[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:45:46 -0500 Terry Hancock wrote:

> Francesco Poli wrote:
> >  Wait, wait: if the TPM are based on public key cryptography, you
> >  could have the necessary key for applying them, but not the key
> >  that's needed to pull them off. In that case, when you receive an
> >  "All Rights Reserved" work with TPM, d[R], you cannot get R back
> >  and share it with your friends or modify it in any way. You can
> >  only use d[R] on Dave's platform (perhaps for a limited number of
> >  times or for a limited timeframe). On the other hand, when you
> >  receive d[A] along with A (parallel distribution) under the
> >  CC-by-sa-v3.x, you can exercise all the rights granted by the
> >  license on A and re-apply the TPM to A (or A') in order to use it
> >  on Dave's platform.
> >
> >  I think that TPM with a published encoding key are still effective
> >  TPM (as long as the decoding key are held secret).
> So, are you asserting that if the CCPL3.0 included an allowance to
> distribute TPM'd files, so long as the key necessary to apply TPM to
> modified works based on the non-TPM'd version were publically
> available (or always available as part of the non-TPM'd distribution)?

Am I asserting that if $LONG_SENTENCE, then what?
I'm not sure I understand your question, since something seems to be
missing in it...  :-/

> If so, I'm not sure you're wrong, but you are being inconsistent.
> What is the basis for Debian's objection to the anti-TPM clause? Isn't
> it that it is considered to be "discriminatory" against "person or
> fields of use" because it (supposedly [1]) discriminates against users
> of TPM systems?

AFAICT, the objection is that an anti-TPM clause (such that it forbids
any TPM in any case) forbids porting to some platforms.
I think that no such porting should be disallowed, as long as it can be
done without denying recipients the ability to exercise the rights
granted by the license.

Likewise, a clause that forbade porting the work to Windows systems
would be considered non-free.

> You see, I think the thing you might be missing here is that the
> creator of the work has no control over whether the TPM key might or
> might not be available: it is a property of the platform, just like
> the platform being TPM-only.

I am well aware of this.
Just as the presence of a third-party software patent that covers a
piece of software is not under control of its author.

> So the point is, no end-user freedom is gained by your proposal:
> either proposal allows the end user to install content on TPM-only
> platforms for which a TPM encryption key is publically available and
> denies it on platforms for which it is not.  In fact, the only thing
> it gains is increased complexity of the license.

The end-user freedom that is added (with respect to the no-TPM-ever
clause) is the ability of having the TPM applied by someone else (in the
cases where anybody can do that), rather than being compelled to do it
In a world where many users are scared to death at the sole idea of
installing a software package (that doesn't come preinstalled with the
computer they bought), I think that the above-mentioned end-user freedom
should not be seen as negligible...

But it is also tradition that times *must* and always
do change, my friend.   -- from _Coming to America_
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpeT9PmZn4eB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: