找回密码
 注册
查看: 2299|回复: 7

Opposing DRM

[复制链接]
发表于 2006-6-1 15:04:48 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
Q: Next-generation computers are designed to restrict what you can do with them even before they're bought. How should the free software community respond?
RMS: In 1989, in a very different world, I wrote the first version of the GNU General Public License, a license that gives computer users freedom. The GNU GPL, of all the free software licenses, is the one that most fully embodies the values and aims of the free software movement, by ensuring the four fundamental freedoms for every user. These are freedoms to 1) run the program as you wish; 2) study the source code and change it to do what you wish; 3) make and distribute copies, when you wish; 4) and distribute modified versions, when you wish.
Any license that grants these freedoms is a free software license. The GNU GPL goes further: it protects these freedoms for all users of all versions of the program by forbidding middlemen from stripping them off. Most components of the GNU/Linux operating system, including the Linux component that was made free software in 1992, are licensed under GPL version 2, released in 1991. Now, with legal advice from Professor Eben Moglen, I am designing version 3 of the GNU GPL.
GPLv3 must cope with threats to freedom that we did not imagine in 1989. The coming generation of computers, and many products with increasingly powerful embedded computers, are being turned against us by their manufacturers before we buy them--they are designed to restrict what we can use them to do.
First, there was the TiVo. People may think of it as an appliance to record TV programs, but it contains a real computer running a GNU/Linux system. As required by the GPL, you can get the source code for the system. You can change the code, recompile and install it. But once you install a changed version, the TiVo won't run at all, because of a special mechanism designed to sabotage you. Freedom No. 1, the freedom to change the software to do what you wish, has become a sham.
Then came Treacherous Computing, promoted as "Trusted Computing," meaning that companies can "trust" your computer to obey them instead of you. It enables network sites to tell which program you are running; if you change the program, or write your own, they will refuse to talk to you. Once again, freedom No. 1 becomes a sham.
Microsoft has a scheme, originally called Palladium, that enables an application program to "seal" data so that no other program can access it. If Disney (DIS) distributes movies this way, you'll be unable to exercise your legal rights of fair use and de minimis use. If an application records your data this way, it will be the ultimate in vendor lock-in. This too destroys freedom No. 1 - if modified versions of a program cannot access the same data, you can't really change the program to do what you wish. Something like Palladium is planned for a coming version of Windows.
AACS, the "Advanced Access Content System," promoted by Disney, IBM (IBM), Microsoft (MSFT), Intel (INTC), Sony (SNE), and others, aims to restrict use of HDTV recordings--and software--so they can't be used except as these companies permit. Sony was caught last year installing a "rootkit" into millions of people's computers, and not telling them how to remove it. Sony has learned its lesson: it will install the "rootkit" in your computer before you get it, and you won't be able to remove it. This plan explicitly requires devices to be "robust"--meaning you cannot change them. Its implementors will surely want to include GPL-covered software, trampling freedom No. 1. This scheme should get "AACSed," and a boycott of HD DVD and Blu-ray has already been announced (http://bluraysucks.com/boycott).
Allowing a few businesses to organize a scheme to deny our freedoms for their profit is a failure of government, but so far most of the world's governments, led by the U.S., have acted as paid accomplices rather than policemen for these schemes. The copyright industry has promulgated its peculiar ideas of right and wrong so vigorously that some readers may find it hard to entertain the idea that individual freedom can trump their profits.
Q: Facing these threats to our freedom, what should the free software community do?
RMS: Some say we should give in and accept the distribution of our software in ways that don't allow modified versions to function, because this will make our software more popular. Some refer to free software as "open source," that being the slogan of an amoral approach to the matter, which cites powerful and reliable software as the highest goals. If we allow companies to use our software to restrict us, this "open source DRM" could help them restrict us more powerfully and reliably. Those who wield the power could benefit by sharing and improving the software they use to do so. We too could read it--read it and weep, if we can't make a changed version run. For the goals of freedom and community--the goals of the free software movement--this concession would amount to failure.
We developed the GNU operating system so that we could control our own computers, and cooperate freely in using them in freedom. To seek popularity for our software by ceding this freedom would defeat the purpose; at best, we might flatter our egos. Therefore we have designed version 3 of the GNU GPL to uphold the user's freedom to modify the source code and put modified versions to real use.
The debate about the GPL v3 is part of a broader debate about DRM versus your rights. The motive for DRM schemes is to increase profits for those who impose them, but their profit is a side issue when millions of people's freedom is at stake; desire for profit, though not wrong in itself, cannot justify denying the public control over its technology. Defending freedom means thwarting DRM.
Dr. Richard M. Stallman is the founder of the GNU Project  , launched in 1984 to develop the free software operating system GNU  . First published by BusinessWeek Online. Copyright 2006 Richard Stallman. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
发表于 2006-7-9 18:34:49 | 显示全部楼层

自由纳粹的又一个伟大行动

自由纳粹的又一个伟大行动

哦, 我在另外一個板塊發了一個帖子,說stallman看linus很不爽,
事實上的確如此,從他們兩個對於linux操作系統的命名論爭(Linux operating sysatem or GNU/Linux operating system),到linus對於蘋果構架的非議(蘋果起初考慮在ppc上使用一個微内核控制linux内核,相當於現在的l4linux,來構建自己的mac os x操作系統。linux把這個方案罵了一頓,還寫了一本書,事實上是變相地罵Hurd/GNU Mach)就可以看出來了。我覺得linus是個頭腦清醒並且善良的人,stallman通過很清醒的頭腦構想很瘋狂的事情,然後讓一群頭腦不清醒的人跟著他走。我們看看他們兩個人的最近一次爭端:



以下資料來源於新浪。

近日,自由软件基金(Free Software Foundation)正对通用公共使用许可证(GPL: general Public License)进行修订。GPL被视为自由软件运动具有宪法性的指导文件,也是大多数开源软件项目的核心规范文件。这次新版本GPL的修订焦点集中在禁止对GPL软件采用数字版权管理(DRM: digital right management)的建议。数字版权管理技术范围很广,其中 包括对音乐电影等媒体文件实施加密处理,只运行其在特定电子装置和授权的软件上播放的技术。

  Linux软件的创始人Linus Torbalds对此认为,GPL的新修订禁止使用DRM技术并不一定是好主意。因为,数字签名和加密技术都是一些对开源软件行业来说有利的DRM技术,可以提供软件的安全性。Torvald举例称,电子密匙可以在软件中应用为数字签名,以保证这些软件的使用是经过授权的。很多软件公司都想发行具有自己数字签名的软件内核的Linux软件版本。而现时的GPL新修订草案清晰列明要求Red Hat公司将其独有的电子密匙公诸于众,让其他人可以在他们修改的版本上进行数字签名,这无疑是非常愚蠢的举动。

  在上个月,Torbald已经表示他会将Linux的内核继续遵循GPL的现行版本规定。这意味着他回绝了自由软件基金(Free Software Foundation)的修订建议。提出反DRM的修订建议使如Tivo这样的公司将不再可以继续使用授权的Linux,这举动限制了软件的使用自由。

  Torvald认为指导硬件制造商怎样做不是软件开发人员的分内事。假如某些硬件生产商不合作的话,软件程序员可以使用其他的公司的硬件来代替。他在一份电邮上写到:“作为一个软件开发者,我认为我们不应该强迫硬件制造商来遵循我们的规则,我们不是十字军,强迫别人向我们的信念屈服。我们只是尝试向别人展示,合作和开放可以使工作做得更好。”

  Torvald称,很多人都把GPL视为一种狂热的信念,就像十字军一样。这可能是因为自由软件基金的行为已经越来越像十字军了。他表示,GPL的新修订版草案已经背离了GPL互惠的基本原则。Torvald认为现时的GPL版本是非常合适和公正的,而新的修订版草案已经完全改变了原有的规则。
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2006-7-9 18:52:18 | 显示全部楼层
linus說是十字軍,我用覺得納粹更加恰當。哈哈。歡迎大家踴躍發表自己的看法,wei先生的評論我也歡迎。
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2006-7-21 23:14:16 | 显示全部楼层
总之linux和gnu都是很奇怪的东西. 想到一个词:
GNU主义者  
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2006-7-21 23:25:26 | 显示全部楼层
那个DRM的确不是好东西.我已经领教过了.. 从BT上下载的东西..被加密的 mplayer放不了, 开了个vmware才看到,而且还强制安装一个流氓软件,才可以看.. 微软的技术啊.. 整合的真好,连给流氓软件的位置都留好了.      
要是DRM被广泛使用还得了,我们linux的桌面上还有多媒体吗?

支持RMS... 我们的"精神领袖"  
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2006-7-22 01:33:47 | 显示全部楼层
如果你理直气壮,你害怕DRM吗?
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2006-7-22 13:00:13 | 显示全部楼层
如果你理直气壮,你害怕DRM吗?

万一某一天正版的DVD只能用DVD机或者windows media player来放...
万一流媒体服务全部是用DRM加密,在线电影只能用windows来看.即使你付钱想用linux看电影也没可能. 假设下一代office保存文件的格式是加密的..那么再也不可能有可以读取word文档的openoffice.
楼主贴子里已经讲的很清楚了
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2006-8-12 11:48:47 | 显示全部楼层
搞笑。谁说的?linux下面也可以用专有软件看电影。记住,不要把linux和自由软件等同起来。
回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

GMT+8, 2025-2-10 22:37 , Processed in 0.043835 second(s), 16 queries .

© 2001-2025 Discuz! Team. Powered by Discuz! X3.5.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表