Nokia Urges Linux Developers To Be Cool With DRM 536
superglaze writes in to note that according to Nokia's software chief, its plans for open source include getting developers to accept things like DRM, commercial IP rights, and SIM locks. "Jaaksi admitted that concepts like these 'go against the open-source philosophy,' but said they were necessary components of the current mobile industry. 'Why do we need closed vehicles? We do,' he said. 'Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]. These are touchy, emotional issues, but this dialogue is very much needed. As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too.'"
Re:Say what?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
"We have QT, and unless you give us DRM software in 6 months, you can kiss future GPL releases goodbye!"
Re:Say what?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully at some point soon OpenMoko [openmoko.com] will become good enough for normal phone usage. Now there's a company that, from the very beginning, has wanted to play by our rules.
Want to get the linux community's support? Asus did it, even though I'm not entirely sure they realized it when they began doing so. By releasing a machine that's linux friendly and not locked down, you're sure to get a community surrounding you that will help even improve the usefulness of your product.
Re:Here's an idea? Want DRM in your product? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nokia needs to educate the mobile industry (Score:1, Interesting)
Nokia should use its 40%+ market share to educate the mobile industry about openness. Inside Nokia, there is a growing consensus that Symbian is a major failure (there's a reason they're putting so much money into maemo). So they should go out to their telco partners and say "Look guys, we've made a big mistake, Symbian sucks, the future of smart phones is open, and that means you'll have to change the way you work, live with it"..
Re:Here's an idea? Want DRM in your product? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Say what?!? (Score:3, Interesting)
I love KDE very much, and if Nokia starts to hold QT hostage, I'd very happily donate a large chunk of my free time to QT development. In fact, it would be just the opportunity I'm looking for to get started contributing to OSS.
So, your sentiment may be true overall, but there are probably a few would-be QT hackers.
Re:Say what?!? (Score:3, Interesting)
Mostly because I'm curious.
Can an AC be at -2? Let's find out. (Score:1, Interesting)
What's the end you want? One that draws your foes into a collabrative fold, or one that keeps you unnecessarily at odds depriving everyone of more choice, more ability?
Re:Here's an idea? Want DRM in your product? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, but no:
mplayer -vo mpegpes:grab.mpg YourDRMfile.wmv
So, your DRM decoding module should set a flag in mplayer that forbids file-output. So I modify mpegpes module to ignore that flag, or for mplayer to lie to the DRM module about which output module is loaded. Hmm, so you require the mplayer binary to be signed by someone you trust, probably Microsoft or RedHat, and they'll charge $6000 pr release, even if it's a trivial but critical bugfix.
OK, I don't wanna do that, so I plug in a kernel-module that will always open
Then I get myself one of these videocards with a FPGA on it, and program that to dump the video-stream back into the memory, so I can copy it to disk - so you want your cryptographic chain of trust to include the videocard, and I put my FPGA in the other end of the DVI cable, and rip from there. So you demand access to a chip in the monitor, also.
So, no, you can't put a DRM module (that's worth anything, at least) in anything opensource, without making the entire system wall-to-wall closed (AND broken, too). Microsoft, whose customers couldn't care less about closed, tries to do this, and fails. ("What, I can't put my legitimately purchased Plays for Sure! file on my fucking iPod?")
Re:Emotional? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Say what?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
He said that the industry (Nokia) is not yet ready to play the open source way.
The open source community is NOT ready to play the industry rules, as well.
There should then need a dialogue between industry and open source.
We should understand their need and try to push them towards our rules.
They do the same.
It sound fair to me.
--
Anidel
I wouldn't expect any of the big companies to behave as good guys in one day.
--
This is obviously a troll article... (Score:3, Interesting)
c'mon guys! really!
Inflammatory comments from a guy called Ari Jaaksi?
Ari Jaaksi - Hairy Jacksy (*)
Can't you even recognise a troll these days?
(*)Hairy Ass for non-Brits
Re:Here's an idea? Want DRM in your product? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm cool with DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
...as long as everyone completely ignores him and his orders.
-
Re:Linux has two choices (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I don't know where to begin... (Score:1, Interesting)
More to the point DRM doesn't need to lock out fair use. A fact that a open source/free software solution would have the ability to not just acknowledge, but actually enforce. Better yet, because of the possible durability of an Open Source solution, there's a potential to make that the dominant view. The bitter medicine to go with the corporate requested spoon full of sugar.
There is good in DRM done well (extraordinarily difficult). The massively parallel experimental process of open source software is uniquely capable of addressing that problem, but also enforcing the public good.
Re:Say what?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
it's a self-restraining clause. Or at least, it can have that reading.
Re:Say what?!? (Score:3, Interesting)
As to SIM locks and DRM, WTF? These are EVIL with a capital E and capital V, I, and L. They are the antithesis of OSS.
"Look" Satan said to me, I know that concepts like murder, adultery, and theift 'go against the Christian philosophy,' but they are necessary components of the current industry. Why do we need locked cages? We do," Satan continues. "Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]. These are touchy, emotional issues, but this dialogue is very much needed. As an industry, we plan to use Christian technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too."
I have three words for Jaaksi and his father Satan: "Fuck off, asshole."
Re:Say what?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now suppose you want to want to play that music on your open-source device - say a Linux-based mp3 player. Since open source software guarantees you the freedom to modify the source code, there is nothing to prevent you from modifying the operating system or other open source code on the device to circumvent whatever DRM measure the vendor put in place.
This situation is of great concern to the DRM-using vendor. They wish to enforce your agreement by technical means (rather than legal means), in part because it avoids them having to know whether you're breaking the agreement you made, and in part because it's a lot cheaper for them than suing you for copyright infringement or breach of contract in the event you violate your agreement.
Thus the vendors start playing tricks like building hardware that will only run software that the vendor themselves digitally signed. This includes the GPL operating system and other GPL software on the device. This allows them to enforce their DRM, but also prevents you from exercising your freedoms under the GPL to run your modified software, even when your modifications are unrelated to the DRM you agreed to.
The free software community views this tactic as an attack on the whole point of the GPL. The DRM-using vendors simply don't care about the collateral damage their attempts at technical enforcement of DRM impose. But the free software community cares a lot about those freedoms.
That is why GPLv3 has explicit provisions against this sort of practice - if vendors want to use technology to restrict your freedoms, they can write their own software to do it. If they want to use GPLed software, they need to honor its terms (and hopefully the spirit too). What they can't do is have it both ways.
So to summarize - open source software gives you the freedoms that DRM companies aren't willing to let you keep, and gives them cost savings they aren't willing to give up. So instead they try to circumvent the GPL, creating the current conflict.
Re:Say what?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt opensource developers need any 'education' from Nokia; most understand those 'business rules'. And reject them. Nokia on the other hand, have been fairly consistently in favour of proprietary approaches, from support for software patents to DRM, etc.
The phone industry and its 'business rules' has brought us things like short text messages with profit margins in the range of thousands of percent of the cost, 'ringtones', drm'ed throwaway music, etc. I understand exactly how it works, as does anyone who hasn't had a rectal anesthetic for the last decade.
Over the longer term, open handsets stand to revolutionize portable computing. Unless the company changes philosophy at some fundamental level, I doubt Nokia will be part of that.
Re:Say what?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
no, that's not the question should be asking. I don't think any sane mind OSS developer would put their time to write DRM applications.
HOWEVER, would a company like Nokia have a reason to write open source DRM applications? Absolutely.
That said, they'd have to provide the source code which would then make circumventing their DRM trivial. So the only way this could work is if they got governments (looking at you Canada) to go along with criminal offences with respect to software that breaks locking mechanisms. They seem to be having success in certain countries.
So it's not unthinkable for Nokia to have a linux based mobile OS, with an open source DRM package that they use for media content (which means it can ported and the media can remain fully compatible). The only thing protecting the open source DRM from being hacked as the laws against it (as above). If this became the norm, I'm pretty sure you would see other develops using the nokia package to allow other applications to access the media. Maybe a plugin for media players... Or maybe nokia would develop those too.
I must claim ignorance as to whether or not the GPL would legally prevent open source DRM from being implemented.
Re:Say what?!? (Score:1, Interesting)
That said, they'd have to provide the source code which would then make circumventing their DRM trivial. So the only way this could work is if they got governments (looking at you Canada) to go along with criminal offences with respect to software that breaks locking mechanisms. They seem to be having success in certain countries.
Doesn't need laws passing at all. Control is moving from the source code, to the digital signatures on the binaries, enforced by hardware.
Trusted Computing - look it up. Intel La Grande + TPM, ARM TrustZone and so on...