Subject: Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
From: Don Marti <dmarti@zgp.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 06:07:36 -0700
Mon, 3 Apr 2006 06:07:36 -0700
begin Santiago Gala quotation of Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:21:23PM +0200:
> El dom, 02-04-2006 a las 16:01 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler escribió:
> > Santiago Gala <sgala@hisitech.com> writes:
> > 
> > > [...]  While at that, I seem to recall that there was a theorem
> > > proving that it was impossible for a piece of software to decide if
> > > it was running under emulation or under "true iron", [...]
> > 
> > But how is the technology for this type of DRM different from the
> > useful and potentially welcome security provided by code signing from
> > the BIOS-kernel-modules-TCB onward?  If they are two sides of the same
> > coin, it will be difficult to say whether DRM is per se evil.
> 
> It *is* evil, as it tries to dig a legal/management problem into
> software. I'll consider it evil while the owner/user of the machine is
> not the one deciding who are the trusted authorities/signatures.

Seth Schoen also addresses the question of the same
technology being used for DRM and for security, here:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7055

-- 
Don Marti                    
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/                
dmarti@zgp.org    


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]