May 2012 - Free-software-melb - lists.softwarefreedom.com.au

Next meeting: Thursday the 17th of May
by Alex Fraser 17 Jun '12

17 Jun '12

Hi everyone, Please join me this Thursday (the 17th) to talk about: - DRM in cinema [1] - How can we be more involved with LibrePlanet [2]? - FOSS-friendly employers, both in terms of IT companies and others (e.g. how do you get the print shop you work at to start using FOSS?) As usual, we will meet for two hours in the training room at VPAC from 6pm. Building 91 110 Victoria Street Carlton South (map [1]) We'll head out for dinner after the meeting, to Classic Curry on Elizabeth St. If you would rather go somewhere else that's fine, but please reply to this email; don't leave it until the meeting :) See you then, Alex [1] http://astortheatreblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/what-happened-last-night/ [2] http://libreplanet.org/ [3] http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/

6 6

Draft Fedora plan to cope with Secure Boot on x86 hardware
by Chris Samuel 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

Hi all, Matthew Garrett has just posted a draft plan on how Fedora 18 plans to cope with Windows 8 certified x86 hardware that has Secure Boot enabled in EFI. http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html Basically it involves signing up with Microsoft, paying a $99 one-off fee and then getting them to sign a boot shim that will boot Grub2 that has been signed by a Fedora key. Then it has to be signed code all the way down to user space, so no loading out-of-tree drivers, filesystems or other modules, either FLOSS or proprietary (and certainly not a custom kernels) whilst Secure Boot is enabled. For those who've not come across what this means, he has a nice summary: # Secure boot is built on the idea that all code that can touch the # hardware directly is trusted, and any untrusted code must go through # the trusted code. This can be circumvented if users can execute # arbitrary code in the kernel. So, we'll be moving to requiring # signed kernel modules and locking down certain aspects of kernel # functionality. The most obvious example is that it won't be possible # to access PCI regions directly from userspace, which means all # graphics cards will need kernel drivers. Userspace modesetting will # be a thing of the past. Again, disabling secure boot will disable # these restrictions. # # Signed modules are obviously troubling from a user perspective. # We'll be signing all the drivers that we ship, but what about out # of tree drivers? We don't have a good answer for that yet. As # before, we don't want any kind of solution that works for us # but doesn't work for other distributions. Fedora-only or # Ubuntu-only drivers are the last thing anyone wants, and this # really needs to be handled in a cross-distribution way. Interestingly he also shows that you can use Secure Boot to ensure that your system will only be able to boot Fedora (etc) and never boot a proprietary OS: # A system in custom mode should allow you to delete all existing keys # and replace them with your own. After that it's just a matter of # re-signing the Fedora bootloader (like I said, we'll be providing # tools and documentation for that) and you'll have a computer that # will boot Fedora but which will refuse to boot any Microsoft code. # It may be a little more awkward for desktops because you may have # to handle the Microsoft-signed UEFI drivers on your graphics and # network cards, but this is also solvable. I'm looking at ways to # implement a tool to allow you to automatically whitelist the # installed drivers. Barring firmware backdoors, it's possible to # configure secure boot such that your computer will only run software # you trust. Freedom means being allowed to run the software you want # to run, but it also means being able to choose the software you # don't want to run. Interesting times! cheers, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC This email may come with a PGP signature as a file. Do not panic. For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP

7 11

Byte Into It speaking about software freedom, 2012-05-30
by Ben Finney 31 May '12

31 May '12

Howdy all, I have been reminded to let this forum know when 3RRR's Byte Into It <URL:http://www.rrr.org.au/program/byte-into-it/> features discussions of interest to free software advocates. On Wednesday 2012-05-30, the show included discussion about ownCloud <URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OwnCloud>, its latest release <URL:http://owncloud.org/owncloud-4-release-annoucement/>, and further exploring how software freedom is affected by cloud computing. We had an interview with Senator Scott Ludlum. He is a Greens senator who has been vocal about the need for Australian federal government to protect the legal rights of Julian Assange, whose extradition hearing was yesterday – yet Assange wasn't even in the court for any of it! (Rallies this afternoon have been arranged around the world, including in Melbourne <URL:http://justice4assange.com/Action.html>.) We also talked about the resurrection of the Internet Underground Music Archive, by scraping the web to find traces of it – which couldn't be done if people respected current copyright restrictions. The show is available for download at <URL:http://rrrfm.libsyn.com/webpage/byte-into-it-30-may-2012>. -- \ “[Entrenched media corporations will] maintain the status quo, | `\ or die trying. Either is better than actually WORKING for a | _o__) living.” —ringsnake.livejournal.com, 2007-11-12 | Ben Finney

1 0

Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents
by Chris Samuel 26 May '12

26 May '12

FYI.. http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/05/bickering-about-software-patents-mis… -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC

11 20

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents
by Alex Fraser 22 May '12

22 May '12

Well said, Matt. On May 22, 2012 10:37 PM, "Matt Giuca" <matt.giuca(a)gmail.com> wrote: > […] If some guy from Australia > hadn't invented a way of determining when a machine is significantly > changed, chances are pretty bloody high that someone at Microsoft would > have. John Carmack has said something similar; see the third quote here: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/John_Carmack_on_software_patents Alex

1 0

android google apps
by Brian May 19 May '12

19 May '12

Hello, There seem to be more and more places distributing these apps without any legal consequences, has Google's restrictive licensing restrictions changed? Perhaps in ice cream sandwich? Or maybe Google have stopped caring about infringements? e.g. http://www.chip.de/downloads/Google-Play-Store-APK_54923571.html http://www.android-x86.org/ - not documented anywhere but was in the android-x86-4.0-RC1-asus_laptop.iso image I downloaded. Which is odd, because the iso is built directly from the source code, yet, as expected, I don't see this apps in the source code. ClockworkMod - apparently has option to download and install these apps (I haven't checked). http://wiki.cyanogenmod.com/wiki/Latest_Version/Google_Apps - has links to where you can download them. This last cyanogenmod link above suggests it is fine to download them separately, just not distribute them with Android. I asked about this on the android-x86 mailing list - which ironically is hosted on Google's severs; the only response I have got so far is "ther must have been a change... German popular computzer magazine Chip also offers Google Play market apk as download:". https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/android-x86/f1TWmYVjH-A So wondering what the story is? If Google had changed the licensing, I would have expected to see more about this. Thanks -- Brian May <brian(a)microcomaustralia.com.au>

2 3

DRM and Theatres
by Brian May 11 May '12

11 May '12

http://astortheatreblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/what-happened-last-night/ -- Brian May <brian(a)microcomaustralia.com.au>

2 1

Google Play Movies and DRM
by Brian May 03 May '12

03 May '12

For some vivid discussions, see the comments at https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.videos&fea….. Some seem pro-DRM, the majority are against. Lots of people critical of restricted use if you have a rooted phone, and lots of people complaining about DRM in general. e.g.: "Rooted users can still watch rented content in their browsers on YouTube/movies. The only thing they can't do is save for offline use. This app should at least mirror the basic functionality if not the offline viewing. Plenty of normal people root their phones, not just hackers. Some people appreciate freedom, some don't understand the concept." Seems to suggest the media itself doesn't have DRM, so it "protected" by restricting where you can download it. -- Brian May <brian(a)microcomaustralia.com.au>

2 1