sure and you get to charge the hardware vendors for certifying their hardware…..You didn’t think it was just about getting the media cartels money did you? No it’s about getting more money from the customer through the hardware venders and the media cartels.

> In fact there are rumors that Windows Vista will refuse to allow the
> use of unsigned drivers.

If Windows Vista does refuse to allow the use of unsigned drivers; That would mean that you can’t run the beta drivers from your favorite graphics card company that haven’t been WHQL certified and signed yet, or even drivers like btwincap (http://btwincap.sourceforge.net/) the open source Brooktree based capture card drivers that are far superior to the ones supplied by the manufacturers of such cards.

I can only speculate as to the reasoning behind such a move, but I’m sure that it has to do with preventing the use of drivers which do not enforce Windows DRM.

It means that if you distribute GPL 3 code in a situation where the compiled code is some how verified, for example by checksum or cryptographic digital signature, you must provide a means for the person who is using the code to replace it and retain all original functionality.

A real life situation could be a stand alone device, such as a cellular phone, which verifies a cryptographic signature of the kernel binary or any other GPL software running on the device (such as libraries or applications), and then refuses to function or runs with reduced functionality if that verification fails. In that case, it would be necessary to provide the private signing keys used to sign the binary in order to comply with GPL v3, but not version 2.

That problem could easily be solved by using a standard checksum which could be changed by the modifier, thus allowing modification of the software running on the device. I don’t know whether it would be acceptable for the device to simply present a warning that it is running unsigned code but not reduce any actual functionality, much the way that Windows XP now does. That would be the method I would prefer. That way I am notified that something has been changed, and can take appropriate action if I was not expecting the change. Although, I’m afraid, it would be much to tempting for manufacturers to reduce functionality in that situation. In fact there are rumors that Windows Vista will refuse to allow the use of unsigned drivers.

Of course, the issue here is that preventing modification of the code is the goal that most manufacturers of stand alone equipment running GPL software are trying to prevent. The problem with this is that most people agree that while it strictly adheres to the conditions in GPL v2, it does not follow the spirit of the license.

According to the article: Linus believes that it is alright to prevent people from running modified GPL software in certain situations. While Richard Stallman (RMS) believes that if it is GPL, you should have the right to not only change it, but also to run it in the same context as the original version. I happen to agree with RMS on this one.