06.01.09
Linux DRM Warning
Summary: Now is a crucial time to protest against DRM in Linux
WE’VE already worried that Linux had adopted the equivalent of Tivoization. Now we find the threat of DRM in the most ubiquitous kernel of free operating systems, so we wanted to alert readers.
It’s solely an issue regarding the following new article about DRM being considered for Linux. The technical chief of the Linux Foundation (and an IBM employee who downplays freedom) writes on the topic, which is covered in LWN.net:
Ts’o's message is worth reading in its entirety, but the basic point is that TXT enables Hollywood (or another DRM-happy entity) to take away some of the basic functionality of the hardware in order to preserve their “rights”. Essentially, this takes away users’ rights to protect companies’ perceived or actual rights. The truly nightmarish scenario is one where one cannot do anything on a computer that isn’t contained in a signed (presumably proprietary and closed source) application, running on a signed operating system. TXT could enable just that kind of functionality.
But, there are some scenarios (Ts’o mentions medical record access) under which TXT could be beneficial to the user. Other devices (voting machines and ATMs are the standard example) could benefit from TXT as well. Should kernel hackers stand in the way of adding this code to the kernel simply because it can be used for ill? The consensus, from the extremely limited subset of the kernel development community participating in the discussion, seems to be “no”.
Victory is attained by GNU/Linux when users enjoy freedom on their desktop, not when market share goes a lot higher through unbounded compromise. It’s not about creating yet another OS X or another Windows. It is important to keep Linux safe and immune to user-hostile intrusions such as DRM, which is about the computer user being controlled rather than put in control. █
Will said,
June 1, 2009 at 8:19 pm
If I wanted to use Linux with DRM, I’d just go buy a Mac.
Yuhong Bao Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 2:52 am
Yep, as I said before, freedom is not generally (and should not be) used as a reason to switch to a Mac, though, yes, the core part of it is open source (yep, xnu is another free kernel). Don’t get me wrong, I like the Mac platform and Mac OS X and there are many advantages to it over Windows, but freedom is not one of them.
Trivia: One of the parts of the xnu kernel that is designed for DRM is PT_DENY_ATTACH, which is basically a copy of Vista’s Protected Processes. Often mentioned in the context of, but not limited to, DTrace. But since xnu is open source, it can easily patched out. That made me wonder about the politics inside Apple that are going on relating to open source.
notzed said,
June 1, 2009 at 10:36 pm
There are always other kernels to use.
Linux is becoming almost like a prorietary platform anyway. Partially because of the license, and partially because of the constantly changing apis, and the allowing of binary blobs and drivers (and particularly because the pc hardware is just so fucked to start with, and needs so much code just to talk to the hardware).
I’ve had more problems than ever lately too – instabilities and hardware not working, so there are perhaps some issues starting to raise themselves. Rather than ‘enough eyes make any bugs shallow’, perhaps it is ‘enough eyes make even crap code work eventually’.
twitter said,
June 1, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Non free software should never be thought of as protecting privacy or security. Giving control of others to your computer only invites others to abuse you. Medical records, for example, need to be under the control of their owners and those who access them for patient care. This is a problem traditional permissions and encryption solve. No one needs TPM modules and other black boxes in their computer.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:40 am
As this person puts it, “After reading through the article it makes it even more important that the kernel be moved if only piece by piece to GPLv3. The article mentioned only corporate interests, but more importantly is the ramifications of government interests. That is where the real fight will end up being.”
Needs Sunlight said,
June 2, 2009 at 2:56 am
The tolerance of binary blobs in the kernel, or even the distros, is the enabler to the DRM travesty. Go back to disallowing blobs and you have one more barrier to DRM.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/6497
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 2, 2009 at 3:01 am
As more users flock to GNU/Linux, a smaller proportion of them will be aware of Freedom. Let’s try to offer a solution by politely debating and educating.
Yuhong Bao said,
June 4, 2009 at 1:36 am
“Non free software should never be thought of as protecting privacy or security.”
Yep, security by obscurity do not work.
“There are always other kernels to use.”
Yes, certainly they are, and in fact competition is a good thing here. In particular, I will mention GNU/Hurd, which did try to upgrade to GPLv3 but not every part can be upgraded because some of the parts have code from Linux and so cannot be upgraded:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org/msg03105.html
That leads to another quote:
“After reading through the article it makes it even more important that the kernel be moved if only piece by piece to GPLv3. ”
That would certainly help here. It would help with upgrading busybox as well to GPLv3, which is also important.