RE: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

RE: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Downing, Thomas]

----Original Message-----
From: Larry McVoy [mailto:lm@bitmover.com]


> What seems to be forgotten is that the people who are locking things up
> are the people who own those things and the people who are complaining
> are the people who got those things, illegally, for free.

That is an unfairly sweeping statement.  I complain, I purchase; I am
not alone in this.

Second, in the context of the USA, there are two long established
principals that balance copyright - fair use and first point of sale.
The problem with the "bad use of DRM" is that the vendors (who _are_
the owners) of copyright material want to eliminate consumer rights
under these to principles as well.

> The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing
> factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts.  This community
> thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful.
> Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you
> will see people saying "we'll clone it".   That's not unique to BK,
> it's the same with anything else which is viewed as useful.  And nobody
> sees anything wrong with that, or copying music, whatever.  "If it's
> useful, take it" is the attitude.

First, in many countries, (including USA,) producing a work-alike
alternative has been defended by the courts, as long as such issues as
patent violations are not shown to have occured.

Second, there is _no_ parallel between producing a clone of BK and
making illegal copies of copyrighted material.

> This problem is pervasive, it's not just a handful of people.  Upon the
> advice of several of the leading kernel developers, I contacted Pavel's
> boss at SuSE and said "how about you nudge Pavel onto something more
> productive" and he said that he couldn't control Pavel.  That's nonsense
> and everyone knows that.  If one of my employees were doing something
> like that, it would be trivial to say "choose between your job and that".
> But Garloff just shrugged it off as not his problem.

That's enough to guarentee that my company _never_ uses BK.

> Corporations are certainly watching things like our efforts with
> BitKeeper, as well as the other companies who are trying to play nice
> with the open source world.  What are they learning?  That if you don't
> lock it up, the open source world has no conscience, no respect, and will
> steal anything that isn't locked down.

Examples? (other than BK ;-)

> Show me a single example of the community going "no, we can't take that,
> someone else did all the work to produce it, we didn't".

You certainly can find patent violations by the score out there in the
open source world - probably copyright violations as well.  But how many
are there in what might be called 'mainstream' OS; such as the Linux
kernel tree, XFree86, Gnome, KDE, Apache, etc.?  And do not confuse an
independently produced work-alike with theft of IP.

> The DMCA, DRM, all that stuff is just the beginning.  You will respond
> with all sorts of clever hacks to get around it and they will respond
> with even more clever hacks to stop you.  They have both more resources
> and more at stake so they will win.

The point is that they don't (with a couple of clever and amusing 
exceptions) respond with "even more clever hacks", they respond with
things like DMCA.  This is also the danger of the motives behind DRM;
just pass a law making it a felony to produce, use, etc. hardware which
does _not_ enforce corporate controlled DRM.

This is why in my first post on this topic I said it was a political
issue, not a technical one.

> The depressing thing is that it is so obvious to me that the corporations
> will win, they will protect themselves, they have the money to lobby the
> government to get the laws they want and build the technology they need.
> The more you push back the more locked up things will become.

Unfortunately, this may very well prove to be true.  But laying it at the
door of the open source community (or even piracy other than commercial
piracy, viz. China) is buying into the FUD that MPAA and RIAA spew.
Remember, that when the courts asked the MPAA to produce _any_ evidence
of harm from DeCSS, they were unable to produce _anything_.

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Larry McVoy]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 09:11:57AM -0400, Downing, Thomas wrote:
> > The DMCA, DRM, all that stuff is just the beginning.  You will respond
> > with all sorts of clever hacks to get around it and they will respond
> > with even more clever hacks to stop you.  They have both more resources
> > and more at stake so they will win.
> 
> The point is that they don't (with a couple of clever and amusing 
> exceptions) respond with "even more clever hacks", they respond with
> things like DMCA.  This is also the danger of the motives behind DRM;
> just pass a law making it a felony to produce, use, etc. hardware which
> does _not_ enforce corporate controlled DRM.
> 
> This is why in my first post on this topic I said it was a political
> issue, not a technical one.
> 
> > The depressing thing is that it is so obvious to me that the corporations
> > will win, they will protect themselves, they have the money to lobby the
> > government to get the laws they want and build the technology they need.
> > The more you push back the more locked up things will become.
> 
> Unfortunately, this may very well prove to be true.  But laying it at the
> door of the open source community (or even piracy other than commercial
> piracy, viz. China) is buying into the FUD that MPAA and RIAA spew.
> Remember, that when the courts asked the MPAA to produce _any_ evidence
> of harm from DeCSS, they were unable to produce _anything_.

I'm probably the world's worst communicator because you're right at the
edge of getting the point and then it gets missed again.  I think you're
outraged thinking that I'm saying the open source guys are all bad people
or whatever.  I'm not trying to make a bad/good argument, I'm trying to
make a cause and effect argument.  

Take everything that I said which is not an action on the part of the
corporations and just call it A.  Ignore what A is or even if A exists
or is true, whatever.  Concentrate on what I claim to be the reaction.
I tried to make the case that A is the cause, you got mad, the fact that
the reaction is the problem is lost in the anger.

Your post shows that you think that the reaction is bad and you even say
that the reaction is likely.  You vigourously disagree with my conclusions
as to why the reaction is happening, I see that.  OK, so let's try it
with a question rather than a statement: why are things like the DMCA and
DRM happening?  It isn't the open source guys pushing those, obviously,
it's the corporations.  So why are they doing it?

Your answer has to be interesting because it seems to me that they are
doing it to protect their products, their product is sometimes content,
sometimes programs, sometimes both.  An answer which says that open source
is not part of the cause also says that open source is irrelevant.

You can't be both a force and not a force.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Jesse Pollard]

On Wednesday 30 April 2003 08:59, Larry McVoy wrote:
[snip]
> Your post shows that you think that the reaction is bad and you even say
> that the reaction is likely.  You vigourously disagree with my conclusions
> as to why the reaction is happening, I see that.  OK, so let's try it
> with a question rather than a statement: why are things like the DMCA and
> DRM happening?  It isn't the open source guys pushing those, obviously,
> it's the corporations.  So why are they doing it?

To force people to buy their media of course.

The data (most of it) is nearly zero cost (between 1 to around 8%). They can't
stop you from copying the data. They just want to make that copy unusable.

That forces you to buy their media.

> Your answer has to be interesting because it seems to me that they are
> doing it to protect their products, their product is sometimes content,
> sometimes programs, sometimes both.  An answer which says that open source
> is not part of the cause also says that open source is irrelevant.
>
> You can't be both a force and not a force.

Philosophically, you can, provided that the direction of the forces are 
perpendicular.

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Giuliano Pochini]

On 30-Apr-2003 Larry McVoy wrote:
> Your post shows that you think that the reaction is bad and you even say
> that the reaction is likely.  You vigourously disagree with my conclusions
> as to why the reaction is happening, I see that.  OK, so let's try it
> with a question rather than a statement: why are things like the DMCA and
> DRM happening?  It isn't the open source guys pushing those, obviously,
> it's the corporations.  So why are they doing it?

IMHO, no dubt piracy is what caused the reaction. But it's not a direct
cause. They always wanted things like DRM. The stronger is the control
over your customers, the more money you get from them. Piracy is a very
good excuse, but even without piracy it was only a matter of time. The
distance between who can and who cannot, is contantly increasing. It's
the age we are living :(


Bye.

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Dax Kelson]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:

> Your post shows that you think that the reaction is bad and you even say
> that the reaction is likely.  You vigourously disagree with my conclusions
> as to why the reaction is happening, I see that.  OK, so let's try it
> with a question rather than a statement: why are things like the DMCA and
> DRM happening?  It isn't the open source guys pushing those, obviously,
> it's the corporations.  So why are they doing it?

DRM/DMCA do nothing to address reimplementation (it can't, see all 
previous posts on how it is a LEGAL activity).

In my observation, DRM/DMCA addresses unauthorized audio and video content
copying.

So, if Open Source is all about reimplementation, and DRM/DMCA is about 
"protecting" audio/video content, where is the connection?

Larry, this is the point YOU are missing. 

Dax

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Larry McVoy]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:53:52AM -0600, Dax Kelson wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> 
> > Your post shows that you think that the reaction is bad and you even say
> > that the reaction is likely.  You vigourously disagree with my conclusions
> > as to why the reaction is happening, I see that.  OK, so let's try it
> > with a question rather than a statement: why are things like the DMCA and
> > DRM happening?  It isn't the open source guys pushing those, obviously,
> > it's the corporations.  So why are they doing it?
> 
> DRM/DMCA do nothing to address reimplementation (it can't, see all 
> previous posts on how it is a LEGAL activity).
> 
> In my observation, DRM/DMCA addresses unauthorized audio and video content
> copying.
> 
> So, if Open Source is all about reimplementation, and DRM/DMCA is about 
> "protecting" audio/video content, where is the connection?

"Trusted Computing/Palladium" stuff is clearly headed in the direction
of encrypting everything, the only place it lands unencrypted is on
your display.  I thought that fell under the heading of DRM but maybe
I'm mistaken.

I believe the point of that is "huh, people are going to copy our program?
OK, well, we're a monopoly, you have use our programs to generate the
data, we encrypt the data and poof! the reimplemented programs are
worthless".

That line of reasoning, by the way, only works if they are a monopoly,
i.e., it doesn't work real well for BK, there are lots of other source
management systems.  But it works very well for things like Word,
that's a de facto standard, contrary to what some people here believe
it is bloody difficult to negotiate a contract in anything but Word.
Try sending a lawyer anything else and you'll see what I mean.

So I don't agree that the DRM stuff is all about protecting audio/video
content at all, I think it goes much further than that.  Maybe I'm
wrong, maybe DRM isn't all about that, but the point remains that there
is lots of activity in the directions I'm describing and whether it
falls under DRM, DMCA, Trusted Computing, Palladium, of BuzzWord2000,
the activity exists.  And I think it exists at least in part because
of the threat of the open source reimplementations.  I'm starting to
think I'm the only person on this list who thinks that, that may be,
but in the business world that I move in pretty much everyone thinks that.

The open source thing is a new twist, it's changing the playing field.
That can be good (it has been so far) but it can be bad too if the
corporations get all paranoid, which is what they look like to me.

What you do about it is an open question.  My thought has been to focus
on creating new stuff that creates its own world of users and advocates.
Going back to Word, if there was a word processing system that was better
than Word and people switched to it, then any attempt by Microsoft to lock
up the data is irrelevant.  Apply that pattern to any application which
operates on data - if you let any corporation have the best technology and
become a monopoly then they can lock up the data and you're shut out of
the game.  That's one of the reasons I sort of think the BK clone attempts
are pointless, we can change the file format or encrypt it and unless
there is some other compelling reason to use the clone, it's irrelevant.
On the other hand, make something different and better and BK becomes
irrelevant (unless we do leapfrog with some new feature/whatever).

That's what I meant by chasing.  If you are chasing the leader you are
automatically more at risk because you are trying to play in the leader's
playing field and they can change the rules to screw you up.  You build
a better playing field and you turn the tables, now the leader is the
follower and they have to play by your rules.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Jim Penny]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:21:07AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> So I don't agree that the DRM stuff is all about protecting audio/video
> content at all, I think it goes much further than that.  Maybe I'm
> wrong, maybe DRM isn't all about that, but the point remains that there
> is lots of activity in the directions I'm describing and whether it
> falls under DRM, DMCA, Trusted Computing, Palladium, of BuzzWord2000,
> the activity exists.  And I think it exists at least in part because
> of the threat of the open source reimplementations.  I'm starting to
> think I'm the only person on this list who thinks that, that may be,
> but in the business world that I move in pretty much everyone thinks that.

But the timeline is simply wrong.  DMCA is an implementation of the WIPO
TRIPS treaties, which was passed in 1996, well before open-source was a
common topic.

See http://www.public-domain.org/wipo/dec96/dec96.html
In particular, note the EFF comment and the comment by "Software
Developers".  Even these most relevant sources simply did not raise the
issue.

DRM is another issue.  I think it is primarily an effect of the Hollywood
reality distortion field.  They think that useful computers that are not
Turing complete can be built; and if such machines cannot be built, well, 
Hollywood thinks that digital communication is error free and occurs 
without charge and with infinite bandwidth at infinite distance, putting 
them permanently out of business.

Jim Penny

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Balram Adlakha]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4935 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:21:07AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:53:52AM -0600, Dax Kelson wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > 
> > > Your post shows that you think that the reaction is bad and you even say
> > > that the reaction is likely.  You vigourously disagree with my conclusions
> > > as to why the reaction is happening, I see that.  OK, so let's try it
> > > with a question rather than a statement: why are things like the DMCA and
> > > DRM happening?  It isn't the open source guys pushing those, obviously,
> > > it's the corporations.  So why are they doing it?
> > 
> > DRM/DMCA do nothing to address reimplementation (it can't, see all 
> > previous posts on how it is a LEGAL activity).
> > 
> > In my observation, DRM/DMCA addresses unauthorized audio and video content
> > copying.
> > 
> > So, if Open Source is all about reimplementation, and DRM/DMCA is about 
> > "protecting" audio/video content, where is the connection?
> 
> "Trusted Computing/Palladium" stuff is clearly headed in the direction
> of encrypting everything, the only place it lands unencrypted is on
> your display.  I thought that fell under the heading of DRM but maybe
> I'm mistaken.
> 
> I believe the point of that is "huh, people are going to copy our program?
> OK, well, we're a monopoly, you have use our programs to generate the
> data, we encrypt the data and poof! the reimplemented programs are
> worthless".
> 
> That line of reasoning, by the way, only works if they are a monopoly,
> i.e., it doesn't work real well for BK, there are lots of other source
> management systems.  But it works very well for things like Word,
> that's a de facto standard, contrary to what some people here believe
> it is bloody difficult to negotiate a contract in anything but Word.
> Try sending a lawyer anything else and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> So I don't agree that the DRM stuff is all about protecting audio/video
> content at all, I think it goes much further than that.  Maybe I'm
> wrong, maybe DRM isn't all about that, but the point remains that there
> is lots of activity in the directions I'm describing and whether it
> falls under DRM, DMCA, Trusted Computing, Palladium, of BuzzWord2000,
> the activity exists.  And I think it exists at least in part because
> of the threat of the open source reimplementations.  I'm starting to
> think I'm the only person on this list who thinks that, that may be,
> but in the business world that I move in pretty much everyone thinks that.
> 
> The open source thing is a new twist, it's changing the playing field.
> That can be good (it has been so far) but it can be bad too if the
> corporations get all paranoid, which is what they look like to me.
> 
> What you do about it is an open question.  My thought has been to focus
> on creating new stuff that creates its own world of users and advocates.
> Going back to Word, if there was a word processing system that was better
> than Word and people switched to it, then any attempt by Microsoft to lock
> up the data is irrelevant.  Apply that pattern to any application which
> operates on data - if you let any corporation have the best technology and
> become a monopoly then they can lock up the data and you're shut out of
> the game.  That's one of the reasons I sort of think the BK clone attempts
> are pointless, we can change the file format or encrypt it and unless
> there is some other compelling reason to use the clone, it's irrelevant.
> On the other hand, make something different and better and BK becomes
> irrelevant (unless we do leapfrog with some new feature/whatever).
> 
> That's what I meant by chasing.  If you are chasing the leader you are
> automatically more at risk because you are trying to play in the leader's
> playing field and they can change the rules to screw you up.  You build
> a better playing field and you turn the tables, now the leader is the
> follower and they have to play by your rules.
> -- 
> ---
> Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/



What about the people who cannot use bk because the license doesn't permit
them?They feed off the hourly kernel.org snapshots?
The BK clone doesn't have to be a clone always, but it has to start off with
that coz thats what is being used for linux currently. Maybe that won't be
requiredif you change the license to a bit more friendlier one.

This thread has become a few metres long now, but it as simple as 'open source
for better software, hidden source for better chances of making money'

-
- 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Nicolas Pitre]

> The open source thing is a new twist, it's changing the playing field.
> That can be good (it has been so far) but it can be bad too if the
> corporations get all paranoid, which is what they look like to me.

So what?  Do you mean that we should all stop writing open source and go
home and grow cucumbers instead?  No amount of corporations get all paranoia
will stop Open Source and it might even stimulate it instead.  If
corporations get too annoying then there'll always be a bunch of people
motivated enough to say "up yours, we will manage to live without you
somehow".  If corporations, especially big old businesses, aren't able to
adapt to the new twist because of their inertia, then of course they'll try
to use their weight to stop those who don't play by their rules because
that's less effort than adapting to the new emerging conditions.  But what's
new there?  It's been like that since the emergence of human kind on Earth.

> What you do about it is an open question.  My thought has been to focus
> on creating new stuff that creates its own world of users and advocates.

On the other hand it didn't work for Microsoft -- they've rather been more
successful at cloning/copying what others did before them.

> Going back to Word, if there was a word processing system that was better
> than Word and people switched to it, then any attempt by Microsoft to lock
> up the data is irrelevant.  Apply that pattern to any application which
> operates on data - if you let any corporation have the best technology and
> become a monopoly then they can lock up the data and you're shut out of
> the game.  

While M$ Word is a de facto standard today, like WordPerfect used to be 15 
years ago, it doesn't mean that an Open Source solution won't have its turn 
in 5 or 10 years from now.  Of course that won't happen right away, and 
it'll take time and development efforts.  That why people are working on 
Word alternatives _now_.

Of course M$ does not like that.  Is this a reason to stop trying to push
them aside?  Absolutely not.  If they lose their market that'll be because
the alternative (be Open Source or not) is simply better for the user.  
They might try encrypting the data or whatever, but then they'll just create
an incompatibility with their own standard and people won't upgrade to the
new version, or if they force people into upgrading that'll create just more
incentive toward the Open Source solution among the users.

> That's one of the reasons I sort of think the BK clone attempts
> are pointless, we can change the file format or encrypt it and unless
> there is some other compelling reason to use the clone, it's irrelevant.

You feel just like Microsoft now, aren't you?

> On the other hand, make something different and better and BK becomes
> irrelevant (unless we do leapfrog with some new feature/whatever).

A BK clone just has to be better and BK becomes irrelevant.  Face it, that's
like that even among corporations with proprietary products.  When your only
reaction left is to encrypt the data to preserve an edge over the
competition rather than improving your own product for increased user value
then it means that you've reached the best you can achieve in your closed
environment and Open Source will surpass you just because of the larger mind
share.  If in that context an Open Source clone becomes better for the user
then no amount of corporate whining will change that fact.  The only thing
corporations do better is to organize focused development and to come with
mature products faster.  They therefore saturate faster in terms of
innovations with regards to a given products.

One day, there'll be a M$ Word alternative or clone that works just as fine
as Word itself, especially since Word can't bring a revolution in the word
processing field anymore.  And from that day that alternative will just get
better.  But before it happens, M$ will certainly try hard to twist the
rules which will give nothing to users but slow down competition.  That'll
only buy them some time nothing more.

> That's what I meant by chasing.  If you are chasing the leader you are
> automatically more at risk because you are trying to play in the leader's
> playing field and they can change the rules to screw you up.  You build
> a better playing field and you turn the tables, now the leader is the
> follower and they have to play by your rules.

Then... if you're so confident about you remaining the leader in the SCM 
world, why are you afraid of possible BK clone attempts?  The leader will 
_always_ be chased regardless.  That's part of being a leader.


Nicolas

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Larry McVoy]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 03:58:08PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > That's what I meant by chasing.  If you are chasing the leader you are
> > automatically more at risk because you are trying to play in the leader's
> > playing field and they can change the rules to screw you up.  You build
> > a better playing field and you turn the tables, now the leader is the
> > follower and they have to play by your rules.
> 
> Then... if you're so confident about you remaining the leader in the SCM 
> world, why are you afraid of possible BK clone attempts?  The leader will 
> _always_ be chased regardless.  That's part of being a leader.

Read my lips:

	It's not about BitKeeper
	It's not about BitKeeper
	It's not about BitKeeper

The thread was about corporations and powers which are orders and orders
of magnitude more powerful than we will ever be.

But since you insist on harping on BK, I get what you are saying, but we
are cranking out code faster than you can type.  I have an engineer here
who has over 100 active BK repositories, just that one person can code
circles around all the BK cloners stacked up and then some.  We're all
like that, we're nuts, we live to code and we are pretty good at it.
Linus has the BK source, ask him what he thinks.

We're not worried that the BK cloners are going to keep up.  Look at
Subversion, that's a funded project, serious programmers (good ones),
open source, etc.  They admit that they can't do what BK can and we
started more or less at the same time (I worked alone for a year or so
before they started but our teams started up about the same time).

It's absolutely true that I'm pissed off at the kernel people looking
at cloning BK.  Why shouldn't I be?  We busted our ass to produce
a much better tool to help out the kernel effort and got "rewarded"
with people saying they'll clone it.  That reaction just disgusts me.
Those people ought to consider the benefits that BK has provided, the
fact that any free replacement is years away, and the fact that we could
pull the plug tomorrow and shut down the free use of BK.  Balance your
actions against the reactions.

Yeah, I'm pissed.  If you were me you would be livid.  It sucks to try and
help and be distrusted and crapped on.  We've had 5 years of "you're just
evil corporate bastards" and so far we have never done a single thing to
deserve that.  We've done nothing but provide the best technology we can
possibly build for free.  Whatever, that's life, we certainly didn't do
this for the love and rewards we would get from the so called "community".

But worried about these guys?  Come on.  Read Pavel's "source" tree.
Read the mailing lists.  It's absolutely true that I'm outraged at
the attempts to clone our technology by the people we are helping.
Threatened?  Gimme a break.  If you think we are threatened you don't
have the foggiest idea of how good our technology is, how good our
programmers are, or how dedicated we are to making the best solution.

As one open source luminary said "It will take them 5 years to catch
up to where you were last year and unless you guys are idiots you'll
be more than 5 years ahead of them then".  Exactly.  Nobody here is
sitting back and resting, we think what we have is garbage and have a
clear vision as to how to make it be great.  We're doing that.  If the
copiers can do better, that's very cool, but we'll probably respond by
hiring them if they are really that good, we're always looking for people
as passionate as we are about this stuff.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 03:58:08PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > That's what I meant by chasing.  If you are chasing the leader you are
> > > automatically more at risk because you are trying to play in the leader's
> > > playing field and they can change the rules to screw you up.  You build
> > > a better playing field and you turn the tables, now the leader is the
> > > follower and they have to play by your rules.
> > 
> > Then... if you're so confident about you remaining the leader in the SCM 
> > world, why are you afraid of possible BK clone attempts?  The leader will 
> > _always_ be chased regardless.  That's part of being a leader.
> 
> Read my lips:
> 
> 	It's not about BitKeeper
> 	It's not about BitKeeper
> 	It's not about BitKeeper
> 
[...]
>
> But worried about these guys?  Come on.  Read Pavel's "source" tree.
> Read the mailing lists.  It's absolutely true that I'm outraged at
> the attempts to clone our technology by the people we are helping.
> Threatened?  Gimme a break.  If you think we are threatened you don't
> have the foggiest idea of how good our technology is, how good our
> programmers are, or how dedicated we are to making the best solution.

Larry, please stop these over emotive reactions once and for all.

Threatened you are certainly not, and you seem to know it pretty well.  
Have more confidence, relax, laugh at BK clone attempts privately, and stop
pissing off people back since there is nothing _outrageous_ with a few folks
(hardly a "community" here) trying to convince themselves they can (or
cannot) do what you did.  Yes you are passionate about what you do and that's 
really a good thing.  Using that passion against others is not.

Your repetitive spinning of dust and stepping on anything that is years 
away from BK just give the impression that you fear
bankruptcy for tomorrow, yet you claim your superiority out loud. So please
get real and stop that nonsense.


Nicolas

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> Those people ought to consider the benefits that BK has provided, the
> fact that any free replacement is years away, and the fact that we could
> pull the plug tomorrow and shut down the free use of BK.  Balance your

So you are essentially blackmailing us,
and expect us to like it? (What's above
statement, if not blackmail?) Either
pull the plug today, or stop flaming this
list. Better pull the plug.

				Pavel
-- 
				Pavel
Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need...

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Larry McVoy]

On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 01:04:14PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > Those people ought to consider the benefits that BK has provided, the
> > fact that any free replacement is years away, and the fact that we could
> > pull the plug tomorrow and shut down the free use of BK.  Balance your
> 
> So you are essentially blackmailing us,
> and expect us to like it? (What's above
> statement, if not blackmail?) Either
> pull the plug today, or stop flaming this
> list. Better pull the plug.

Pavel, someone gave me some really good insight when he said "When's the
last time you saw something from Pavel that wasn't a troll?"  I think
you do post a some useful stuff but he does have a point, and I'll pass
on rising to the bait, this troll is a little too blatant.

If you really want to know how I feel on the topic, Dave stated it nicely:

> From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
> 
> See, it's not about what you're allowed to do, it's about being nice to
> people especially the ones that help you.

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Dax Kelson]

Larry, in your opening remarks you stated:

"The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing
factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts."

DMCA, clearly no, the time frame is wrong.

Current --in production-- DRM. Clearly no. Current DRM is mostly all
targeted to audio / video content protection.

So, nothing that we have *today* is a response to Open Source. And
speaking to your statement, Open Source wasn't the cause of it emerging in
the first place.

Is "Trusted Computing/Palladium" a response to Open Source apps reading
file formats from commercial products? Maybe.

Or is it an attempt (well, it isn't out yet) of MS to:

1. Finally "solve" the Windows virus problem? 
2. Make developers pay a fee to MS get their app signed so it will run
on Windows?
3. Solve software piracy?

I hope it does solve software piracy. If users were confronted with the 
true cost of running the pirated commercial software installed on their 
windows boxes, they will likely look for alternatives like Open Source 
software.

Dax Kelson

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[David S. Miller]

On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 13:00, Dax Kelson wrote:
> Current --in production-- DRM. Clearly no. Current DRM is mostly all
> targeted to audio / video content protection.
> 
> So, nothing that we have *today* is a response to Open Source.

I can't believe nobody talks about TiVO and what they're doing (only
allowing signed Linux kernels to boot on their machines).

That is DRM, and directly in response to open source.

Yet at the same time I recognize the truth in Linus's stance here.
And personally, I'm going to speak with my walet by not buying any
products from those fucknuts at TIVO.  This is precisely the mechanism
Linus said would decide if DRM is successful or not.

-- 
David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com>

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <1051789446.8772.13.camel@rth.ninka.net>
By author:    "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 13:00, Dax Kelson wrote:
> > Current --in production-- DRM. Clearly no. Current DRM is mostly all
> > targeted to audio / video content protection.
> > 
> > So, nothing that we have *today* is a response to Open Source.
> 
> I can't believe nobody talks about TiVO and what they're doing (only
> allowing signed Linux kernels to boot on their machines).
> 
> That is DRM, and directly in response to open source.
> 
> Yet at the same time I recognize the truth in Linus's stance here.
> And personally, I'm going to speak with my walet by not buying any
> products from those fucknuts at TIVO.  This is precisely the mechanism
> Linus said would decide if DRM is successful or not.
> 

The sad part is that the earlier TiVos were eminently hackable, and it
seemed TiVo had no problem with people doing that.  I suspect they've
gotten crap from DirectTV, with whom they've gotten pretty deeply
embedded.  DirectTV is not exactly "hacker friendly", as the only
"hacker" they even know exist are the ones trying to crack their
access cards.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[David S. Miller]

On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 12:00, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> The sad part is that the earlier TiVos were eminently hackable, and it
> seemed TiVo had no problem with people doing that.

Yes, this is exactly the part that upsets me.

Let me make it clear that what they do is probably legal.

Yet I personally am offended by their behavior.  You mean that I wrote a
substantial amount of code that makes your damn product even possible
yet I can't boot my very own kernel on your box?  Well, thanks a fucking
lot Tivo.

See, it's not about what you're allowed to do, it's about being nice to
people especially the ones that help you.

-- 
David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com>

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Larry McVoy]

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 04:10:20PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> See, it's not about what you're allowed to do, it's about being nice to
> people especially the ones that help you.

My thoughts exactly.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> writes:

>Yet I personally am offended by their behavior.  You mean that I wrote a
>substantial amount of code that makes your damn product even possible
>yet I can't boot my very own kernel on your box?  Well, thanks a fucking
>lot Tivo.

Then you shouldn't have given your code away.

I personally don't want anyone boot anything on anything linux
driven. Consider a linux driven medical appliance that controls your
bodily functions after open heart surgery. You don't want the hospital
admin to boot a "newer and better, self rolled Linux kernel" on
that. It might be even legally required by the medical appliance
vendor to make it impossible for a hospital admin to do so.

TiVO is an appliance. Not a general purpose computer running Linux
connected to a TV. If you want that, assemble it from readily
available components. You can't get it for the price of a TiVO? Well,
vote with your wallet.

If TiVO decides that it don't want to boot non-signed kernels on their
appliance, they can do so. If you consider this a GPL violation, sue
them.

If you don't like it, start hacking it like they do with the X-Box. Or
don't buy it.

As you yourself said many times, Linux is about freedom. About
choice. TiVO has chosen and you don't like it? Well, tough luck.

>See, it's not about what you're allowed to do, it's about being nice to
>people especially the ones that help you.

Linux and the GPL are not about being nice. Just because you wrote
parts of the code that I use for writing this message and sending it
on the internet does not mean I have to give you elevated priviledges
on the system that runs this code. I do appreciate your work and I am
grateful for it.  However, that's all.

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen          INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de        +49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services 
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[David S. Miller]

On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 04:25, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Well, vote with your wallet.

I said this is exactly what I intend to do.

And yes it is about being nice.  If Linus wasn't "nice" nobody
would give a shit about his project and want to work with him
in the first place and Linux as we know it wouldn't exist today.

If Linus, like TIVO, said "ok you can hack my kernel, but you
can't ever boot one except the ones that I distribute and I'm going to
enforce this by signing the kernels and not giving out the bootloader
sources nor the keys I use" nobody would hack on Linux.  He could
certainly "do it", but he "didn't".  He "didn't" because that would
be "stupid".

You can say whatever you want about Linus, and while he is firm in his
decisions he is still "nice".

Nothing in my email is about what I think TIVO "has to do".

-- 
David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com>

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > Current --in production-- DRM. Clearly no. Current DRM is mostly all
> > targeted to audio / video content protection.
> > 
> > So, nothing that we have *today* is a response to Open Source.
> 
> I can't believe nobody talks about TiVO and what they're doing (only
> allowing signed Linux kernels to boot on their machines).
> 
> That is DRM, and directly in response to open source.

When they make their bootloader only
boot one particular kernel, they are
essentially making bootloader&kernel
same product, right? That does not
seem "mere aggregation" to me...
				Pavel
-- 
				Pavel
Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need...

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Stephan von Krawczynski]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:21:07 -0700
Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote:

> That line of reasoning, by the way, only works if they are a monopoly,
> i.e., it doesn't work real well for BK, there are lots of other source
> management systems.  But it works very well for things like Word,
> that's a de facto standard, contrary to what some people here believe
> it is bloody difficult to negotiate a contract in anything but Word.
> Try sending a lawyer anything else and you'll see what I mean.

A lot of people love reading deleted-and-not-visible parts of w.rd-docs, you
can learn a lot out of such a doc, including some information about the network
it was created on.
But of course it may be of no importance what the other side thinks when
negotiating a contract ...

-- 
Regards,
Stephan

Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Gerhard Mack]

On Thu, 1 May 2003, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:21:07 -0700
> Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote:
>
> > That line of reasoning, by the way, only works if they are a monopoly,
> > i.e., it doesn't work real well for BK, there are lots of other source
> > management systems.  But it works very well for things like Word,
> > that's a de facto standard, contrary to what some people here believe
> > it is bloody difficult to negotiate a contract in anything but Word.
> > Try sending a lawyer anything else and you'll see what I mean.
>
> A lot of people love reading deleted-and-not-visible parts of w.rd-docs, you
> can learn a lot out of such a doc, including some information about the network
> it was created on.
> But of course it may be of no importance what the other side thinks when
> negotiating a contract ...
>

Older versions of word used to embed random bits of memory into the doc
file that word couldn't see.  I'm not sure of the versions that did it but
I once found an essay on the mark of the beast embedded in the
unreadable portions of woman's resume that didn't show until I used
catdoc.  She was most upset when I showed her.  That sort of error could
be catastrophic during contract negotiations if it happened to embed some
data that you didn't want to see such as opposing bids or something.

	Gerhard


--
Gerhard Mack

gmack@innerfire.net

<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.

Beating the Monopoly [was: Why DRM exists]

[Scott Robert Ladd]

Larry McVoy wrote:
> That line of reasoning, by the way, only works if they are a monopoly,
> i.e., it doesn't work real well for BK, there are lots of other source
> management systems.  But it works very well for things like Word,
> that's a de facto standard, contrary to what some people here believe
> it is bloody difficult to negotiate a contract in anything but Word.
> Try sending a lawyer anything else and you'll see what I mean.

Monopolies *can* be beaten.

The original dominator was Wordstar; when CP/M machines were replaced by 
DOS-based PCs, Wordstar failed to keep up with the trends, and was 
replaced by an easier-to-use and more capable product, Word Perfect. 
Ever try sending a legal document in anythign but Word Perfect in the 
late 1980s, and you'll know what I mean.

One upon a time, Word Perfect ruled, and Word was a new and minor player 
in the word processing market. Businesses and organizations standardized 
on Word Perfect; it was impossible to work unless you could read/write 
Word Perfect. The incompetence of Novell and Corel combined with Word's 
"better" integration with other MS products to end Word Perfect's dominance.

Historically, monopolies lose to superior competitors; it's survival of 
the fittest. Sometimes, "fittest" == least expensive -- but in most 
cases, better features, ease of use, and progressive thinking beat out 
monopolies that rest on their laurels.

Microsoft has not done anything revolutionary (or even evolutionary) 
with Word (or Windows, for that matter) in many, many years. I loved the 
original DOS-based Word, and versions of Word through about 6.0 -- then 
the bloat began, with Microsoft tacking on useless features, like an 
animal species evolving exaggerated characteristics when all other 
evolution has stopped.

Linus has the right attitude: Make Linux the best kernel possible, and 
people will use it.

The key is to meet people's needs, to be more effective in a given niche 
than the competition. But that won't happen if free software 
concentrates on cloning over bold evolution. Give Word users special 
"help", like Word gave Word Perfect users; make a strealined word 
processor that integrates modern design. Dare to be better.

> That's what I meant by chasing.  If you are chasing the leader you are
> automatically more at risk because you are trying to play in the leader's
> playing field and they can change the rules to screw you up.  You build
> a better playing field and you turn the tables, now the leader is the
> follower and they have to play by your rules.

Precisely.

-- 
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Professional programming for science and engineering;
Interesting and unusual bits of very free code.