Handy skirts around the main issues revolving around DRM technologies like CPRM and SDMI. He tries to portray them as separable from Free Software issues, when in reality, they are not.
Actually, Handy does not once make any reference at all to Free Software. Even when the questions specifically mentioned Free Software, Handy was careful to respond with references only to IBM's support of Open Source software.
Cantankerous libertarians on Slashdot can deride Stallman as a crank or a commie until the cows come home, but Handy's answers here clearly underscore the distinction that RMS is continually making between Open Source and Free Software.
IBM does not care one whit about "[providing] the end user complete and total control" over anything (hardware or software). For IBM, Linux and other Open Source software are a simply a technically sufficient product where the development costs are shared by other parties and the market already exists (as opposed to investing heavily in their own proprietary products and bearing all of the development costs plus the costs of creating a market); IBM simply sees Linux/Open Source as a low-cost, high-return development effort which has the favorable side effect of dampening their long standing -- and well deserved -- image as the IP-weilding, proprietary technology bully. Don't believe me? Reread Handy's answer to question 3.
That said, their contributions (if not neccessarily their motives), have been outstanding. I hope very much to see them continue. But let's not kid ourselves about any contradiction between IBM's Open Source work and their IP-protection work. For them, Linux is a product, not a philosophy.
Re:Digital Rights Management vs. Free Software (Score:2)
Cantankerous libertarians on Slashdot can deride Stallman as a crank or a commie until the cows come home, but Handy's answers here clearly underscore the distinction that RMS is continually making between Open Source and Free Software.
IBM does not care one whit about "[providing] the end user complete and total control" over anything (hardware or software). For IBM, Linux and other Open Source software are a simply a technically sufficient product where the development costs are shared by other parties and the market already exists (as opposed to investing heavily in their own proprietary products and bearing all of the development costs plus the costs of creating a market); IBM simply sees Linux/Open Source as a low-cost, high-return development effort which has the favorable side effect of dampening their long standing -- and well deserved -- image as the IP-weilding, proprietary technology bully. Don't believe me? Reread Handy's answer to question 3.
That said, their contributions (if not neccessarily their motives), have been outstanding. I hope very much to see them continue. But let's not kid ourselves about any contradiction between IBM's Open Source work and their IP-protection work. For them, Linux is a product, not a philosophy.