digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

New open-source license targets DRM!!! WAY TO GO GPL!!!

news.zdnet.com — This is cool, the GPL is going to guns with DRM stating "GPL software cannot use 'digital restrictions' on copyright material unless users can control them."

Who dugg this? Made popular Jan 19, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

51 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • mistshadow2k4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It amazes me how many consumers seem to think DRM is a good thing. With DRM they can restrict you from actually using what you paid for. Ever seen the .wma that you have to pay over and over to listen to the song after a certain number of days? That's DRM. Buy an ebook sometime, something you need to take notes from for schoolwork and then try to do that if it is DRMed - guess what, you can't copy any text, the file can only be viewed and printed. And you know what? They can and do this with public domain works. Yes, you can buy a copy of, say, the Bible and find it is DRMed. Or Poe, Shakespeare, etc.

    I know because this happened to me; I bought a copy of Poe's works and it was DRMed so that it could only be viewed and printed. On the first page the maker had a copyright notice claiming they owned the copyright to the whole file, although the only original content in the file of their own creation was the cover and the copyright notice itself.

    Digital Rights Management may not have been a bad concept, but it has progressed well past the point of being Digital Rights THEFT, especially when public domain works are DRMed. If fair use were a law that was actually enforced this wouldn't happen, but as it is, DRM allows the maker to restrict content in any way they like, no matter how much it violates fair use (or even other peoples' copyrights, as public domain works are copyrighted by the people).

    Think about what it is that you're actually supporting - the robbing of the people of their own property and the violation of fair use. Digital Rights Management takes away your rights.
  • ArthurSucks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"OH NOES... looks like the slashdot crowd is coming to digg. When are you people going to realize that DRM is a fair tradeoff between music creators and consumers. Who cares you can't make infinite copies of a cd to give to your neighbor? Your neighbor should get a job and buy his own cds like everyone else, just like with software. *sigh* this sort of comments erks me to no end!"

    So it's a fair trade off that I can't listen to my itunes songs on my Linux laptop even though I paid for it just like a real CD? Itunes was only worth it when I had hymn.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It keep them from using GPLed code in their DRM software, it doesn't however stop DRM from getting on Linux. It's entirely possible to write closed source software that runs on Linux.


    "DRM is NOT A BAD THING!"

    Yes it is.


    "People seem to think that DRM will result in fewer options regarding media and other kinds of content on their PCs. This is wrong. DRM will allow companies to be confident that they can sell content that they MIGHT NOT NORMALLY SELL. Without this DRM, that service/content WOULD NOT EXIST."

    DRM has the very real potential of curtailing ones ability enjoy purchased content. Since these DRM systems are often incompatable one has to have special player for that particular DRM scheme. They allow companies to do lock ins and in some cases change the terms retroactively. Content can and is being sold without DRM, those services don't get as much hype because they don't have billion dollar ad budgets.

    "Case in point: iTunes. Do you honestly think iTunes would exist without DRM? It would absolutely not."

    Let's examine why it wouldn't exist, and it's certainly not because consumer wouldn't buy from it or use the service. The sole reason is because the major record labels insist on DRM, and they a dominate position.

    "Most people who use iTunes find the DRM to be fairly unintrustive, as do most people who use the more Windows-centric services such as Napster or Rhapsody."

    That doesn't necessarly mean it's in their best interest. They'd likely be just as happy, and in some case happier, without.

    "DRM opens up NEW markets that would not be possible without it."

    The only market that has been opened that would be impossible without it are services like movielink.com. Those haven't exactly taken off.

    "To rail against DRM as being anti-choice or anti-freedom completely misses the point."

    That's exactly what it does. It tries to limit what a consumer can do with the content they purchased.
  • SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think there is a misconception among people. This new GPL revision doesn't keep people from using linux to write DRM at all. It simply says you cannot license your software under the GPL if it has DRM in it. Which NO ONE should have a problem with. You really don't need the GPL to make linux applications. Look at Java, thats not under the GPL and yet it is a linux tool. All this does is add a guarantee to users that if something is licensed under the GPLv3 they won't need to worry about it having DRM in it. If Real player releases something for linux thats fine and will always be ok, they just will use their own EULA instead of the GNU GPL. Before people start bashing the new GPL for anti DRM, just for christ sake read the damn thing and stop talking like fools.
  • SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3YES! this is EXACTLY what we need. DRM for way too long has suppressed user freedom. The iTunes music store is a good example of inconvenience. Once you buy your songs (a very easy process which I find no problem in) the song isn't even yours! Its corrupted with RIAA DRM trash that limits you to whatever computer you "authorize" (And apple conveniently locks you to its own products) This restriction renders the iTunes products useless. You have to crack something that you already own just to have full control over it. A big reason why DVDs suck is because of the DeCSS protection scheme (thank you dvd jon) Atleast you can get around that. Another big pain with DRM is HDMI. The only reason why hardware manufactures are using HDMI instead of DVI is because of pressure from the MPAA and others who want to cut users rights. They won't rest untill the MPAA and RIAA own all media always and forever and the best you can do is rent it from them for a monthly fee. Thats all I have to say now its time to go rip a legal DVD just so I can watch it off my file server instead of the stupid disc (jesus christ will this ***** ever end!)
  • hax0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2quentinp, they are not restricting open software, they are preventing open software from being restrictive.
  • SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No das7282 you aren't understanding. Linux(the operating system) will not have DRM, even if they put legal music downloading services in it. The services like iTunes will be separate applications that can run in linux and be bundled in linux distros without being licensed under the GPL. This will not hurt corporates at all. It will simply give those of us who enjoy consumer freedom the assurance that if an application is GPLed it will be safe frim DRM. If you were wondering there are already linux applications with DRM (Acrobat Reader) That is not licensed under the GPL and you don't see linux users unable to read protected PDF's. Companies will just use their own license and not the GPL.
  • mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2...And if you want to include DRM capability in your GPL'ed software, you're still free to use previous versions of the license. You don't have to use GPLv3.
  • TAGG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ArthurSucks,

    The problem with DRM - it that music creators not longer benefit from them. Just like from patents !
    Take a read more here http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf
  • SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ABSOLUTELY. ALL it does is keep DRM out of applications licensed under the GPL. You can feel free to use linux to host all the DRM you want. You can install all the DRMed applications you want into linux and distribute it freely. Not all applications in a linux distro needs to be licensed under the GPL. Every piece of software in lets say Ubuntu is licensed separately. You can very well have lets say Real player bundled with umbuntu. Real would just be licensed differently.
  • stimpack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Case in point: iTunes. Do you honestly think iTunes would exist without DRM? It would absolutely not. Most people who use iTunes find the DRM to be fairly unintrustive, as do most people who use the more Windows-centric services such as Napster or Rhapsody."

    Dude, iTunes exists because kids are clueless. Tell them they can get mp3s without DRM resrictions from allofmp3.com or somthing and its bye bye iTunes.
  • Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here's the thing,

    You can still write GPLed software that includes DRM -- You simply choose to offer it under an older version of the GPL. You can even use GPLed source to write DRM enabled software, as long as the author of that source is providing their software under V1 or V2 of the GPL.

    So basically, anyone that writes GPL software has a choice whether they want to offer it under V3 or some other less restritive version. Or even the LGPL. Or even if they just want to make it public domain, or some other license of their own design.

    While I am still unsure about the legal strength of the GPL as a legally binding contract, it's heart is in the right place and gives consideration to both parties.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I'm glad that most Digg readers have reached the correct conclusion that this change will be bad for the Open Source movement and bad for freedom."

    I don't see how it's bad for open source? Companies that have used open source as part of their DRM software have ran in to trouble meeting all the requirements of GPL v2 because they don't want to release their DRM code. Once they release the code for their DRM cracking becomes almost trivial relative to do it without the code. Even before the GPL v3 DRM and open source weren't good for each other. Now the GPL v3 just out right prohibits the use of GPLed code in DRM systems.



  • Aflat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, Tivo uses open source, since it uses Linux, yet it has DRM in the form of acknowledging the Macrovision flags.

    I think their own .tivo files may be safe, as the user can still do whatever they want to them.
  • VinCenT13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good statement
  • saysaknow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I heard them talking about rewriting the GPL on dl tv.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Let me put to you his way, if DRM is not allowed in Linux do you think there will ever be a "legal" music download service for Linux? Or a "legal" movie download service?"

    I think you've misunderstood what the anti-DRM provision is about. In the case of Linux (should it ever be license under v3 of the GPL) It would stop a company from embedding DRM into the Kernal or other parts under the GPLv3. It wouldn't prevent a company from writing a stand alone application that contains DRM. If Apple wanted to they could port iTunes to Linux(if it were under GPLv3) DRM and all and there wouldn't be a conflict with the license. What they couldn't do is take an open source media player under the GPLv3, add DRM functions to the code and redistribute it.
  • hax0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0these people are my heroes
  • KillerJ59J, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0:) Nice to hear that the OSS Gods are on our side.
  • quentinp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hax0r - ah so they are saying you can't use our stuff to make DRM? Well it's still a limitation, but not necessarily a bad one!
  • edmcguirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ok, on second thought, I see the error in the logic of my last statement.

    Using GPL to write DRM software would be breakable. You could break the DRM on products that you purchased and redistribute untraceable copies but you could not break the DRM on product that someone else purchased unless you had their key.
  • grandalf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sniper:

    Will the GPL3 allow Google to run servers that use, say glibc licensed under gpl3 to distribute DRM'ed media such as television shows?
  • super_structure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0jasongetsdown: "As if anyone who writes using the GPL uses DRM anyways."

    I'm pretty sure my TiVo does, which is part of the focus of the article. To "simply change the code" is kind of defeating the purpose of having the GPL license anyway isn't it? I mean, that's the difference between just releasing the code and releasing it under an particular license.
  • InvisionUK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually Mr ThinkFr33ly, I find Napster's DRM to be incredibly intrusive. Until very recently I was forced to use Windows Media Player and not Winamp to play music I downloaded from there.

    To play songs I get off iTunes, in order to play them in Winamp, I at least need iTunes installed and a compatible plugin. SharpMusique didn't work with the new store last time I checked.

    I'm sorry, but I'm from the school of DRM is a very bad thing. It's why HD-DVD will win over Blu-Ray. Still restrictive in some ways, but not about as useful as a frisbee when it's out of the player, and as long as manufacturer's pimp out HD-DVD's abilities on the box, it'll definitely win in the consumer market too.
  • auratus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How does this affect the interface between OS and the hardware? For example, would this not allow a Linux OS under GPL3 to run on newer hardware with mandatory trusted computing stuff like TCM? Would Linux users have to install some binary module that's not GPL3 just to get Linux to run on this hardware?
  • SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If they made the DRM open source it would circumvent the security as it would be cake to break. GPLv3 is just like a tag saying "this software is free of anti consumer technology". It isn't designed to stop DRM all together, just to give users an easier time finding what software to avoid.
  • KAMI_no_kodomo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Software creaters: Do as me. Licence your work under the GPL!
  • bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Damnit, the FSF has stated repeatedly that the GPL is NOT an Open Source license. It's a Free Sotware license. Learn the difference, people.
  • danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0+digg. but !!!WHY!!! THE EXCLAIMATION POINTS!!! !!! !!! ouch.
  • SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Don't forget its false to only associate open source with the GPL. Mozilla Firefox is not licensed under the GPL and yet its open source. Its licenced under the MPL if you care to research it.
  • ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0However much I agree with the stand in theory, injecting this kind of "politics" into the GPL seems unprofessional to me. The openness that the GPL creates by its very nature should be statement enough. What's next? "The GPL cannot be applied to software used for tracking baby seals for clubbing"? I think the license is better off if it takes the high road and stays above the fray.rnrnp.s. Digg: Sorry. The captcha is not going to eliminate all the lame comments on Digg.rnrnrnrnrn
  • grandalf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sniper:

    My question was intended to mean "can google use its linux servers to encode content with DRM, distribute it, and manage the web store for it?"

    Glibc is likely used by all of Google's current systems that do this sort of thing (in various stages of development), and so won't Google have to reengineer some significant chunks of its code to work around this restriction (assuming GPL3 applies to glibc)...

  • edmcguirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It would be easy to imagine a completely free, open source, and unbreakable DRM.

    For example, DRM could encrypt the product such that the key is your credit card information. You could not redistribute the product unless you sent your credit card information along with the product to be used as the key to decript.

    You could mess with the source code all day long and you could not break that DRM unless you had the key.

    How is this against the spirit of GPL?

    Now on the other hand, if you are saying that you cannot limit the redistribution of the GPL software by putting DRM on the GPL software. Obviously that is against the spirit of GPL.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think open source and DRM are mutually exclusive, at least if you want the DRM to be even slightly effect.

    "I can see how you could not put DRM on GPL3 software but I do not see how you could not use GPL3 software to do DRM."

    That depends on what you mean by use. In the case of Linux you could run your DRM software as an application without any problem. If you mean use the code, in order to comply with the GPL one has to make the source code avaliable including that of any modifications. If your modification includes the addition of DRM then under the anti-DRM provision you are prevent by the terms of the license from legally distributing that modified software
  • fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@stimpack:

    "Dude, iTunes exists because kids are clueless. Tell them they can get mp3s without DRM resrictions from allofmp3.com or somthing and its bye bye iTunes."

    No, "dude", iTunes exists because despite thieving morons, large numbers of the populace understand that producing music can take money, lots of it, and they support this kind of business model, being perfectly willing to choke up a buck for a good tune. I, for one, wouldn't download anything "for free" that the artist had not specifically and clearly identified as having intended to provide for free.

    BTW, I'm a musician, and I *do* provide my products for free; I have no objection to a free music model, I just don't consider thievery to be a valid free model. It's just what it has always been, a bunch of losers taking advantage of the honest members of society. In other words, every time someone steals something in a cost-bearing production system, the *legitimate* customers in that system end up bearing the cost, or the creators do (meaning, the musicians.) You don't actually think you're hurting the *record companies*, do you? Or are you that stupid?

    If you want free music, either find someone who is creating free music and wants you to have it, or make your own. Stealing is for morons.

  • Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0See, these types of restrictions are meaningless. They won't stop DRM, they'll just push DRM towards GPLv2 solutions. Or other opensource licences. Or they may push companies to not go GPL at all and star proprietary.

    Wouldn't you rather use a GPL'd DRM solution than a closed-source DRM solution? If I had to use DRM, I'd rather use the open solution.
  • edmcguirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can see how you could not put DRM on GPL3 software but I do not see how you could not use GPL3 software to do DRM.

    DRM is not that different from encryption. You want to allow certain parties to see it and prevent certain parties from seeing it. There's no problem using GPL3 software to do encryption.
  • chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Wow... kind of clueless actually.

    DRM is NOT A BAD THING!"

    So what you are saying is that you are OK with corporations stripping away your fair use rights? When everything has DRM, how will you feel about licencing your media? If you don't know what I mean - think a TiVo that won't let you record a given show at all, or a movie you *own* on Super High Definition New DVD format - that cost you a dime to watch it each time because your DVD box is registered and will only work when it recieves its licence permision to do so.

    Imagine an electronic device you own calling home to report that it is being used in a way The Company doesen't aprove (ie - linux on an ipodNew! or a blue ray DVD player).

    http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/02/blu-ray-players-to-punish-users-who-hack-their-gear/

    Yes, I can't wait until DRM is in everything. Then I can be safe from owning anything electronic, or media related. You might be OK with losing your rights - be we are not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
  • MacNugget, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm with ThinkFr33l7 -- these updates to the GPL just further demonstrate that the FSF is not about freedom, the FSF is about making sure that everyone behaves in a very specific way.

    I *want* DRM on my medical records. DRM is a morally neutral mechanism. It's absurd for it to be attacked in this way by the folks at the FSF.
  • zenlunatic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1OH NOES... looks like the slashdot crowd is coming to digg. When are you people going to realize that DRM is a fair tradeoff between music creators and consumers. Who cares you can't make infinite copies of a cd to give to your neighbor? Your neighbor should get a job and buy his own cds like everyone else, just like with software. *sigh* this sort of comments erks me to no end!
  • akinder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0So, Open Source is all about the freedom and everything, except for a certain group of people that they don't like?

    This is why OSS is having a hard time being taken seriously in the corporate world. And by calling it 'digital restrictions management' ( cute really, fight the man! :P ), even if the GPL held up in court, they could use this as a loophole.

    'Well we don't have any Digital Restrictions Management software in our application, we have Digital Rights Management.'
  • grandalf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm glad that most Digg readers have reached the correct conclusion that this change will be bad for the Open Source movement and bad for freedom.

    It's quite ironic that the FSF thinks that restricting freedom via DRM is bad but via the GPL3 is good.
  • das7282, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I agree with the people that thinks this is a set in the wrong direction. I for one am not a fan of DRM or the media companies but has anyone stopped to think about how this will effect open source software?

    Let me put to you his way, if DRM is not allowed in Linux do you think there will ever be a "legal" music download service for Linux? Or a "legal" movie download service?

    No digg because this actually sucks.
  • edmcguirk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It would be easy to imagine a completely free, open source, and unbreakable DRM. rnrnFor example, DRM could encrypt the product such that the key is your credit card information. You could not redistribute the product unless you sent your credit card information along with the product to be used as the key to decript.rnrnYou could mess with the source code all day long and you could not break that DRM unless you had the key.rnrnHow is this against the spirit of GPL?rnrnrnNow on the other hand, if you are saying that you cannot limit the redistribution of the GPL software by putting DRM on the GPL software. Obviously that is against the spirit of GPL.
  • grandalf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0mistsshadow:

    DRM is a good thing. It simply enforces the terms of the license agreement you agreed to when you purchased the materials, terms that would otherwise be unenforcable.

    If you want to buy copies of public domain materials, try project Guetenberg or the Dover press. If you buy an audio version of Poe produced by Audible.com, expect it to have DRM b/c the audio recording is protected by copyright and the DRM enforces that.
  • jasongetsdown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0As if anyone who writes using the GPL uses DRM anyways. You could simply change the code to remove it if you knew what you were doing.

    Still, important statement of oft neglected users' rights.
  • quentinp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Kind of ironic that in the spirit of opennes they are restricting open software!
  • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Wow... kind of clueless actually.

    DRM is NOT A BAD THING!

    People seem to think that DRM will result in fewer options regarding media and other kinds of content on their PCs. This is wrong. DRM will allow companies to be confident that they can sell content that they MIGHT NOT NORMALLY SELL. Without this DRM, that service/content WOULD NOT EXIST.

    Case in point: iTunes. Do you honestly think iTunes would exist without DRM? It would absolutely not. Most people who use iTunes find the DRM to be fairly unintrustive, as do most people who use the more Windows-centric services such as Napster or Rhapsody.

    DRM opens up NEW markets that would not be possible without it. To rail against DRM as being anti-choice or anti-freedom completely misses the point.
  • kmoore134, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Excellent! Another reason for business and studios to drop Linux and jump over to BSD instead, where the REAL freedom is :)
  • grandalf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0This is a TERRIBLE day for open source.

    ThinkFr33ly above has made an excellent point.

    DRM is what ENABLES companies who sell content to actually make money by selling it.

    Sure, I find some DRM annoying, but the GPL3 prohibits ALL DRM, not just annoying DRM.

    What is going to happen? Companies like Google, Pixar, etc., are going to stop using software versions that are impacted by GPL3. Where will they turn? Probably to BSD licenses, MIT licenses, or maybe even the MS EULA (which is just another kind of license).

    We should all strongly oppose this utterly backwards move on the part of the Free Software Zealots.

    This is truly a shameful anti-business move and I hope we all realize that before it is too late.

    The only reason OSS has had significant commercial success lately is because it is "Business Compatible". DRM is a huge part of the future of many businesses, and so the GPL3 breaks the business compatibility of the license.

    Why not let the customers decide if DRM is too much.

    After all kinds of firms have spent billions investing in Open Source software, this is stab in the back by ESR and the other nutcases who think that DRM is bad.

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.