5 ms·

It wasn't so many years ago that the solution would have been a proprietary patent with FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing and payment.

by irq-1 11y ago

It wasn't so many years ago that the solution would have been a proprietary patent with FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing and payment. Free and Open Source made the payment impossible, so companies had to change. The proprietary control through patents was tempered by standard bodies excluding such contributions (like W3C [0]), or patent disclaimers (like Microsofts Community Promise [1]), or patent pooling (like MPEG LA). So if we want to eliminate DRM, without hoping for another miracle from Apple, we should use the large market share of open source software. Maybe that means changing licenses (like a BSD 4-clause 'no DRM' license). Maybe it means making client/server software that just doesn't work with DRM, closing down web based DRM, and forcing Hulu etc... to each implement their own clients on every platform (as it was before EME). Maybe get a Netflix competitor to use AGPL3 server and clients, that won't work with distributors that demand DRM. [0] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Licensing https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Li... [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecifications/dn750984 https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecifications/dn750984

echelon 11y ago
A viral no-DRM clause in a variety of open source licenses sounds like a great idea! How could we go about promulgating such a thing?
- AaronFriel 11y ago
  It's a non-starter called GPL3. While I'm not a lawyer, my understanding is that many businesses consider the GPL3 and its extended anti-tivoization, anti-patent provisions dangerous. They may be misguided, I won't comment on that here. I will just say that my impression is that such an anti-DRM clause exists, and the license that uses it has many detractors.
  - spriggan3 11y ago
    Was it tested in court in US ? Were some businesses sued for violation of a GPL3 license ? if yes by whom ? it's just a question.
- zanny 11y ago
  Start using GPLv3 and AGPLv3 like you were supposed to for the better part of the last decade, and stop listening to the divisive arguments from pragmatists who don't care about the ethical consequences of permissive licensing when it comes to these kinds of things. Even if you want to get post-copyright (I certainly do) we don't improve the situation fueling the copyright lobby with technological force multipliers through our own hard work. Keep them honest with copyleft licenses to keep users free of this kind of nonsense.
  - g1n016399 11y ago
    > Keep them honest with copyleft licenses to keep users free of this kind of nonsense. ... and support the GPL compliance efforts of organisations like Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
  - duaneb 11y ago
    Gplv3 comes with a ton of baggage, though, and it still isn't clear how enforceable agplv3 is. I suspect better content licensing would be best--have a license that forces any distributor to offer media that can be played with FOSS software.
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    How will GPLv3 prevent smartphone, smarttv, etc apps from using DRM? About all GPLv3 and AGPLv3 would do is give a slightly smaller corpus of software to use in implementing. How much software did Apple open up when GCC went GPLv3?
    - zanny 11y ago
      Apple has never included the GPLv3 version of GCC on OSX themselves. For years they were shipping the outdated last GPLv2 release, and then they put all their effort into LLVM to replace GCC entirely because they refused to give up their DRM and Tivoization. GPLv3 has this clause: Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden. And has a definition corollary: 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. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it. The GPL "stops" apps from using DRM because to use DRM is to violate the license and be liable for copyright infringement. On OSX specifically, I imagine the Apple had some leaky GPLv3 code somewhere, because they open sourced a lot of Darwin between 2007-2010.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
bad_user 11y ago
A no-DRM clause would go against the definition of both Free Software and Open Source. Or more exactly, if you apply any restrictions on usage, then the software can't be classified as either. No exceptions. And on distribution any copy left license would do, because it is DRM ruling itself out, as transparency of the code is incompatible with DRM. That's because all DRM accomplishes is a sort of security by obscurity so there can't be generally accepted solutions that are open-source. There's no DRM in Chromium for example. But except for the browser, it's not distribution that's relevant, which is why organizations like the FSF, the EFF and Mozilla are pissed off about W3C standardizing DRM. I wouldn't hope for any miracles by Apple, when they are single handily responsible for popularizing DRM amongst consumers, along with Trusted Computing. Their whole iTunes / iPhone business is built on top and the rest of the industry followed.
- leereeves 11y ago
  How would a copy-left license force disclosure of DRM implemented in a library distributed as a binary blob? All you'd see in the open source code is a call to that library (just like a call to a binary blob driver from the Linux kernel, for example).
- TD-Linux 11y ago
  The GPLv3 solves this by not preventing you from implementing DRM, but granting you the right to circumvent any DRM implemented with the software.
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    I don't think that GPLv3-encumbered software would help here. About all it would do is make companies say, "download our app to watch this." keeping the status quo the same.
akira2501 11y ago
Personally, I could care less about DRM on content; I'm far more appaled that I have to use DRM on the cable/protocol between my monitor and my video card. One of these harms my "freedom to tinker," the other, not so much.
tzs 11y ago
> Maybe it means making client/server software that just doesn't work with DRM, closing down web based DRM, and forcing Hulu etc... to each implement their own clients on every platform (as it was before EME) Hulu etc would not be forced to implement their own clients. Someone would develop a general, easily customizable client that Hulu etc would license that supported a plugin system for the DRM components. Hulu etc would license that.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

by irq-1 11y ago

echelon 11y ago

A viral no-DRM clause in a variety of open source licenses sounds like a great idea! How could we go about promulgating such a thing?

AaronFriel 11y ago
It's a non-starter called GPL3. While I'm not a lawyer, my understanding is that many businesses consider the GPL3 and its extended anti-tivoization, anti-patent provisions dangerous. They may be misguided, I won't comment on that here. I will just say that my impression is that such an anti-DRM clause exists, and the license that uses it has many detractors.
- spriggan3 11y ago
  Was it tested in court in US ? Were some businesses sued for violation of a GPL3 license ? if yes by whom ? it's just a question.
zanny 11y ago
Start using GPLv3 and AGPLv3 like you were supposed to for the better part of the last decade, and stop listening to the divisive arguments from pragmatists who don't care about the ethical consequences of permissive licensing when it comes to these kinds of things. Even if you want to get post-copyright (I certainly do) we don't improve the situation fueling the copyright lobby with technological force multipliers through our own hard work. Keep them honest with copyleft licenses to keep users free of this kind of nonsense.
- g1n016399 11y ago
  > Keep them honest with copyleft licenses to keep users free of this kind of nonsense. ... and support the GPL compliance efforts of organisations like Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
- duaneb 11y ago
  Gplv3 comes with a ton of baggage, though, and it still isn't clear how enforceable agplv3 is. I suspect better content licensing would be best--have a license that forces any distributor to offer media that can be played with FOSS software.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  How will GPLv3 prevent smartphone, smarttv, etc apps from using DRM? About all GPLv3 and AGPLv3 would do is give a slightly smaller corpus of software to use in implementing. How much software did Apple open up when GCC went GPLv3?
  - zanny 11y ago
    Apple has never included the GPLv3 version of GCC on OSX themselves. For years they were shipping the outdated last GPLv2 release, and then they put all their effort into LLVM to replace GCC entirely because they refused to give up their DRM and Tivoization. GPLv3 has this clause: Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden. And has a definition corollary: 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. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it. The GPL "stops" apps from using DRM because to use DRM is to violate the license and be liable for copyright infringement. On OSX specifically, I imagine the Apple had some leaky GPLv3 code somewhere, because they open sourced a lot of Darwin between 2007-2010.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

bad_user 11y ago

A no-DRM clause would go against the definition of both Free Software and Open Source. Or more exactly, if you apply any restrictions on usage, then the software can't be classified as either. No exceptions. And on distribution any copy left license would do, because it is DRM ruling itself out, as transparency of the code is incompatible with DRM. That's because all DRM accomplishes is a sort of security by obscurity so there can't be generally accepted solutions that are open-source. There's no DRM in Chromium for example. But except for the browser, it's not distribution that's relevant, which is why organizations like the FSF, the EFF and Mozilla are pissed off about W3C standardizing DRM. I wouldn't hope for any miracles by Apple, when they are single handily responsible for popularizing DRM amongst consumers, along with Trusted Computing. Their whole iTunes / iPhone business is built on top and the rest of the industry followed.

leereeves 11y ago
How would a copy-left license force disclosure of DRM implemented in a library distributed as a binary blob? All you'd see in the open source code is a call to that library (just like a call to a binary blob driver from the Linux kernel, for example).
TD-Linux 11y ago
The GPLv3 solves this by not preventing you from implementing DRM, but granting you the right to circumvent any DRM implemented with the software.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  I don't think that GPLv3-encumbered software would help here. About all it would do is make companies say, "download our app to watch this." keeping the status quo the same.

akira2501 11y ago

Personally, I could care less about DRM on content; I'm far more appaled that I have to use DRM on the cable/protocol between my monitor and my video card. One of these harms my "freedom to tinker," the other, not so much.

tzs 11y ago

> Maybe it means making client/server software that just doesn't work with DRM, closing down web based DRM, and forcing Hulu etc... to each implement their own clients on every platform (as it was before EME) Hulu etc would not be forced to implement their own clients. Someone would develop a general, easily customizable client that Hulu etc would license that supported a plugin system for the DRM components. Hulu etc would license that.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]