Archive:Discussion 2: Code, Freedom, and Control

Revision as of 16:56, 26 May 2007 by Sj (talk | contribs) (+pb)
Jump to: navigation, search

John Sullivan, Free Software Foundation

...My background is more free culture than free sotware, since I used to do a lot of art.

It's not alright to let MS off the hook b/c others might have worked with big media to enable DRM. If MS had said no, who eles would big media have gone to?

Any time we talk aout goin gafter proprietary media, ew also ened to talk about going after MS and Apple, the companies that make tech that enables these restrictions to be used. We think software is the lens through which a lot ofa rt is viewed now. If you are making art that depends on proiprietary software to be appreciated, it is like what RMS used to call the Java trap...

We really rely on volunteer help. If you're doing something along these lines, we'd love to promote that as well.

Q - is there any reason to use Vista?

A - they do try to market DRM as a feature; if you want to have a 'next-generation content experience' you need to run Vista.

Q - what is the novelty in the DRM used in Vista? Maybe ther eare other mac usersw in the audience who don't know that.

A - they do a lot more signing of the driver,s controlling video output; there are more interfaces b/t the software and the hardware. This is why many peopl eneed to upgrade hardware to run Vista; they extend the scheme farther into hardware than it was before. The HD vid technologies also are enabled in Vista with restrictions (down to the hardware level).

Q - is the threat more related to software than hardware?

A - a peripherla designer who wants to make it for vista has to provide facility for intervfacing with vista, which poses a threat to fee software drivers... or they may be disqualified from the vista certification process.


Peter Brown, Defective By Design

I have some fun images of the campaigns from this past year. Some of you may have seen the DBD stickers.. we launched this in response to what we got from the first release of the GPLv3. Were alwasy trying to find ways to ensure free software stays free. It is designed to prevent proprietization of free software.

Therefore if after releasing GPLv3 someone came up with another way to limit free software, we would come out with GPLv4 or v3.1.

Mako Hill, Ubuntu/Freedom Defined