[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Confinement (even with TPMs) and DRM are not mutually exclusive

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: Confinement (even with TPMs) and DRM are not mutually exclusive
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:21:02 +0200
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.7 (Sanjō) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:07:33 -0400,
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 11:13 -0400, Eric Northup wrote:
> > I have been very concerned to see the discussions leaning towards
> > abandoning the security benefits associated with the design patterns
> > from KeyKOS and its descendants.  On the other hand, I understand why
> > people feel that can't support a system which enables DRM that limits
> > user freedom.
> Initially, I also believed that the issue was DRM. The Hurd concerns go
> *far* beyond DRM. The point at which I gave up on this entire discussion
> was the point where I realized just how far beyond DRM the objectives
> were.

Nobody has yet offered precise definitions or an analysis which would
let one understand the claimed differences between DRM and what you
call to be "beyond DRM".

Eric attempts to do so with his mail, but I think he fails (you seem
to agree).

My own analysis shows that at least from one perspective, namely in an
analysis of ownership and contracts, DRM and other scenarios people
proposed for the mechanisms are fully equivalent.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]