Slashdot Mirror
Group Outlines Specs For Linux-based Set-top boxes
Shadowhawk writes "According to
Silicon Strategies, a group called "TV Linux Alliance" is creating a spec for digital set-top boxes using Linux. The specifications, dubbed version 0.8, defines the functions for RF tuners and other components in Linux-based set-top boxes. It also outlines the application programming interfaces (APIs) for those devices, according to officials from the alliance."
From article: "The TV Linux Alliance consists of ACTV, ATI, Broadcom, Concurrent Computer, Conexant, Convergence Integrated Media, iSurfTV, Liberate, Lineo, MontaVista, Motorola, Pace Micro, ReplayTV, STMicroelectronics, Sun Microsystems, TiVo, Trintech, and Worldgate." Odd. Somehow they left out WebTV
I remember Linus getting the Linux trademark back a couple of years ago. Don't know if the mark is specifically for "software" or "product" or might include "services", but it seems to me that anyone calling themselves "TV Linux Alliance" and being less than forthcoming with their standard, much less their code, may be up for a challenge.
This sig intentionally left justified.
Linux already has a standard for TV tuners, video cards and both analog and digital TV systems. The palladium thing does demonstrate the need for more GPL software authors to include language like this
(from bits of the kernel...)
* For the avoidance of doubt the "preferred form" of this code is one which
* is in an open non patent encumbered format. Where cryptographic key signing
* forms part of the process of creating an executable the information
* including keys needed to generate an equivalently functional executable
* are deemed to be part of the source code.
*
and I'd urge the FSF to adopt such language in the GPL next generation too
I see little point in adding additional terms to the GPL when current terms are being ignored.
Dell/Red hat was notified in JULY 2002 that the Dell PowerEdge Web Server version 3.0 Powered by Red hat Linux was violating the GPL by not provide the source code or a written notice of the source code. Red hat's Mark Webbink responded that under contract between Dell and Red hat, the Red hat v7.2 packages (on CD 2 of 3 and CD 3 of 3 of the PowerEdge Web Server) where distributed by Dell, not Red hat and Red hat would make sure the GPL was honored. Dell responded that the next release of the PowerEdge Web Server would honor the GPL including the non-RH packages covered by the GPL on CD 1 of 3.
Well, the next release is out under the name of Dell PowerEdge Server version 3.1 Powered By Red Hat Linux and guess what:
It does not include the source code for the non-RH portions on CD 1 of 3
It does not include a written offer for the source code for the non-RH portions on CD 1 of 3
It does not include the source code for the RH 7.2 packages on CD 2 and CD 3
It does not include a written offer for the source code for the RH 7.2 packages on CD 2 and CD 3
Mark Webbink refuses to respond to e-mails requesting details on what Red hat considers to be a written offer for the source code that was included with Dell PowerEdge Web Server version 3.1 Powered By Red Hat Linux.
Dell technical support when asked for the after-market part # for the source code explains that Dell does not intend the PowerEdge Web Server software to be "open source" and does not intend to provide *ANY* source code related to the product. In addition, he explained that any customer modifications that Dell intends to be provided is already in the web configuration screens and modifying the source code would only "break it."
Despite this excuse for continuing the violate the GPL, Red hat/Dell is now (October 29) giving a talk at Georgetown U. to explain why software distributed under the license they are both violating will result in better security.
So which is it that Red hat/Dell believes? That modifying the source code only breaks it or improves security?
And Red hat's Alan Cox would like additional terms added to the next GPL so that the Red hat/Dell alliance can ignore those terms as well! That is really cute. Why don't you talk to Mark Webbink about honoring the FSF request to snail mail every reciever of the PowerEdge Web Server version 3.x a written offer for the source code before declairing what more the FSF should do. Maybe if the FSF wasn't busy policing GPL violators like the Red hat/Dell alliance then they would have time to work on GPL-NG instead.
In short, adding your above language to the GPL is NOT going to ever make RH's Mark Webbink responsive to the requirements of the GPL.
Why doesn't somebody put together a set top box with a 40 gig harddrive, plus a couple more IDE slots, a couple of PCI slots, capture card, TV out, a network card, USB, firewire and a remote, and sell the damn thing as a kit... then let the standards make themselves... Personally, even if the thing cost 500 bucks, I'd buy one just to make my own Tivo and I'd plug a CDRW into the thing so I could archive the content as well. And before you respond with some rehtorical whitty comment about how nobody would buy it, that's the problem! See, years ago, you actually had to build your television (now that's what I call dedication!!!) I think people have lost a bit of the lust to tinker!
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.