Open Source at TiVo

CowboyRobot writes "ACM Queue has an article by TiVo co-founder Jim Barton, in which he explains how the company relies on open source technologies to create a closed-source product. A good lesson in how other companies can do the same. From the article: Careful management of our sources to abide by the terms of the GNU General Public License while protecting our proprietary developments is a small price to pay for this benefit."

Comments

fp

[Anonymous Coward]

There is more information on this virus at http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2003-03.html .

Fuck TiVo

[Anonymous Coward]

Nils Parker for governer!! He's HUGE http://www.nilsparker.com

wrong reply.

[abstrakts]

yes.

Or...

[LurkerXXX]

Or you can just use OpenBSD and not worry about any licensing issues.

Translated

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fuck the GPL and let us work".

Nice one Jim ...

[craigmarshall]

>in which he explains how the company relies on open >source technologies to create a closed-source product ... but haven't Microsoft been doing this for years with the BSD source code? -- Craig

Re:Nice one Jim ...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There is a licence difference to consider here. GPL _requires_ the changes be made available in source form if the binary is distributed. BSD licences pretty much allows any company to take code, make proprietary changes to it and doesn't require distribution of those changes.

To those who value their TiVos

[citizen6350]

Quick, someone erase this article, BEFORE SCO SEES IT! (yes, its a joke)

Re:To those who value their TiVos

[Thuktun]

Quick, someone erase this article, BEFORE SCO SEES IT! (yes, its a joke)

Maybe I've just been reading too many of anti-SCO documents, but this article reads like an intentional jab at SCO.

Re:To those who value their TiVos

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM must have put you up to this!

Re:To those who value their TiVos

[mhesseltine]

Yes, this was intended to be funny. However, SCO wanted a $32 license fee per embeded device. This includes the TiVo and the Sharp Zaurus PDA.

Considering I haven't seen too many dual-processor TiVo units, I really don't understand how SCO thought that was legit, but then again, nothing else they want seems legit.

Good for Open Source?

[Broadband]

I applaud Tivo for showing such appreciation for open source publically. As more and more companies hail the benifits of open source we might see even more developers do so, both lowering development costs and supporting more platforms. Both which are good for consumers. I myself am wedged so far into Microsoft territory that I cannot budge and every application we use for our industry is 100% Microsoft product requirements, whether it be windows or internet explorer. Hopefully continued publicity like this will improve the knowledge of alternative solutions.

Re:Good for Open Source?

[Anonymous Coward]

What industry? I smell a market opportunity! =P

Re:Good for Open Source?

[Broadband]

Real Estate. The local MLS (Multiple Listing Service) is web based and for some god aweful reason they think it's a good idea to make the main navigation menu require IE 5.x or better. So if I ever want to see what is on the market or input a listing i need to do so with windows. On top of that our major contact management and scheduling program (www.topproduceronlin.com) requires Windows and Internet Explorer. Tried it on Linux and Apple platforms with no luck. I myself have developed some applications using a universal application like PHP, but I don't have the time to devote to development of solutions expecially when the most important tool I use I have no control over development besides bitching and complaining. I'd say 98% of people in the Real Estate industry know nothing aside from Windows, and those whom do are stuck because of that market share :(

Re:Good for Open Source?

[gmby]

I myself am wedged so far into Microsoft territory...

Got Butter?

Re:Good for Open Source?

[NudeZiggy]

Groundskeeper Willie: "Lunchlady Doris, do ye have any grease?"
Lunchlady Doris: "yes, yes we do."
Groundskeeper Willie: "Then grease me up, woman!"
Lunchlady Doris: "ok."

Re:Good for Open Source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't feel too sorry for realtors. You're hoist by your own petard.

Realtors jealously guard access to the MLS. Most people have to pony up tens of thousands of dollars in sales fees to a realtor, mostly just to get a listing added to MLS. Because, of course, that's where most people look when buying a house. The buyer's realtor will generally sneer at FSBOs and the like, and likely not even show them. It's a cartel.

If MLS were an open database where anyone could list or view, realtors wouldn't be making all that easy money. The last thing they want is to have it widely accessible to all.

Re:Good for Open Source?

[Broadband]

I think your very misinformed my friend. The MLS systems are jelously guarded by private enterprises that we realtors have no right to unless we pay for it. Additionally we are restricted in what we say in "OUR OWN LISTINGS" in this database because they sell the database to websites like Realtor.com who don't want the listings generic offering no marketing for the realtor who is selling the damned house. So the result....$150 a month access fees to a restricted system, with restricted use, and restricted data input. Their just as much a monopoly as Microsoft because we *need* access to this information, but they are the only ones with all the data centrally available. And an alternative solutions is nearly impossible because you'd have to convince thousands of professionals who are not tech savvy and are comfortable with what they've used. So we either use the system so your house we're hired to market gets seen by the thousands of agents in the area, or we decide to use some alternative which will give your property little industry knowledge of it's availability.

Re:Good for Open Source?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe her reply was "okee dokee"

Re:Good for Open Source?

[RealAlaskan]

... they think it's a good idea to make the main navigation menu require IE 5.x or better.

Go to this site and install the Mozilla evangelism sidebar. Set your user agent string to something IE5ish. I'll bet that a recent Mozilla will work just fine. After all, the sign says ``IE5 or better''!

I've done this on several IE-only sites, and had great results.

Re:Good for Open Source?

[Broadband]

I'll give that a shot when I get home. Thanks for the tip!

Re:Good for Open Source?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

I believe her reply was "okee dokee"

So sayeth the Comic Book Guy.

Re:Good for Open Source?

[ewieling]

The problem with this idea is that the MLS systems use ActiveX.

finally

[Boromir son of Faram]

I don't know why we let them get away with it all this time. For those who don't know, TiVo runs a modified version of Linux, which is protected by the GPL. Therefore, legally they have always been required to release their source. I guess the Slashdot crowd has always let them slide because they're jizzing their tighty whities over being able to watch 20 hours of Simpson's episodes in an afternoon. If we don't look out for our rights, no one will. Let's give 'em hell.

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why we let them get away with it all this time. For those who don't know, TiVo runs a modified version of Linux, which is protected by the GPL. Therefore, legally they have always been required to release their source. I guess the Slashdot crowd has always let them slide because they're jizzing their tighty whities over being able to watch 20 hours of Simpson's episodes in an afternoon. If we don't look out for our rights, no one will. Let's give 'em hell.

What are you talking about?

Interesting quote

[JohnGrahamCumming]

This use is somewhat controversial. Advocates of the GPL and the Free Software Foundation interpret the GPL more stringently to disallow the use of proprietary modules. On the other hand, Linus Torvalds has stated that proprietary loadable modules are acceptable.

Wonder if they'll ultimately be forced to release this code? Anyone know if the FSF has expressed an opinion on this? John.

Re:Interesting quote

[smartin]

Wonder if they'll ultimately be forced to release this code? Anyone know if the FSF has expressed an opinion on this?
The FSF would be fools to force such an issue. Tivo is trying to work with the system as well and maintain their advantage over their competators. Jerking them around with the GPL would simply drive them and others away, thats not what we want, (right RMS?)

Re:Interesting quote

[cperciva]

Wonder if they'll ultimately be forced to release this code?

They won't. One of the major principles of contract law is that if a contract is confusing, the confusion is resolved in favour of the party which did not write or choose the contract.

Given that there's widespread disagreement about how far "GPL taint" extends, I'm pretty sure that any dispute here would be resolved in favour of the loadable modules not needing to be released.

Re:Interesting quote

[vondo]

I think it's more rigorous that "Linus says its OK." I think the license for the Linux kernel is officially GPL+"binary loadable modules are OK" so the kernel is not strictly under the GPL.

Re:Interesting quote

[OECD]

Anyone know if the FSF has expressed an opinion on this?

It's implied:

This use is somewhat controversial. Advocates of the GPL and the Free Software Foundation interpret the GPL more stringently to disallow the use of proprietary modules. On the other hand, Linus Torvalds has stated that proprietary loadable modules are acceptable.

(emphasis mine) That's from section 7 of the article, BTW.

Wonder if they'll ultimately be forced to release this code?

The GPLed source is here

Re:Interesting quote

[JohnGrahamCumming]

If you visit kernel.org you'll find the following license (the COPYING file) in /pub/linux/kernel.

It is the GPL v2 with the following preamble:

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

Linus Torvalds

Doesn't seem to be anything other than user level code mentioned here, I guess we must assume that TiVo's modifications are user level.

John.

Re:Interesting quote

[JohnGrahamCumming]

The FSF would be fools to force such an issue. Tivo is trying to work with the system as well and maintain their advantage over their competators. Jerking them around with the GPL would simply drive them and others away, thats not what we want, (right RMS?)

I do agree with you, but sense hasn't stopped the FSF from spending an awful amount of effort telling everyone that they must say GNU/Linux instead of Linux. I wonder why Linus doesn't just come up with a license of his own that makes it clear what you can and cannot do with Linux to prevent their being any conflict.

John.

Re:Interesting quote

[Anonymous Coward]

I would assume RMS hates TiVo since they don't release their source. I'm sure he'd love to write a routine to skip commercials and insert it in the sw, but can't do it since the source is not free.

Re:Interesting quote

[Anonymous Coward]

fsf does not own the copyright so their opinion does not really matter.

besides there is plenty of trickery one can do when working with modules to keep your key code out of the controversial realm. take a look at nvidias stuff for example.

Re:Interesting quote

[ArsonSmith]

he has, it's called the GPL with use of the exceptions clause. The exceptions clause is the portion of the GPL where you can put in your own changes such as binary modules.

Re:Interesting quote

[Anonymous Coward]

For the kernel, it's Linus's opinion that matters, and he says it's OK.

Re:Interesting quote

[Merk]

Actually, if you read the article, you'll see that he mentions that when he talks about how their hardware is proprietary and they want to use closed drivers. The issue is the non GPLed kernel modules, if I read things correctly.

Re:Interesting quote

[Jagasian]

The GPL is very clear on what you can and cannot do with Linux. Can you justify otherwise? (Please don't answer that if you work for SCO.)

Re:Interesting quote

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL-hater handbook, technique number 23: Bringing up "GNU/Linux" in a discussion about the GPL to discredit RMS and/or the GPL.

RMS' _request_ that people use the term GNU/Linux has absolutely nothing to do with the GPL. Yeah maybe it makes him look foolish but he has the right to _ask_ for whatever he likes.

This is different than the GPL which is a legal document. You *must* abide by the GPL or you violate copyright law in a pretty clear way.

Linus can't do much about the license now because 1) he has to hunt down all the copyright holders* and 2) others would just fork it.

Besides, the GPL already says you can do anything you want with Linux already except distribute it under a different license, what the heck more could Linus do to it besides make it a BSD license?

* I think it was a mistake for Linus to ignore the FSF's recommendation that the copyrights be centralized.. hopefully SCO won't request that all the copyright holders be tracked down..!!

Re:Interesting quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would force them? The FSF? No, because FSF doesn't hold the copyright on Linux.

Jeez, THINK about it. The COPYRIGHT holder decides when to sue for copyright infringiment, not the author of the license...!!

Since Linus has stated his interpretation of the GPL, that's how it will be enforced, end of story.

(I'm assuming that Linus would be the one to decide who sues who, rather than all the small contributers to Linux.. I think they would do what Linus says since Linus could probably sue THEM for trademark infringement!)

Re:Interesting quote

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is not a contract as it doesn't require the end-user to change their behavior.

It *allows* *new* behavior.

It says the copyright holder won't sue you under certain conditions, so the copyright holder has to change their behavior, not the end-user.

Re:Interesting quote

[topham]

Tivo uses modules and signatures to protect their IP.

binary modules are allowed; and by using a boot PROM which verifies the kernel has a valid signature they can be sure the kernel is approved by them. (Series 2 units with the latest kernels are extreemly difficult to hack in the same way as the first units.).

Linus at some point specificly mentioned that doing a signature check was outside of the scope of the Linux kernel copyright and GPL license. So Tivo is on the up-and-up. Even if it upsets some people.

Re:Interesting quote

[Anonymous Coward]

The FSF would be fools to force such an issue.

Uhh, the FSF will most certainly bring up the issue. For now, they wait until people have no other choice.

The FSF has taken "Embrace and Extend" to the ultimate ends of evil.

Re:Interesting quote

[Mikeytsi]

* I think it was a mistake for Linus to ignore the FSF's recommendation that the copyrights be centralized.. hopefully SCO won't request that all the copyright holders be tracked down..!!

Why? Linus can just tell them to go to hell. SCO can't file actions on behalf of other companies.

Re:Interesting quote

[morgue-ann]

This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls

Well, this is strange indeed. This means that Linux is *not* precisely GPL and this matters quite a bit in TiVo's case.

The GPL follows general copyright law by insisting that the creator of work A gets to have a say in how work C is used where C = A + B. GPL removes some of A's creator's rights over C if the sourcecode to C is released.

For TiVo, what's a "work?" In my opinion, it's the whole box. Most people seem to think the end-user application, the kernel and the drivers (loadable modules) are separate works, but this device is not a computer and those pieces are not "merely aggregated" in the same way that code on CD-ROM Linux distro is aggregated.

I don't care about the drivers, because Linus has made many statements about how he allows that and other developers have known about this policy long enough that they could have stopped contributing years ago.

Maybe this preamble has also always been present, but I've seen no discussion of how this is why TiVo is allowed to keep their app closed source.

Let me give another real world example from embedded systems. At my company, a guy just got the MAD mp3 library running on our digital camera prototype. We'd like to offer this to our customers (camera manufacturers who make cameras for the brands you're familiar with). If we statically link it in to our closed-source camera code, that seems a clear GPL violation.

What if we create a MacOS/Palm-like jump table for "camera OS" calls and only make our mods to an mp3 player "application" using MAD open-source?

What if the binary of this app lives in a hidden partition of internal NAND flash?

What if it can only be run from the hidden partition or if the app is signed? It seems that TiVo is doing that now.

My plan is to allow running apps from removable cards and the "published" (over USB Mass Storage class) internal NAND flash. I'm hoping our customers (the manufacturers, not the end users) will see the benefit of that over having to pay the MAD author for a proprietary license (though they'll probably still have to pay Fraunhofer).

Is simply publishing a header file for calling OS functions through the jump table transparent and for prototypes sufficient to satisfy the "arms length" requirement (see the GPL FAQ), or must we document those calls in detail.

Re:Interesting quote

[Boiled Frog]

The FSF would be fools to force such an issue.

Actually, since the FSF isn't the copyright holder of the Linux kernel, there's not much they can do anyway.

BSD vs GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

But, in turn, BSD license does not warrant that it will not become vampirized by some other company. Thus effectively closing development for the software.

GPL protects from vamprires.

Re:BSD vs GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Closing what? You have access to the original source code: proprietary changes are simply not yours (obviously).

Cool!

[yotto]

Maybe now they'll sue the people who wrote the code they used!

I thought we already knew this?

[stratjakt]

Anyhow, I love iPods.

And Tivo. If they made a tivo+iPod I would buy three of them.

So mod me up up up if you love iPods and tivos!

Re:I thought we already knew this?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about a wifi tivo ipod? That product would seem to be right up your alley.

Re:I thought we already knew this?

[stratjakt]

WiFiPoDVo!

I like every overpriced piece of hardware that is either a) running some kind of Free as in whoopty do software (tivo), or b) made by Apple (iPod), c) works better on paper than real life (wifi)

Ideally WiFiPoDVo would record only the first 25 minutes of a half hour show (or better yet - the wrong time on the wrong channel!), be produced by Apple, and run the HURD. It will cost upwards of 600 dollars and match my purse.

Hooray!

Re:I thought we already knew this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are my new favorite troll. Congrats.

Re:I thought we already knew this?

[jared_hanson]

You are my new least favorite troll. Congrats.

I actually do love my TiVo. As soon as I get an iPod, I will love that too. Companies that take the time to make a great product are wonderful.

Re:I thought we already knew this?

[geekoid]

I find it interesting that you have already convinced yourself that you will 'love' something even thought you have yet to purchase it...Unless you meant sticky love.

Just how "careful" are they?

[tambo]

Why do they have any incentive to be "careful" about their use of open-source? Why not just paste it into your proprietary, closed-source application? It's closed-source, so the chances that anyone finds out are slim to nil. Of course, you have to maintain that as the company line...

Indeed, given the "business ethics? we've heard of 'em" nature of business these days, carefully shepherding one's source code to respect open-source rights is a losing value proposition. It takes resources - time, employees' attention, assignment of responsibility, meetings - while helping the company avoid a terrifically small chance of a lawsuit. Not the *right* thing to do, by any means, but probably the *customary* thing to do.

I've been wondering quite a lot recently just how much respect closed-source developers typically afford to open-source code. I think the answer is a dirty little secret of the software biz.

- David Stein

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[stratjakt]

One disgruntled ex-employee as a whistleblower could screw with the whole company. It's easier just to let people have the source.

Espescially in TiVos case. It's not like you can realistically build your own TiVo anyways. The embedded software is an extremely minor component of the system as a whole.

Businesses arent as evil and corrupt in general as some would have you believe. They're run by people, in the end.

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think that the original hacker ethic of the company, along with the close scrutiny that hardcore TiVo hackers subject their products to, will help the company stay honest for a while yet.

The DVR sector just hasn't seen it's big growth spurt yet. Many industry wonks agree that it will indeed occur, though. Once TiVo grows to be a larger corporation, THEN you will have to worry more about their mis-appropriation of GPLed code into their proprietary side...

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[tambo]

Been in the business world a long time? ;)

OK, serious response.

First, general philosophy: History has show, consistently, that trusting corporations to do the right thing is a terrifically bad idea. Especially when it's more costly/troublesome than doing the wrong thing. Especially when the chances that they'll get caught, or punished, are insignificant. I needn't remind you that both Ken Lay and Martha Stewart still walk the streets as a reminder of this.

Now, practical response: Whistleblowers? Are you kidding? There's no better way to ruin one's career, permanently and irrevocably, than turning whistleblower. It's one thing if you're Dr. Jeffrey Wigand taking on tobacco companies who are killing people. It's another thing altogether to ruin your career because your employer stole some open-source wonk's implementation of the cosine function.

- David Stein

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[Eric Ass Raymond]

Huh? Hacker ethic and hardcore hackers? How do you expect a company of hackers to "stay honest"? How do you know it is honest at all and not just hacking anything you connect to their product or spreading viruses?

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[uradu]

> Once TiVo grows to be a larger corporation

I doubt that will happen. I don't think TiVo will survive the big onslaught of DVRs once it comes, or at the very least won't grow significantly. In order to do that they would have to be a lot more aggressive with product and feature development, and drop prices significantly. After all, I believe most DVR newcomers are developing their technology from scratch and TiVo isn't earning any licensing revenue there. So how exactly will they grow? They keep claiming that they still barely break even on unit costs and are only making money on service subscription. There will be a certain increase in sales with the growing popularity of DVRs, I'm sure, but from a cost perspective they will be considered high-end and expensive, so I doubt their sales will shoot through the roof. I'm sure that within a couple of years or so you'll see DVRs for not much more than $100, consisting of single-chip electronics plus a HD. That means lots of volume, and I don't think volume is TiVo's sport. So far I haven't seen TiVo too eager to foray into the low-end of the market. That's just not their business model or strength.

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[ratfynk]

Keeping the source closed only helps MS take over more of the communication world. "What are we doing today BILLY BRAIN.....Writing a new closed source version of our Windows O$ of course Binky!"
How the hell can companies like MS make a living if they cannot clone things like Unix code and then make all of their added IP proprietary? Just think they have had one hell of a time replacing their hotmail servers with an NT clone so the chances are that they really are trying to go it alone with NT4,5,6 just by trying to impliment cloned unix functions. You notice that they dropped the name NT in one hell of a hurry, for things like XP and 2000, 2003. This is logical as they want people to feel like everything is fresh and new. Social engineering tech speak. So the OS2 experience taught them the importance of getting rid of Unix like versioning for public consumption. i have a copy of OS2 right here really funny how it sure looks and works like an early NT crash test dummy multi-tasking OS version of Windows. Wish I could see the source to both and do a diff on that and early Unix source. It sure would explain their rush to get a license from SCO. I hope this rush to IP lawsuit crap sinks the whole monopolised closed source crooked ship! It has too many memory leaks, pirates and is starting to rot under its own weight. Time to scuttle it.

endrant

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[tambo]

uradu is right on the money.

It's a well-known trend, called the "frontier effect" or something similar. Usual course of business:

1) One company creates a great product that comprises a brand-new market. Tons of R&D invested in development; research costs expected to be recouped once (their) market matures.

2) Product hits and causes a stir. Huge sales and good times for frontier company.

3) Entry of competitors, who produce similar (or better) products. They want a piece of the promising and profitable market, and they have an edge because they don't have to invest tons of R&D like the frontier corporation did.

4) Market becomes overcrowded; new entries are indistinguishable from other products. Profits grow thin. Mainstream companies (Microsoft, Dell, Sony) weigh in with their versions, which grab market share by branding otherwise bland products.

5) Frontier company is now struggling. Competitors moved in and devoured the market before the frontier company could recoup its huge R&D outlay. May fold or be acquired by a competitor.

Look at the burgeoning technology-gadget markets: MP3 players, DVD players, PDAs... this trend has hit virtually every new technology that comes out.

And this inevitable trend is why huge, bloated companies like Microsoft and Sony are so successful. Leave the risky, expensive, market-creation junk to foolhardy startups; weigh in with an entry once the market has proven itself. Fault MS for lots of things, but not this one - it's a wise strategy.

- David Stein

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[hachete]

Actually, having gone through an exercise to try and incorporate open source libs into a closed source product, "they" seem pretty bloody careful.

GPL code is a non-starter - no look, no touch.

This here closed-source developer pays quite a lot of respect to open-source code.

My manager thinks so as well.

h.

this .sig is broken? well it works for me!

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[Anonymous Coward]

History has show, consistently, that trusting corporations to do the right thing is a terrifically bad idea.

Let me guess. As a serious student of history, you're thus prepared to trust governments instead of those nasty evil corporationses, then?

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[cehardin]

Doesn't the U.S. Government provide monetary compensation for whistle blowers? I have heard this before in the past so i did a google on it. I found bits and pieces of information showing this to be true but nothing official.

Anybody know?

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, general philosophy: History has show, consistently, that trusting corporations to do the right thing is a terrifically bad idea.

BS. History has shown that some corporations don't do the right thing, and that they tend to get caught. You don't hear about the thousands that are doing the right thing, because it's not usually news.

Now, practical response: Whistleblowers? Are you kidding? There's no better way to ruin one's career, permanently and irrevocably, than turning whistleblower.

Don't want to ruin your career? Then do it anonymously, dumbass.

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[tambo]

Oh, come now. How can you even begin to state that "they tend to get caught?" It's a little hard to compare with those who never get caught.

Trusting corporations is a bad idea. If you supervise a company and it does the right thing, what harm have you done? Maybe slowed down their productivity a little... small price for society to pay for strongly deterring or punishing malfeasance.

As for anonymous whistleblowing: Oh, sure, great idea. How hard is it for a company to learn who's had access to that particular batch of source code? Identifying the whistleblower would usually be a trivial matter - and then come the defamation lawsuits that wreck the whistleblower's career. Not very encouraging.

- David Stein

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one am always very careful to replace the GPL copyright notice with my company's proprietary copyright notice in every file I "borrow". And I always set the copyright date to one year earlier, so it looks those Linux zealots stole the code from me!

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[precogpunk]

I don't think TiVo will survive the big onslaught of DVRs once it comes, or at the very least won't grow significantly.

You might be right but TiVo is such a great product that even if they loose marketshare they'll still have those die-hard fans (like Apple is to the PC world). Sure, people might settle for the free cable DVRs but right now most cable users dont use TiVo. It works better with DTV from what I've seen.

you'll see DVRs for not much more than $100

But it's all about the subscription fee or renting the DVR box -- how much does it cost you in the long run??

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[malfunct]

Espescially in TiVos case. It's not like you can realistically build your own TiVo anyways. The embedded software is an extremely minor component of the system as a whole.

I disagree, the OS is a rather small part of the picture, but the user interface (which is an application NOT derived from the linux source) is very importat IP to protect for Tivo. If any old joe had the code to build the tivo UI (especially information on how to get schedule information) then why spend $200 on a tivo when you could run an application on your main desktop that captured the video for you.

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[Satan's Librarian]

I have encountered GPL'd code in proprietary software I was hired to work on. I immediately removed it from the project (like, within minutes), and did my damndest to get the coder that put it in there fired (that part ended up being delayed because he was in the middle of becoming a she...).

I think most proprietary, closed-source developers - at least any halfway decent ones - are going to have a similar reaction. See, any closed-source programmer worth his or her salt is going to value copyright laws (patents are another issue entirely, btw). We may disagree with the ever-extending time limits on them, but without some period of time in which one can sell a software product without people legally spreading it all over the planet for free - we loose our paycheck. By extension, we're going to respect other people's rights for what they want done with their code - such as those who use a GPL or BSD license.

There are plagiarists in any copyright-driven business, but just like in books, newspapers, or anywhere else, in coding the majority of professionals take a very dim view and you aren't likely to get away with it if you work on a team that reviews your work.

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[Anonymous Coward]

and did my damndest to get the coder that put it in there fired

Clearly you are an officious and obnoxious little prick. I assume you can count your friends on one finger.

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[Stu Charlton]

There's also a plausible argument that most of the scrappy upstarts that innovate are actually making boatloads of mistakes that large players can easily take advantage of due to their size.

There certainly are examples of companies where the scrappy upstart actually managed to stay afloat when the competitors rushed in. Most of today's gorillas are those companies. They aren't the norm, but perhaps nor should they be.

Competition and innovation are difficult, especially because the only determinant of success is whether you can create enough customers to remain profitable. You can point to one company being more "clever" or "inventive" than the other, but that's not what sells - it's what the market deems as innovation that sells, for better or worse. A lot of small players get too wrapped up in their own genius to recognize that. Disruptive technologies are a difficult sell at first, because you're not pandering to a need, you're creating a new one.

Secondly, the idea of the "small innovator" out-innovating the big company is a bit of a romantic myth. Certainly the disruptive innovations tend to come from outside, but the incremental ones certainly come en masse from large companies.

As for "huge, bloated" companies like Microsoft/Sony are so successful, please add a bit of context here. Microsoft has so much cash in the bank that I'm not sure their bloat will have much of any impact for at least another decade.
The Sony group, on the other hand, were hurting badly 10 years ago, and were saved by their own major innovation - the Playstation. The story of the Playstation was hardly about a bunch of smoky Japanese guys in room looking to crush the competition...

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[Hanzie]

Satan's Librarian (581495) said:

I have encountered GPL'd code in proprietary software...immediately removed it, did my damndest to get the coder...fired...delayed because he was in the middle of becoming a she...

--------------

Sir, you were late with the justice; The universe has already punished this poor soul more harshly than you could ever hope to.

Look up "gender reassignment surgery", and tell me that it isn't punishment enough for this crime against the GPL.

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[110010001000]

Usually these start-ups get bought out by the big players for a crapload of money, so everyone is happy. I am sure TiVO will get bought out by a player sometime (MS, Sony, AOL/TW, etc)

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[Lonath]

It's another thing altogether to ruin your career because your employer stole some open-source wonk's implementation of the cosine function.

I'm not attacking you. But, every damn time I call "copyight infringement" "stealing" thousands of wannabe /. lawyers jump on my ass. And here you get away with it.

Cmon, where are all the "copyright infringement isn't stealing" people? Why is it ok to label illegal use of FLOSS as stealing, but not illegal downloading of music?

(BTW, that was a rhetorical question and I think I know the answer. The purpose of this post was to maybe make some of the illegal file downloaders think a bit about what they're doing if they also support FLOSS and think FLOSS licenses should be enforced.)

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[zzendpad]

I'm not sure about other states, but here in RI we have the "Whistleblower's Act" to specifically protect employees who report the legal violations of their employers. Now, I guess whether or not a GPL violation is considered a legal violation would have to be tested in court...

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[uradu]

>> you'll see DVRs for not much more than $100
> But it's all about the subscription fee or renting the DVR box

Guide subscriptions are also destined for the scrap heap. Low end devices are simply going to use Guide+ or free online services (such as used by XMLTV). Perhaps not as polished as what DirecTV or TiVo offer, but certainly good enough for an Apex or Memorex.

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[uradu]

> Tons of R&D invested in development; research costs expected to be recouped once (their) market matures.
> Product hits and causes a stir. Huge sales and good times for frontier company.

The problem with many pioneer companies seems to be that they don't have the mindset to STAY at the forefront. After that huge initial effort a certain resting-on-your-laurels mentality sets in. Perhaps they're so enamoured and impressed with their own achievement that they can't conceive of anyone else equalling or bettering them.

You can certainly observe that with TiVo. They have made no significant improvements to the base product since the beginning (though the fanatics at tivocommunity would vehemently deny this). The Series 2 hardware isn't a massive component reduction compared to the Series 1. A bit cheaper perhaps, but no cost paradigm shift. One serious feature they could have added right from the beginning would have been external storage upgrades. A 1394 port plus software to support this could have allowed people to easily add external drives. Heck, if they wanted to protect this market, they could have released their own TiVo-branded drives. But it seems that once they made that initial mental leap to the concept of a PVR, their creative juices were sapped.

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[topham]

XMLTV relies upon there being a website on the net for your area that can be scripted and have the data extracted.

If Zap2It ever realizes how to fix the problem, not hard, there will be no more XMLTV in North America.

(Meanwhile, I'd happily pay for a subscription for good (tivo style) guide data. Its quite detailed, and generally kept quite up to date.)

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[uradu]

> Meanwhile, I'd happily pay for a subscription for good (tivo style) guide data

If it were a stand-alone service that sold the data in an open format (say as a web service), that would be acceptable. As it is I pay for the same data twice, both from TiVo and DirecTV. It seems that Guide+ is still free, though.

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Businesses arent as evil and corrupt in general as some would have you believe. They're run by people, in the end.

But what runs the people...

Re:Just how "careful" are they?

[Satan's Librarian]

True. She was going through hell. I've known others who have gone through that procedure, too - although in one of the cases I think the damage was far worse to the guy's daughter than it was to him.

However, it's not profitable for a company to have their entire coding staff having to chase someone through the code to know that a.) it works, and b.) it isn't stolen. And, the GPL problem predated the announcement of the process.

Didn't manage the source well enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why are they using System V code?

Readable version

[cperciva]

Maybe it's just MSIE being wierd, but the story appeared in a really small font.

The "printable version" is far easier to read.

Re:Readable version

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention it's will help ease the Slashdot effect.

Re:Readable version

[Eric Ass Raymond]

The fonts have been made small intentionally so that they'll save on bandwidth. Smaller fonts, less bits to move. It's been a common practise since the dotcom-bubble burst.

Re:Readable version

[El Cubano]

Back in the day we had operators that worked on automatic morse equipment. Whenever we had a new operator that could not get the signals to sync up we would tell him that it was because the bits were moving too fast and that he could get the signals synced by tying the patch cord in a knot. It always worked like a charm (we were all on the floor dying of laughter pretty soon).

Re:Readable version

[ArsonSmith]

Could you explain? Why did it work like a charm?

Re:Readable version

[Adam9]

I think the grandparent meant that telling the operator to do that would work like a charm because the operator would actually do it.

Re:Readable version

[Lionel Hutts]

I have almost never seen a page with a "printable" version that did NOT look much better. I use Privoxy to take me to them on every site that has them and that I visit regularly. Since then, I've been enjoying the web a lot more, and squinting less.

Re:Readable version

[ArsonSmith]

ohh the joke worked like a charm, I thought he ment tieing a knot would make the data sync work and was looking for the technical reason behind it.

got it now.

Re:Readable version

[Anonymous Coward]

I have almost never seen a page with a "printable" version that did NOT look much better. I use Privoxy to take me to them on every site that has them and that I visit regularly. Since then, I've been enjoying the web a lot more, and squinting less.

I agree, although I don't notice the font problems because my browser is configured with a minimum font size of 12, and always allows zooming.

The printable versions usually give you everything on one page. This article was split across 9 pages, which is pretty ridiculous. They weren't as bad as Tom's Hardware pages (i.e. it wasn't one paragraph and a picture on each page), but there still wasn't much content on each one.

I don't see how paging would possibly benefits anybody except advertisers. If my dialup connection is heavily loaded (or a page is Slashdotted), it can take 10-30 seconds to load each page (the printable version doesn't take much longer). On a fast connection, clicking to go to the next page is just annoying. This isn't a book - the browser already has a concept of pages, and the "page down" key should advance you to the next one.

Copyleft is the difference

[yerricde]

It's true that Microsoft has been using non-copylefted open source code for years, but it's a greater accomplishment to segregate copylefted programs from proprietary programs.

Re:Copyleft is the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't an accomplishment at all.Why not support the community that supports you by giving back your own code, now that would be an accomplishment.

hmmmm...

[f-matic]

doesn't this kind of answer the question which popped up on here yesterday?

i mean, everyone knows tivo rocks, right? so if tivo = OSS + proprietary, then OSS + proprietary must also rock. right?

(DISCLAIMER - i have no idea if tivo actually rocks or not - still trying to catch a blurry version of gilmore girls on my 1960s uhf box...)

Re:hmmmm...

[arkane1234]

nah... TiVo rocks (minus the monthly charge) but Not the innards.
Just the finished product.

It's kind of like saying if Linux rocks, and linux is source code compiled, then compiled source code must rock :)

Ummm.. yea, everyone basically does this.

[joeldg]

Most companies, if they can, will use 100% open source to create totally closed-source solutions. The exceptions being the 100% microsoft shops, and those guy have all their profits eaten up by licenses, and "of course" they won't open source anything because the licenses restrict that they "can't". (I at one time worked as an ASP programmer and am happily a three-years now PHP programmer).

The old point was, pay for a product, you pay for support; however, this is not true anymore (just try and call MS technical support without having a license you pay $1000 for).. But something like MySQL or PHP you can easily and quickly get help in any forum..

But I digress.. the point is, most "smart" companies do this to keep costs down.

Re:Ummm.. yea, everyone basically does this.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The exceptions being the 100% microsoft shops, and those guy have all their profits eaten up by licenses" ...um yeah..that's exactly what happens. Hence all shops that use MS show no profits.

How on earth could anyone mod such garbage as "Insightful"

Re:Ummm.. yea, everyone basically does this.

[joeldg]

well..
I notice you didn't provide proof to refute the claim...
just calling something garbage doesn't make it garbage...

Re:Ummm.. yea, everyone basically does this.

[Anonymous Coward]

just calling something garbage doesn't make it garbage...

You're right. What you said was already garbage. It didn't need to be made into it.

Re:Ummm.. yea, everyone basically does this.

[BrynM]

Don't let it get you down. That's why they're Anonymous Cowards. I actually agree with what you said. Having worked for 100% MS shops, Mixed shops and even with an IBM OS390 system, the benefits of an MS solution, especially tech support, are disappearing. It would seem that MS's standard of support is now

• Your Product Activation phone call
• Patches if a problem becomes public
• Windows Update

The sad part is that the zealots on the extremes (OSS and MS) refuse to even consider the other side or even a mixed solution. Ususally because they are too lazy/sick of their job to adapt and feel threatened by something outside of their skill set.

Re:Ummm.. yea, everyone basically does this.

[joeldg]

Well, it was something I saw as gone "horribly" wrong while working in MS shops..

Me: How much again are we paying for this license and and a flood of useless CD every month?

Boss: $10,000 a year.

Me: Are you !^%$ kidding me?

Boss: Nope.

Me: But we can't even get someone on a phone to help with the {insert issue} problem. Why do we continue paying them, they are not doing anything?

Boss: Because, we built the company based on this stuff, what are we going to do, change all that code?

Me: .... umm.. YEA...

of course.. the that company is not comprised of that guy a couple other people because the licensing (among other things) killed the company. it was at 50 people.

Very sad...

Re:Ummm.. yea, everyone basically does this.

[madhippy]

Me: But we can't even get someone on a phone to help with the {insert issue} problem.

having worked on numerous MS based projects where we've come across problems which did not appear to be due to our code, picking up the phone - quoting some 'contract number' (can't remember what it's called) - explaining issue - sending sample code - speaking to the guy in charge of that area of code - getting a tested patch some weeks later ... no charge if it was an MS bug ...

I can honestly say MS ain't that bad ..

(speaking as a Linux user that is ...)

If only ...

[Anonymous Coward]

the developers of the Linux SMP code were as respectful of other's IP as Tivo is of GPL code!!

Re:If only ...

[El]

Yes, how could then not have known they couldn't use the code they wrote themselves in a product not owned by SCO!

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

How much did the /. editors get paid to shill for TiVo?

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad part is they didn't get paid anything to shill for TiVo. As the parent said, the editors are just so turned on by TiVo they glady whore themselves for it.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[SoSueMe]

Even though I have mod points, I can't find the "-1 STUPID" rating.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

And even if you could, and you used them, you would have given them up by posting here.

always

[yerricde]

TiVo runs a modified version of Linux, which is protected by the GPL. Therefore, legally they have always been required to release their source.

TiVo has distributed source code for the version of the Linux kernel included in the devices for as long as I can remember.

Re:always

[malfunct]

I agree, the article is making a big deal about how you can use open source stuff, and still separate out your proprietary code and keep it closed by being clever. Basically Tivo is a fancy application for linux. The kernel changes are purely for hardware support and they are fully open and distributed.

The disadvantage I see is the fact that because the kernel is open source people are able to use that knowledge to launch attacks on the application and "subvert" it to thier wishes. Tivo would have a much easier time stopping people from hacking the box if noone had a clue how its OS worked.

Article text

[Anonymous Coward]

In case of slashdotting, or if you're just a lazy slashbutt, here's the complete full article source (no "Click here for next page" crap!):

From Server Room to Living Room

From Open Source
Vol. 1, No. 5 - July/August 2003
by Jim Barton
The open source movement, exemplified by the growing acceptance of Linux, is finding its way not only into corporate environments but also into a home near you. For some time now, high-end applications such as software development, computer-aided design and manufacturing, and heavy computational applications have been implemented using Linux and generic PC hardware.

Now, Linux and open source software are making inroads at the other end of the computing spectrum. TiVo, the first commercially available digital video recorder (DVR), provides an example of how embedded devices are increasingly powerful enough to support Linux as an operating system--providing a great deal of leverage to system developers.
A Brief History of Open Source

To many people, the open source movement is a recent phenomenon, springing into consciousness in the late 1990s with the creation of Netscape Navigator and the rise of the Linux operating system. The true beginnings of the open source movement, however, can be traced back to the mid-1980s.

At that time, the computer industry, as well as academia, had become enchanted with the Unix operating system1 and its variants. Computer manufacturers realized that the era of each manufacturer providing a proprietary operating system for its hardware was drawing to a close; while this strategy locked customers to a particular manufacturer, it also limited the ability to acquire new customers and cost a great deal to support.

Unix was originally developed at Bell Laboratories as a reaction to the large, complex, non-portable operating systems of the early 1970s. AT&T did not see a significant opportunity in licensing or supporting an operating system; instead, it provided Unix source code for a nominal license fee and small per-unit royalties. A number of academic efforts sprang up to take advantage of this opportunity and extend the original sources with new and interesting features.

The most famous of these efforts is the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) of Unix, which pioneered features such as paging and the "sockets" network abstraction. BSD Unix lives on today, but its descendants are better known, among them: FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and BSDi. This line of Unix development began in 19742 and the BSD developers created many features of modern Unix-based operating systems. In fact, for many years BSD versions of Unix were considered far superior to AT&T Unix in features, performance, and reliability (and many would argue BSD Unix is still the best). This is largely a result of the open and collaborative nature of BSD development at a time when Unix was a little-noticed sideline within the vast halls of AT&T.

In the mid-1980s, every computer manufacturer either provided or planned to provide a Unix-based operating system for its computers. Each company had chosen a particular version of Unix to start with, and then added various proprietary features. Although all of these operating systems claimed to be Unix, software written on one version was often not portable to the other versions.

At this same time, AT&T was breaking up into separate companies in response to a U.S. government antitrust suit, spinning off the telephone operating companies and an unregulated subsidiary. The company was trying to use its wealth of internally developed technologies as a lever to create new revenue streams. Within AT&T there was growing realization that selling and supporting Unix might be a significant new source of revenue. The company began to promote its own version of Unix as the standard for the computing industry and to enforce its intellectual property rights around the Unix trademark and source code.

The prospect of AT&T "taking control" of Unix and the

Re:Article text

[Nogami_Saeko]

This is all well and good about how TiVO runs, and the basis for their hardware...

But what I REALLY want to know from TiVO is why they don't offer service in Canada yet.

Canadians = People who love TVs

We'll put up with idiot politicians, tax increases, poor canadian dollar, less than thrilling economy, but we'll fight to the bitte end if anyone screws with our TVs.

TiVO would sell REALLY damn well here, but there hasn't been any official info about why it's not released here yet, and when it might be.

N.

Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Between their broken business model (selling hardware that forces you to pay monthly fees for unnecessary service, and leaving you with a useless piece of garbage when they finally die), and cable and satellite providers coming up with PVR hardware for free plus a monthly fee that's cheaper than TIVOs, I'm surprised they still exist.

It will be nice when they do die because it will open the playing field for companies with a proper business model.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[tmhsiao]

selling hardware that forces you to pay monthly fees for unnecessary service, and leaving you with a useless piece of garbage when they finally die

I believe that TiVo has stated that if they do go out of business, they'll open the scheduling code so that users aren't left with useless pieces of garbage.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[ncc74656]

Between their broken business model (selling hardware that forces you to pay monthly fees for unnecessary service, and leaving you with a useless piece of garbage when they finally die), and cable and satellite providers coming up with PVR hardware for free plus a monthly fee that's cheaper than TIVOs, I'm surprised they still exist.

You are aware that there's a lifetime-service option, aren't you? I figure I got my money's worth out of that a year or so ago. If TiVo does go tango-uniform at some point, there are ways to keep the machine going without having it "phone home"...it's what TiVo owners in Canada and Australia are already doing.

(Yes, IHBT. BFD.)

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may want to go check over at fool.com.. Don't have a link handy, but it had an excellent article basically stating tivo should hit profits by the quarter after next.

Realize that to most people, once the hardware costs are paid, 13$ a month is more than fair to watch tv on their own schedule, as opposed to having to sit down at prime time ;-)

Of course, dont get me wrong, I suspect a great ## of /.'ers actually dont watch much TV, but as a tivo-loving-owner, I have to say I refuse to watch tv without it.

(Especially after finding the 30-second skip hack!)

I like being able to work in the office whenever I want, come home, watch this mornings babylon 5, the evenings StarGate, and maybe just a little scrubs...

So if nothing else, SCO keep your hands off :-) I heart my tivo!

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[jwilloug]

TiVo doesn't sell hardware. They sell a subscription service to some end users, and they sell the TiVo software to hardware manufactures that want to make a non-crappy PVR (including several cable and satalite providers, DirecTV in particular).

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[NanoGator]

"Between their broken business model (selling hardware that forces you to pay monthly fees for unnecessary service, and leaving you with a useless piece of garbage when they finally die), and cable and satellite providers coming up with PVR hardware for free plus a monthly fee that's cheaper than TIVOs, I'm surprised they still exist."

They provide a kick ass service and you're surprised they still exist?

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if we belive them, we have to hope some other company will come along and hope it's profitable to continue to rape the idiots who bought TiVos.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the lifetime service option, you just lose that much more when TiVo fails. You're even more a fool for buying that because TiVo won't allow you to tranfer the account if you replace the box, even if it breaks.

I don't accept your hacking solution. You're saying "see, the company isn't so bad because we can just break their security and commit a criminal act (under the DMCA, even if they do go tits-up) it's a good product". That's like saying "my bank is very customer friendly; after I robbed it, it factors out that I'm getting very good interest".

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[jimmer63]

Tivo's are great but I have issues with the company itself. We've been waiting for Tivo here in Canada (and other countries , ie New Zealand) for a long time. I don't think it's their obligation to provide service here but they haven't really haven't done anything to help. There currently is a community of Tivo users outside of the service area who hack the Tivos so we can load our own local listings. We'd gladly pay for the service if it was available, since it's a hundred times easier to use this service than hack the Tivo. I wish they'd support some sort manual updating. Could they give back a little to the open source community? Of course I could be wrong...

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the hardware costs *are* what you're paying to watch TV on your own schedule. I have a better deal for you. Pay me $10 Million; I will buy the house next to yours, live there, subscribe to TV guide and record on DVD-R whatever shows you tell me you like whenever they're on. When you want to watch them, you can come knock on the door any time 24/7 and I'll give you the DVD. I'll only charge you $6.50/month for this service. That's a great deal because once the start-up costs are covered, it's half the price of TiVo.

I feel so strongly about this just because I would love to have a PVR, for the use I'd get out of it, the price of a TiVo + "lifetime service" is a bargain; I'd happily pay it for a PVR. The problem is the TiVo isn't a PVR, it's a personal rip-off device for gullable fools. It has less functionality than a $60 VCR. (I can't just enter the time and date to record a show without having to buy into the long-term future of the company). Why should the 30 second skip be a hack? My VCR marks the commercials as it records and then automatically skips them during playback; I don't even need a 30 second skip. The fact that it doesn't do that natively is just furtehr proof that TiVo is not for the idiots who buy them, it's for the content providers.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

They provide a useless service at a horrible rip-off of a price, and force anyone who wants to use their (admitedly nice) hardware to sign up for the service. As I said, I'd happily pay the price for the hardware+service contract just for the hardware if it were a standalone device. The fact that it requires service destroys any value.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can go into a store and buy a piece of TiVo hardware. You're merely proving my point that their business model is broken.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[NanoGator]

" The fact that it requires service destroys any value. "

Right.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Jason1729]

I find it funny that so many people replied to you to defend TiVo so passionately. Their model seems as bad as anything MS does, but because people like their shiny toy, they not only overlook it but defend it.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you expect me to pay you $10 million dollars plus $6.50 a month to hire you to be my personal TiVo? Why would that be a better deal than the real thing at $399 + $13/month is a better deal? Where did you take math classes, California? Let's not forget the added inconvenience of actually having to interact with you.

Are you a liberal? It's the only reason I can think that it's somehow unsatisfactory to you that other people like, enjoy, and are willing to pay for a TiVo even though you don't. Get off your high horse and be content to let people decide for themselves features they expect for their money.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[ncc74656]

With the lifetime service option, you just lose that much more when TiVo fails.

How do I lose anything more? I paid $200 ~3 years ago. At $10/month, I broke even in less than 2 years. Since then, I've continued getting service for my TiVo at no additional cost. Without lifetime service, I would've paid more than twice as much by now and would still be on the hook for more money every month (especially when you factor in that they now charge $14/month). Please explain how this is a Bad Thing.

You're even more a fool for buying that because TiVo won't allow you to tranfer the account if you replace the box, even if it breaks.

What's in there that can break?

The hard drive? I've already replaced that because I wanted something bigger. I've also made backups of the software after each update, so if the replacement drive dies, I can swap in a new one.

The modem? I added Ethernet to mine to pull updates over my cable-modem connection. If I didn't have that, a $5 cable and one of the three external modems I have (all of which are currently gathering dust) would fix that.

Those are pretty much the only problems people have run into with their TiVos.

I don't accept your hacking solution. You're saying "see, the company isn't so bad because we can just break their security and commit a criminal act (under the DMCA, even if they do go tits-up) it's a good product".

Take off your tinfoil hat. The only crime would be if you cloned a serial number from another TiVo or took some other action to pull subscription data from TiVo's servers without having paid for service. If you're creating slice files or setting your LAN to redirect TiVo traffic away from their server and to your own server that provides compatible service, you're not doing anything wrong...DMCA or no DMCA (besides, the DMCA is unconstitutional and therefore null and void anyway, regardless of what the ??AA would have you believe).

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[The Lynxpro]

you obviously aren't a TiVo owner. Like AOL, TiVo is a company that has consistently beaten Microsoft in a market they've invaded. They make a great product and they support Linux. Now what are you complaining about again?

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're creating slice files or setting your LAN to redirect TiVo traffic away from their server and to your own server that provides compatible service, you're not doing anything wrong...DMCA or no DMCA (besides, the DMCA is unconstitutional and therefore null and void anyway, regardless of what the ??AA would have you believe).

Creating slice files or setting your lan to redirect TiVo traffic is a felony according to the DMCA. The fact that you don't accept a law doesn't mean you can break it. It's your opinion that it's unconstitutional since it hasn't been ruled on, and I don't see you rushing out to be the test case.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[jwilloug]

If you go into a store and ask for a TiVo the salesmonkey will know what you mean and sell you a Sony or a Phillips PVR, but you're not really buying "a TiVo" any more than you buy a Windows or an Internet when you get a PC.

My point was that TiVo isn't necessarily in competition with the settop box manufactures you say will drive them out of business. Some such companies are choosing to roll their own software, but they universally suck when compared to the real thing. And if anything, they're good for TiVo, somebody with a crippled PVR is a lot more likely to realize the value in a good one than someone who thinks TiVo's only useful function is to pause live TV.

And yes you can use them without the service. They revert to dumb DVR mode (time and channel) if you cut them off from guide data.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

But you said once the hardware costs are paid off, the $13/month is a good price for what the hardware is doing. I'm offering you superior functionality (I come with a voice interface) at a lower monthly price. Or are you going back on what you said before and saying the up front costs do count?

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[rthille]

As I said, I'd happily pay the price for the hardware+service contract just for the hardware if it were a standalone device.
And how would Tivo supply the guide data for the next 20 years if the box were a standalone device? You are welcome to buy a box (at least my series 1 worked this way), lifetime service, and not hook it to a phone line. It'll bitch at you about not having guide data, and be mostly useless (little more useful than a VCR), but it will work.

The fact that it requires service destroys any value.
Yeah, that's what I hate about the local restaurants. I'd frequent them if they'd just let me buy the ingredients and use their stoves, utensils, tables, etc. I hate having to pay them to cook the food for me. What a rip-off!

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your series 1 will work quite well as a standalone, they changed the rules after that, so if I buy one now and pay for the lifetime service and don't hook it up, all I'll have in an overpriced doorstop.

The restaurant is a service. A PVR is a product. TiVo is neither.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[tgibbs]

I feel so strongly about this just because I would love to have a PVR, for the use I'd get out of it, the price of a TiVo + "lifetime service" is a bargain; I'd happily pay it for a PVR. The problem is the TiVo isn't a PVR, it's a personal rip-off device for gullable fools. It has less functionality than a $60 VCR. (I can't just enter the time and date to record a show without having to buy into the long-term future of the company). Why should the 30 second skip be a hack?

If I want the capability of a $60 VCR and nothing more, I'll use my VCR (which mostly gathers dust now that I have TiVo). I never record TiVo recordings by time/date; I record them by title. What I'm paying for (or paid for, since I paid the lifetime fee) is the ability to search the schedules and to set recording priorities without worrying about what comes on when, and the ability to see a list of just what is and isn't going to record, and why. Why should anybody care whether the 30s skip is a "hack"? It just works.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[rthille]

Perhaps you could consider a Tivo like a Gym Membership, or a golf club membership. You pay a fee to join (purchase the tivo box), and then you pay a monthly fee for continued use. Only unlike a gym membership, you can resell the tivo box.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Deven]

IANAL, but the DMCA does contains exceptions for reverse-engineering for compatibility reasons. Wouldn't this seem to qualify?

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a compatibility reason though, it's to circumvent a protection scheme (and circumvent their primary source of revenue). The DMCA definatly prohibits that. Remember the 21st century US law is based on protecting flawed business models like this.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard of a gym membership that works that way (only ones where you pay the monthly or annual fee). I'll take your word for it that they exist, but I would never join one. I have hard of lifetime memberships to a gym where you pay the upfront fee to join but then there's no addition fees. I'd object to that for the same reason as I object to TiVo with a lifetime service contract; if they company folds, you lose your investment.

Re:Isn't TIVO bankrupt yet?

[Deven]

I don't see how the process of obtaining schedule data could be viewed as part of any copyright protection scheme. (Except maybe on that schedule data itself, but using substitute data wouldn't be breaching the copyright protection mechanism...) But IANAL, so...

And just to be pedantic, the DMCA is late 20th-century law, not a 21st-century law!

you're obviously not a web designer

[SweetAndSourJesus]

You see, in web design, the goal is to make your type as small as possible.

CSS provides an EM unit, which one could use to display text in the user's font size of choice, but this is considered bad design.

For an example of extremely good design, see my website, which I will reproduce here to avoide slashdotting:


.


Just look at all that information crammed into such a small area!

Re:you're obviously not a web designer

[gantzm]

Hmmm, I find this part ".", and most certainly this part "." very offensive. Maybe you should be more sympathic in your views about ".".

Re:you're obviously not a web designer

[el-spectre]

Cool, a microdot website...

Re:you're obviously not a web designer

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, in web design, the goal is to make your type as small as possible.

CSS provides an EM unit, which one could use to display text in the user's font size of choice, but this is considered bad design.

I saw an entire page a few months ago that was done as a graphic. It was some funny but absurd story, made to look like a CNN article (even people who know nothing about computers should have realized its a hoax, based on the text of the message).

But I sent this to some friends at school, and a few of them asked me if it was real! I told them no - for one thing, CNN does not post their articles as images in a PHP bulletin board running on a free web host (there were no URL tricks to make it look like cnn.com).

Unfortunately, the concept of making an image file consisting only of text is something I've seen on way too many "real" sites. I've seen entire pages that are done as a bunch of images in a table, with no text or ALT tags at all.

Pls post

[Anonymous Coward]

scat porn feat. Michael

dish PVR 721 is GPL'd

[bobsalt]

was jsut browsing though dishnetwork.com and saw that they offer the software(minus some prop. stuff) fro thier PVR model

http://208.45.37.181/

Re:dish PVR 721 is GPL'd

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at the bottom of the Web page. It proudly proclaims that it is hosted on a PVR 721!

Re:dish PVR 721 is GPL'd

[seanadams.com]

Minus some prop. stuff? That's a bit of an understatement, dontcha think?

It's just the kernel plus a few things standard utilities - i.e. the bare minimum they're required to make available. *None* of their own userland software is available, same as Tivo.

Re:dish PVR 721 is GPL'd

[martyn s]

BFD. Should we give them a medal or something? I mean, listen, it's great that this is GPLed, but don't look at it as some sort of sign or change in the wind as far as corporations or whatever. Their main and primary purpose is to make money, and since they're only selling hardware and subscriptions for cable (and not selling the particular software for whatever hardware they use). I'm not saying it's wrong to make money, but take it for what it is. They will try to make money no matter what, and they aren't going out of their way, not even a little, to "give back".

morons heave a sigh of relief

[Anonymous Coward]

the first relevant story since the planet/population rescue program began.

Symantec?

[HepCatA]

Hasn't Symantec also been doing this with their Velociraptor products?

Nits

[crumley]

I love my TivO, and I thought that the article was pretty interesting, but I think I found a couple of small problems with it.

Still-famous companies entered the GNU/Linux distribution business: Red Hat, VA Linux, Slackware, and others.

As I recall, VA Linux never had their own Linux distribution. The started out selling hardware with Linux pre-installed, grew too quickly into other areas, and then crashed.

Public domain soft-ware. This is software that has been made available for any use, with no restrictions. Many public domain packages are available, the most notable of which are the X Window System and BSD operating system.

While I can see how a category such as Barton's "public domain software" could be useful, I think that he has named it very poorly. There is are crucial differences between software that is in public domain, which has no copyright, and BSD software. Public domain software can whith a few alterations be claimed by anyone as there own, while the copyright notices withing BSD software must not be removed. Of course, you can still do pretty much anything you want with BSD software, other than claim it as your own.

Re:Nits

[DrSmooth]

As I recall, VA Linux never had their own Linux distribution. The started out selling hardware with Linux pre-installed, grew too quickly into other areas, and then crashed.

Having signed for more than my fair share of VA Linux hardware deliveries, I can confirm that they did, indeeed, have their own distribution (in the loosest sense).

The distro was based off of RedHat, carried the same revision numbers as RedHat, but came on VA-labeled media with VA-specific software for server administration.


% cat /etc/va-release
VA Linux Release 6.2.4 02/21/01

Re:Nits

[crumley]

All right, I stand corrected. It still seems pretty funny that Barton decided to mention Red Hat, VA and Slackware. Though maybe they got their hardware from VA at one point.

there is a revolution comming.

[514x0r]

rather than sending jobs to india, lowering TCO is the way to go. as more companies--ie, ernie ball and now tivo--hail the benefits of open source the movement gains momenteum. eventually there will be a[nother] tech revolution......

bring it on.

Re:there is a revolution comming.

[AKnightCowboy]

rather than sending jobs to india, lowering TCO is the way to go. as more companies--ie, ernie ball and now tivo--hail the benefits of open source the movement gains momenteum. eventually there will be a[nother] tech revolution......

Of course, it is rather disturbing since the many programmers that used to write those proprietary operating systems will be out of a job. Open source is basically slave labor, but the slaves have shit-eating grins on their face thinking they're in control. Do you think IBM really cares about free and open code? They've found a bunch of people who are willing to write software for free and give it away! What better arrangement could a company hope for!? No programmers needed, no benefits or salary to pay out, etc. Just fine someone dumb enough to type configure and then make install, configure it a bit and you're set. Then sell the whole thing as an embedded appliance for $30k a pop.

Re:there is a revolution comming.

[El]

eventually there will be a[nother] tech revolution... in China.

"GNU Public Library License"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"In general, all open source software in use at TiVo, with the exception of public domain software, falls under the GNU Public Library License."

GNU PLL?

In general, I don't know what the license thingamajig is called but I will write an entire article about it.

Government Information Awareness: +1, Patriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Recall the
Moron

Thanks and have an Ashcroft_free weekend,
W00t

Why the GPL?

[evilviper]

Can anyone tell me... If they are going to create a closed-source product, why did they go the Linux route, instead of using (Free/Net/Open)BSD?

I am at a real loss to tell what the advantage is... In a non-embedded environment, it's reasonable, because you want to support the greatest ammount of hardware as possible. But with an embedded system, they only need support for one TV-capture card, one video card, one network card, etc. They aren't using any stock Linux software, it's all custom.

In fact, the things they say were needed in the article, (performance, stability, good vm) are unarguable better in the BSDs.

So why do they use Linux? Not trying to troll, just wondering what advantage it really has in such an embedded system.

Re:Why the GPL?

[90XDoubleSide]

WEll, TiVo actually supports a couple dozen network adaptors (it doesn't come with one). But I don't get why that would be enough reason by itself. Seems more likely that was just what more people knew when they started out, and they certainly wouldn't want to change now.

Re:Why the GPL?

[stratjakt]

Maybe they just had more indepth knowledge of Linux, or more likely, maybe BSD wasnt such a viable alternative in the mid 90s. He says that linux had a PowerPC port already (though it needed lots of "sprucing up"), I dont think BSD had one until Apple came along.

IMO I prefer the BSD license. It has a more academic flavor to it. Learn from the code, use it, borrow it, no strings attached. GPL comes with a catch, it's kind of like your 5th grade math teacher teaching you to do division "on one condition".

But the whole movement seems to be moving towards the GPL, and whole litany of problems the license brings. It'll be interesting to watch the future legal status of the GPL, this SCO thing is just the tip of the iceberg.

Re:Why the GPL?

[zero-one]

Perhaps "Favourite Licence" might make for an intresting poll question. I guess the options would be GPL, LGPL, BSD, MS EULA and unlicenced.

Re:Why the GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, once you get outside slashdot zealot land, the difference between BSD, Linux, GPL, etc., are all pretty negligible.

To be honest, Linux or BSD are probably overkill already for the thing.

I'd imagine they chose the one programmers were most familiar with, and the one that has the most "brand recognition".

Like he said, keeping track of the source code is a "small price to pay". If you've ever had to use another vendor's code in your project, you know the GPL is nothing compared to most commercial libraries/tools.

Re:Why the GPL?

[Quino]

It's my understanding that the GPL provides something that the other "no restrictions" licenses don't: hijacking prevention.

The GPL is simply more practical in this regard, and IMHO, was created so that history wouldn't repeat itself. I personally think that it's a good thing that it's the most common license used.

Also, I have to disagree with your analogy: a more correct analogy is that the GPL states that you can learn to do division on the condition that you don't prevent anyone else from learning it too. That's a condition that I think makes sense, and actually provides more fundamental guarantees of freedom for all than simply "no strings attached".

Anyways, I don't think that these considerations were the reasongs why TiVo made the decisions they made: but I do think they play a role in the decisions of developers generally.

Re:Why the GPL?

[rusty0101]

I would suspect that a large portion of the reason is that there was quite a bit of hardware in the box that at the time had no support in BSD.

One of the major complaints I was hearing for several years about BSD is that if you had hardware that was not supported out of the box (display cards, sound cards, printers, etc.) you were pretty much left to write your own drivers. I am pretty sure that this is not completely the case now, but it was the general feel I got from the people I knew using BSD.

TV Tuner cards, Mpeg encoder/decoder chips/hardware, and sat receiver equipment would all have to be written from scratch, though some or even all of it may have had an available partial base available in the Linux world. There may also have been more available coders to choose from who had some familiarity with Linux than who had familiarity with BSD.

That's just my suspicion however. The real reasons may have been that the original develpment was done on a PC, and when they went to production they decided that moving over to the PPC for a cooler chip, it was just a re-compile away for Linux.

-Rusty

Re:Why the GPL?

[El]

Same reason everybody else uses embedded Linux instead of BSD: more widely available driver and protocol support.

Re:Why the GPL?

[imadork]

Perhaps "Favourite Licence" might make for an intresting poll question. I guess the options would be GPL, LGPL, BSD, MS EULA and unlicenced.

Don't forget Artistic License, Fake Driver's License, License to Kill, Liquor License, or CowboyNeal Fanclub License!

Re:Why the GPL?

[evilviper]

It's my understanding that the GPL provides something that the other "no restrictions" licenses don't: hijacking prevention.

And that is the same misunderstanding that has helped to popularize it.

In the rest of the open source world, it is well known that, no matter what is done with your software, nothing could ever take away that open source software. It's rms that started the idea that, if someone else uses your software, they are somehow stealing it from you.

Secondly, there are many many ways GPL'd software can be used with propritary extentions, without violating the GPL... What the GPL does is require a lot more work to do so.

BTW, you pay a grave price for using the GPL... With any license that puts responsibilities on the part of companies that use it, it simply won't be used by any companies. For instance, NFS support is available in just about every operating system that has networking support. Of course it is terrible insecure. Tons of secure, encrypted, high-performance, GPL'd network filesystems have come along, but not one has been widely adpoted, and they never will be, because of the GPL.

a more correct analogy is that the GPL states that you can learn to do division on the condition that you don't prevent anyone else from learning it too.

No, you have to do much more than that. You have to teach division to anyone else that asks, and tell them all your tips and tricks that you've learned. Not that it's a great analogy.

Your head is full of bullshit FSF propoganda.

Re:Why the GPL?

[evilviper]

I would suspect that a large portion of the reason is that there was quite a bit of hardware in the box that at the time had no support in BSD.

WHAT BOX? There was no box until they made it, and there was only the hardware in it that they chose to put in it.

One of the major complaints I was hearing for several years about BSD is that if you had hardware that was not supported out of the box (display cards, sound cards, printers, etc.) you were pretty much left to write your own drivers.

You say it like it's a disadvantge. The truth is, if your hardware is supported, then it will work without any trouble at all. With Linux, even supported hardware usually takes hours of work to get working, while the BSDs will automatically take care of just about everything upon boot-up. That said, the BSDs have never been all that far behind in hardware support, in fact I believe FreeBSD was ahead of Linux in both USB and Firewire support.

TV Tuner cards, Mpeg encoder/decoder chips/hardware, and sat receiver equipment would all have to be written from scratch

Which is a complete non-issue, since I strongly suspect they did that anyhow.

There may also have been more available coders to choose from who had some familiarity with Linux than who had familiarity with BSD.

That is one posibility.

they decided that moving over to the PPC for a cooler chip, it was just a re-compile away for Linux.

The article talks a lot about how much work it was to get Linux working on PPC.

Re:Why the GPL?

[js290]

First of all, NFS is widely used because it's been around forever. People know what to expect, good and bad. Those willing to use it know how to deal with the bad. Just as developers want the most stable platform possible, the sys admins would rather deal with a stable, well tested, well documented filesystem that they have to deploy. No need to re-invent the wheel. I mean, if GPL is the reason for lack of deployment, what's the excuse for the spread of Linux and all the useful GNU tools?

Secondly, the GPL doens't require that you accept its terms. You may also choose not to distribute the changes you make. Plus, if you know all the "tips and tricks," you are free to re-invent the wheel and distribute it (or not) under the terms of your choice.

Your analogy claims that if you were to take some GPL software, modify it on your own computer, use your modifications to do something really useful (i.e. make tons of money), then because of the GPL you have to tell people what you did to the software. This is simply not the case. This is only the case if you chose to distribute your binaries.

What the GPL does is essentially forces you to list your references. When you publish the results of a research project, you are ethically required to acknowledge your references, or ultimately, nobody takes you or your work seriously. If you choose not to publish your work, then nobody cares. Surely, you are not arguing that derived works should be credited as original?

this is off topic but it just struck me

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole SCO fiasco is what a dying dinosaur looks like.

Just wait, expect similiar bullshit from the RIAA as they reach their death bed.

Soon to be followed by the MPAA.

hmmm

[SomeOtherGuy]

My TivO -- One more machine I better make sure I write that $699.00 check to SCO for.

Damn there goes next weeks lunch money.

Re:hmmm

[The Lynxpro]

actually, you only owe $32...SCO wants to charge $32 per device using embedded Linux. Surely you cannot count a TiVo Series2 system as an actual computer that requires a $699 IP license...

Best quote in the article

[vslashg]

GPL software is supposed to be "free, as in free speech not free beer" (attributed to GNU Project and FSF founder Richard Stallman). When such speech is not a modification of another's speech, it should also be recognized that the freedom not to speak must be preserved as a corollary.

An interesting bit

[Merk]

The TiVo Client Device is of necessity a closed system. As a service provider, we must prevent theft of service, so TiVo pays a great deal of attention to security of the device and resistance to hacking. Additionally, we sell the TCD at a price that provides a net margin to retailers, but no profit to us. Our profits come from providing service to each device over time, rather than from up-front costs.

I think it is interesting that TiVo says they pay a lot of attention to the security of the device. That is true now, but with the first TiVo devices, getting a BASH prompt on the device turned out to be relatively easy. On boot a menu was available on the serial port with a hardcoded password. Using that password you could make all kinds of changes to the way the machine started up.

He also metions talks about people getting around using the service. For years, the TiVo hacking community has known how to partially emulate the service by creating slice files and manually loading them onto the device. Recently hackers have figured out how to get an unmodified TiVo to use a service emulator. What's interesting about these development efforts is that they are not putting TiVo out of business.

In the article, he makes no mention of the goodwill that TiVo has fostered with their users, even their hackers. Soon after TiVo was created, Richard Bullwinkle, their former "Chief Evangelist" started talking to people on bulletin boards. He was always very helpful and forthcoming, with only minor exceptions. He wouldn't talk about bypassing the TiVo service and he wouldn't talk about extracting video from the device. If you didn't talk about those things, he was perfectly happy to help out. Although TiVo was in business to make money through their service, they didn't screw over people who didn't want to subscribe. That's such a treat from a for-profit company. Imagine Microsoft, who also sells their set-top device at a loss, treating customers who don't want to use theirs for gaming without hostility.

When Andrew Tridgell, (the same guy who created Samba and rsync) figured out how to create TiVo slice files so he could use the machine in Australia, it was probably this goodwill which made him choose to not release the info to the general public. Instead, it remained a closely guarded secret.

Today, years later, the people who have followed in Tridge's footsteps, have refused to destroy TiVo's revenue stream. They have been very careful to try to make sure that only people who can't get TiVo service in their area are allowed to get around it.

I think the goodwill that TiVo has is partly because of their general attitude towards their customers (and towards the hacker community) and partly the fact they used open-source software, and followed the license requirements. And, it is this, not their security measures, which have ensured that they've maintained a revenue stream -- despite using the "razor and razor blades" pricing model.

I just wish Mr. Barton hadn't used a loaded term "service theft" to describe people who are using their TiVos without subscribing to the service. That term would be appropriate if people were downloading TiVo data without having a subscription, but not people who are simply choosing not to subscribe and are finding alternatives.

Re:An interesting bit

[spectecjr]

TiVo don't sell their device at a loss.

They don't sell devices.

They sell service + software.

Simon

Re:An interesting bit

[zakezuke]

He also metions talks about people getting around using the service. For years, the TiVo hacking community has known how to partially emulate the service by creating slice files and manually loading them onto the device. Recently hackers have figured out how to get an unmodified TiVo to use a service emulator. What's interesting about these development efforts is that they are not putting TiVo out of business.

Why would it?

Friend: Hey, that's a nice thing what is it?
Geek: Oh it's my modified TiVo... it's like a normal TiVo but I don't have to subscribe to their service.
Friend: Oh, how do you do that?
Geek: Oh you just [insert long technical procedure here].
Friend: Fuck that i'll just pay for the service.

Piracy... it's like free advertising!

Re:An interesting bit

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you're wrong. Buy a TiVo

TiVo does sell TiVos, which pretty much require a TiVo subscription so you can TiVo shows.

Re:An interesting bit

[spectecjr]

Wow... they haven't always done that; the originals were manufactured and sold by Hughes, RCA, Phillips and Sony.

Simon

Re:An interesting bit

[Piquan]

Today, years later, the people who have followed in Tridge's footsteps, have refused to destroy TiVo's revenue stream. They have been very careful to try to make sure that only people who can't get TiVo service in their area are allowed to get around it.

The TiVo hacker community has always done this out of respect for TiVo. We like the product and service, and they had always treated hackers well. They never tried to shut down hacker boards, and in return, the boards don't allow information about theft of service to be posted.

That may be changing, though. The Series 2 is less friendly to hackers: the boot process is signed. (The ROM checks the boot loader, the loader checks the kernel, and the kernel checks the filesystems. Only /var is left unchecked.) Starting with 4.0 (or so), the backdoor enable codes are now encrypted, and long (presumably to prevent brute-forcing-- and we tried!). It's now difficult to get a shell prompt.

Part of this may have to do with the new Home Media Option. For those who aren't aware, HMO allows filesharing (only within a household), music & picture viewing, and web-based scheduling. Now, filesharing is a verboten topic on the boards, so that's new. But picture viewers have been around, I wouldn't be surprised if music players are there, and web-based scheduling has been around for a long time-- in a technically superior (if more difficult to secure) manner than that provided by HMO. TiVo may have made hacking more difficult, in order to make room for HMO.

I don't like this shift in focus. TiVo attracted a lot of the geek community involved because of the product's hackability. These geeks acted as field salesmen, recommending TiVos to their friends, family, anybody who would listen. I thing this was a good part of the TiVo's success; it's different enough that word-of-mouth advertising is a necessity. And now TiVo closes off their products to the hackers who helped make the product what it is today.

Is it legal? Sure. Do they have the right? Absolutely. Is it the right way to treat your customers? I don't think so. Is it good business sense? Well, time will tell, but they'd best have some good profit streams that require them to alienate hackers.

Don't get me wrong: even without its hackability, the TiVo is a great product, and I love it. But I still can't help but to feel a bit betrayed.

Re:An interesting bit

[Merk]

Good points. I still don't think you should use the term "theft of service" for people who buy a TiVo and then don't subscribe. Avoidance of service, maybe, but not theft. How can it be theft if you're not buying or receiving something?

Anyhow, I think TiVo should have found a better balance with the Series 2 and beyond units. What they want is to make sure that nobody is going to casually avoid their service. It's pretty likely that no matter what happens, there will be somebody who will find a way to hack the device, and will do so. If it is hard enough, the average user won't do it. But if TiVo maintains a good relationship with the hacker community, it is unlikely that the people who figure out how to hack it will do something to endanger TiVo's business model.

It is this balance between not making them so easy to hack that anybody can do it, and still staying friendly with the hacker community that they should be trying to maintain. If they could make sure the only way to "hack" the device was to actually open it up and plop a hard drive into another computer, then that would probably have been enough. Most people won't risk violating their warranty to open up the unit.

If they didn't want to do this, another option would have been to release a "hacker's TiVo". One that they didn't sell at a loss, that was designed to be hackable. Even if the extra cost of that unit was more than the cost of a lifetime subscription, a lot of people would have gone for it if it meant they could have a fun unit to play with. I just don't think TiVo is willing to take the business risk to do this. It is to unconventional.

Instead, I predict it will be just like modchips and satellite cards. TiVo will crack down more on hackers, hackers will lose respect for them and stop restricting who can use what they develop, and the war will be on.

If there are TiVo people reading this forum (and I hope there are), think about what I said about the hackable TiVo. All you'd have to do is make it more expensive, and easier to hack. Easier to hack is important because that way nobody will have to figure out how to bypass the controls you put on the consumer TiVos, so that knowledge won't be shared. Sure, you'd still have people trying to hack to regular TiVos just for the challenge, but most technically savvy people would go for the developer option. This would also be a great way to make a profit from all the current and potential TiVo users outside the US and UK. And don't make the mistake that Sony made with the Playstation Linux kit. Don't restrict access to the hardware, or anything. Just make it a cool Linux based digital media device. Even if this new unit was only for sale in the US, I'm sure you'd see a lot more sales, and since the two groups (hackers and regular users) don't overlap much, it wouldn't cost much for your subscription service either. C'mon! Do it! It will work out!

Re:An interesting bit

[Piquan]

I still don't think you should use the term "theft of service" for people who buy a TiVo and then don't subscribe. Avoidance of service, maybe, but not theft. How can it be theft if you're not buying or receiving something?

I agree. I do not consider the situation you describe to be theft of service. I was specifically referring to the practice of making the TiVo dial in with forged authentication, so that you get the TiVo service (ie, schedule information) without paying for it.

I like the idea of the "hacker's TiVo", but I don't think it's going to happen, simply because of the added development costs. It doesn't take much change-- just a boottime flag set by the ROM indicating whether or not to do checks-- but it's still cost. I guess a bit of marketing research would be needed to tell what the right price point would be to offset this.

Foolish to defend one's terms for sharing?

[jbn-o]

The FSF would be fools to force such an issue. Tivo is trying to work with the system as well and maintain their advantage over their competators. Jerking them around with the GPL would simply drive them and others away, thats not what we want, (right RMS?)

I'm not RMS, nor do I speak for him, the FSF, or any of the Linux kernel copyright holders. However, you appear to misunderstand a significant point about the development of the GNU Project and GNU/Linux in particular. There's nothing foolish about requiring compliance with the generous GNU General Public License, particularly nothing foolish about insisting that people cooperate in the commons the GNU GPL builds for us all. Nobody is more important than anyone else in this partnership (including Tivo). It is Tivo's job, not ours, to find a way to make money with GPL-covered programs if that is their desire.

Perhaps you aren't aware that the GNU Project (and the continued development of the GNU/Linux operating system in particular) is not about achieving mere popularity at the expense of user's freedom to share and modify. From this essay:

People justify adding non-free software in the name of the "popularity of Linux"--in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine says Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, "feels that the move toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions." And Caldera's CEO openly urged users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the "popularity of Linux".

Adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of GNU/Linux in combination with non-free software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the community to accept non-free software as a good thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is no use driving faster if you can't stay on the road.

And this essay:

Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.

Re:Foolish to defend one's terms for sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad he changed his mind over the BSD licensed OGG code. So much for defending my freedom.

YET AGAIN I HAVE TO EDUCATE THE AMERICANS..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I should go and leave you alone. Yeah.
Stop this game and hang up the phone. And more.
I should go into the night alone and get inside of the cyclone. It's like I wanted to break my bones to get over you. 'Cos if I stay I'm number two anyway.

Chorus:

Like a bullet you can hurt me,take me,break me.
Like fire you can burn me,convert me.
Like a bullet you can hurt me.

You say there are so many things going on in your life now. It's so very hard to find time for me. And you say. Do you believe in the destiny?
This is the way it was meant to be. I gotta leave you to make you see. I'm over you. 'Cos if I stay
I'm number two anyway.

Chorus
* I can't believe it when my friends say.Take it easy, don't you worry about the rainy days. Like fire you can burn me, convert me. Like a bullet you can hurt me.

Maybe I'm blind. Forever young. Don't get me wrong. I don't belong here. Like a fire you can burn me. Like a bullet you can hurt me.

GET THIS SONG FROM SOME P2P SYSTEM! The name of the band is "The Rasmus" and they come from Finland. The name of this song is "Bullet".

This band and this song is something I can not explain. I feel good when I hear these words... Hope you do too.

Huh?

[rudy_wayne]

>> "13$ a month is more than fair to watch tv on their own schedule, as opposed to having to sit down at prime time"

Gee, I've been doing that with my VCR since 1984.

Re:Huh?

[karnal]

You know what's funny? I have said that exact same thing...

I have a very good friend of mine who recently (6 months) purchased DirecTV and the DirecTivo... Well, he never used to watch tv, but now, he's catching more and more of his favorite shows...

I would say that Tivo is very good for people who want to see shows and don't want to have to track the times themselves... However, I would lay claim that anything that makes you watch more tv is probably a bad thing... oh well, all things in moderation :)

Re:Huh?

[leviramsey]

There are advantages to DirecTiVo. For instance, if you subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket, DirecTiVo will record on Sunday night highlight reels of the 10-14 Sunday afternoon games.

We use open source in our companies product

[kberg108]

and we are careful to give the credit to those engineers that build that code but we just don't modify any of it. I'm sure most companies benifiting from open source are using it in the same way we are. If we were in need of modifying some of the Open source packages it would most likley be a bug fix and everybody is into submitting bug fixes to the open source world. right? Besides it's so easy to just use OS packages call them or making objects that wrap OS code I can't imagine why you would want to actually cut and paste open source code into your closed source app. Maybe I'm just not malicious enough :)

Why don't people hack TiVo?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like an obvious thing to do to avoid paying $12 a month for data that is freely available anyway. People go out of their way to hack the XBox and Lexmark printer cartridges, and are outraged when the companies that make these products tell them they shouldn't do that. Why does TiVo get special treatment? They don't even release their source. They only release what they absolutely must under GPL, so I wouldn't consider them OSS friendly. They do a lot more taking than giving.

Tools vs. Applications

[eyepeepackets]

I said it in 1996, I'll say it again:

"Keep the tools open and free: Make your money from developing applications."

Mr. Butler and company have done well following this philosophy.

Great article too.

Re:Tools vs. Applications

[Anonymous Coward]

I said it in 1996, I'll say it again:

"Keep the tools open and free: Make your money from developing applications."

How much money did you make so far?

Re:Tools vs. Applications

[eyepeepackets]

"How much money did you make so far?"

Hmmm, depends upon how one counts I suppose. :)

The FSF says: profit from services, not software

[Jungle guy]

Tivo applies this mantra really well. They sell their hardware and their software with a very thin margin, and make their profit from the service. The modules thing seems to me like a detail, but whoever has the copyright of the kernel has the last world. As Linux and most kernel developers say it is OK for Tivo to do that, there is no problem.

How 'bout Wine?

[Idou]

Have you tried Internet Explorer on Wine? This site has a large list of instructions on how to get different "windows only" applications running with Wine (including IE).

I just had blazing success with Paltalk. The harder it is for you to use Linux in your niche, the more significant an accompolishment it will be when you are finally able to go 100% Windows free.

Best of luck!

Re:How 'bout Wine?

[Broadband]

Ya i've looked into Wine, but I've barely used Linux. *Slaps his own wrist* I know it will topple the Internet explorer issue, but the contact management software uses system files and windows structure storage for temporary file whose paths are hardcoded. I know I know if i really wanted to break free I could, but the majority of people in my industry are hardheaded and refuse to upgrade. You should have seen the outrage when just last year they decided to move from a dial-up (as in modem) telnet solution to a web based one. I felt I was the only one that was happy.

Re:How 'bout Wine?

[cha0sadddddddd]

also email me at cha0sad at yahoo dot com for help with wine.
basicly if you install win 98 then linux(dual boot)
and then you can have your wine installation see your windows installation and use the files therin.

Re:How 'bout Wine?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I know if i really wanted to break free I could, but the majority of people in my industry are hardheaded and refuse to upgrade.

Which is, of course, the perfect reason to do the same?

I only seek information...

[trudyscousin]

At best I'll be modded as Offtopic, or at worst, Troll, but:

What is that icon supposed to depict? I know it's something related to these kinds of discussions, and so have sought out other Web pages dedicated to free software and the like in the hopes of finding a larger version of it so I can divine what it really is.

But for now, it looks like a turd having delusions of being a Viking, with tomatoes for feet, clutching a blanket a la Peanuts' Linus, and a gape something like that of the more clueless characters from Dilbert.

Re:I only seek information...

[cliffmeece]

http://www.gnu.org/graphics/babygnu.html

Re:I only seek information...

[trudyscousin]

Thank you. It's all clear to me now.

Don't be mislead by the language of the article.

[jbn-o]

The article gets some concepts profoundly wrong when it comes to discussing licensing (which is at the heart of the article). These items may confuse readers not already familiar with copyright law and the Free Software community.

Toward the bottom of the article "Public domain soft-ware [sic]" is mentioned and the "X Window System and BSD operating system" are cited as "notable" examples. Then the article mentions a "license limitation" that is only true for the old BSD license. This clearly illustrates the author is confused about what the public domain is and that works cannot be both licensed (as these examples are, under different but largely similar licenses) and in the public domain. Placing a work in the public domain is not a license, no matter how liberal the license's terms may be. Putting a work into the public domain is the irrevocable abdication of all copyright power over the work.

The terms "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" are used interchangeably, as if they both refer to the same thing (early in the article "Linux" is meant to refer to an operating system, later on "GNU/Linux" refers to an operating system). The GNU Project asks (and simple fairness requires) that we give GNU a fair share of the credit for their work in the GNU/Linux operating system. Technical precision requires us to distinguish between the Linux kernel and a GNU/Linux operating system. To these ends, the GNU Project publishes a FAQ on the issue of naming GNU/Linux, and an older essay.

Finally, just to be clear, the Open Source and Free Software movements are not the same. They have different philosophies, they began at different times, they were started by different people, and they speak to different audiences. The GNU Project's essay on the two movements and their social implications is helpful.

Um, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL *IS* a contract. By taking a certain action (making a copy for distribution), you agree to its terms. At that point, it most assuredly is a binding contract between you and the copyright owners'.

The original poster is not entirely accurate either, simple "confusion" is not enough. Both the "confusion" and the counter-party's selective interpretation, must be both reasonable and equitable. Otherwise...

You get exactly: SCO.

Use (gnu/linux) TiVo, Advance to Go, Pay SCO $ 32.

[Anonymous Coward]

Greetings Fellow "beneath your current threshold" Readers:

Not that I do not read enough about SCO on /., but according to this article: "SCO wants $32 for each embedded Linux device" on eeTimes:

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20030806S0025

"The $32 fee applies to any embedded system regardless of whether it is a Tivo set-top box which uses embedded Linux or some models of the Sharp Zaurus which also use that kernel."

and Nobody mentioned it here.

TiVo == Future Netscape?

[cyranoVR]

I was thinking about this too. Microsoft has already started edging towards TiVo's turf with its Windows Media Center (Sony has co-branded their own DVR that runs the Tivo software).

So the thing I'm wondering is: will we see Microsoft use the same tactics it used against Netscape in a "DVR War" with Tivo - resulting in the crash and burn of Tivo and a assertion of "superiority of closed source" by Microsoft? Only time will tell.

Re:TiVo == Future Netscape?

[tambo]

Undoubtedly. It was awfully effective against Netscape, wasn't it? (And they're flaunting even the slap-on-the-wrist penalty from that fiasco.)

More on point:

MS has been talking about getting into computerized TV for, I dunno, at least six years. Yeah, I remember them talking about it in 1997. Started with thoughts of interactive TV - embedding HTML in the portion of a TV broadcast signal that carries hearing-impaired subtitles. But they couldn't find any killer app for that package, so it got scrapped.

But now we have the whole Tablet PC thing. The tablet is a commercial flop (not really MS's fault; the technology's just not there yet - e.g., battery life) - but profit, actually, wasn't its prime goal. Tablet PC is a proving-ground that Windows XP and Windows CE can overlap into something called Windows Media Center. It's been a successful push, so expect to see Windows trying to take a more central role in your home theater setup in the near future.

Further evidence: Windows Media Player.

Look at how much attention MS has placed on WMP. WMP is free and has no commercial value to Microsoft; and yet it's heavily supported. WMP version 9, people. That's impressive, for a free product made by a rabidly for-profit company.

Now - what's the point of that? MS is taking the software world from the core outward - so it loves owning the heart of the market. Look at history:

• IE was a successful tool in capturing the vast internet-browser market, which bolsters support for its server market. Market leverage: because MS sets the standard for what works (or doesn't) on IE, it's implicit that MS-brand server software will offer the most compatible pages for 99.9% of browsers.
  
• DirectX was a successful tool in capturing ownership of the 3D-graphics standard. DirectX successfully outmaneuvered OpenGL, Glide, etc. Obviously, you can't run 99% of today's computer games on anything except high-performance Windows machines. You might be able to run Warcraft III on Linux in, say, 2009. Result: More sales of Windows machines, software, etc. (and a friendly boost to hardware manufacturers, too.)

The company's past actions reveal its intentions. Tomorrow's home theater systems will feature streaming media, PVR-time-shifting, adaptive algorithms for predicting users' viewing preferences... in short, it needs lots of software at its core. Microsoft intends to occupy that spot, and is going in with guns blazing.

- David Stein

Re:TiVo == Future Netscape?

[uradu]

> The company's past actions reveal its intentions.

No doubt about it. The classic example is IE: they were on a frantic upgrade schedule while there was still someone to beat out there. Once Netscape was gone, all of a sudden IE stopped dead in its tracks. Nothing much has happened since v6, and now they've announced that there won't be any more upgrades of IE itself other than as part of Windows SPs.

The question with WMP is, what competitor are they going after with that one? That's definitely a lot murkier. It can't be the PVR "crowd" (of one), since it offers no such features. It can't be other media players, because it's way too obsessed with DRM to be attractive. I suspect there might be something going on with some media device vendors and the WMP Device Manager SDK, since for some devices (e.g. Rio players) the WMD DM is the only way to get media on/off the device, and they've dragged their feet forever releasing the SDK. But that's a weak strategy because the device market is HUGE and most of the vendors aren't playing Microsoft's game. So I'm still puzzled about WMP's direction.

Incidentally, MythTV is much closer to a media center than Microsoft. It's amazing how much progress that little OS project has made. It would be a pretty simple thing for them to make a custom distro that creates a minimum install to run MythTV on a virgin machine, or optionally run it straight off a Knoppix-like live CD, using whatever FS is on the underlying machine for buffering. It still needs a bit of polish, but it's almost there and it's slick already.

You need to cut back

[Anonymous Coward]

If next week's lunch money is $699, I think you could use a diet.

It is time versus money

[ProfDumb]

>> "13$ a month is more than fair to watch tv on their own schedule, as opposed to having to sit down at prime time" Gee, I've been doing that with my VCR since 1984.

Well, it is $13/month versus your time. Your time to keep track of which show is on which tape, to rewind/FF to the beginning of the right show, to figure out how to tape over shows you watch and so forth. Your comment is like an really old-time PC user saying "why would I want a disk drive when I can save to cassette tape?" It is true you can save to tape, but disk drives are a lot more convenient.

Your choice.

Re:It is time versus money

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the argument for using random access digital storage in place of analog tape. What's the argument in favor of having to pay $150/year for a proprietary system that can only ever have those features the MPAA will tolerate?

Why is their "model" so bad?

[MadAnthony02]

Ok, so their business model is to sell the hardware at cost and make money on the service. First of all, this is the same buisness model as a ton of other industries (cell phones and video game consoles come to mind). Secondly, it makes sense since otherwise you would have to shell out a ton for the hardware, which would discourage people from buying it, especially if they aren't sure if they like it, and because the product is somewhat useless without the service, which allows for easy taping of shows via current show listings.

Re:Why is their "model" so bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

The game console industry is not based on this model. The make their money on the software, not a service. I can still play my atari 2600 games even though atari is not in that business anymore and not there to support me. I bought the game, so I have it until it breaks. The same goes for my PSX, I'll probably still be playing with it in 20 years.

The cell phone industry does work that way, but the service is what people are interested in, they are simply being nice about not forcing people to make major investments in hardware just to be able to be a customer. The MMORPG game industry needs to take note of this and release their games for free and just make money from the monthly fees 75% of the retail price is lost in the retail chain anyway, so they have very little benefit after they give the first month of service away.

TiVo is primarily a hardware device, the service offers very little additional value, and the hardware would be very useful except that they cripple it to extort people into buying the useless service.

Re:Use (gnu/linux) TiVo, Advance to Go, Pay SCO $

[antimuon]

SCO keeps saying kernel 2.4 - TiVo uses kernel 2.2

VA Linux distro (was Re:Nits)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we did get hardware from VA Linux lo these many years ago. Decent hardware, decent prices, convenient availability, etc. They did include and have configured the requisite drivers for their specific hardware in their "distributions." They had hardware support for the weirdo (at the time) high performance disk arrays and things we wanted to run.

Also, as they crashed and burned, didn't they mutate from a hardware supplier to some kind of software supplier? I don't recall that part of their history, since by then we were back to custom PC hardware running, as Jim said, mostly RedHat derivative distributions.

To give you an idea of how long ago that was, I think PIII-550s in a 6U rack were the cutting edge back then. They had these cool-o blue LEDs.

Sure.. BUT.

[voxel]

Sure, but you have to realize there are many methods of working around the GPL and LGPL licenses. Dynamically linking code at run-time etc.

I used to work for a company that made a "closed source" open source product based off of linux. I will not say which one, but trust me, the idea is this: "Release any unworthy crappy code back to the open source community to keep them quiet and make sure they don't think we are hiding anything, and everything else under the sun, dynamically link or do whatever you have to do so we don't have to show the world shit!".

That is the way of the warrior.

- Vawskel!

please don't

[twitter]

install the Mozilla evangelism sidebar. Set your user agent string to something IE5ish. I'll bet that a recent Mozilla will work just fine. After all, the sign says ``IE5 or better''!

Please don't do that, it hurts everyone. Sure Mozilla is better than IE, what isn't? The people who made that silly IE only site argued that "everyone uses IE anyway". By changing your user agent, you help convince them that it's true.

If you absolutly must have something that a company wants to share, but has such a site, pick up the phone. Chances are they don't know they are creating a problem for customers. Once they know, they can turn on the dummy that set them up. If they say something stupid like, "just go get IE," you don't want what they are selling anyway. Banks, government agencies have all moved to public standards. They did this because they realized that the Microsoft jerk around never ended and every time M$ jerked, 1/2 of their customers could not get what they needed.

Re:please don't

[RealAlaskan]

>>install the Mozilla evangelism sidebar. Set your user agent string to something IE5ish. I'll bet that a recent Mozilla will work just fine. After all, the sign says ``IE5 or better''!

>Please don't do that, it hurts everyone. Sure Mozilla is better than IE, what isn't? The people who made that silly IE only site argued that "everyone uses IE anyway". By changing your user agent, you help convince them that it's true.

Doing this lets you tell the company: ``Your site works fine on other browsers. The only change you need to make is to stop locking them out.''. When they try to tell you that their site is special, and the other browsers can't display it properly, it's good to be able to say: ``WRONG!''.

Piracy?

[Merk]

How does piracy come into it?

I never thought about it quite that way before.

[Hanzie]

Thank you. It's blindingly obvious in hindsight. I appreciate the time you took to explain that.

TiVO is head and shoulders above Sky+....

[GreatDrok]

here in the UK. Sky is plugging their Sky+ box like mad, it costs the same per month to subscribe as my TiVO and yet it can only record 'some' series, has only 20 hours of capacity with no chance of hacking it, and reports from owners I have spoken to show that it is very unreliable. Nor does it have wishlists, suggestions and all the other cools stuff that TiVO offers.

I wish Sky had chosen to go with TiVO for their box, and I wish others would do the same. Why must they always create their own poor imitation? Is it to be able to be closed source? Do they fear that going with TiVO would somehow result in GPL taint?

Sadly today you can't buy a new TiVO in the UK but the service continues, why wouldn't it? Money for old rope once you have a user base.

Tivo missing the open source boat

[warrensomebody]

I think that Tivo is missing an important benefit of the open-source development model. If they were to make their own source available to developers, they could benefit from substantial improvements to their system. For instance, I would love to see Tivo's program guide tied in with a rating system like IMDB, or for someone to improve their "Smart Recording" system to capture more than just idiotic sit-coms (e.g. how hard can it be to notice that I only watch IFC and Sundance?). It seems to me that Tivo could open up their code without letting the cat out of the bag w.r.t. their service model. (I mean, the Tivo hackers already know how to enable the lifetime subscription mechanism -- but how many everyday users are able to figure out how to install it?) Perhaps they could develop an emulator for external people to prototype improvements.

RMS "change[d] his mind" on Ogg Vorbis code?

[jbn-o]

Too bad he changed his mind over the BSD licensed OGG code.

First, you should consider posting with an account (even one tied to a throwaway e-mail address, if you wish to preserve your anonymity in that way). Slashdot makes it very easy to skip over most anonymously posted articles, such as yours.

Second, I can find no source to substantiate your claim and you have not posted any. On the contrary, I can find information where RMS (which is who I'm guessing "he" refers to) supports the switch of some of the Ogg Vorbis code to a new BSD-like license (this also appears pertinant).