[Free-sklyarov-uk] Re: Apache -/-> DRM clients, Palladium as a means to force out Apache?

[Matthew Astley]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 08:50:32AM +0100, iriXx wrote:

> this adds another perspective to the Palladium story... we all know
> how much Microsoft hates Samba and Apache.... looks like Apache
> servers will have serious trouble doing e-commerce with anyone
> running Palladium...
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25891.html
> 
> MS to eradicate GPL, hence LinuxBy Thomas C Greene in Washington
> <snip article>

Well it's hard to see how they could co-exist in the long run. It
appears that M$ are making a power grab, on the scale of "everything
connected to a computer"[1].

AFAICS, TCPA has to be an all-or-nothing power grab. _This_ is betting
the farm[2].

I see no reason why a fully TCPA enabled internet would want to route
packets for "rogue" computers. Especially after a few "unpleasant
incidents" where rogue data packets have caused something bad to
happen to someone.


Apologies for the long quote of little me, it's just because of the
crosspost:

On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:06:55PM +0100, Matthew Astley wrote on free-sklyarov-uk:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 07:32:12PM +0000, Henry Gomersall wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 08:08, Martin Keegan wrote:

> > > in addition to effort to stop the laws protecting DRM, we need to
> > > get laws to *ban* this sort of thing outright.

Separate solution to the problem. This mail is about Apache.
> [...]


> The apache bug fix! I'm just about to lay into it a bit, but that
> doesn't mean I don't think it's a FINE plan.  8-D
> 
> > how about, in the next apache bug fix, include code that denies
> > access to machines that use DRM hardware/software.
> 
> It's not black and white like that. Folks have the source, so what
> you're suggesting is, explicitly, opt-out ban on DRM clients. Assuming
> they advertise their presence.
> 
> AIUI the trusted computer is to have "trusted" and "untrusted" modes,
> so you may end up just having to block any version of WinXP after a
> certain date, or something. 8-/   (I'm out of my depth again, can you
> tell?)

Or, more in more idealistic terms, we can't just drag all the Apache
admins off to war with us, because they're free to not take part.
However we have a big platform to stand on to ask for help.

> > It seems the open source ideology has to use what few heavyweights
> > it has to combat this potentially lethal move by M$.
> > 
> > That would lead to quite an interesting ideological dilemma.
> 
> For the PHBs of the world it would just be a reason to go back to
> paying MS for a MS-browser-compatible server. We tried that with
> Netscape, IIRC, and it wasn't so great.
> 
> So, if your "fix" is not to drive (people) away from Apache it has to
> be easily on-and-offable. Probably a runtime configuration option,
> perhaps even at the directory level such as in .htaccess. This should
> be quite possible, if any of it is.
> 
> > We'd also have to convince the Apache people ;o)
> 
> Not necessarily. If you have an *opt-in* exclusion on DRM clients, you
> can ship it separately as a patch. Not exactly high profile, but a
> start - and it would get on the servers where it was welcome.
> 
> One could imagine different Linux vendors shipping the thing in
> different default states.

This could be started right now. There could be an
installation/configuration option, or question in the installer, to
set the preference for whether to serve clients which exhibit DRM
behaviour.

I'm thinking Debian. I'm thinking high-priority question with a link
to an Apache or other website explaining the problem, and answers of
the form

  I'm in
  Ask me next upgrade, but I'm in for now
  Ask me next upgrade, but leave everything working
  I fear for my short term personal livelihood, don't lock them out

The important thing is that by having the answer to this question in
place in the admin's debconf database or organic databank, we can
avoid unpleasantness when the implementations start to arrive.


Matthew  #8-)
-- 
As ever, posting personal opinions from work

[1] M$ want "everything attached to a computer", naturally it would be
    theirs already if not for the pesky Macs and naughty Free
    Software.

[2] http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=betting+the+farm+microsoft