Re: New licence and driver SDK ?

[Ryan Underwood <nemesis-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:16:50PM +0200, Paul Pogonyshev wrote:
> > 
> > And let's have this discussion again 10 years from now, will you ?
> 
> Well, in 10 years all free software--all independent software, even--
> might well be dead due to DRM enforcement.  TCPA style.

If there's still a demand for free software, there will still be a
demand for non-crippled computers that can still run it.  If big
businesses ignore that demand and cave to special interests, startups
will laugh all the way to the bank fulfilling it in their absence.

BTW, TCPA-style security architecture is not inherently a bad thing.  It
is only bad when the owner of the computer cannot control in what
context signed code is required, and who can know the results of the
verification.  The phone-home Palladium scenario is the scenario the
media interests and proprietary software vendors would love, but it is
far from the only application of hardware-based security lockouts.

Personally, I would love to be able to ensure in hardware that only
applications I've signed with my private key are executable on my
servers, or that my private data is secure from external analysis if
someone steals my machine and doesn't have my USB key.  For many
similar reasons, I wholeheartedly support the development of opt-in
security architectures that are under the machine owner's control.
It's the ones that you can't opt-out of that will be a problem.  Then
again, the tighter the control freaks grasp, the more it slips through
their fingers.

-- 
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature