Ubuntu changes get worse: Now Digital Rights Management is under discussion

[lukefromdc at hushmail.com]

The existing non-free kernel blobs do not allow the RIAA and MPAA to access
someone's machine. Firmware blobs are often (but not always) very low level code.

There is so much hardware that doesn't work without low level blobs that distros that
exclude them are specialty items, but I have yet to hear of a low level firmware blob
being exploited by the MPAA, RIAA, FBI et all to get into a machine and read a file
system remotely. I would not knowingly allow a keyboard driver binary blob or a wireless 
keyboard in my machines for obvious reasons. I worry less about network binary blobs 
since I always treat all online connections as untrustworthy anyway. 

If Ubuntu limits DRM support to a Gstreamer module, that's easy enough to remove, even
if all of gstreamer were foolishly compiled to depends on it,. At worst you would rebuild 
gstreamer without it. I doubt Hollywood would ever trust it, anymore than I would trust
sending a stream to my opponents with only userspace protection against an unwanted
copy being made and turning up in some courtroom later. 

For Hollywood to bite, here's what I think they would need. They'd need that gstreamer module,
and like in Windows it would unload if any non-DRM media app loaded. They would then need
a special kernel to lock down the decrypted video and audio data. To do this they would have to
use an FreeBSD kernel, not a Linux kernel, as a boot-time option to "support premium content."

That, in turn, would require the work of either porting Mesa KMS drivers to BSD, or the BSD 
kernel to Mesa KMS drivers. Android drivers/MIr/BSD or Andoid kernel might work also for
that purpose. At that point, you have a distro quite far removed from the Ubuntu we've all used
for so long, with radical differences between DRM and non-DRM modes. Will ubuntu commit
to maintaining both modes?

On 03/08/2013 at 4:48 PM, "Kaj Ailomaa" <zequence at mousike.me> wrote:
>
>On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 21:25:50 +0100, <lukefromdc at hushmail.com> 
>wrote:
>
>> For me to stay with Ubuntu, the packages I use, in clean 
>versions,
>> need to stay in repo and never depend on packages I am not 
>willing to  
>> install. Since
>> I regard my installed OS as a fork, it's what's in repo and what 
>they  
>> depend on that counts,
>> not the default installation which now has little bearing on my 
>own.
>>
>> I draw the line at any attempt to restrict my power over my own 
>machine,  
>> or
>> connects to the Internet without my explicit authorization. For 
>my uses,  
>> even
>> automated bug reporting in things like Firefox is deemed unsafe 
>and  
>> disabled. I
>> would switch to rekonq if not for the "browser fingerprintng" 
>menace.
>>
><snip>
>
>Let me first state that while I do develop Ubuntu Studio, these 
>are my  
>personal thoughts on the issue, and I'm not speaking on behalf of 
>the  
>entire Ubuntu Studio team.
>
>I think what you are saying is an important issue to deal with, 
>absolutely.
>Can't say I know much about the drm stuff. But, if it is true that 
>it  
>would be forced on the user somehow, I would agree that would be a 
>bad  
>thing. If it only happens on Unity, that would put a shadow over 
>Unity -  
>make it stand out as a non-community friendly project, sort of 
>like many  
>non-free applications that you can install on your desktop today. 
>I don't  
>use Unity, so I haven't been keeping up with the problems around 
>it (all  
>though, I of course think it's important, as that also touches the 
> 
>community in some ways).
>
>AFAIK, nothing of the kind is happening, but if I'm wrong, do 
>please  
>correct me. Adding support for something is not the same as 
>forcing you to  
>use it.
>
>I'm not taking Canonicals side here. I'm not interested in taking 
>a side  
>at all. I just want to be clear about what is what, and lately, I 
>think  
>many people have been overreacting over sudden changes, or perhaps 
> 
>latently reacting to things that already were issues before.
>
>It's absolutely important to bring these issues up. And if there 
>are  
>problems around Ubuntu, those should be discussed. But, let's 
>first make  
>sure there is a problem.
>
> From what I saw on the article at Phoronix, there's talk about 
>adding  
>support for DRM in gstreamer. I'd assume that could result in some 
>kind of  
>installable module.
>
>If ones' aim is to use a distro that is absolutely free, and has 
>the  
>strictest policies on issues around free software, I don't feel 
>like  
>Ubuntu is the best distro to use in that case.
>
>Since Ubuntu Studio (and other community flavors) is not run by 
>Canonical,  
>we have the freedom to customize our OS anyway we (the Ubuntu 
>Studio  
>community) want - as long as we're using free software. We're not 
>on the  
>same boat as Ubuntu, which needs to be focused towards something 
>quite  
>different.
>That said, we want to be the biggest multimedia focused linux 
>distro, and  
>we want to be easy to use for users who migrate from proprietary 
>OSs.
>Seasoned Linux users might choose other platforms, or they might 
>not. It  
>doesn't really matter. We're not leading the crusade on free 
>software for  
>multimedia enthusiasts in the strictest sense, but perhaps we are 
>in a  
>much more broader sense.
>
>I for one don't want to make compromises for no reason, and AFAIK, 
>the  
>biggest non-free portion of a Ubuntu Studio install is a few 
>kernel blobs.  
>I guess one alternative would be to add a free kernel to the repo, 
>and  
>have to installation medias. One that is fully free, and the other 
>that  
>has non-free wifi drivers. Sounds quite reasonable to me.
>
>I'm not seeing anything changing the nature of how free Ubuntu 
>Studio is  
>free.
>
>-- 
>Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list
>Ubuntu-Studio-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
>https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel