GPL 3 to Take Hard Line on DRM 574
sebFlyte writes "ZDNet is reporting that Eben Moglen, the FSF's lead lawyer and the co-authour of GPL3, has explained that DRM is 'fundamentally incompatible' with the aims of the FSF and will be given short shrift in the latest version of the free software licence, which bans the use of 'digital restrictions' in GPL3 governed software. In his words: 'I recognise that that's a highly aggressive position, but it's not an aggression which we thought up. It's a defence related to an aggression which was launched against the people whose rights are our primary concern... We don't want our software used in a way which batters the head of the user to please somebody else. Our goal is the protection of users' rights, not movies' rights.'" We discussed the new GPL on Monday.
Sony fiasco related? (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem with DRM... (Score:3, Insightful)
As a writer, I'd like to be paid for my work. I'd rather not make it easy for people to redistribute my work without compensating me.
As a consumer, I'd like open access to the things I purchase.
Argh!
GPL3 players for DRMed media illegal then? (Score:4, Insightful)
What does Linus think? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My problem with DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a writer as well, and a believer in the rights of content owners to be compensated.
I think it's been proven time and again, though, that DRM is a failed concept that actually hinders consumers more than it thwarts pirates.
Rights and compensation for copyright owners is an issue. DRM is not the answer.
Shooting yourself in the foot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sony fiasco is related (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My problem with DRM... (Score:2, Insightful)
Free software used to make protected products (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a bit ironic that the same companies that don't want you to see their movies for free will use software that can be obtained for free to make their movies.
I guess the entertainment industry motto is: "Why pay for it if you don't have to?"
Greater Gnu General Public Licence (Score:5, Insightful)
Linus may stick with GPL version 2 for the simple reason that he may wish to equip Linux to be able to implement hardware-based DRM. Linus is pragmatic in the straightforward sense: many Linux users will want access to DRMed material... Hence version 2, not version 3.
Stallman is pragmatic in a more esoteric sense: the GPL version 2 has been increadibly successful. He is pitching the GPL version 3 to maximise freedom, and this blow against DRM will do exactly that. True, free software will have less penetration as a result, but the world will be a freer place for the compromise not being taken.
From a moral angle, this clause allows programmers to restrict how the fruit of their skills is to be exploited, which is naturally within their right, as long as copyright is recognised in law.
Re:Sony fiasco related? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is really too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
-Rick
Right to read (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPL3 players for DRMed media illegal then? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read GPLv2 as intended, this was already the case in that version -- source that can't produce functional binaries is not the real source; GPLv3 just amends the wording so shifty lawyers can't play word games.
GPLv3 is not perfect and it has many warts, so bad that I would go Linus' way (pure v2) at this moment, but the DRM clause is one of its stronger upsides.
Re:My problem with DRM... (Score:2, Insightful)
That being said, I suffer from the same dilemma.
Re:My problem with DRM... (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy Way Out (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, there are plenty of "Open-Source" Licences. (MPL, LGPL, BSD, CopyCat, etc.) Is there something the GPL v.3 does that the others (GPL v.2 included) don't do?
whether or not the license says it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Take it easy, fellas (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the dish:
You don't like GPL v3? Don't use it. GPL v2 will still exist. In fact, I'm betting Linux (the kernel) won't ever be available under the GPL v3. I would be happy to use the new GPL since I enjoy such a license. If you don't like the new stuff added in, feel free to use GPL v2 software. More licenses == more choices. I don't see the problem here. BSD and GPL currently co-exist just fine. I'm sure BSD, GPL v2, and GPL v3 will do just the same.
Re:My problem with DRM... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My problem with DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
BUT you're still entirely at the mercy of Apple. If they go out of business, or get bought out, or become more evil/greedy, then they can impose new restrictions on the use of their products.
And while iTunes DRM does stop average Joe's from pirating songs, there's software out there to crack it, and it works.
Re:Shooting yourself in the foot? (Score:4, Insightful)
The business world doesn't seem to care very much about consumer rights, only improved quarterly results.
Why is the business approach okay?
We had copy protection on software 20 years ago until everybody took a firm stand against it. Then it went away. Maybe its time to do the same for DRM.
Re:My problem with DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd disagree with this. I have a music server that serves Foobar2000 on my windows PC, Amarok on my Linux HTPC and Music Player Daemon/Icecast so I can listen to my CDs at work. Much as i'd love to buy from itunes occasionally their DRM stops me from just dropping the tunes on my Linux server and using them as I see fit.
The same goes for the audiophile types who spend 30k+ on home music server systems for the same reasons - Apples DRM prohibits them from using their legally bought music as they see fit.
Back to P2P again then...
Re:Greater Gnu General Public Licence (Score:2, Insightful)
To access DRM material there are two different ways :
- you circumvent the DRM which may be legal under certain laws, especially if you do it for reaching interoperability. A circumvention program can be GPLed without any kind of doubt.
- you implement the DRM into your software, in which case, your software can't be GPLed : practically, implementing a DRM means programming a way to access a given key in certain conditions. If your program is free-as-free-speech, anyone can modify the code so the access will be given anytime.
That's the major incompatibility between free-as-free-speech software and DRM, as put by Loic Dachary, long-time member of the FSF : "when talking of a free-as-speech DRM, either it's not a DRM, or it's not free-as-speech"
(we took for a definition of a DRM coinciding of what they had been so far : Digital Restriction Measured, that control the use of copyrighted data.)
Re:why is this necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then it's goodbye, Linux.
If your assertion is correct, then GPL3 is worse than DRM: DRM controls your use of particular content; GPL3 controls your use of completely unrelated software. Not being able to watch my DVDs on my Linux box is annoying; not being able to use any DVD player (hard- or soft-ware) because I sometimes & independently use Linux will result in me getting rid of Linux, not my DVD players. On a larger scale, a DRM-xor-GPL3 dilema for movie houses (or anyone remotely using DRM in any form) will get the GPL3 products dumped in a heartbeat - basically suicidal for Linux. Considering how DRM is defined, that some software-control technologies are vital and perfectly reasonable in some industries (mine), far more may get lumped in the "DRM" definition and knock OSS out of most commercial use. Dumb beyond words.
Re:My problem with DRM... (Score:4, Insightful)
But let's imagine for a moment that Apple changed iTunes so that it would only play music that was protected, and it would only rip music from a CD, into the protected format. Suddenly their "unobtrusive" DRM would become a real thorn in everone's collective side.
The iTMS DRM is only acceptable because it's something that most people run across occasionally -- when they really want a new song and don't mind paying a dollar for it, or they had a bunch of those free-song Pepsi caps. Imagine that implemented across your entire music library and I think you'd have a different opinion.
On the source of rights... (Score:5, Insightful)
Something we have simply by right of being alive is something we will hold cheaply and assume will always be there, like the air we breathe.
Our rights are not God-given or inherent to ourselves. Nor are they granted to us by the benevolence of our rulers. Our rights were taken from our rulers, by force. Among all our ancestors were rebels and traitors, terrorists and pirates, mutineers and heretics and unionists and blackguards and revolutionaries and blasphemers and barbarians, and it is their struggle that we have to thank for the freedom we enjoy today. They fought against kings and barons, against tycoons and industrialists, against priests and popes, and they set themselves and their descendants free.
When you give up a freedom to the state, or to the establishment, or to the company, you aren't giving up something that is yours to give away that you've had all your life and which you got for nothing. You're giving up something bought by the blood of countless rebels over the centuries. You're betraying the sacrifices made by your ancestors.
A right we think is inalienable we will neglect and soon lose. A right we know was won by our ancestors through hardship and struggle we will defend forcefully.
Re:What does Linus think? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is assuming Linus even likes the new GPL. As far as I can tell, he's not too sympathetic to RMS's values anyway.
It doesn't really matter what Linus thinks, at least not with respect to Linux. Since all of Linux is licensed under GPLv2 _only_ (not GPLv2 or later, as suggested by the FSF), Linux couldn't be relicensed under GPLv3 without the permission of every person who has code in it. Linux contains contributions from thousands of programmers. Locating all of those people (or their heirs) to acquire all the necessary permissions is impractical at best.
Re:Shooting yourself in the foot? (Score:3, Insightful)
You vastly underestimate that task. Every kernel contributor, including every person who has modified a file and holds the copyright to said changes would have to grant GPLv3 status, or the GPLv3 version would have to omit them. Many of these authors are unreachable, others are quite literally dead. Rewriting those parts wouldn't be easy because they'll easily infringe on the original copyright, and any GPLv2 fans would likely make a fuzz.
Changing the license of any community-based project is hard. RMS got an easier way with the GPLv3, but if it is too extreme and people start using GPLv2 only, not even he can fix it (not even with a GPLv4).
Re:My problem with DRM... (Score:4, Insightful)
Restricting Use? (Score:4, Insightful)
I absolutely hate DRM and believe that the DMCA should be repealed. I also believe there should be laws stating that no one should be able to place digital locks on material that a user has certain rights to which the locks curtail.
However, I really don't know about this change in the GPL. I thought one of the things the GPL wanted to avoid were the extra clauses about what you could and couldn't use the software for. I seem to remember people who would write "free" software with the license almost identical to the GPL but then add things like "No one in the US Military is allowed to use this software." I was under the impression that people who truly wanted Free and Open Source Software to prevail were against these kinds of restrictions...
It's about freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS started his crusade long before anyone heard of Microsoft when a printer manufacturer wouldn't give him the source code for a printer driver so he could fix the bugs that were preventing it from working on the computer he was using. RMS is about preventing artificial limits on a computers ability to meet the needs of its users.
Over the years the artificial limits have included the unavailability (hoarding in RMS-speak) of source code and patents. Adding DRM is the next logicial addition.
Re:My problem with DRM... (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM comes in different forms, and there are variants like the smartcard based schemes that are used to defeat signal piracy which don't bother or obstruct the consumer but do thwart certain types of pirates.
I rather think this is a poor position for the FSF to take - it's OK to trumpet about users rights, but the GPL has always been a compromise between the rights of the developer to enforce his philosophy upon other people who use his code, and the rights of people to be independent of that very same developer.
The GPL is an agreement that is enforced (theoretically) by lawyers. The law is a means of copyright enforcement, just as DRM is. They both "batter heads to please somebody else". DRM was developed entirely because the law proved ineffective at stopping mass copyright violation (police have better things to do). So how comes the FSF can be pro-law but anti-DRM, given that they are different ways to achieve the same goal of copyright protection? It all seems poorly thought out to me, very much the sort of entirely black/white thinking that Stallman is notorious for.
Re:GPL3 players for DRMed media illegal then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except users will no longer have the freedom to build DRM software using GPL'd code. I realize my point sounds a little idiotic, but I've heard RMS make the point himself that the reason there aren't any clauses in the GPL about code not being used to manage missile silos, distribute kiddie porn, or in Oregon logging companies is that everyone will have their own political agenda and no one will be able to agree, thus making the idea behind free software somewhat pointless. No political statements other than making software free, not freeing the movies, books, and sony CDs.
I hate to sound like I'm defending DRM, but the whole reason I support free software is because there isn't a whole lot to disagree with. You don't have to be as extreme as RMS to support free software. But it sounds like soon you'll have to be anti-DRM to use the latest GPL. Forgive my crying "slippery slope", but what's next? Oil companies can't use it? Republicans can't?
I like free software, I don't like free* software.
*some exceptions to freedom may apply
Re:Sony fiasco related? (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly it's enforcable. Moreso than most agreements or contracts. But it's almost impossible to track down someone in violation, and quite unlikely you'll have the funding to do anything about it. I'm not sure how many banks give out loans to cover lawyer fees in order to file a lawsuit.
Re:My problem with DRM... (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing is, there are practical considerations. People need food and shelter to survive and materials to create whatever it is they're driven to create. The people who produce the food and shelter and materials needed to create stuff deserve to be compensated for their time. (Time is, after all, the only real wealth you've got.) That means that if you want to just create full time, you need to somehow derive at least the cost of your expenses from your creations. I don't think that reasonable people will disagree with this. The questions that have to be asked are these: "What is a fair way for creative people to be reasonably compensated for their creations?" and "What is the correct balance between the requirement that the creator be compensated for his time and the purchaser, who should get something for what he gives up, as well as society as a whole?"
That last bit, the one about what society gets, is actually quite an important issue, and one which hasn't get nearly enough attention over the last century or so. It is that benefit which is what encouraged the creation of the whole concept of "intellectual property" in the first place. The idea is that once the creator has been fairly compensated for his effort, then society can take that creation and make other ideas.
On the other hand, people should be allowed to give their stuff away. That's where the various free and open-source licenses come from. They make it easy for people to do just that.
Re:Sony fiasco related? (Score:4, Insightful)
How could that be a defense? Copyright isn't like trademark: a holder can selectively enforce his copyright if he chooses.
Besides, I believe that a number of GPL infringements were stopped by the threat of lawsuit. So, at least certain would-be defendants wanted to avoid court.
Re:Sony fiasco related? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My problem with DRM... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure most user will care- they'll treat your software just like they treat other copyright/licensing issues. The real threat might be to other programmers (maybe your project a library of some kind), but as for users...they'll go with whatever allows them to get what they want, licenses or copyrights notwithstanding.
Re:I'm not so sure this is a good idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Without this clause in the GPL, a company such as Intel or Dell can fork Linux, publish their code, but through signing only allow their compiles of the code to run on a system. That effectively prevents other people from changing code, so for example if it includes an audio driver that fingerprints its output and checks on the net to see if you have paid for the music then you can't play your mp3s you ripped previously. You can't remove that driver, you're stuck with it. Does that sound like open source to you?
With Intel's new boot system that Apple is using (and is a sure bet to be the future standard) the system can be restricted to only boot from certain signed code. These systems are shipping now. In a few years it will be possible to retro-fit systems (by Congressional fiat for example) to only boot an authorized os that only runs authorized code. People should realize this before criticizing GPL 3.
So under GPL 3 I can't make a kernel with hard-coded program keys/signatures... whoever gets my kernel code has to be able to generate and use their own. That is such an incredibly minor drawback compared to not being able to run any code at all without authorization.
Re:My problem with DRM... (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to support a strategy just because it has a legitimate goal. DRM does not prevent piracy and often infringes upon a consumer's legitimate uses. It is now creating security issues.
So, we've crossed the spectrum from ineffectual, to annoying, to dangerous. It's not good enough that it was originally supposed to be about respecting the law.
Noble goals are not enough, and the ends to not justify the means.
GPLv3 and PDF specification (Score:1, Insightful)
In the PDF 1.6 specification, chapter 1.5 are written rules under which you can use the Adobe copyrighted list of data structures and operators. A part of them:
Is this DRM, or not?
XPDF author writes about this here
http://www.foolabs.com.nyud.net:8090/xpdf/crackin
Re:GPL 3: non-neutral agenda (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL is designed to preserve users' freedoms. Closed-source software and obnoxious DRM are basically electronic forms of enslavement. RMS gets this, and says the Four Freedoms of users are more important than the false freedom of developers to dictate terms for the use of their programs. Exactly the way that my freedom to walk down the streets of Britain and know that nobody is carrying a live firearm that could be used against me is more important than some gun nut's freedom to keep lethal weapons just in case civilisation happens to break down. {If and when that ever happens, I know how to make a gun anyway; but it's unlikely enough that I'm not worried about it.}
Re:Greater Gnu General Public Licence (Score:3, Insightful)
But copyright is not a natural right, so it is not naturally with programmers rights to restrict how the fruits of their skills may be exploited. Legally they have the right to do so, but morally they do not. In the case of GPL advocates, who already morally condemn the concept of copyright, demanding such rights borders on the hypocritical.
DRM will persist (Score:3, Insightful)
As Godel noted, there is an unresolvable issue in every system. As you note, the unresolvable issue in Stallman's GPL3 is the "no DRM anywhere ever" vs. "DRM is a fact of life - cope" vs. "no OSS for you" - pushed to its logical limits, Stallman's ideology makes it untenable in the real world. Getting banned from playing in sandbox A because you play in sandbox B discourages people from playing in B
Undoing effective DRM consistent with GPLv2 goals (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the difference between the GPL and the modified BSD license, or the MIT license? Some groups claim that the latter two licenses are more free than the GPL. In one sense, they are correct. The GPL puts certain restrictions on redistribution, whereas the other two licenses put virtually no restrictions.
You are correct that RMS has previously argued that there should be no "anti-suchandsuch" political clauses in the GPL. RMS believes that users should be free to do anything with the software. Thus, your view is correct, but not complete!
In fact, RMS has always stated that users should be free to do anything with the software, except restrict other users' freedom to do anything with the software. That was the whole point of the restrictions in the GPLv2.
When you look at it in this light, you realize that forbidding effective DRM is in fact consistent with the philosophical aims of the GPLv2, because DRM is nothing more than a way of restricting a user's freedom to do whatever he wants with the software. However, this draft of GPLv3 makes this explicit, because DRM-protecting laws like the DMCA have become so dangerous to Free Software.
Furthermore, your basic premise is in fact false. This draft of GPLv3 still allows programmers to write software that encodes or decodes DRM-wrapped file formats. However, this draft of GPLv3 legally defines any such software as not "an effective technological protection measure". These words have a specific legal meaning. The DMCA legally forbids a user from circumventing an effective technological protection measure; as such, if a piece of GPLv2 software implements a DRM-wrapper, it would be illegal under the DMCA to modify the software, even though the GPLv2 otherwise grants you that right. With this draft of the GPLv3, by defining the software legally as not "an effective technological protection measure" the DMCA will never be invoked, and the user is free to excersize his freedom by modifying the software.
Re:It's about freedom (Score:1, Insightful)
It's easy to clone something that already exists, or to make minor extensions. It's much harder to create something new. RMS is an outstanding cloner. The problem is that he has never been able to create new designs except on very small things.
EMACS was not new. It was built on many prior efforts, going back more than a decade, by people at MIT and elsewhere. EMACS itself was the work of many people. RMS would have you believe that it came out of nowhere but his own imagination.
RMS is also not capable of operating system design. He was rarely allowed to modify the ITS kernel. That's why, 25 years after his great manifesto describing the soon-to-come GNU operating system and how it would have all the wonderful features of ITS and replace UNIX, nothing ever came of it. Now he promises HURD (which will never be more than a toy) and denigrates Linux as "just a kernel".
Last, but not least, RMS is incapable of writing debugged code. He writes a lot of code, and it is frequently useful, but someone else has to debug it and make it work. The problem is that unless you accept RMS as your Lord and Master (thus his bidding takes precedence over any contrary ideas you may have), it is impossible to work with RMS. Put another way, you can work under RMS, but not withRMS.
All of these are reasons why the GNU/FSF movement has remained stuck on created New and Improved UNIX and hasn't done anything newer than 1970s technology.
Now you know why he hasn't cloned Windows; an operating system is beyond him. Now you also know why he hasn't cloned Office; technology newer than the 1970s is also beyond him. Oh, FSF has tried, but nobody without a political axe to grind considers the GNU clones to be serious replacements.
As a result, I see the anti-DRM effort of GPL 3 to be something that will generate a lot of noise from the FSF groupies, but will lead to a big yawn on the part of the people it supposedly attacks. Bill Gates will sleep soundly, knowing that GPL software won't even compete in the markets where DRM is required.
Oh well, so much for the GPL 3... (Score:3, Insightful)
I like what they are doing here (Score:3, Insightful)