Jserv's blog

從 DRM 看 Free Software 與 Open Source 的差異

標題的 DRM，當然不是 Direct Rendering Manager module (詳見 [Direct Rendering Infrastructure] 術語)，而是 Digital Rights Management。Andrew Orlowski 撰寫一篇名為 [Lessig, Stallman on 'Open Source' DRM] 的報導文章，開創 Free Culture 運動的 [Lawrence Lessig] 與 Free Software 的開創者 Richard Stallman，分別對於 DRM 與 Sun Microsystems 日前的 open-source DRM，也就是 [Open Media Commons]，提出的見解，而我們也可窺見，Free Software 與 Open Source 雖然在途徑上有很多相似處，但基本論點上，卻有很大的差異。

關於 DRM (Digital Rights Management)，我沒有興趣多談，一方面是因為工作相關，另一方面是已經很多先進談過了，比方說 DarkKiller 的 [Open Source DRM] 與 [「DRM 無效論」的說明]，不過，另外一個 DRM (Direct Rendering Manager module) 是非常歡迎討論的。fr3@K 寫了一篇短文 [Free Software vs Open Source]，澄清這兩者常被混淆的誤解，細節這裡忽略，不過可以發現這兩者在情境上截然不同的觀點，以 Sun Microsystems 在 [Open Media Commons] 計畫的論點，他們或許會說：

「因應數位多媒體的應用，例如 IP-TV 的蓬勃發展，我們有別於其他封閉系統，提出 open source 的 DRM 解決方案，讓客戶得以有更自由的 DRM 整合能力。」

而依據 [Lessig, Stallman on 'Open Source' DRM] 一文，Richard Stallman 基於「軟體的自由」(話說回來，中文用詞有彈性許多)，提出以下論點：

• If you think that the important thing is for the software to be powerful and reliable, you might think that applying the OS development model to DRM software is a way to make DRM powerful and reliable.
• But as far as I'm concerned, that makes it worse - because it's job is restricting you. And if it restricts you reliably, that means you've been thoroughly shafted.
• If you look at the issue from the perspective of the FSM, you come to a completely opposite conclusion, which is: the whole point of DRM is to deny your freedom and prevent you from having control over the software you use to access certain data. That's the direct opposite of our goal. So our goal is not served by having a free program that implements DRM. It doesn't make anything any better for our freedom. So from the point of the Free Software movement in general, a TiVoized program is not good at all, because it doesn't deliver the freedom that Free Software stands for.
• We're not very concerned with how a program was developed, we're concerned with what people are allowed to do with it now.

用口語的說法，就是「okay，我想你之所以認為 open source 是個好的途徑，就是因為這給予軟體自由的表現方式，然而，當你去實現 Digital Rights Management 機制的同時，就侷限了軟體應有的自由：不論目的為何，都要能使用或執行軟體。」

這個論點在 GNU GPLv3 修訂的過程，就已經提出很多次了，不過令我好奇的是 [Lawrence Lessig] 的看法，在去年寫了 [Free Culture 和賦予與支配的權利] 後，就有段時間沒有更新資訊了。以下從報導中節錄：

• If all one says is (a) 'Sun's openDRM is great,' that's praising DRM," says Lessig . "But if one says (b) 'we should live in a world without DRM, and we should be building infrastructure and laws that render DRM unnecessary, but if we have DRM, then Sun's is better than Hollywood's,' then that's not 'praising DRM' but identifying a lesser evil. Again, what I did was give a speech at Sun conference where I said (b).
• There's no disagreement about where we should end up - No DRM.
• The only real disagreement is about the dynamic consequences - how this new kind of DRM affects the ecology for DRM generally. About this, I think honest people have to say no one knows, but we each have our own hunch. My view is openDRM pollutes the control freaks' plan so significantly that it can't achieve what they want - a general infrastructure of control built into the technology. Of course, I could be wrong about that.
• How do you say free on the Apple platform? How do you even have the argument? There is no doubt some version of DRM is with us over the next 5 years at a minimum. I want it to be possible to wage the war for free culture in that space as easily as it can be waged in this world.
• We can win the battle against it without eradicating DRM from every corner of cyberspace. Instead, I view 'the battle' about DRM much like I view 'the battle' over free software. Free software (in the Stallman sense of that term) 'wins the battle' when it is the major platform upon which software development is done. In that sense, free software has already won in certain important fields of battle, and in that sense, I certainly think free software will 'win the battle.' But when it wins, it won't trouble me that there are machines out there that are running Windows. To close the loop on the analogy, once 'the battle' against proprietary software is lost, Windows will have lost its virulence.

措辭很強烈，並且更廣泛地指出 DRM 的影響力，Debian 的 Benjamin Mako Hill 則針對現實面與 Apple iPod 的例子回應：

• I think what Lessig is seeing is that everybody who buys an iPod buys a machine with DRM, and there's a billion songs out there that have DRM on them, and he’s saying there are all these hundreds of millions of devices that use DRM, so do we want it to be an open source, friendly DRM? It can only take certain fair use rights into account if it’s going to be effective at all.
• I think what he got was a promise the system could be used in a way that protects fair use. But media producers have the right of choosing which implementations they want. Do you think Time Warner will allow their media to play on machines that allow people to copy things?

所以，一言以蔽之：「Open Source 只是一種方法，一種軟體開發的方法。而 Free Software 是自由的追求，是個社會運動」，而這個社會運動，早已不限於技術領域，而是，深入文化藝術等角落。
由 jserv 發表於 April 19, 2006 05:37 AM