Developments in DRM

[darryl]

Originally Posted by tomsem

@darryl. I do think distinction about application is relevant. The requirements are not the same for enterprise and consumer. There is no 'one size fits all' DRM.

We have not even seen any retailers deploy 'hardened' Adobe DRM since that's been available. There would be no benefit to retailers in doing so, and potentially, risk of consumer backlash.

So far you have proved to be correct, and I hope this continues.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by tomsem

@darryl. I do think distinction about application is relevant. The requirements are not the same for enterprise and consumer. There is no 'one size fits all' DRM.

We have not even seen any retailers deploy 'hardened' Adobe DRM since that's been available. There would be no benefit to retailers in doing so, and potentially, risk of consumer backlash.

I have seen a few posts at Apprentice Alf's site where people got the new drm. Nothing from the big retailers though.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

I have seen a few posts at Apprentice Alf's site where people got the new drm. Nothing from the big retailers though.

And those people ignored the warnings/advice to not install ADE past 2.0.1 and yet they did. I don't have any sympathy for them.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

I have seen a few posts at Apprentice Alf's site where people got the new drm. Nothing from the big retailers though.

That's news to me.

[darryl]

@latepaul. You are correct. It seems I was a little too pedantic and paranoid with Readium. I actually asked the developer concerned who confirms that all of the source code will be released including that relating to drm. It is only the cryptographic keys which will not be made public. An interesting approach.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by darryl

@latepaul. You are correct. It seems I was a little too pedantic and paranoid with Readium. I actually asked the developer concerned who confirms that all of the source code will be released including that relating to drm. It is only the cryptographic keys which will not be made public. An interesting approach.

Same approach used for open source implementations of the OpenPGP cryptography standard. Cryptography and open source are certainly not mutually incompatible.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Same approach used for open source implementations of the OpenPGP cryptography standard. Cryptography and open source are certainly not mutually incompatible.

But GnuPG doesn't claim to be "open source with some caveats" because the keys are secret.

They don't feel the need to mention the cryptographic signing keys. I don't know of any other organization that feels the need to make the caveat -- which was odd enough that it made one wonder whether it was just the signing keys.

Also, you need to receive a license to use the code, so it cannot be said to be open-source at all.
It is proprietary, encumbered software with publicly available source code, which is very different. You can see it but you can't use it.

Not that I care (I don't want to use it ) but the use of weasel words is still humorous to me.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

That's news to me.

I remember seeing two or three where they could only read on the later versions of ADE and not 2.01. I think it was only small overseas sellers and it may have been non fiction.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

I remember seeing two or three where they could only read on the later versions of ADE and not 2.01. I think it was only small overseas sellers and it may have been non fiction.

Thanks. I am looking into it.

No one I have spoken to in digital publishing has heard about any retailer using the new DRM.

[Barty]

We need DRM for libraries. Getting away from proprietary DRM like Adobe's is a good thing. Open standard DRM is good. Open source DRM is even better. I hope this project or something like it will win out.

[emellaich]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Also, you need to receive a license to use the code, so it cannot be said to be open-source at all.
It is proprietary, encumbered software with publicly available

I don't believe open source means no license. For example, if you download Firefox it still has a license. In the case of Firefox, the license says that if you make any derivatives those derivatives must be Free and Open Source.

Which also leads to the fact that open sources does not mean Free and Open Source. It just means that the source code is available. You could have proprietary software that cost money to buy and it could still be open source.

Anyway, the license just spells out the terms of use and those terms can be quite non-restrictive or can be extremely restrictive.

[eschwartz]

Open-source is a standard, well-defined term.

Feel free to make up your own language where open-source means what you want it to mean, but I feel I should warn you that the purpose of language is to communicate intent... which requires that you use the terms other people have agreed upon.
At the moment you are doing a substandard job of communicating intent.

...

Also, of course Firefox has a license.
But the license is an open-source license... that is kind of the point.
It doesn't restrict you from using the code -- quite the opposite.

This DRM system seems to require a different type of license. Not a terms of use, these are your rights license, but the kind where you have to receive special permission and possibly a code of some sort to use it.

In other words, the license they offer to look at the code does not inherently give you the right to use the code -- that requires a separate and unspecified license.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Barty

We need DRM for libraries. Getting away from proprietary DRM like Adobe's is a good thing. Open standard DRM is good. Open source DRM is even better. I hope this project or something like it will win out.

That won't work. ADE is too ingrained. For example, because Sony is out of the Reader market, their Readers will not be updated and the versions of RMDSK used will not be changed and if some new DRM was to be used instead of Adobe's time limited DRM, a lot of people would be prevented from reading eBooks from Overdrive. So please, no new DRM. Also, we don't want a new DRM that we cannot remove. Getting away from Adobe's DRM means we won't be able to remove it unless someone figures it out and until then we'd be screwed. Better to stick with what works to be removed then something we cannot removed. You don't have to like Adobe. But you do have to let the DRM be so we can remove the DRM.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That won't work. ADE is too ingrained. For example, because Sony is out of the Reader market, their Readers will not be updated and the versions of RMDSK used will not be changed and if some new DRM was to be used instead of Adobe's time limited DRM, a lot of people would be prevented from reading eBooks from Overdrive. So please, no new DRM. Also, we don't want a new DRM that we cannot remove. Getting away from Adobe's DRM means we won't be able to remove it unless someone figures it out and until then we'd be screwed. Better to stick with what works to be removed then something we cannot removed. You don't have to like Adobe. But you do have to let the DRM be so we can remove the DRM.

So you're saying that because a company that once made ereaders stops making them, that there can be no further advances to ebook technology? For how long? 5 years? 10? 20?

Shari

[arjaybe]

Free Software has four rules (freedoms.)
Open source software has ten rules.

I think the purpose of the open source variation is to appease people who might be superstitious about the word "free." There are some similarities and overlaps, but they have different aims.