-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
____/ Homer on Saturday 08 November 2008 04:00 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> Why is Linus afraid of Freedom? Is it money?
> Well he does "like Tivoisation", presumably because:
> a) He believes the FSF's anti-DRM stance is an attempt to prohibit him
> from signing releases  (strange but true), and
> b) He's an egomaniac who just wants as many people as possible to use
> "his" software  (which conveniently ignores the contributions from
> others, which actually exceeds his current contributions by a huge
> margin), irrespective of any compromises he feels it is necessary to
> make in order to accomplish that goal
> The specific section that Torvalds has trouble with reads:
> "Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or
> authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code
> of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal
> context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is
> identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. ..."
> According to Torvalds, this "is the one that seems to disallow digitally
> signed binaries (or rather: you can sign the binaries any way you want,
> but you have to make your private keys available)."
>  http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3301105877.html
> Unless Torvalds is planning to prohibit people from executing modified
> binaries of the kernel, I fail to see what his concern is, or indeed why
> he thinks this means he would "need to make [his] private keys
> available". IOW if "authorization codes" (e.g. gpg keys) are actually
> "necessary to ... execute" the code, then clearly the only way anyone
> will be able to run those upstream binary releases of Linux is if
> Torvalds does in fact publish those keys. If those "authorization codes"
> are necessary for self-built but unmodified version of the code to
> "function ... identical[ly]" to the signed upstream binary release, then
> clearly Torvalds is doing something wrong, since merely signing a
> release should not make it /function/ differently.
> I must assume that Torvalds has misinterpreted this clause, because the
> alternative is he is pushing an anti-Freedom agenda, but then given his
> egotistical priorities, that wouldn't surprise me.
>  http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/10002/linus-my-kernel.png
He is against DRM.
,----[ Quote ]
| Torvalds also revealed he is glad to see the apparent demise of music
| protected by digital rights management (DRM). In an interview last year,
| Torvalds said he believed DRM was a "lot of hot air": a comment that he says
| has now been proved right.
| "I think I have been vindicated somewhat. DRM is so anti-consumer that I
| don't see it really ever taking off," said Torvalds.
I personally feel (but I could be very wrong) that Linus fears a situation
where people start attribution this thing people call "Linux" (not just the
kernel) to Stallman, the FSS and the GNU GPL. It could affect finding from
mega corporations. He is very lucky that the "Linux" name caught on. Nobody
calls Mac OS X "Unix" or "BSD". There is a _lot_ more above that, which of
course makes Apple nothing but a proprietary, DRM-friendly company.
It takes a village...
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Open Source Othello: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 2075800k total, 1660792k used, 415008k free, 12460k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----