What? Microsoft and OS X have rich libraries of cost-based applications and they don't require any licensing or DRM embedded in the OS. Why on earth would an operating system that hinges itself on openness take a more Draconian step than any other major OS distributer has (mobile OSes aside)?
Because you need to jumpstart the paid-apps ecosystem. I am not talking about approval processes, but something more on the lines of an Android app store than an iphone one.
What you get by that is : 1. signed software 2. small time developers dont have to worry about licensing 3. Distribution channel 4. Payment gateway
The windows or the mac system was never built on the basis of a package management system, which Linux inherently has. Dont we _already_ have an app store in Linux?
Only, there is no way for a developer to make money off Apt or Yum.
Lindows/Linspire actually had an app store back in the day, where developers could package and distribute commercial software. It used apt as its backend.
Since that didn't work out, it looks like the next best alternative is something like Steam. It seems highly possible that Steam will be released for Linux (a port already exists). Valve could be persuaded by enough software developers to add non-game software to their system.
Neither system required/requires DRM to be integrated into the OS.
If you were an app maker, why would you prefer a closed source DRM, than an open-source security model in the OS ?
I just dont get it: everyone likes Steam, but they dont like DRM in the OS - is it something so distasteful that a computer gets tainted by built in DRM ?
And then you will find someone who gets pissed off with Steam, goes looking for alternatives... and the consumer ends up with 10 different kinds of app-store software (on Windows, I have Direct2Drive, Steam and StarForce for different games)
I dont know how it can be managed with a built-in DRM, but I suspect something like a PPA (Personal Package Archives) would enable everyone to self-publish their software, yet still be part of a web-of-trust model.
I think that many of us who don't want DRM in the OS believe in a concept of layers of separation. The core OS should be as widely applicable and as open as possible, while any restrictive technologies or licenses should be in as high a layer as possible, so that they affect only those people who want/need them. The benefit to doing things that way is that all layers become easier to maintain and less prone to failure (DRM being used to blacklist hardware drivers would be considered a failure in this case), because each component in each layer only contains those things necessary for itself and the layers above it.
DRM especially should be in as high a layer as possible, or ideally not present at all, so that its casualties are minimal if the authentication servers disappear or the company holding the keys becomes malevolent.
