Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!

[Jamie Lokier]

> >>> I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux!
> >>thanks for such a clear statement.
> >Anybody would think Linux was written solely by Linus, the way His
> >words are taken as summarising the intent of all its authors...

Firstly, let's be clear I do actually agree with Linus.  The GPL is
not strong enough to prevent DRM usage, in my opinion.

(Aside: It's not a very convinced opinion, though, nor would I be
unhappy if a future license were able to prevent free software being
the basis for devices which it is _illegal_ to reprogram, except under
very strict conditions.

I consider software barriers fair game, whereas threat of
imprisonment is a very serious matter.  Then again, think about
tamper-proof cameras for evidence gathering against abuse by
authorities - that's a great use of a tamper-proof device, if you can
trust it).

In response to the person who thanked Linus, fair enough.  It was a
good thing to do.

However, Linus' statements are sometimes interpreted as allowing or
disallowing various things as he interprets the GPL - and it is dodgy
ground for a business to build much on that, because Linus' opinion on
the license is just that: his opinion.  If he were the sole author, or
represented all the authors, his opinion would, I believe, hold more
legal weight than it does.  But he isn't.

I just wanted to point that out, in case the person who thanked him
for the clear statement took the statement as meaning it was a good
idea to build a business which depends on that.

Timothy Miller wrote:
> You are free to make a fork of the Linux tree for which DRM is NOT ok.
> 
> Likewise, Linus is free to allow or disallow whatever he feels like in 
> HIS tree.

Secondly, this is not logically valid.  It doesn't work like that.

If Linus' interpretation of the GPL is a fair assessment, then I am
_not_ free to fork the Linux tree and make DRM not ok for the fork.

I'd be free to fork the tree and attach a differing _opinion_ to the
license, but I cannot add further licensing clauses.  The GPL forbids
this.

For the same reason, Linus is _not_ free to allow or disallow whatever
he feels like in his tree, either.

In principle.  In pracice I suspect whatever Linus says goes simply
because he's the de facto leader and nobody with any clout disagrees
strongly enough to contest him.  If there were ever a big fork over
some major ethical issue, that would change.

Thirdly, keep in mind that all the above is just my opinion.  I could
be mistaken, or irrelevant :)

h.a.n.d.,
-- Jamie