Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nokia Urges Linux Developers To Be Cool With DRM

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the unclear-on-the-concept dept.

Linux 536

superglaze writes in to note that according to Nokia's software chief, its plans for open source include getting developers to accept things like DRM, commercial IP rights, and SIM locks. "Jaaksi admitted that concepts like these 'go against the open-source philosophy,' but said they were necessary components of the current mobile industry. 'Why do we need closed vehicles? We do,' he said. 'Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]. These are touchy, emotional issues, but this dialogue is very much needed. As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Say what?!? (5, Insightful)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776733)

but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too
So you're not yet ready to play by our rules, but you want us to play by your rules so that you have an opportunity to take advantage of the work we produce and provide to you for free (beer/speech); when the only stipulation we have is that you provide it back for free?

I'm sorry, it sounds like you have your head firmly rooted somewhere dark and unnatural.

"These things suck and hurt both you and us, and we won't bend on that. But we want you to work for us for free anyway."

Holy cow man, listen to yourself. This is our playground and we give you an opportunity to play in it for free; in return we purchase the goods you produce as a result. You play by our rules or we take our playground and our purchasing power to someone who will.

Re:Say what?!? (4, Insightful)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776773)

I wish my moderator points didn't just expire. Hit the nail on the head.

Re:Say what?!? (5, Funny)

hostyle (773991) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776929)

-1 Carpentry Reference

Re:Say what?!? (5, Funny)

Cerberus7 (66071) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777061)

I'm sorry, I don't get it. Could you perhaps rephrase it in the form of an automobile reference?

Re:Say what?!? (2, Funny)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777097)

'Why do we need closed vehicles? We do,' he said
Even TFS has a car analogy!

Re:Say what?!? (5, Interesting)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776837)

Interesting. I read it as more of a ransom note:

"We have QT, and unless you give us DRM software in 6 months, you can kiss future GPL releases goodbye!"

Re:Say what?!? (5, Informative)

kipman725 (1248126) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776883)

well thats the wonder of the GPL, we can just take the most current version of QT and FORK.

Re:Say what?!? (5, Insightful)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777077)

Absolutely, and given the choice, I would choose a forked community QT over compromising our values concerning DRM. However, it would be unfortunate to lose the support of a larger organization dedicated exclusively to improving QT. Do you remember the recent article on the the stalled XOrg development? People don't like doing low level, thankless, GUI stuff. They like making interfaces, not improving the speed of existing widgets. It would be difficult to get a sufficient number of people to work on the project reliably, IMHO.

Re:Say what?!? (3, Interesting)

3p1ph4ny (835701) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777147)

I'm going to be a senior in college this fall, in Computer Engineering. I've never contributed to an OSS project before (although I've been hacking kde4 for a few weeks), but I would love to start and learn how.

I love KDE very much, and if Nokia starts to hold QT hostage, I'd very happily donate a large chunk of my free time to QT development. In fact, it would be just the opportunity I'm looking for to get started contributing to OSS.

So, your sentiment may be true overall, but there are probably a few would-be QT hackers.

Re:Say what?!? (2, Informative)

cliffiecee (136220) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777163)

Actually, he has a word or two about forking as well. LOL, talk about clueless:

"In his speech, Jaaksi detailed some of the lessons Nokia had learned in its work with the Maemo developer community, primarily the need to avoid 'forking' code. He said: "Don't make your own version. The original mistake we made was to take the code to our labs, change it and then release it at the last minute. The community had already gone in a different direction than [us], and no-one was pushing it other than [us]. Everybody wants to make their own version and keep it too close to their chest but that leads to fragmentation."

Re:Say what?!? (5, Insightful)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776931)

If that is their plan, they must not realize the low value of QT (we have plenty of alternatives) compared to the high value of the no-DRM ideals in the F/OSS community. They really aren't in a bargaining position.

Re:Say what?!? (3, Insightful)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777031)

I agree that the cost of QT is minor compared to our ideals, but it would be an unfortunate loss. QT is a great toolkit, and there are many projects that absorbed the regular updates that Trolltech issued.

Can an AC be at -2? Let's find out. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777257)

DRM doesn't have to be a bad thing. In particular, open source software is in a particularly advantagous position to make DRM software that's durable and more of a two way street. That's wealth. Real wealth. Giving choice to everyone, over night. If Sony, et al get Microsoft to do it, I'll pretty much be one way. A belated attempt to turn the internet into multicast cable tv. If random companies, or again just Microsoft, impliment specific schemes they may tire of maintaining them, and just turn the data people bought off. Why can't I use DRM to protect and maintain a durable finely gained control of how my data is used and by whom? Sex tapes come to mind, though some are sure to be efforts at self promotion, and I'll still be confident in my ability to use my personal appearence as a deterent. Not everyone is so fortunate. But it could also be youtube videos networks have no qualms about appropriating for their own commercial purposes. It could be a database of painstakingly researched impossibly obscure mineral claims.

What's the end you want? One that draws your foes into a collabrative fold, or one that keeps you unnecessarily at odds depriving everyone of more choice, more ability?

Re:Say what?!? (5, Informative)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777017)

They're still held by the Free Qt deal. If they stop releasing OSS versions of Qt, it's forcefully taken from them.

Re:Say what?!? (2, Interesting)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777153)

[citation needed]

Mostly because I'm curious.

Re:Say what?!? (2, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777021)

This is the lesson here. Don't contribute to projects that claim ownership of your code as a condition of contributing. Fork the project first.

Project Mayo used this model. Then they took the contributers code, closed it, and started DivX Networks.

MySQL used this model. The only reason they haven't closed the code and started selling it was because Sun bought them to prevent it, and it's only by the good graces of Sun that the situation persists.

QT used this model. Then they sold all the code they collected over the years to Nokia. And here we are.

The moral of the story is, don't make compromises with these assholes. Don't put them in a position where they can screw you, because they can't be trusted, or they wouldn't have made the arrangement that set you up to be screwed in the first place.

Re:Say what?!? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777187)

This is the lesson here. Don't contribute to projects that claim ownership of your code as a condition of contributing. Fork the project first.

It stands to reason that if you could fork the project then, you could fork the last available release before the project is closed. Is that not the case here, or are they talking about preventing developers access to devices like Apple? Personally, I say fork Nokia :-) I haven't touched their QT tools, but their S60 carbide.c++ is a dilapidated nightmare of perl scripts, Window's exes, and open source tools all glued together into one monolithic monstrosity. Last I checked, it still didn't support Windows Vista more than a year after release.

Re:Say what?!? (3, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777265)

This is the lesson here. Don't contribute to projects that claim ownership of your code as a condition of contributing. Fork the project first.

Project Mayo used this model...
MySQL used this model...
QT used this model...

And here we are.
...complaining about their greedy license change decisions. Changing mySQL from LGPL to GPL and then making small businesses pay several thousands of dollars to be able to use even the mySQL client? COME ON!

MySQL, QT and DivX networks are *NO* better than Nokia. I don't care if MySQL never went commercial, it was much better as LGPL. Now everybody else is considering going to PostgreSQL.

Compare with wxWidgets. It may not be as popular in the Linux area, but a lot of Windows developers use it.

Re:Say what?!? (5, Interesting)

paroneayea (642895) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776853)

Hopefully at some point soon OpenMoko [openmoko.com] will become good enough for normal phone usage. Now there's a company that, from the very beginning, has wanted to play by our rules.

Want to get the linux community's support? Asus did it, even though I'm not entirely sure they realized it when they began doing so. By releasing a machine that's linux friendly and not locked down, you're sure to get a community surrounding you that will help even improve the usefulness of your product.

Re:Say what?!? (5, Insightful)

erudified (958273) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777223)

"Jaaksi admitted that concepts like these 'go against the open-source philosophy,' but said they were necessary components of the current mobile industry. 'Why do we need closed vehicles? We do,'

I read this, and interpret it as this:

"Jaaksi admitted that going 140mph in a 55mph zone 'goes against the public safety philosophy,' but said it was a necessary component of his fast-paced business lifestyle. 'Why do I need to do 140mph? I do,'

I love this guy.

Here's an idea? Want DRM in your product? (5, Insightful)

base3 (539820) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776741)

Write your own damn code!

Re:Here's an idea? Want DRM in your product? (4, Funny)

plover (150551) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776845)

Well, I suppose someone could write an open source DRM module for mplayer. Would that work for you?

Re:Here's an idea? Want DRM in your product? (5, Interesting)

inasity_rules (1110095) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776975)

Funny, but why not? Optionally installed of course.... Trying to mandatorily include DRM in all opensource media players would be a very strange and ludicrous idea. But if someone wants to hang themselves, give them some more rope and fetch the popcorn.

Re:Here's an idea? Want DRM in your product? (4, Interesting)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777113)

Well, I suppose someone could write an open source DRM module for mplayer. Would that work for you?
First, this could be done even using GPL v. 3 (the GPL would require that the DRM module can be modified by users and that a modified module can be installed; the GPL doesn't care what the module actually does). And it would most likely be the most unbreakable DRM in existence: If you write a DRM module that cannot be circumvented even with the possibility of modifying the code and installing a modified module, then what on earth is a hacker to do to get around this?

Re:Here's an idea? Want DRM in your product? (5, Insightful)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777263)

DRM is 100% Security Through Obscurity. They give you everything you need to produce an unencrypted version of something, and hope to high heaven that the only time it ever exists in unencrypted form is some place you don't think to look for it.

An open source DRM module couldn't possibly work. Well, it could, but it would be very easily crackable - instead of sending the unencrypted stream to the screen and speakers, send it instead to ff4mpeg or to a disk and have it re-encoded.

Every major DRM scheme has been broken to date, and that's without having the source code available. Having the source means you just redirect the output to some place you can capture it, and you're done.

Translation (5, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776747)

"We want to ditch your rules but have you live by our rules. We know it's wrong and bad for consumers but too bad. We want to lock in our profits".

Pretty typical attitude in the industry I'd say.

Re:Translation (3, Insightful)

MindKata (957167) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777275)

"Pretty typical attitude in the industry I'd say."

Its unfortunately typical of a lot of bosses, regardless of the industry. Many bosses will arragantly use others, but don't want to give anything back (for fear of giving others a helping hand, as they may well end up being a competitor. So in their mind, its better to keep others down. They take, but don't give back. Its why they don't like open source, (when they have to compete with it), as its a threat to their way of treating others, as much as a threat to their products).

From the summary, "Why do we need closed vehicles? We do"
Yeah they do, as they want to control whats on their products, so they can charge whatever they like for them and if we don't like it, tough, as we will not get a choice, as they will prevent us having a choice, as they control whats on their products. ... Great, typical arragant control of others. Yet again they show their need to control others, is at the centre of how they think. Without control, people will not accept being treated like this and they know it. The world would be so much better, without this minority of arragant control freaks seeking to control where ever they can. Yet they want us to just accept it? ... yeah right. The more open, the better.

Based on the quotes in the article header, (3, Informative)

OmniGeek (72743) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776751)

this sounds rather like a declaration of war. Of course, we know how accurate Slashdot article teaser text can be...

Re:Based on the quotes in the article header, (5, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776819)

I RTFA, and it's actually an accurate summary of his speech. It really sounds like the guy honestly believes the crap he's spewing.

Re:Based on the quotes in the article header, (1)

Project2501a (801271) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777241)

I guess the only thing i could say as a reply to such crap is

"Bring it"

Re:Based on the quotes in the article header, (2, Insightful)

TheGreatOrangePeel (618581) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777135)

this sounds rather like a declaration of war.

Interesting you say that. My thoughts were more along the lines of Open Source is to the Native Americans as Nokia is to the U.S. Government. That is to say there's many Open Source organizations and no single collective leader over all of them, making it very difficult to negotiate a, to resume the metaphor, peace treaty.

The fortunate thing is that I don't believe there is anything to be the proverbial bison that can be killed off to, in turn, wipe out Open Source.

They need us more than we need them (4, Funny)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776761)

I think they are the ones that need to be "educated".

Re:They need us more than we need them (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776843)

Educated? I'd say LARTed.

Can you imagine what a cell could become if it is "OSS friendly"? Yes, you will most likely not lock your customers into having to use it, but here's a really novel, radical and completely unthinkable idea: They just might want to use your product because it caters to their needs.

I know it is so last century, but how about making a product again that the customer wants to buy instead of trying to force him to buy it with vendor lock-in snares?

Re:They need us more than we need them (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776893)

Preferably with a blunt chisel and a blow torch. They deserve it after their abominable implentation of the symbian OS.

Re:They need us more than we need them (2, Insightful)

varcher (156670) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777155)

I think they are the ones that need to be "educated".

In many ways. The article notes that "because the industry has not yet moved beyond old business models.", "they (drm/simlock/subsidisies) were necessary components of the current mobile industry", and "Some of these things harm the industry but they're here".

The conclusion: Instead of the industry evolving, the programmers (namely, the Open Source crowd) need to go back to the old outdated model.
 
When you recognise yourself that your business model is flawed and doesn't work, the LAST thing you want is to attempt to perpetuate it. You can hold on it by brute force for a while, but you'll lose your short-term gains in the long term.
 
Of course, very few companies really think long term. The tyranny of publically owned companies and their stock.

Emotional? (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776771)

Huh? A corporation talking about emotion?

It's about money. It's about vendor lock-in, it's about customer control and about avoiding competition.

They want cheap/free (the beer kind) software, but under their sole control, without allowing the user of the software to apply it to their needs. Sorry, OSS doesn't swing that way.

Re:Emotional? (2, Informative)

dintech (998802) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776907)

They need it to push their DRM crippled music service. No other reason. They want to do it on the cheap too.

Re:Emotional? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776999)

The problem they are facing is that DRM and OSS don't mix easily. If at all. How do you want to enforce any kind of DRM when you open your source code?

My guess is that he fell for the fallacy of considering the "free" in OSS as "doesn't cost anything". OSS can actually cost something. Nowhere does it say you can't ask for money to write it. The "free" part means that it is released openly. And that's something he appearantly simply doesn't get.

Re:Emotional? (5, Funny)

bug1 (96678) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777043)

Huh? A corporation talking about emotion?

It's about money...


You dont think corporates get emotional about money ?

Re:Emotional? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777095)

No. Corporations are by their very definition intelligence without emotion. People have emotions, but those people don't apply emotions when working for corporations. They do apply their intelligence, though.

Re:Emotional? (2, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777165)

[People] do apply their intelligence, though.
If TFA didn't seriously misquote this guy, then I think you might be wrong there...

Re:Emotional? (1)

lordofwhee (1187719) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777207)

They do apply their intelligence, though.
Since when?

Re:Emotional? (1)

varcher (156670) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777249)

No. Corporations are by their very definition intelligence without emotion. People have emotions, but those people don't apply emotions when working for corporations. They do apply their intelligence, though.

I think Jerry Yang at Yahoo might disagree with you about emotional reactions. Notably when Microsoft is involved.

Re:Emotional? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777065)

They want cheap/free (the beer kind) software

I'd say spewing the money out is NOT their problem. What they want is Linux fame, "coolness", but at the same time, they want to get rid of the attached strings. Sort of like hiring a yuppie, still creative and out-of-the-box (and occasional recreational drugs user), reformed stick-it-to-The-Man "stinky hippie".

I wouldn't be at all surprised if "suits", when this fails, invest into development of first "industry friendly", clean room method reverse engineered, Linux CLONE, under BSD or even completely closed license.

Re:Emotional? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777159)

Spewing out money is always a problem for a corporation, if they can see a way to avoid it. Linux may be "cool" in geek circles, but that does not apply to the general audience for cell users.

Trust me, this is about money. The idea I see behind this is to get a load of gadgets and gimmicks for free, then sell them to the customers just like they sell ringtones, background pics and other junk today.

In other news... (5, Funny)

mr_da3m0n (887821) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776791)

In other news, a dictator urged the population to be cool with a totalitarian state.

Re:In other news... (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776877)

Huh? Bush gave a speech and neither FOX nor CNN covers it?

SIM locks?! (5, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776797)

Are you shitting me? IP rights are one thing (we don't expect people not to respect IP rights, we may disagree a bit on how extensive those rights should be), but SIM locks are an anticompetitive abomination, and this guy is a moron if he expects intelligent developers ever to like them. They're all about vendor lock-in, and removal of consumer choice. I bought my phone independently of a contract. It cost more but means I just put in whatever company's SIM I want and I switch providers that easily. Nokia, if you don't like that, fuck off. (It's a Nokia phone)

Re:SIM locks?! (4, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776959)

I'm particularly surprised to hear this from Nokia, actually. It's been a few years since I was working with mobile phones, so maybe they've changed since then, but their SIM locks seemed like pretty much token efforts to appease the networks. Back then, at least, a lot of Motorola and Sony Ericsson phones were only unlockable with a full flash of the phone's OS while Nokias just needed a code that could be easily calculated from the phone's serial number. I always got the impression that Nokia wanted their phones to be unlocked - they don't make any money from the network contract anyway, so it was in their interests to have the handset itself as useful as possible to the customer.

Re:SIM locks?! (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777001)

You said it best right there: intelligent developers. The Linux community has been growing and going strong under its own steam, by its own rules, for a long time, and it's populated by many of the most intelligent developers in the world. Nokia seems to be under the misconception that they can waltz in and make us change the basic principles of how and why smart people are doing what they do, for the sole purpose of increasing Nokia shareholder value. This is not likely to happen anytime soon.

I urge Nokia to be cool with taking their offer and shoving it.

Re:SIM locks?! (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777047)

IMHO, not having SIM locks would be in Nokia's best interest, because if I were to jump from, say, T-Mobile to AT&T, or move to the frosty north and use Rogers, I could still continue to use my Nokia phone.

That's some great logic there... (4, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776801)

'Why do we need closed vehicles? We do,'


I'm sure that will do wonders to convince all of the second-grade OSS programmers to help you out.

Me, I'm not interested. Because you're a doody-head, because you are.

Re:That's some great logic there... (2, Funny)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777059)

This guy obviously never heard of cabriolets...

Re:That's some great logic there... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777199)

all oss programmers are second-grade... maybe even worse.

Just shows (1)

zakkie (170306) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776809)

That it is possible to know enough to talk about the principles, but not enough to understand them.

RE (5, Funny)

Kroc (925275) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776823)

Asking Linux users to accept DRM is like asking them if it's alright to take a shit in their kitchen.

There is *no* cool way you can word it.

I'm cool with DRM (4, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776827)

... as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights to reprogram anything using any free/libre software and doesn't intefere with my fair use rights to use the content I pay for.

So let's play by YOUR rules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23776829)

Okay... So you want to tap into the free development pool and freely use the work of others, yet you don't want to play the rules? This sounds like a one way street, to me. How obsurd!

I'll make sure that I NEVER purchase a Nokia phone. Better yet, why not just let Nokia go out and purchase the software they need to make their phones work. Screw them!!!

Have cake, eat it too. (4, Insightful)

seanellis (302682) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776831)

"As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules."

Sounds like they are not yet in a position to use open-source technologies.

It would be interesting to see if turnabout is fair play. I'd love to have a free high-end smartphone, but that means taking up an expensive monthly airtime contract. Instead, I'll just declare that I am "not yet ready to play by the rules", take the benefit of the free handset now, and later on I'll sign up for a contract when I am ready to play by the rules.

OK?

Re:Have cake, eat it too. (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777151)

As long as it is a Nokia phone, they will have no problem with it.

It is not Apple who get a share of the loot.

Ohhh, more great news... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776835)

Apparently these guys own QT now.

GTK+ FTW, I guess. At least their DRMed apps will look pretty.

Re:Ohhh, more great news... (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777231)

Want it so badly? Just fork the thing under a new name and they can keep whatever glitter they adorn it with later.

HA HA HA HA *cough* HA (1)

kipman725 (1248126) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776839)

Can I for one say you and who's army on this one. If somone is programing for fun they can right whatever code they want and release it how they see fit. For most people programing for fun the atraction of linux is its openess. DRM, SIMlocks and overly restrictive licenses (EG no source modification) are not openess. They can develop there own DRM if they want to. Just don't expect anyone to help them or even express any interest.

Two simple principles: (5, Insightful)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776859)

If I don't control it, I don't own it.
If I don't own it, I can't trust it.

Third principle: (1)

Peter Simpson (112887) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777183)

If I don't control it, I don't own it.
If I don't own it, I can't trust it.
If I pay you a considerable amount of money for a physical item, I own it.

If I own it, I get to decide what to do with it.

Take your SIM lock and go home.

Wow (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776863)

Is this a joke or a misquote? I thought only Darl McBride was that stupid & arrogant.

Re:Wow (1)

dwpro (520418) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777219)

If it is a misquote TFA misquoted it, that exact text is in there. I really want to know the logic behind the closed vehicles argument, is it to protect us from terrorists?

even open source cant make DRM work (4, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776865)

1) encrypt something
2) send encrypted data to their computer
3) send key to their computer
4) wait for somebody to take a memory dump
5) NO profit

Even if somebody was to make a binary blob to prevent memory dumps at kernel level, all you need is to run linux in a virtual machine (i hear its good at that) or use some rootkit.

actually, could just be closed source? kthx. (3, Insightful)

aleph42 (1082389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776879)

Other plans include getting the open-source community to make closed source software while still working for free. And also get nokia "a pony" (*).

Oh wait. They want DRM, which needs the software to be closed source. So I guess that's already what they are asking for.

And the "we need closed vehicles" bit? Worst car analogy ever. If you want to "close" your music, you encrypt it. What nokia wants are cars that locks from the outside when you get in, so you can't escape from them. Not sure that we really need those.

(*)fake quote. Keep the pony if you've already bought it.

Thanks (1)

josh61980 (1025498) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776889)

Thanks Nokia, I needed a good laugh this morning.

The Answer (2, Funny)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776903)

The answer is NO!!!! Jaaksi, you idiot...

Funny guy (3, Funny)

loconet (415875) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776915)

I'm not sure how accurate the article summary, it's a little hard to believe. Judging from it my reaction would be: What funny guy this Jaaksi character is!. I wonder if he would also like us to do his dishes, take his dog out for walks, and wash his car .. all this while hacking away at code he can use for free which then he can lock us out of as well. Would he like a foot massage too?

uh-oh (-1, Redundant)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776917)

Nokia is the (recent) corporate overlord of TrollTech, of QT fame. Sounds like they may be adding DRM to QT in the near future. If so, we could fork it (being GPL... the BSD license wouldn't allow us that freedom). But who knows what other surprises may be lurking in the source code. And GNOME, with the stink of Mono/Novell/MS/OOXML isn't any safer. Year of the linux desktop? X.org development is stagnant and the two most popular desktop environments are infected.

Re:uh-oh (5, Informative)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777049)

If so, we could fork it (being GPL... the BSD license wouldn't allow us that freedom).
Stop spreading FUD. If it was BSD licensed, you COULD still fork it. Take the last BSD licensed version, fork from that, poof. Same as with the GPL.

Re:uh-oh (2, Informative)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777161)

If so, we could fork it (being GPL... the BSD license wouldn't allow us that freedom).

Yes we could fork it. But we also could fork it under the BSD license.

Actually the BSD license gives you more options, as you can fork something and turn it into a closed source application. The GPL does deny you that freedom to ensure that derived works stay Open source.

But in this case it doesn't make a difference:
The copyright owner (Trolltech) can always release new, closed-source versions. Unless they include other people's GPL software. The rest of the world can fork the last GPLed version and run with that.

Re:uh-oh (3, Informative)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777169)

being GPL... the BSD license wouldn't allow us that freedom
BSD is MORE forkable than GPL, not less. Guess you don't really know what you're talking about.

Cool? (1)

HansF (700676) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776955)

The stuf that makes developers feel cool:

  • Break DRM,
  • Circumvent commercial IP rights,
  • kill SIM locks.

They bought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23776967)

Trolltech?

"The manufacturer has one other significant investment in open source, however: the software maker Trolltech, Nokia's purchase of which finally went through in the last few days. Trolltech makes Qt, a graphical toolkit that is used in the KDE Linux desktop environment and in much commercial software and is an apparently non-participatory member in the LiMo Foundation."

Wonderful.

Also?

"[...]primarily the need to avoid 'forking' code. He said: "Don't make your own version. The original mistake we made was to take the code to our labs, change it and then release it at the last minute. The community had already gone in a different direction than [us], and no-one was pushing it other than [us]. Everybody wants to make their own version and keep it too close to their chest but that leads to fragmentation.""

I'll learn business, just for you Nokia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23776977)

Nokia: Linux Needs to Learn Business

Well, ok. I want $90K/year, 4 weeks paid vacation, paid overtime, health/optical/dental, free lunches and soda/coffee/tea, stock options and profit sharing to improve and add features to your code.

how does this guy have a doctorate (1)

Slotty (562298) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776985)

"We want to educate open-source developers. There are certain business rules [developers] need to obey, such as DRM, IPR [intellectual property rights], SIM locks and subsidised business models." Everyone has said my thoughts in a polite way. I wil just put it plain and simple. This guy is either the biggest pawn/suck-up for Nokia or his parents named him "Dr Ari" and he has no doctorate. Honestly how can anyone with some level of intelligence say. We need to educate these people against the belief/values they hold in high regard because senior management in our industry don't like people getting things for free!

OK sure, we are 100% behind DRM. (5, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23776987)

Nokia, we just dropped in a new kernel module that makes DRM and SIM locking 100% transparent. you do not have to do anything it uses a 1024bit RSA encryption and has bypass detection as well as a system to fight off anyone trying to break DRM. you don't have to do anything it's all in there for you. It's even TRANSPARENT to you and the users.

Dont worry nokia, we got your back, it's there believe us. and it's Un-Crackable. We wouldn't lie to you.

'Why do we need closed vehicles? We do,' (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23776991)

Wow, I think he just beat the Chewbacca defense. What an overwhelming argument !

I'm okay with DRM provisions in open-source (5, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777009)

Go ahead Nokia and write the code that forces open-source software to respect DRM and content locks ... just make sure your code is well-commented. Thanks!

Nokia needs to educate the mobile industry (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777029)

I'm sad to see Ari take this position, he's normally a very reasonable guy (he's been the head of the Open Source division at Nokia that does maemo since it was founded.

Nokia should use its 40%+ market share to educate the mobile industry about openness. Inside Nokia, there is a growing consensus that Symbian is a major failure (there's a reason they're putting so much money into maemo). So they should go out to their telco partners and say "Look guys, we've made a big mistake, Symbian sucks, the future of smart phones is open, and that means you'll have to change the way you work, live with it"..

What are they worried about... (2, Funny)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777045)

Are they worried we'll download their latest mobile phone on Bit Torrent instead of buying it with a 18 month contract??

Re:What are they worried about... (2, Insightful)

illumastorm (172101) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777137)

No. They are worried that the ones who want the DRM, the carriers, will not buy the phones.

Blah blah blah rahhh rahh (4, Insightful)

Idaho (12907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777079)

"These are touchy, emotional issues"

No, they are not. There are very rational and well-explained reasons for being against DRM, closed platforms, vendor lock-in and the like.

I'm not even going to repeat them here, because I assume them to be well-known (certainly to the Slashdot audience).

So that's some nice bullshitting and spin doctoring going on there, but no. Really, no.

yo0 Fa]il It... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777081)

you hav3 a play We strongly urge

antithetical doubletalking craphammer (-1, Troll)

Sir_Real (179104) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777085)

What kind of traitorific bullshit is this? I hope you fail. This is an epic abomination.

GFY, I'll buy you the dildo.

ass.

I'm sure the car industry would say the same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777091)

"'Why do we need closed vehicles? We do,'"

I'm sure that car manufacturers would also say they "need" the hood of their cars to be bolted shut and the engine serviced exclusively by exhorbitantly-priced dealer mechanics with exclusively dealer-supplied parts, but the reality is that they don't really need such requirements. What is really going on is: A) companies would like it that way, because B) they'd make a great deal more money thanks to the artificial barriers to competition.

Same for the mobile phone companies. What they want and what they need are two completely different things. Consumers will decide which competitor offers the most attractive product. For some, that will be one that doesn't have everything locked down so tightly that they can't adapt the product to *their* needs.

Here's a free clue: your needs don't matter. The customer's needs do. If you think you can convince consumers that a product with built-in restrictions and intentional defects is what they need ... good luck with that.

Well, look... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777093)

You have to give me all yo' money, but in return I will have sex with your wife.

Deal?

The Industry? (2)

navtal (943711) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777107)

I like how cutting into profit margin equals hurting the industry.

I did read the fscking announcement (1)

WereCatf (1263464) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777123)

That Ari Jaaksi sure talks alot but he never says anything. He just babbles open-source developers and community should be taught yet he doesn't say how or why, he didn't answer the reason why they need closed devices and so forth..Well sure, they want closed devices, DRM and all that so they can control people and milk even more money from them. But that is exactly what most of the open-source community is strongly against! Me, I have never bought a SIM-locked phone, I don't buy drmed music nor would I buy DVDs if I couldn't back them up. If they come up with some new format for audio or video files and then DRM makes it impossible for me to back up those files or use them in other devices I own then I'll steer clear from those formats in the future. Most likely I'd start avoiding Nokia, too.

Jaaksi's blog (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777125)

Ari Jaaksi blogs at jaaksi.blogspot.com, if you want to directly talk to him.

You wanna play? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777179)

we plan to use open-source technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too.

It seems to me that the other way round is this: We, the open source people, plan to use closed source technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules. In other words, Nokia is saying go ahead and rip/copy whatever you can.

From a wood-pulp mill to DRM (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777203)

I'm not the OS you kill. I'm the OS you write!
Are you so fucking greedy that you don't even see what I am?
I sold out Novell for $348 million.
I'm your easiest problem and you're gonna DRM me?

Dude, tell that to openmoko (1)

Stu101 (1031686) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777235)

It's so funny it ain't funny. You will soon be able to buy a production openmoko handset, to work without simlocks or DRM, and have complete control, even down to reflashing the BIOS if you really really want. How does this fit with your bloated DRM'd crapware handsets. These are the handsets that make it difficult to find a contacts phone number, hoping you wont use that cheap POTS phone, rather the mobile, and therefore pay mobile rates for your call. Incidious at best.

Now, tell me, what drugs where you smoking when you thought us people that stand for the following would say yeah, dude, take away my liberties to own stuff I paid for, I don't mind being done over.

Freedom,
Free as in beer,
Techno geeks who just love to rip gadgets/code apart without fear of some arsehole company (ahem apple and nokia, im looking at you) threatening us.

gutsy (1)

vajorie (1307049) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777237)

needs to be told gtfo

Linux has two choices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777251)

This isn't a popular opinion on slashdot, but it's true. Linux has one of two choices:

(1) Continue to be hostile to DRM, but continue to be increasingly marginalized.
(2) Embrace DRM and see wider adoption.

The problem is that being compatible with DRM is needed to do things that common people want to do. For instance, I know someone who won't use Linux because it won't play Netflix videos on demand. Unlike many people on here, in the real world most people just want to use their computers for things - they're not religious about their operating system. And if Linux can't do things like this, or supporting subscription content and DRM compatible mp3 players, they won't even consider it.

It isn't want people "want" to believe, but it's the truth. DRM isn't going away, as much as some people want it to. So either Linux has to become compatible, or always be a nerd-only operating system.

Begs the question (1)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777269)

Who actually uses DRM crippled music services anymore? I mean, other than people who don't know any better. There are a number of DRM-free music services where you can buy unrestricted mp3s that you can do whatever you want with.

Presumably, the Nokia phones will be able to play regular mp3s. You know, the ones that you own. So, in a way, who cares if they get some hack to work for them for free and write a crummy DRM enabled program? In another few years, the people who don't know any better will know better, and it'll be a moot point.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?