger of the whole thing. Most people will accept it, although they are a little bit snipped in their rights and possibilities. And they'll accept even more and more and more... . Another point is, that I haven't found anybody in my environment, that even knows the words DRM or TCPA. Exactly these persons will accept it, whether it's "good" or "bad". But on the other side I think the same way, as you, that DRM has to go into the kernel. IMHO that's a little bit sad, because we have no really choice, because over the time all OSs will include it and than linux can't survive as an outsider in the same form it "survives" today. > > Linus - -- Regards Michael Büsch http://www.8ung.at/tuxsoft -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+qtyvoxoigfggmSgRAsrGAKCKjjxccKoWof63dbG2Go897mkRewCeMdq5 hHjwivTTAgEgc6+ifbcLVE0= =FKO/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-26 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-26 18:41 ` viro 2003-04-26 19:23 ` Michael Buesch @ 2003-04-28 10:35 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-04-28 12:12 ` Jörn Engel 2003-04-28 14:01 ` Zack Gilburd 2 siblings, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-04-28 10:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: linux-kernel Linus, There is one fundamental problem, and nobody has addressed. Who will enforce the GPL over DRM violations? Since it is a blanket over the entire kernel, and you have formally (for the most part) have authorized DRM, thus one assumes you are the only one who can pursue in a court of law. Regardless of what I or anyone thinks, this effective places total copyright to you. Additionally for you to have a legal position to stand on, it may be required for one to show you have total authority/assignment of the entire kernel. This is only an old man thinking out loud. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote: > In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.0304261459210.10838-100000@vervain.sonytel.be>, > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > >Hence the development rate of Linux will go down, since you cannot use your > >Linux development box running your own development kernel for anything else, > >since that would require a signed kernel. > > Quite frankly, I suspect a much more likely issue is going to be that > DRM doesn't matter at all in the long run. > > Maybe I'm just a blue-eyed optimist, but all the _bad_ forms of DRM look > to be just fundamentally doomed. They are all designed to screw over > customers and normal users, and in the world I live in that's not how > you make friends (or money, which ends up being a lot more relevant to > most companies). > > Think about it. Successful companies give their customers what they > _want_. They don't force-feed them. Look at the total and utter > failure of commercial on-line music: the DRM things that has been tried > have been complete failures. Why? I'm personally convinced the cost is > only a minor issue - the _anti_convenience of the DRM crap (magic file > formats that only work with some players etc) is what really kills it in > the end. > > And that's a fundamental flaw in any "bad" DRM. It's not going away. > > We've seen this before. Remember when dongles were plentiful in the > software world? People literally had problems with having dongles on top > of dongles to run a few programs. They all died out, simply because > consumers _hate_ that kind of lock-in thing. > > This is part of the reason why I have no trouble with DRM - let the > people who want to try it go right ahead. They'll only screw themselves > over in the end, because the people who do _not_ try to control their > customers will in the end have the superior product. It's that simple. > > As to the quake-on-PC issue - it's a completely made-up example, but it > does show the same thing. Nobody in their right mind would ever _do_ a > DRM-enabled quake on a PC, because it limits you too much. PC's are > _designed_ ot be flexible - that's what makes the PC's. DRM on a PC is > a totally braindead idea, and I _hope_ Microsoft goes down that path > because it will kill them in the end. > > The place where client authentication makes sense is on specialty boxes. > On a dedicated game machine it's an _advantage_ to verify the client, > exactly to make sure that nobody is cheating. I think products like the > PS2 and the Xbox actually make _sense_ - they make it convenient for the > user, and yes they use DRM techniques to "remove rights", but that's > very much by design and when you buy the box 99.9% of all people buy it > _because_ it only does one thing. > > Linus > - > 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/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-28 10:35 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-04-28 12:12 ` Jörn Engel 2003-04-28 14:01 ` Zack Gilburd 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jörn Engel @ 2003-04-28 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel On Mon, 28 April 2003 03:35:10 -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > Who will enforce the GPL over DRM violations? Anyone that can an want to do it. Who can enforce the GPL over DRM violations? > Since it is a blanket over the entire kernel, and you have formally > (for the most part) have authorized DRM, thus one assumes you are the only > one who can pursue in a court of law. My interpretation may be off, but imo I can enforce the GPL as long as the violating company uses my code as part of their product. Basicaly, almost anyone on this list can enforce violations against the kernel, depending on what code has been included. People may rip out the IDE code because they don't want Andre Hedrick to have this opertunity, while ripping out all of Linus code should be a lot harder. But in principle, everyone is equal. > Regardless of what I or anyone thinks, this effective places total > copyright to you. Additionally for you to have a legal position to stand > on, it may be required for one to show you have total authority/assignment > of the entire kernel. Personally, I don't like these copyright assignment procedures. Before signing any of them, I have to carefully read and reread them, not missing the hidden legal implications. Why go through that mess, if nothing forces us. Am I wrong? Don't know. Jörn -- Fantasy is more important than knowlegde. Knowlegde is limited, while fantasy embraces the whole world. -- Albert Einstein ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-28 10:35 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-04-28 12:12 ` Jörn Engel @ 2003-04-28 14:01 ` Zack Gilburd 2003-04-28 14:30 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 1 sibling, 1 reply; 204+ messages in thread From: Zack Gilburd @ 2003-04-28 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 709 bytes --] On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 03:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote: > There is one fundamental problem, and nobody has addressed. > > Who will enforce the GPL over DRM violations? > Since it is a blanket over the entire kernel, and you have formally > (for the most part) have authorized DRM, thus one assumes you are the only > one who can pursue in a court of law. Unless I am missing something, I was hoping for more of a sparse DRM implementation; not a blanket. I was hoping to be able to `modprobe drm` for when I needed to use DRM and likewise `rmmod drm` for when I didn't want it. Maybe I am a little late in this disucssion, but that's just my hopes and whishes. -Zack Gilburd [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-28 14:01 ` Zack Gilburd @ 2003-04-28 14:30 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 0 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2003-04-28 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Gilburd; +Cc: Andre Hedrick, Linux Kernel Development On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Zack Gilburd wrote: > On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 03:35:10 -0700 (PDT) > Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote: > > > There is one fundamental problem, and nobody has addressed. > > > > Who will enforce the GPL over DRM violations? > > Since it is a blanket over the entire kernel, and you have formally > > (for the most part) have authorized DRM, thus one assumes you are the only > > one who can pursue in a court of law. > > Unless I am missing something, I was hoping for more of a sparse DRM implementation; not a blanket. > > I was hoping to be able to `modprobe drm` for when I needed to use DRM and likewise `rmmod drm` for when I didn't want it. Maybe I am a little late in this disucssion, but that's just my hopes and whishes. Unfortunately that's not going to work, since your DRM module cannot trust the kernel it's loaded by. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 18:31 ` Daniel Phillips 2003-04-24 23:15 ` Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-26 18:21 ` Rik van Riel 2003-04-26 23:34 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-27 3:59 ` Werner Almesberger 1 sibling, 2 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2003-04-26 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Open source + Linux + DRM could be used to solve the Quake client-side > cheating problem: > > http://catb.org/~esr/writings/quake-cheats.html > > To join a game, you'd have to be able to prove you're running code that > is secure all the way from boot to reboot, where everything from network > driver to physics engine is known to be compiled from open source that > all participants agree is good. Of course, people could still use a hub for their network connection and have a second PC sniff the network traffic and display everything conveniently on the other monitor. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-26 18:21 ` Rik van Riel @ 2003-04-26 23:34 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-27 3:59 ` Werner Almesberger 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-26 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rik van Riel; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List Rik van Riel wrote: > On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Open source + Linux + DRM could be used to solve the Quake client-side > > cheating problem: > > > > http://catb.org/~esr/writings/quake-cheats.html > > > > To join a game, you'd have to be able to prove you're running code that > > is secure all the way from boot to reboot, where everything from network > > driver to physics engine is known to be compiled from open source that > > all participants agree is good. > > Of course, people could still use a hub for their network > connection and have a second PC sniff the network traffic > and display everything conveniently on the other monitor. How would the sniffer decrypt the traffic? -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-26 18:21 ` Rik van Riel 2003-04-26 23:34 ` Jamie Lokier @ 2003-04-27 3:59 ` Werner Almesberger 1 sibling, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Werner Almesberger @ 2003-04-27 3:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rik van Riel; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, Kernel Mailing List Rik van Riel wrote: > Of course, people could still use a hub for their network > connection and have a second PC sniff the network traffic > and display everything conveniently on the other monitor. All the nicely encrypted data ? - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds ` (10 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-24 18:31 ` Daniel Phillips @ 2003-04-24 20:16 ` Nils Holland 2003-04-25 4:46 ` My take on Trusted Computing and DRM Joseph Pingenot 12 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Nils Holland @ 2003-04-24 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Kernel Mailing List On Thursday 24 April 2003 05:59, Linus Torvalds wrote: > In short, it's perfectly ok to sign a kernel image - I do it myself > indirectly every day through the kernel.org, as kernel.org will sign the > tar-balls I upload to make sure people can at least verify that they came > that way. Doing the same thing on the binary is no different: signing a > binary is a perfectly fine way to show the world that you're the one > behind it, and that _you_ trust it. Do I understand that? Well, what you are doing is signing the kernel tar-ball, so that when I download it from my favorite mirror, I can check if I really received the kernel yoz released yesterday, or if someone probably put some funny backdoors in there and now hopes me to become his prey. This has little to do with DRM, which stands for Digital Rights Management. Your signing doesn't have much to do with rights - I can still use a backdoored kernel if I want to. Signing source / binary files for such purposes is clearly ok. DRM, however, obviously comes in when it comes to managing / securing rights. This would mean that under certain conditions, I might not be able to use something the way I would like to. As a short example, my digital satellite card may refuse to work with a stock kernel because someone thinks I might illegally decrypt pay-tv channels. So I might be forced to use a kernel signed by <some_vendor>, because that kernel is known to have hooks in it that make sure that I can't do such decrypting of pay-tv. However, what would happen if I want to upgrade to the latest kernel Linus has just released? If I compile it myself, my tv card would not work with it. So I'd have to wait for whoever signed it to release their signed version. And they might even stop signing new kernels at some point in time, or probably ask me to pay money to get their specifically signed kernel. And in the end, all this nonsense could be there even though I never even intended to do what <whoever> wants to prevent me from doing. To come back from this example to reality, signing things is not neccessarily bad. Technology that acts on such signatures is not inherently bad either - it's like the kitchen knife that you can use to cut food you want to eat, while it can also be used as a lethal weapon. So it always depends on how things get used, not on whether they exist or not. Surely, we could ban all knives, but the question is if the number of deaths we'd prevent by doing so would make up for the difficulites we'd get in the field of food preparation. For DRM, about the same question applies. And if the OSS community doesn't automatically heasitate to pick this technology up, it's possible that the positive effects can be made dominant - if we let all this stuff happen in the hands of "the others", it's likely that they would focus on using it only for "bad" things. It'd be like a kitchen knive put into the hands of a psychopath instead of the hands of a well-meaning housewife. Bye, Nils <nils@ravishing.de> -- celine.ravishing.de Linux 2.4.21-rc1 #5 Tue Apr 22 13:12:21 CEST 2003 i686 9:59pm up 4:21, 3 users, load average: 0.13, 0.04, 0.01 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
* My take on Trusted Computing and DRM 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds ` (11 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-24 20:16 ` Nils Holland @ 2003-04-25 4:46 ` Joseph Pingenot 12 siblings, 0 replies; 204+ messages in thread From: Joseph Pingenot @ 2003-04-25 4:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: linux-kernel Weighing in. Whee! This is gonna be long! I read a little bit on the Trusted Computing Platform Association's website, and it has had me thinking. I believe that, if there were ever a DRM implementation to be trusted, it would have to be Free Software. For example, look at Microsoft's source code access program for governments. You may look, but not touch, may not discuss, and especially may not compile. Yay. Now, how exactly can we even *begin* trusting that the code we *saw* was the code we're *running*?! In Free Software, it's transparent; what you see *is* indeed what you get. No hidden gimmicks or surprises (unless Richie did your C compiler. ;) It should be noted that we need to talk about two *separate* issues: Digial Rights Management, and Trusted Computing. As a quick executive overview, I believe that Digital Rights Management, if implemented, should be handled in the programming equivalent of a full environmental suit--much, much harm can come from it. Unfortunately, given the direction music and movie labels here in the 'States (which, unfortunately, counts for at least the very large majority of the movies and music seen/ heard at leat in the 'States and in Europe, in my experience). Thus, it is somewhat forced upon us, and we should have an optional(!) implementation of it, so that we can continue to interact with the complacent world. Trusted Computing, on the other hand, holds a wealth of security enhancement possiblities for the educated user and for the enterprise, and should most definitely be embraced, although the non-toxic/carcinogenic equivalent of programming asbestos should be used, as it also carries with it the danger of abuse. We *absolutely* need to get full disclosure on the hardware, and need to sit in on the industry steering committees, e.g. TCPA. See also my Linux-NG posting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200212/msg01719.html (the big section on security torwards the end) for some of what I'd like to see/implement. DRM: I am extremely cautious about Digital Rights Management. Although there is a little good to be extracted from it (for instance, the ability to make sure that people can't revise a document one's written); there is much, much more harm in it. The most obvious of these is the removal of the fair use rights (although not law, fair use ought to be!). It is extremely possible and plausible to have DRM or software under the guise of DRM deny you the right to make a backup copy, change format, or even select a different player or create your own player! I'm sure we're all familiar with the Content Scrambling System, yes? That said, it is somewhat inevitable at this time. The MPAA, RIAA, and others are forcing it down our throats at the CD and movie stores. Yes, it can usually be broken, but that's a) illegal in the States, and b) just a workaround. We should concentrate on elevating bit players to the foreground, and try to avoid putting any more money in the MPAA/RIAA/ whoever coffers. That's the long-term solution; promote business that doesn't try to screw us over (as much). I know it's hard; I like to buy DVDs and CDs too. In fact, I feel like a hypocrite, 'cause I will most definitely be purchasing CDs and DVDs in the future. *sigh* Any suggestions on how to not support them (legally!) would be most welcome. Trusted Computing: There is actually quite a bit of good that I can see coming from trusted computing, _provided_ that some things are in place. *If* the user can set up the signatures herself, this can be a great boon to security. Imagine being able to ensure that the kernel you're booting was indeed the one you compiled and signed, and that it's not been rootkited. Even better, envision signed modules and binaries, making rootkits much, much harder. How? Well, sign the modules. The kernel then has the public key and can verify that the module hasn't been tampered with. Even better, it can refuse to load modules you've not signed, so that crackers can't set up a module so that not even your low-level tools can pick up the DoS daemon they've got running on port 666. Programs, already signed by you or the distro, could be kept signed on disk, and the kernel, having the appropriate public key supplied by you and/or the distro, could then verify that the binary hasn't been tampered with. Extend this to files, so that, for example, the cracker can't edit inetd.conf to make a bash instance listen in on port 1337, since inetd could ask the kernel to verify the signature of the file. And, even better, distribution updates can still be transparent, so long as the keys haven't changed. The package system just updates the signatures automatically with the files. This would require adding metadata to the file to store the signature, but it'd work and do quite a bit to make rootkits that much harder to implement. Can this be abused? Absolutely. StarOffice 8 could ask the kernel to ensure that the StarWriter file has not been modified. But, nobody's forcing you to use StarOffice 8; use AbiWord instead. Indeed, aside from asking the kernel to verify the file's integrity, nothing is there that can't be done with existing cryptographic routines. The difference is that the kernel is Linux, and doesn't care *what* the word processor is, so long as it's carrying a trusted signature (by you and/or the distro). Remember, this is Linux, and you can get the source, and make it go yourself. It's not Windows, which is closed and has Microsoft's business plan and Microsoft's interests behind it. Effectively, it's *your* kernel, and it has *your* interests behind it, because the hardware only cares that you signed it. SO LONG as the hardware gives you that right. This is why it's imperative that we get people on the steering committees. Do we already? It's extremely unfortunate that one has to be a *business* in order to join a standards group and steer the future of technology. Unless you happen to have thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars lying around that can't be put to better use. Hopefully, our corporate backers can help get us in to these meetings; it's imperative that we (the users) can tell the hardware what to do; not for the hardware to tell *us* what we can do. We *must* be able to set the signatures via *some* method. This doesn't need to circumvent the system if designed properly [for instance, requiring physical access + special knowledge (e.g. password)]. Won't stop everything, but neither will anything else [for instance, FBI could force chipmaker to make special chips with special keys to allow them to load, say, a keysniffer, even if it's embedded into a chip and not otherwise settable]. There's more that could be done with a trusted architecture [fast hardware encryption, storing keys so that not even the kernel knows them nor can get at them; mutual distrust between the key/user credential storage and the kernel, etc.] to make it a very secure system *if* we can hack on it too, and ensure that the user is in control. Essentially, we (linux, BSD, and others) are the ones working for the users. We are extremely necessary in the fixating the digital future for the users. This last part was the last part of my debian-devel posting; I think I've covered it all. I hope that we can adopt the good parts of Trusted Computing, and I really hope we can help steer it to make sure it goes in a way that's not constrictive. It's a fine line, but, maybe with corp. backing (Transmeta, Sun, IBM, Red Hat), we might be able to get some developers in to the TCPA and others. After all, if Microsoft can do it, we can do it *better*. (and freer ;) -Joseph -- Joseph===============================================trelane@digitasaru.net "Isn't it illegal for Microsoft to tie any of its software products to its OS?" --Rob Riggs on slashdot (www.slashdot.org) about Microsoft's order to cease and decist using Visual Fox Pro on Linux, a non-Microsoft OS. "Yes. The penalty is dinner with no dessert." --Alien Being, response ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 204+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-08 0:25 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 204+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304232012400.19176-100000@home.transmeta.co m> 2003-04-27 10:52 ` Houston, I think we have a problem Mike Galbraith 2003-04-27 14:41 ` Martin J. Bligh 2003-04-27 17:25 ` Mike Galbraith 2003-04-27 17:29 ` Martin J. Bligh 2003-04-27 17:41 ` Mike Galbraith 2003-04-27 17:54 ` Mike Galbraith 2003-04-28 5:17 ` Mike Galbraith 2003-04-28 6:15 ` Jan Harkes 2003-04-24 3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 4:40 ` Joel Jaeggli 2003-04-24 4:43 ` Greg KH 2003-04-24 4:57 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 5:02 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-04-24 5:39 ` viro 2003-04-24 5:56 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 2003-04-24 8:46 ` Dax Kelson 2003-04-24 9:46 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-04-24 10:54 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana 2003-04-25 0:07 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-04-24 4:54 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-04-24 5:16 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 13:08 ` Shawn 2003-04-24 20:12 ` Kenneth Johansson 2003-04-24 17:32 ` Andreas Boman 2003-04-24 17:41 ` William Lee Irwin III 2003-04-24 19:39 ` Balram Adlakha 2003-04-26 17:05 ` Riley Williams 2003-04-24 5:02 ` Mark J Roberts 2003-04-24 5:13 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-04-24 5:15 ` William Lee Irwin III 2003-04-24 5:43 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 6:15 ` William Lee Irwin III 2003-04-24 7:44 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 8:03 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 2003-04-25 1:16 ` Jan Harkes 2003-04-25 1:35 ` Stan Bubrouski 2003-04-24 8:16 ` John Bradford 2003-04-24 8:31 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 8:59 ` John Bradford 2003-04-24 8:50 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 14:45 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 15:00 ` Jeff Garzik 2003-04-24 19:03 ` Daniel Phillips 2003-04-24 19:32 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 19:22 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 20:19 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 20:35 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 19:39 ` Balram Adlakha 2003-04-24 21:02 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 18:58 ` Daniel Phillips 2003-04-24 21:08 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 21:37 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 21:30 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 21:38 ` John Bradford 2003-04-25 3:20 ` Shawn 2003-04-25 5:47 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-25 7:02 ` John Bradford 2003-04-25 8:05 ` Simple x86 Simulator (was: Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!) Steven Augart 2003-04-25 15:38 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-25 16:10 ` John Bradford 2003-04-25 11:44 ` Antonio Vargas 2003-04-25 8:52 ` Flame Linus to a crisp! Helge Hafting 2003-04-25 14:03 ` Mike Dresser 2003-04-24 21:42 ` Russell King 2003-04-25 6:08 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 2003-04-25 11:46 ` Antonio Vargas 2003-04-24 10:57 ` Giuliano Pochini 2003-04-24 22:51 ` Adrian Bunk 2003-04-24 7:55 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 8:37 ` Andreas Jellinghaus 2003-04-24 8:59 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 12:52 ` Andreas Jellinghaus 2003-04-24 15:37 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 18:35 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-24 20:46 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-24 20:50 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 21:03 ` Chris Adams 2003-04-24 22:29 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-24 22:41 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 22:54 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-25 0:26 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 22:41 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 14:21 ` Matthias Andree 2003-04-27 16:13 ` Stephan von Krawczynski 2003-04-27 16:59 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 17:04 ` Ben Collins 2003-04-27 17:34 ` Michael Buesch 2003-04-27 18:41 ` Henrik Persson 2003-04-27 17:35 ` Måns Rullgård 2003-04-27 17:49 ` Mirar 2003-04-27 23:15 ` H. Peter Anvin 2003-04-27 17:59 ` Michael Buesch 2003-04-27 21:28 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-28 1:48 ` rmoser 2003-04-28 9:05 ` Måns Rullgård 2003-04-28 10:44 ` The X-Window System John Bradford 2003-04-28 14:37 ` Herman Oosthuysen 2003-04-28 16:28 ` uaca 2003-05-06 3:55 ` Miles Bader 2003-04-27 18:07 ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Matthias Schniedermeyer 2003-04-27 18:35 ` Chris Adams 2003-04-27 18:50 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 19:11 ` Davide Libenzi 2003-04-27 20:13 ` Frank van Maarseveen 2003-04-27 20:34 ` walt 2003-04-27 21:26 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 22:07 ` Ross Vandegrift 2003-04-27 22:32 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 22:05 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 23:28 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 0:06 ` Ross Vandegrift 2003-04-28 11:03 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-29 18:06 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-28 9:06 ` Eric W. Biederman 2003-04-28 14:55 ` Michael Buesch 2003-04-28 20:04 ` Matthias Schniedermeyer 2003-04-28 20:18 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 20:22 ` Chris Adams 2003-04-28 21:24 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 21:40 ` Roman Zippel 2003-04-28 22:13 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-28 22:16 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-29 0:09 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-29 4:07 ` Dax Kelson 2003-04-29 5:08 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-29 16:40 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-04-29 21:45 ` Helge Hafting 2003-04-30 9:58 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-30 15:06 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-04-29 5:59 ` Theodore Ts'o 2003-04-29 16:41 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-04-29 14:35 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 22:34 ` Matthias Andree 2003-04-27 22:51 ` Matthew Kirkwood 2003-04-27 23:53 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 0:00 ` rmoser [not found] ` <20030428001001.GP23068@work.bitmover.com> 2003-04-28 0:19 ` rmoser 2003-04-28 0:37 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-28 0:40 ` rmoser 2003-04-28 11:38 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 2003-04-29 14:21 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-29 14:27 ` Henrik Persson 2003-04-29 19:56 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-29 20:35 ` Henrik Persson 2003-04-30 8:39 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-27 18:47 ` William Lee Irwin III 2003-04-27 18:56 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-27 19:20 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2003-04-27 21:30 ` Jon Portnoy 2003-04-27 21:32 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 22:36 ` Larry McVoy 2003-04-27 21:56 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 23:08 ` Matthew Kirkwood 2003-04-27 22:16 ` Alan Cox 2003-04-27 23:35 ` Matthias Andree 2003-04-27 22:07 ` Matthias Andree 2003-04-28 0:36 ` Scott Robert Ladd 2003-04-28 9:57 ` Stephan von Krawczynski 2003-05-06 15:58 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-05-07 14:44 ` Stephan von Krawczynski 2003-05-07 14:28 ` Alan Cox 2003-05-07 21:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-05-07 22:16 ` Alan Cox 2003-05-08 0:33 ` Kurt Wall 2003-04-28 11:26 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 2003-05-06 15:59 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2003-04-28 22:50 ` Timothy Miller 2003-04-29 14:46 ` Jeffrey Souza 2003-04-29 15:16 ` venom 2003-04-30 9:35 ` Jamie Lokier [not found] ` <20030427171007$6d24@gated-at.bofh.it> 2003-04-27 20:08 ` Why DRM exists Florian Weimer 2003-04-24 19:23 ` Flame Linus to a crisp! Jamie Lokier 2003-04-24 19:50 ` Balram Adlakha 2003-04-24 8:57 ` Arjan van de Ven 2003-04-24 9:19 ` Russell King 2003-04-24 11:38 ` Shachar Shemesh 2003-04-24 17:46 ` Shachar Shemesh 2003-04-24 14:59 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-24 12:39 ` Mark Mielke 2003-04-24 15:53 ` Elladan 2003-04-24 18:31 ` Daniel Phillips 2003-04-24 23:15 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-25 11:28 ` Eric W. Biederman 2003-04-27 1:31 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-27 1:59 ` David Wagner 2003-04-25 14:37 ` Daniel Phillips 2003-04-25 15:17 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 2003-04-25 17:37 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-26 21:59 ` Daniel Phillips 2003-04-26 13:00 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2003-04-26 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-26 18:41 ` viro 2003-04-26 18:48 ` Linus Torvalds 2003-04-28 14:20 ` John Stoffel 2003-04-26 19:23 ` Michael Buesch 2003-04-28 10:35 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-04-28 12:12 ` Jörn Engel 2003-04-28 14:01 ` Zack Gilburd 2003-04-28 14:30 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2003-04-26 18:21 ` Rik van Riel 2003-04-26 23:34 ` Jamie Lokier 2003-04-27 3:59 ` Werner Almesberger 2003-04-24 20:16 ` Nils Holland 2003-04-25 4:46 ` My take on Trusted Computing and DRM Joseph Pingenot
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).