[olug] Fw: FC: Linus Torvalds on digital rights management in Linux kernel

Tue Apr 29 01:17:56 UTC 2003

I don't think DRM, in and of itself, is a bad thing.

In conjunction with the absolutely crappy intellectual property/copyright
laws we have in this country, it does however becomes a tool for content
providers to control content users.  I agree with Linus, the place to fight
this isn't on the technical front.  We need to change the crappy laws.

Nick Walter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Wiese" <bwiese at cotse.com>
To: "olug" <olug at olug.org>; "acm" <acm at arioch.unomaha.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 4:07 PM
Subject: [olug] Fw: FC: Linus Torvalds on digital rights management in Linux
kernel

> I saw this on some sites as well, but it's just eaiser to fwd from another
> mailing list.  I personally don't like the idea of DRM in the Linux
> kernel, but I guess it is acceptable in the GPL.  I just hope it doesn't
> become part of the 'standard' or that laws eventually will require a "DRM
> compliant kernel in all OS's".  I guess this does mean though that
> interoperability may remain between Micro$oft and 'free' operating
> systems.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:21:11 -0400
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com>
> To: politech at politechbot.com
> Subject: FC: Linus Torvalds on digital rights management in Linux kernel
>
>
> [This is a little old now, but I'm catching up on Politech posts, and it's
> still worthy of being circulated. --Declan]
>
> ---
>
> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:52:07 -0700
> From: Aaron Lehmann <aaronl at vitelus.com>
> To: declan at well.com
> Subject: Linus on DRM
>
> Hi Declan,
>
> You may have already seen this, but if not, it's pretty interesting.
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Linus Torvalds <torvalds at transmeta.com> -----
>
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at transmeta.com>
> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
> To: Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org>
> Subject: Flame Linus to a crisp!
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0
> tests=USER_AGENT_PINE,X_MAILING_LIST autolearn=ham version=2.53
>
>
> 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 at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>   Brian Wiese | bwiese at cotse.com | aim: unolinuxguru
> ------------------------------------------------------
>   GnuPG/PGP key 0xF3220030 | "FREEDOM!" - Braveheart
> ------------------------------------------------------
> This is not about Napster or DVDs. It's about your Freedom.
>   I'll see your DMCA and raise you a First Amendment.
>               http://www.anti-dmca.org
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>