Re: New licence and driver SDK ?
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
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>
Description: Digital signature
[Photo] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Samba] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Linux Resources]