[PLUG] http://badvista.fsf.org

BVK bvk.groups at gmail.com
Sun Apr 22 03:45:09 PDT 2007


On 4/21/07, A G <subscrive at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Yes. Now at least we are on the same page that
> softwares are licensed and we are not using some
> car/hood etc examples.

I believe, from *consumer* point of view, software is no different
from hardware.  They just give more fun or make his day-to-day
life/work easier.  BTW, as a consumer, i do believe i own GPL
software.

> So my only point was that fsf should argue that gpl
> v2/3 etc and hence the s/w written under these
> licenses are better than vistas license.

It is not licese issue at all.  It is the technologies that vista is
bringing within: trusted-computing and DRM.  Badvista.org might not
even exists, if microsoft is not pushing these kind of technologies
into consumers' homes.

> The other point is "DRM gives power to Microsoft and
> Big Media." Further... "They decide which programs you
> can and can't use on your computer..."
> This is similar to the sco case.

To you, not to everyone.

> When you accuse
> someone (person/entity), you need to have some proof.

Maybe.  But did you try to investigate *what* DRM is all about and its
implications on consumers?

> I dont know of any proof where MS has denied other s/w
> from running.
> If you know, pl enlighten.

Though my knowledge in DRM, Trusted-Computing is limited, i will try
to plot some possible restrictions they can impose on the consumer.
Remember, these are all *possible* with vista's technologies, i didn't
mean all this is in vista.  I dont use vista.

Using DRM, microsoft and big-four-media companies can make sure that
their albums can be played only using Windows Media Player, iTunes or
some XYZ player.  Other players cannot play the album.  Doesn't this
sound a problem to you?  They can potentially lock-in the consumer to
authorized-media-players only.  This is a big NO NO to me.

Though i never tested, HD-DVDs are an example.  If you play them with
big-four-media companies' authorized-players, you will get fullsize
resoultion video, where as if you play them with normal players, you
will see only DVD resolution video (though your hardware is HD
compatible).  This information is what i have read/heard.

Basically, big compaines now decide which player you should buy/use.

As a side note, DRM alone can always be cracked.  But with
trusted-computing in place, it cannot be cracked in theory.  Upto my
knowledge this was never tested in practice.

> I (and I hope many readers) would have prefered
> "DRM gives power to Microsoft and Big Media.
>     * They decide which programs you can and can't use
> on your computer
>     Eg: vista does not allow FF 2.0.1 to run on it. OR
> google desktop to run.

With DRM+Trusted-Computing, microsoft can essentially lock-out all
competitors like open-office, from decoding .doc files successfully.
Or can make their Exchange mail server deny access to Outlook webmail
from non-IE browsers.  Vendor lock-in possibilities are endless with
these technologies.

>     * They decide which features of your computer or
> software you can use at any given moment
>     Eg: Many cases were found where vista allowed a PC
> to work as printer server as well as www server, but
> then www server stopped working due to trigger in the
> os.

You cannot take print-screen if HD video is playing.

>     * They force you to install new programs even when
> you don't want to (and, of course, pay for the
> privilege)
>     Eg: some real world example.

You need to buy Word-2020 to edit/read your diary.doc file.  Quite possible!

>     * They restrict your access to certain programs
> and even to your own data files
>     Eg: and some more real examples.

above example!

> Also some clarifications.
> Ubuntu is a product/trademark. Canonical is the
> company.

thanks, i missed that.


/ bvk-chaitanya



More information about the plug-mail mailing list