This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new!


Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 04, 2006 01:17 PM
Yes, but that's his fallback position.

1) The FSF is wrong, they can't DRM in a such a way to account only for RIAA type schemes and not mechanisms (for example) based on hardware checking of signed code as a way of foiling rootkits and other malware.

2) Even if they could, the FSF is radically expanding the charter of the GPL, thus confirming the wisdom of LT's original decision to mandate GPL v2 only. Who's to say that all content DRM is evil anyway. For example, Apple is using DRM hand in hand with their most popular product, one that has captured the imagination and admiration of a lot of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd. Does that make Apple evil? Why haven't we seen massive cries for boycott of iPod and itunes over the DRM issue?

3) Besides that, it's LT's project and he never signed up to be the "flagship of the GNU/Linux operating system", whatever that is. I'm sure he would have no problem if some group of smart people decide to break away and implement an OS from scratch under their choice of license. He'd probably say great, that's the same thing he did 15 years ago.


Return to Torvalds versus GPLv3 DRM restrictions