TiVo Says It Could Suffer Under GPLv3

Preedit writes to tell us that those busy folks over at InformationWeek have been scrutinizing yet more SEC filings, and Novell and Microsoft aren't the only ones concerned about certain provisions in the final draft of GPLv3. TiVo worries too. The problem is that TiVo boxes are Linux-based. They're also designed to shut down if the software is hacked by users trying to circumvent DRM features. But GPLv3 would prohibit TiVo's no-tamper setup. "If the currently proposed version of GPLv3 is widely adopted, we may be unable to incorporate future enhancements to the GNU/Linux operating system into our software, which could adversely affect our business," TiVo warns in a regulatory filing cited by InformationWeek."

Comments

Huh?

[MightyMartian]

Whatever happens with everything else, I thought Linus said Linux wouldn't be distributed under GPLv3

Re:Huh?

[LocalH]

Notice they specifically said "GNU/Linux".

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

TiVo? What's that? A recording device for television shows like a vcr but with a hard drive instead and oh yeah, chat. I think my PC can do this. Bye TiVo!!

Good

[Protonk]

Gpl3 is divisive, but correct in this case. Companies like Tivo benefit from the OSS model of tinker/hack/remake and still restrict users in doing the same. The same privileges that are extended to end users with the source code should be established with the freedom to tinker.

If Tivo feels that DRM is worth more than continued use of GPL software, so be it.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover, the article summary is misleading. GPL3 is not going to affect their business. But if they decide to *not* go with GPL3, *that* will affect their business much more than the alternative.

Re:Good

[Brotherred]

Gpl3 is divisive, but correct in this case. Companies like Tivo benefit from the OSS model of tinker/hack/remake and still restrict users in doing the same. The same privileges that are extended to end users with the source code should be established with the freedom to tinker.

If Tivo feels that DRM is worth more than continued use of GPL software, so be it. Well said. I love that last comment. This issue has been hot for a while. So I just pulled a comment that I had written on my Frapper some time ago. Yes I know that anything connected with Google is not FREE but I do not maintain a real blog to this just works for me. The point of freesoftware The technology in freesoftware, the companies that support its growth and build on it and even its users are all tools. Novell has forgotten this, simple fact. The principle difference between open source and freesoftware is that in open source all of the rights to use it with out restriction are not protected. The GPL puts no limits on the cost of software production, packaging or distribution. To brake this down a little: 1. The point of freesoftware is not so people can get a program with out cost. 2. The point of freesoftware is not to make it popular. 3. The point of freesoftware is not to make great technology. 4. The point of freesoftware is not to make rich CEO's even more rich. The point is to free the user of the tyranny of monopolistic situations and doing so primarily in the digital space. Some or all of the non-points listed must take place at some point in time for real freedom to come to said users, clearly that is true. Novell has been in the past a tool for that very cause. That may not be so in the future. I have even told them these very things. I also look forward to telling them again in person at the Ohio Linux Fest. Um well um that would refer to GNU+Linux of course. Maybe there will be some talk of GNU+Hurd there as well. Then I guess you can not really consider such and event specific to GNU+Linux. Call me a Stallmanite. I do not care. You know I am right. The software that some of you are such fans of would not even exist if it were not for this most simple, most important, most forgotten, fact. Novel has forgotten this and Tivo has clearly never bothered to understand it.

Re:Good

[ColeonyxOnline]

The same privileges that are extended to end users with the source code should be established with the freedom to tinker.

The license doesn't have anything establishing that "freedom". Tivo has done nothing wrong, they used the software, provided the source code back to the community, but restricted how people can change the software ON THE MACHINES THEY SELL.

People that fell so strongly about this issue are clearly not the audience for the Tivo products on the first place. Maybe building their own Tivo like device using MythTV would be a better solution for them, than having a revision on the license.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that most users do not run modified software is totally irrelevant to the discussion, the GPL was designed with the intent that users should be free to modify and redistribute. What's the point if you're being prevented from loading the software onto the hardware it was written for?

This is not a GPL problem, it's a Tivo problem and the license is being upgraded accordingly. My issue (as the owner of 4U of colo'd servers) is with the exemption for non-consumer items, I don't think the FSF went far enough. The non-consumer items are usually big ticket items with service contracts, a signed waiver could be a much cleaner solution all around if only companies weren't acting in bad faith to undermine the license.

Re:Good

[tepples]

Tivo [...] restricted how people can change the software ON THE MACHINES THEY SELL. More like "Tivo [...] restricted how people can change the software ON THE MACHINES THOSE PEOPLE BOUGHT." If you sell a good to me, then I own it, am I right?

People that fell so strongly about this issue are clearly not the audience for the Tivo products on the first place. Maybe building their own Tivo like device using MythTV would be a better solution for them TiVo owns broad patents on basic DVR functions.

Re:Good

[Corwn of Amber]

Tivo [...] restricted how people can change the software ON THE MACHINES THEY SELL. More like "Tivo [...] restricted how people can change the software ON THE MACHINES THOSE PEOPLE BOUGHT." If you sell a good to me, then I own it, am I right? Yes. And no but maybe it just *should* be yours and some day there will be a judge a little less stupid than the ones who did not rule that "if you buy it it's yours period".

People that fell so strongly about this issue are clearly not the audience for the Tivo products on the first place. Maybe building their own Tivo like device using MythTV would be a better solution for them TiVo owns broad patents on basic DVR functions. Fuck the patents. DVR function is an obvious use and the software for TV cards is clear prior art.

Re:Good

[LWATCDR]

Or they could just move to BSD.
Frankly GPL3 may inspire a lot more interest in BSD. It isn't like IBM, SGI, SUN, HP, and or Intel couldn't start contributing code to FreeBSD just as easily as they did Linux. BSD always seemed like a good match to embedded devices to me.

Re:Good

[MoneyT]

Right, you own it, but it isn't up to Tivo to make it easy or convenient for you to change it or modify it to your liking. Nor is it up to tivo to ensure or even allow a modified box to work with the various services they privide. So yes, you bought the box, it's yours, you can do whatever the hell you want to it. But that doesn't mean Tivo has to let you keep using their services.

Re:Good

[aussie_a]

And its not up to the distributors and creators of GNU/Linux to ensure that Tivo's DRM works legally with their software. If Tivo wants software under a license that allows them to restrict what end users can do, they should go with someone else.

Re:Good

[Tickletaint]

And they probably will. Various BSD distros beckon, and because BSD developers are happy to see their code put to good use (rather than wielded as a weapon in someone's religious war), TiVo hither will come.

Re:Good

[russotto]

BSD developers are happy to see their code put to good use (rather than wielded as a weapon in someone's religious war

Nope, their code will be put to use as a weapon in someone's religious war. That of the MPAA, in its war against its own customers.

Re:Good

[Weezul]

Amen! But TiVo doesn't need to worry really. Here is the solution:

1) create your DRM solution using Linux under GPLv3
2) add firmware restrictions preventing modification
3) release your firmware source under a pseudo-open source licence
4) explain how to reburn the firmware by soldering on a new rom
5) tell the labels "Suck it, almost no one will solder on a new rom".

If you want to mod your TiVo, fine, make TiVo's physical mod. TiVo's doesn't need to make everything software controlled. They just can't close it up completely.

Re:Good

[kinglink]

Welcome to the destruction of OSS.

Your so called "freedom to tinker" just means that no company will be allowed any kind of protection for protected content. Tivo is a major advocate for Linux, they've been running Linux boxes for years, however if they can't put DRM on there then they have no way to protect the content that you download.

Great you say, information deserves to be free. Well I hope you agree with that when Tivo closes it's doors because with out DRM they can't get support from the cable companies.

What Linux needs is MORE corporate sponsorship like Tivo and others, companies willing to share their source code, but the only way that can happen is if they can make any money off of their work. If we expect companies to give away all their secrets to the point where they can never use their GPL software with their propriety technology with out risk of outsiders backwards engineering it and linking into the system for free, then a great source of Linux development disappears.

But that's fine right? Because linux isn't about corporations? Who cares about them because companies can never produce as good code as individuals? Seriously, the anti-business side of Linux that worship Stallman as a great defender has made me detest Linux more, as one day that's the side of Linux that will effectively choke it to death.

Re:Good

[Alsee]

Tivo has done nothing wrong

Yes, they have.

I would argue that TiVo is already violating the GPL.

The GPL says that if you distribute an executable, you MUST supply the full source used to compile THAT executable. If you distribute an executable intended to run on a Cray, you cannot distribute that executable along with DIFFERENT source code for a SIMILAR but DIFFERENT executable... you cannot distribute a Cray executable along with different source code for a Commodore64 executable.

You may not supply deliberately incomplete source for the executable you distribute. TiVo is distributing an executable. In compiling that executable, TiVo is using a particular bit of code that they are failing to distribute. They are using a "key" as part of the source to generate that executable. They are using it to generate a "signature". That signature is INTENDED and is BEING USED as an integral functional component of that executable. TiVo knows and intends that it would be an incomplete nonfunctional executable without that signature. It really is a functional portion of that executable. If a Cray computer needs some sort of initialization code, and you distribute a Cray executable containing that initialization code and then attempt to supply source code for a similar Commodore64 program lacking that initialization code.

TiVo must supply all of the source elements they used to create that executable.

I would argue that this is already a literal violation of the text of the current GPLv2. However I do acknowledge that it is a very technical and messy point... I acknowledge that it is arguable whether it really does violate the literal text... that it would require a precisely targeted court case to rule on the point. However I say it is inarguably a violation of the original intent of the original GPL. I say that the GPLv3 is merely clarifying the original intent and operation of the GPL and merely closing what may or may not be a loophole in the original GPL.

I would like to address a second related issue of the GPLv3. The original intent and operation of the GPL was that when you distribute source, you must also explicitly pass along all of the legal permissions required to lawfully modifying and redistributing that source. At the time that meant granting the needed copyright permissions and possibly granting the needed patent permissions... you must explicitly agree not to sue people who modify and redistribute that code if they do it in compliance with the GPL. However since then new law has been passed. In some cases those are NOT all of the needed permissions. Now there are also DMCA permissions to legally modify and redistribute the code. The GPLv3 merely says that yes, you really do need to pass on all the needed legal permissions. That yes, you must also pass on DMCA permissions to modify the code. That yes, you must also explicitly agree not to sue people under the DMCA for modifying and redistributing that code, if they do so in compliance with the GPL.

Some people try to attack the GPLv3 on those two points as adding new inappropriate terms attempting to wage some sort of war against DRM. However as I've explained, both of those points are about protecting and preserving the original intent and the original operation of the GPL. One merely clarifies the original GPL and explicitly closes what may or may not be a loophole, and the other merely updates the GPL to address new law and to say yes, you must still pass on all needed permissions and no you still may not sue people who are complying with the GPL.

I am a programmer. I am not going to grant you freebie permissions to redistribute MY SOFTWARE unless you agree not to turn around and SUE ME for using and modifying a derivative of MY OWN PROGRAM. I am not going to grant you freebie permissions to redistribute MY SOFTWARE unless you agree not to turn around and SUE ME under the DMCA using and modifying a derivative of MY OWN PROGRAM.

I am not going to grant you freebie permissions to redistribu

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

>If Tivo feels that DRM is worth more than continued use of GPL software, so be it.

Like the pebble that starts the avalanche, the first company is preparing to drop use of GPL software because the GPL has been turned against it. You can bet other companies too are pondering what might happen to them if they start making use of GPL code and the FSF puts their practies in its sights.

Good luck convincing the hardware companies to release hardware specs to make any more drivers. They know that they'll get the GPL turned against them too once it gains enough momentum.

Re:Good

[Chandon Seldon]

Your so called "freedom to tinker" just means that no company will be allowed any kind of protection for protected content.

You lost me at "protection for protected content". You're talking about bits on my hard drive, right? My hard drive, that happens to be in my DVR, that I own? I'm afraid that I can't summon up any tears over people not being able to prevent me from accessing the data on my own hard drive. Anyone who built a business model on that fantasy is an idiot - if they go broke it's not my problem.

As for "free software is anti-business" and "companies can't make money off their work" - bullshit. Sure, Free Software is incompatible with one specific business model - call it the "Adobe/Microsoft Model". In exchange, it makes contract software development (how the vast majority of programmers make a living) more profitable than ever by allowing *any* software development team to add features / fix bugs in applications. Economically, it's probably an improvement. And, the part you don't want to hear: Socially, it's definitely an improvement.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Tivo is a major advocate for Linux

References please?

What Linux needs is MORE corporate sponsorship like Tivo and others, companies willing to share their source code

More companies like IBM, redhat, etc, who actually contribute HIGH QUALITY code and communicate their concerns. While you where wanking at the though of OSS dying, IBM negotiated with FSF a deal to make sure their business practices in mainframes are still allowed with GPLv3.

myth busted: anti-business attitude of FOSS community..

Re:Good

[marcosdumay]

Thanks for the post. I've being trying to say the same for a while, but I'd never be able to say it that well.

Just to complement:

"The idea of attempting to do DRM within the GPL has always been nonsensical."

Well, DRM itself is nonsensical. The least one can expect from anyone that pushes for DRM is more nonsense.

Re:Good

[init100]

The problem for TiVo is that they would like to be able to update their software, which is impossible if you use a ROM.

Re:Good

[init100]

Welcome to the destruction of OSS.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

however if they can't put DRM on there then they have no way to protect the content that you download.

They can use DRM to their hearts' content, just not to prevent modification of software covered by the GPLv3. The GPLv3 does not say anything about DRM for content (i.e. movie, music, etc), only about using DRM to prevent modification of software covered by the GPLv3. In my opinion, it would probably work fine to run proprietary DVR software on a free software operating system.

Re:Good

[kinglink]

You just don't see the problem you said. IBM negotiated a deal. If OSS is to remain free, and retain the corporate benefit (why code for OSS on the weekends when you can code for them as part of your job) then corporations need to have the access. IBM had to broker a deal. To my knowledge that allow IBM to work on mainframe, it doesn't allow Tivo to continue using the software or any others.

Essentially what we are seeing is Linux or GNU linux being brought under the FSF's control, and that's a scary idea because knowing Stallman's stances it won't be long until no business can use OSS unless Stallman personally approves. Granted there's still free Linux outside of FSF, but how long can that last if major development in tools are all done under GPLv3. Stallman wins, linux loses, business lose. Microsoft wins. Only no one will see it until we start realizing that Linux's market share is dropping again to Microsoft or another competitor.

Re:Good

[kinglink]

So it's ok or not ok for them to put DRM on for their data? Then I'm assuming it's ok for you to access their software and make it so you can break their DRM?

Let's realize something here. If we allow them to protect content on the drives that are in their machine (note to the first responder to me) then they MUST have the ability to protect their protection systems, if we don't then what's the point.

Is Tivo's approach too aggressive? Ehhh maybe, but is the only other option force them to put themselves in a position where their data is vulnerable? From the sound of it, that's the proposal out there. Let's stop kidding ourselves. Linux is meant to be for everyone, not just who the GPLv3 says it's for. Linus Torvalds has come out against GPLv3 at a couple points, and even when he agrees with it he's left it at "it's best we have today" he's also mentioned the verbosity. I'm unsure of his final stance (I think even he is) but the point is GPLv3 isn't Linux's licensing agreement. It's Stallman's attempt at licensing Linux under his rules, if Microsoft tried that which they did we'd be outraged, but apparently it's OK when Stallman is trying to force this? We can pretend it's only GNU linux but the fact is if a majority of Linux development uses GPLv3 Stallman wins, if a majority does not and uses GPLv2 then Stallman loses and we're back with what everyone is calling "Substandard" protection. And of course at the heart of the battle, the thing that's getting trappled over is Linux. There's other OSS and they'll be in the middle of the battle too, but let's be honest, all OSS doesn't mean crap if Windows becomes the truly dominant OS around because we've seen what they do when they are the only OS for PCs.

Re:Good

[init100]

So it's ok or not ok for them to put DRM on for their data? Then I'm assuming it's ok for you to access their software and make it so you can break their DRM?

Yes, that is correct. But it doesn't matter, since DRM only deters casual copying. Any determined cracker can defeat the DRM anyway.

Let's realize something here. If we allow them to protect content on the drives that are in their machine (note to the first responder to me) then they MUST have the ability to protect their protection systems, if we don't then what's the point.

I think that the point is to make DRM for content pointless, but not explicitly prohibited by the license.

Linux is meant to be for everyone, not just who the GPLv3 says it's for.

Meanwhile, GNU software is meant for the free software community, not for the whiners that want the software but refuse to comply with the license.

the point is GPLv3 isn't Linux's licensing agreement. It's Stallman's attempt at licensing Linux under his rules

I disagree. It is Stallman's attempt to close the perceived loopholes in the GPLv2. Linux (the kernel) will continue to be licensed under GPLv2 for the foreseeable future, while the GNU tools will go GPLv3. Do you think that Stallman should back off just because most Linux distributions use GNU software for a critical part of the system? It's his code, he gets to set the rules. If you don't like it, use something else.

Re:Good

[adolf]

(This comment is probably too late to be read by any meaningful number of people. Oh well.)

As for "free software is anti-business" and "companies can't make money off their work" - bullshit. Completely agreed. But I think you're missing a part of the more grand scheme here: Who gives a shit if there is money to be made?

I, for one, am completely fucking tired of people supporting the supposition that a thing is only successful if there is money being made from it, or that it is popular.

From my own perspective, I've been using free software on the desktop and on servers and wherever else I find it applicable for about the last 13 years.

13 years ago, it was advanced and worked well compared to other things of the time (Windows 3, DOS, OS/2, MacOS), but it wasn't everywhere. Linux-based devices were rare or unheard of. There was little money to be made from it.

13 years hence, it is still advanced and works well compared to other things of today (Windows Vista, XP, osX), and it's all over the place.

It is therefore successful. Not necessarily monetarily successful and popularly successful, though it sometimes (and increasingly) is. The important part of free software's success is that it remains usefully functional.

Free software doesn't care how much money it makes, or how many times it is copied and installed, or how often its license is completely exploited. Nor should the users of it. All that it needs to live and thrive is, really, that it remain free and that it still performs useful work on par with other industry offerings.

It doesn't need money to survive. It doesn't need popularity. The majority of the best and most-functional free software is (or was) written by certain individuals, driven by personal desire and need, who never stand to earn a dime from it. And it works just as well whether it is used by a hundred people or a million.

I don't see that changing.

And so what

[Zebai]

I'm a fan of tivo, I have one myself but this particular problem I dont see as a problem. The DRM is already cracked and it requires little to no effort to extract tivo video files to DRM free files. I don't see a problem with them biting the dust on this one, its a feature designed to limit us and thats something I dont want. I got my tivo long before they did trash like this and I'm disappointed that tivo is catering to the DRM crowd now a days. Next thing you know they'll be dropping the hidden 30-second skip which shouldnt be hidden in the first place.

Re:And so what

[Nom du Keyboard]

The DRM is already cracked

Really? Where?

Of course, this would be a problem then because it would prevent them from implementing more effective DRM.

Re:And so what

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an DirecTV TiVo the HR10-250 , are you saying that there exists a method which "requires little to no effort to extract tivo video files to DRM free files." ergo it easily allows me to "rip" from my TiVo HD to lets say my Computer HD? If so, please post any relevant link info for when I searched the net most people said it wasnt possible or was a pain beyond value.

Re:And so what

[Anonymous Coward]

IT IS NOT ABOUT DRM

DRM just gets the headlines. This is TIVO using GPLed software and not passing the along the same freedoms they got themselves -- they abuse a loophole by making the hardware discriminate between pieces of software based on the digital signature of the executable code. This is becoming increasingly common -- see also Trusted Computing, TPM, Apple (their new Intel Macs)... Intel and particularly Microsoft's latest batch of monopoly stuff, Longhorn and Vista.

In essence, the hardware works AGAINST the owner of the machine... it treats crackers and the person who paid for it in exactly the same way -- as criminals. DRM is one use for this technology that has the likes of Apple, Intel and Microsoft slavering with anticipation. The hardware will only run the software (or in a more general case, only TRUST software with precious video/sound data) when it has the correct digital signature (ie, it has not been modified in any way). In the case of TIVO.. they take GPLed software, compile it and sign the resulting binary it with their key. If you take the same source code, and compile it... you will not be able to sign it and hence it will not function the same way.

There is a more general issue of civil rights, free speech and centralised control associated with Trusted Computing and it's close relative DRM (namely, secret execution of code, zero privacy and total control of computers by corporations once Trusted Computing hardware becomes the norm)... but that's for another message.

But in essence, DRM is a small part of a much larger fight against the creeping control over computer software. Think about it this way... DRM is not about controlling music and video copying. The music and video data does nothing on it's own. To control the use of music and video... you must control the software/hardware that it runs on, and that includes, CPUs, Hard discs, BIOSes, Kernels, device drivers and media players. And that list only grows upwards... controlling video is no different from controlling word processor documents and emails. Total vendor lock in... you really will only be able to open an Apple word processor document with Apple's software.

Re:And so what

[suv4x4]

The DRM is already cracked and it requires little to no effort to extract tivo video files to DRM free files. I don't see a problem with them biting the dust on this one, its a feature designed to limit us and thats something I dont want.

Here's the thing: TiVo's not rushing to limit you either. In the beginning, they didn't. And companies sued the hell out of 'em.

Now, with GPL3, they're between a rock and a hard place: if they keep the DRM, and include GPL3 software, they breach GPL3 and may get sued by FSF, for example. But if they remove the DRM or open source their code, they'll get sued by the whole of Hollywood and TV program providers.

Trust me, if Hollywood would say "hey, y'know what, we won't sue you after all", they'll release a patch dumping the entirety of their DRM the next day and run loud and obnoxious TV ads announcing this fact.

Re:And so what

[Fred Ferrigno]

On the Series 2 boxes at least, it's incredibly easy to disable the DRM. DirectShow Dump will remove the DRM from videos transfered via TiVoToGo. The hack script The Zipper disables DRM permanently for new recordings, in addition to enabling a lot of other cool stuff. It requires a bit more effort, but it's relatively painless if you're already going to the effort to upgrade your drives.

I don't know about the Series 3 boxes. They're not really worth the money anyway, so I haven't looked into it.

Re:And so what

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? please provide this elusive information on the Series 3 tivo. I'll buy 2 of them right now if what you say is a fact.

Or do you mean the old and mostly useless Series 1 and 2 units? Those cant record HD nor digital Cable channels and are 100% useless to most people with HD sets.

Re:And so what

[Anonymous Coward]

http://tivodecode.sourceforge.net/

Really ?

[jalet]

Too bad !

Re:Really ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to follow up with an open letter to Tivo:

Dear Tivo,
Please remember that you're still free to write your own operating system if you don't like the one you got from us for free.
kthx.

Just use older code?

[mrbill1234]

Mhh, why don't they just continue using GPLv2 linux code. Ok, they won't have new fixes - but this is an embedded device - do they need them?

Re:Just use older code?

[laffer1]

Or they could switch to BSD or some other system under another license. Isn't open source great?

Re:Just use older code?

[pornflakes]

Or they could stop restricting their customers. Isn't freedom great?

Re:Just use older code?

[shaitand]

Or... they could just drop the pointless anti-user DRM.

Re:Just use older code?

[that this is not und]

It's not pointless. It has a rather sharp point, that gets a whole buncha people all flustered. Hadn't you noticed?

Re:Just use older code?

[brouski]

And lose the support of and/or be sued into oblivion by the content companies.

Re:Just use older code?

[shaitand]

'be sued into oblivion by the content companies.'

For what? Manufacturing a VCR?

Re:Just use older code?

[brouski]

Video recording just scratches the surface of what a Tivo, or any DVR for that matter, can do. The media sharing stuff, the new Amazon movie purchases...all of that is possibly only because the content companies believe Tivo will keep their content secure. If all of that were to fall by the wayside, and it really did become just a glorified VCR, well...that's part of the "damage to the business model" they warn of in their filings.

Nice working with you Tivo

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Tivo,

      There are many good commercial operating systems, use one of those. Using Linux has been a good choice up till now but things have changed and now it is incompatible with what you want to do. It is no big deal, you will survive.

Re:Nice working with you Tivo

[megaditto]

Dear Linus,

We want our money back.

Yours truly,

Tivo

Re:Nice working with you Tivo

[AuMatar]

Dear Tivo,

After considering your request, we agree. Enclosed is a refund check for the full amount of $0.00.

Re:Nice working with you Tivo

[Solder Fumes]

(paraphrased)

Dear Tivo,

You'll get over it.

Re:Nice working with you Tivo

[cralewyth]

(paraphrased)

Tivo: STFU.

Re:Nice working with you Tivo

[Dachannien]

After considering your request, we agree. Enclosed is a refund check for the full amount of $0.00.

Minus a 20% restocking fee.

Re:Nice working with you Tivo

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for cheapening the joke. I hate it when things are too funny.

Re:Nice working with you Tivo

[Just Some Guy]

Minus a 20% restocking fee.

When did Linus start working for Circuit City?

Solution to tivo's dilemma

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the currently proposed version of GPLv3 is widely adopted, we may be unable to incorporate future enhancements to the GNU/Linux operating system into our software,"

You are not 'unable' to do anything. You are unwilling. Easy solution: release your code under the GPLv3. Keep with the spirit of the community which gave you a whole operating system for FREE.

p.s. FP!

Re:Solution to tivo's dilemma

[Richard W.M. Jones]

You are not 'unable' to do anything. You are unwilling. Easy solution: release your code under the GPLv3. Keep with the spirit of the community which gave you a whole operating system for FREE.

You are absolutely right. Honestly I don't know why these companies that want to just rip off the hard work of others don't just use BSD.

Rich.

Re:Solution to tivo's dilemma

[suv4x4]

You are not 'unable' to do anything. You are unwilling. Easy solution: release your code under the GPLv3. Keep with the spirit of the community which gave you a whole operating system for FREE.

That's only easy to say, not to do. If they release the full source to their DRM, it's even less of a DRM and they'll get sued again.

Here's an easier solution: port to FreeBSD or another free OS that doesn't get released under GPL3. That's what will happen in the end.

Re:Solution to tivo's dilemma

[DarkOx]

The judgements are wrong. Tivo should provide no method of export for recordings. They should put some strong language in the documentation that explains that copying off the recordings by any method and distributing them to any one but individual friends and family members in accordance with Fair Use Rights is almost certainly in violation of the content producers copyright.

If they did those things no sane person could claim a Tivo is a tool for infrigement any more then a dvdrw drive is or a good old fashion VCR. The fact that the explain certain actions would be illegal and that the end user must alter the device or at least its software should be enough to protect them.

If thats not enough to protect them then the content producers have way to much power and they should take the case public. Find some layers to make a show trial of it. Get the public up in arms.

Re:Solution to tivo's dilemma

[russotto]

If they did those things no sane person could claim a Tivo is a tool for infrigement any more then a dvdrw drive is or a good old fashion VCR.

The MPAA is not made of of sane people. Neither, apparently, is the Supreme Court. While there hasn't actually been a case over a DVD-RW drive, the good old fashioned VCR was the subject of a lawsuit which went all the way to the Supreme Court. The VCR manufacturer won... in a 5-4 decision. And the MPAA has been attempting to effectively reverse that decision ever since.

Re:Solution to tivo's dilemma

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, people.

"In compliance with the GPL version 2, we are pleased to provide our modifications to the Linux Kernel, as well as a few new commands, and some tools to get you into the code."

I still don't understand why people are misunderstanding the whole argument. TiVo *DOES* release their code under the GPL, or at least the parts that they have to (in-house developed DRM doesn't fall under the GPL). The argument isn't about their code release.

REPEAT AFTER ME: The argument isn't about their code release.

The argument is about people bitching that they bought a TiVo, and they can't run whatever they want on it. People would still bitch about that even if it weren't running Linux. The fact that the TiVo is using Linux as an embedded system means that people think they have a right to bitch even LOUDER about how TiVo won't let you do whatever you want with the hardware (which, from TiVo's point, is nowadays primarily because if they want to be allowed to play ball with the content providers, they have to jump through all sorts of hoops. Look up the CableLabs requirements sometime).

Re:Solution to tivo's dilemma

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

people think they have a right to bitch even LOUDER about how TiVo won't let you do whatever you want with the hardware

"people think they have a right"?? Since when do people NOT have the right to do whatever they want with something they own? Bitching is exactly what people should be doing when someone attempts to interfere with their rights to their own private property.

About Time

[wasabii]

I think this is great. I'm sorry they built their work on the backs of other people who have always clearly stated their intentions with regards to the use of their software. The lack of this in GPLv2 is a HOLE. A HOLE which, of course, should be fixed.

If they disagree with the fundamental goal of the GPL, to free software so people CAN tinker with it, then they should have chosen a different set of software to build their product on.

Re:About Time

[that this is not und]

Your comments are interesting, and kinda amusing, when one ponders the irony. You've chosen as your 'handle' on Slashdot 'wasabii.'

Are you aware that Wasabi Systems is a business that successfully sells a commercialized BSD?

Quoting from their page:

Wasabi Certified BSD (WCB) is the ideal choice for OEMs seeking to obtain the benefits of an open source OS without the costs of the GPL license. WCB is today being used by Wasabi customers including Intel, Apple, Marvell, IBM, and many others.

Yep. IBM.

Whoooo-oooo-oooo!

Re:About Time

[dfghjk]

This bullshit claim has been debunked countlessly yet narrow-minded fanatics continue to trot it out.

Tivo does not disagree with the "fundamental goal" of the GPL, they use it and comply with it. Their compliance with the license has never been in doubt, and core developers of the code most important to Tivo have stated unambiguously that they desire their work to be used in the manner Tivo uses it. Tivo releases its code and in no way prevents its modification or integration into other products, even commercial ones that compete with Tivo. What Tivo does do is place restrictions on parts of its product not covered by the GPL.

Tivo is clearly impacted by GPLv3 since some its changes are specifically meant to do that. By placing further restrictions on its users, GPLv3 claims to enhance "freedom". The irony of it all that somehow, by preventing me from using GPL code in a manner RMS doesn't like, my freedoms are enhanced.

Tivo is not restricted in using any of its existing codebase, and the portion of "GNU/Linux" that Tivo cares about is the "Linux" part, not the "GNU" part. The linux code is mostly likely remaining v2 anyway and, if not, then they do without it. There is never any promise in any license that developers continue to offer new contributions under an existing free license. Just what part of userland utilities does Tivo think there will be critical improvements to that the GPLv3 will prevent them from using? It's a joke, really.

Re:About Time

[NoOneInParticular]

The irony of it all that somehow, by preventing me from using GPL code in a manner RMS doesn't like, my freedoms are enhanced.

The real irony is that people, even here, don't have clue about what GPL is. GPL does not put any restrictions whatsoever on using GPL code. All it does is put restrictions on distribution. This to enable that all users are free from such restrictions. From this user-centric perspective, GPL is the most free license, as unlike BSD, no additional restrictions can be added in the distribution chain. BSD gives freedom to distributors, GPL to users.

Re:About Time

[init100]

Are you aware that Wasabi Systems is a business that successfully sells a commercialized BSD?

Ahh, that must be why they try to FUD the GPL as a very risky license on their GPL vs SOx "article".

Re:About Time

[that this is not und]

Yep. Just like GPL advocates FUD the BSD license.

Ain't competition great?

Re:About Time

[init100]

Just like GPL advocates FUD the BSD license.

I see no such FUD. GPL advocates may suggest not using the BSD license for various reasons, but those are opinions, not FUD. The Wasabi Systems article on the other hand looks like FUD, smells like FUD, quacks like FUD, so it must be FUD. But of course, I guess Wasabi would rather assert that it is NotFUD. ;)

For those not reading Groklaw, the NotFUD term is a reference to their NotaDuck joke.

Welcome to the Brave New World -- You Got Bit !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the Brave New World -- You Got Bit !! Even free beer will come back in the end and bite you in the ass !! Never, ever, let some one eles determine your destiny !!

Just a kernel doesn't do much for you

[Rix]

Even if Linux doesn't go GPL3, presumably they're using a lot of GNU userspace stuff, like glibc.

Re:Just a kernel doesn't do much for you

[eldepeche]

FYI, glibc is under the LGPL.

Re:Just a kernel doesn't do much for you

[harlows_monkeys]

Even if Linux doesn't go GPL3, presumably they're using a lot of GNU userspace stuff, like glibc

Well, glibc is not under GPLv2, so it seems unlikely to go GPLv3. It is under LGPL.

Re:Just a kernel doesn't do much for you

[Rix]

Will there not be an LGPLv3?

Even if not, there are a lot of other things that *aren't* under the LGPL essential to any Linux system. It wouldn't be practical to work around these, as I'm sure Tivo knows.

Re:Just a kernel doesn't do much for you

[Cyclops]

Hey Mr... the Lesser GPL is also being revised, and you know what? It's basically GPLv3 with Exceptions A B and C :)

Re:Just a kernel doesn't do much for you

[MrZaius]

What happens to the LGPL content? Does it suffer from the same restrictions?

Re:Just a kernel doesn't do much for you

[pasamio]

LGPL will be included in GPLv3 and as such merged into one license for both cases. The difference is that there will be options in GPLv3 where GPLv2 doesn't have this option. IANAL but this is basically how it was explained to me by a friend of mine.

Re:Just a kernel doesn't do much for you

[numbski]

As another reply to this mentioned, they *could* use bsd's libc instead, could they not? I mean yeah...there would be hacking to do, but certainly not enough to make them "suffer".

Heck, if they really needed to they could do a wholesale switch to BSD. The hardware is supported, and I'm sure tivobin could be ported (note - I've hacked my own tivo a few times...)

There's nothing forcing them to stick with Linux, really. I'd prefer they stay with it and stop trying to stop the hackers and just live with the license, but moving to BSD isn't the end of the world for them either. This isn't a BSD troll, it's just a matter of fact. If the hardware is supported, when coding for BSD vs. Linux, there are minor differences, but really...at the end of the day everything that Tivo does could be maintained.

Re:Just a kernel doesn't do much for you

[drinkypoo]

Will there not be an LGPLv3? Even if not, there are a lot of other things that *aren't* under the LGPL essential to any Linux system.

I'm not sure that's true. In order to have a complete system you need basically only three things:

1. A Kernel
2. A C library, like glibc or uclibc (both LGPL)
3. An application

Depending on kernel design you might need additional tools, although with intelligent configuration you can use the kernel automounter, and you can build the list of module dependencies before distribution.

So no, I disagree, there is nothing necessarily needed for Tivo that is GPL.

Cry me a river.

[MadTinfoilHatter]

Stallman and the FSF have always been perfectly open about what the GNU project and the GPL are about. They're about "The four freedoms of the user". This means that when TiVO decided to use GPL-licenced software, yet lock their hardware in a manner that denied the user some of these freedoms, they knew they were using a loophole, and thus acting in bad faith. They can try to play the victim all they want now that the loophole is being closed, but informed people will have no sympathy for them. They should have seen this coming from day 1.

Re:Cry me a river.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about the liability TIVO would have exposed themselves to without DRM (ineffectual as it might ultimately be)? What about the other software devices which they must license but don't have the rights to contribute back to the GPL? GPL is anti-freedom, and TIVO should suffer the mercurial nature of the Stallman wind. What they really want is a legistlative solution from various bodies around the world, but instead they'll just content themselves with punishing consumers by denying them devices they want, and the community isn't interested in providing. Eventually, all this does is suck money, and time out of the achievable end of better software.

Re:Cry me a river.

[The Bungi]

They're about "The four freedoms of the user".

Only one of those "freedoms" applies to users (the first one). The others apply only to developers.

Re:Cry me a river.

[bheer]

So, basically, Microsoft was right when it called the GPL viral (in the sense of its negative connotation)?

Way to shaft all the people who bet their business on your software, bub, by changing the license terms. And the /. crowd complain about Microsoft licensing practices.

Of course, in reality it won't come to that. Prediction: if the GPL3 comes out the way RMS has been saying it will, Ubuntu, IBM and others will fork the GNU system in a heartbeat (the kernel will remain GPL2, of course). It will be XEmacs vs GNU Emacs all over again, proving RMS learnt nothing from that fiasco.

Re:Cry me a river.

[SpinyNorman]

AFAIK there's nothing to stop Tivo or anyone else continuing to use their current GPLv2 software (for which they have full source of course) after new stuff starts coming out under GPLv3. All it means is that Tivo doesn't get any *more* free software written for them unless they're willing/able to comply with GPLv3.

It seems the only problem Tivo may have is if they want to add new features/fixes to the Linux portions of their product that become GPLv3'd and are unable to do it themselves. Sounds like some GPLv2 authors may have found themselves a nice consulting gig.

Re:Cry me a river.

[JanneM]

Way to shaft all the people who bet their business on your software, bub, by changing the license terms. And the /. crowd complain about Microsoft licensing practices.

Existing software is all GPL version 2. That doesn't change. All they bellyache over is that new software, released under version 3, may not be useable by them. No license is being changed from under their feet.

Re:Cry me a river.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only one of those "freedoms" applies to users (the first one). The others apply only to developers.

Yes, people around here always forget that developers are prohibited from USING programs. I think it's somewhere in the UN charter.

Re:Cry me a river.

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Way to shaft all the people who bet their business on your software, bub, by changing the license terms.

Like someone already pointed out, the license cannot change -- they can keep using the current software till the end of time, "bub". This is a _lot_ better than the License Agreements included with most proprietary software.

Of course, in reality it won't come to that. Prediction: if the GPL3 comes out the way RMS has been saying it will, Ubuntu, IBM and others will fork the GNU system in a heartbeat

You are really out of touch with reality. Ubuntu or IBM have had no real complaints (if you really need proof to realize that, see e.g. http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1507). The whole GPLv3 process has been very open to community influence: the FSF have made quite a few changes to the drafts when they've been asked to -- this is evident in the change of mind Linus had about the drafts.

But hey, if you really do believe GNU will be forked if GPLv3 comes out looking like the current drafts, I'm ready to bet on that. How about a bottle of good cognac?

Re:Cry me a river.

[Splab]

A developer is also a user. No "users" use STL, developers do, so the users of STL is developers.

Re:Cry me a river.

[Tim C]

The point is that people tend to proclaim that the GPL protects the freedom of the users, as though that includes almost everyone (everyone who doesn't want to ignore or violate the GPL, in fact). In reality, the people who benefit from the full protection of the GPL is a rather smaller subset; those without the skill, time and/or money to modify the code (or hire someone to do it) effectively do not gain a number of those rights, as they cannot exercise them.

That's not to say it's a bad thing, they still have more rights than they would normally have, it's just not quite as good a thing as many people here make it out to be.

Re:Cry me a river.

[Tim C]

They can try to play the victim all they want now that the loophole is being closed, but informed people will have no sympathy for them.

It's a financial report. While I haven't read it, I don't think the intention is to play the victim; IANAL (obviously), but surely a company is required to disclose anything that they are aware of that may adversely affect future profitability? I would be very surprised if not disclosing it wouldn't open them up to the possibility of being sued by the shareholders. (Assuming they're publicly-owned, of course)

That said, I don't have a lot of sympathy either; you use someone else's stuff, you've got to be prepared for the day when things may change in a way that adversely affects you.

Re:Cry me a river.

[booch]

Users don't directly need all 4 freedoms, just freedom 0 (the freedom to use), and perhaps freedom 2 (freedom to share with your neighbors). But they indirectly benefit from the other freedoms. Let's say you're an end user, and want to add a feature to a program. With GPL software, you ave the freedom/ability to choose a developer to add the feature for you. Without freedom 1, you're pretty much at the mercy of the vendor to add the feature for you; nobody else is allowed to add to the program.

Re:Cry me a river.

[BRSloth]

Let's see...

Ubuntu won't need to fork. They don't distribute anything that it is not GPL already (apart from NVIDIA drivers, but even that is about to be under certain clauses). So, Ubuntu is fine.

IBM (and other big companies) use LGPL libraries or build tools that explicit say that you don't need to release your product as GPL (the say way GCC doesn't force you to release everything under the GPL, although GCC itself is GPL). They as safe too.

After draft 3, Linus said that he thought GPL3 wasn't so bad anymore (if he will change the kernel license in the future is another matter but it seems he have nothing against it right now). The kernel may be GPL2 for the moment, but I guess it will change in the future.

So... I really don't get your point. You don't see Mark Shuttleworth or anyone at Canonical complaining about the GPL3. Nor the dudes at Red Hat. Companies that used GPL code in the way it was designed for are not complaining. You have one company that decided to explore one loophole in the license and suddenly everything is bad?

Re:Cry me a river.

[booch]

Umm, it's actually copyright that's viral. The GPL just takes advantage of that for its own purposes. If copyright were not viral, there would be no need for the GPL.

Do you really think that Microsoft's license of its code is not viral? Here's a quick experiment. Take some Microsoft code and try releasing it under a license other than the one it came with. What, Microsoft won't let you do that? You have to follow Microsoft's rules that they set on their own code? Why would you expect the GPL to be any different? Microsoft won't even let you release their code under any circumstances? Not even this little bit that you "borrowed"?

It comes down to this: people writing code are allowed to define the terms under which others may copy their code. Licenses are the way of defining those terms. In the case of the GPL, those terms are simply "you can use this stuff, as long as you let others use it in the same way". Some people apparently don't bother to read the second part of that. I'm not sure why; I guess the standard source code license is easier to understand ("you can't use this").

I fail to understand why anyone would think that "you can't use this" is better than "you can use this stuff, as long as you let others use it in the same way". With GPLed code, you get the choice to use it or not. With proprietary code, you don't even have the OPTION of using their source code, unless you negotiate some expensive contract that will be much more restrictive than the GPL. And believe me, you will have no option for releasing that code under different terms than that contract allows; the license terms of the contract WILL BE viral.

Re:Cry me a river.

[DarkOx]

"Way to shaft all the people who bet their business on your software, bub, by changing the license terms. And the /. crowd complain about Microsoft licensing practices."

Cut the crap with half truths alright. The GPL2 has no terms of expiration. Anyone useing anything GPLv2 is free and clear forever. Nobody is taking ANYTHING away from them that they already have.

Basically waht is being done here is that organizations Tivo has been the favorite example for heaven's sake have been exploiting a hole in the old license agreement. The KNEW it was a hole too because anyone who did any research on that license would know it was intended to protect the rights of downstream recipients to tinker and modify. So the community, which if you are using the GPL you basically are represented by the FSF, is saying "We don't like what you're doing, we are going to change the terms on the new stuff so you can't use it that way any more. You should give something back and you are not."

These organizations are being treated much better then if they were useing some commerical software. With the GPL2 stuff they can still use the code and turn out units as much as they like. What if they ran these things on Win2k? So some years later Vista comes out, M$ licenses it under terms that Tivo does not like, and stops issuing Win2k licenses. They would be totally screwed! What the FSF is doing here probablly amounts to one of the most evenhanded and kind resolutions to a contract dispute in HISTORY.

Re:Cry me a river.

[that this is not und]

Well, your assumption is based on everybody who has ever contributed to the Linux kernel codebase adopting GPL v.3. Which is far from likely. So Linus can stop all development for six months and everybody can concentrate on ripping out and re-writing ALL the snippets of code with the 'bad, old GPL v.2' license. Regression test, regression test again, apply fixes, rinse repeat.

Maybe in a year or so, pick up and start writing new code again.

Re:Cry me a river.

[JanneM]

Well, your assumption is based on everybody who has ever contributed to the Linux kernel codebase adopting GPL v.3.

As several people have stated, the chances of the kernel adopting GPL3, no matter the content of the license is just about nil. And I never said they would or make any such assumptions - I replied to the parent poster about their mistaken belief that current GPL2 code in use would change license. Are you sure you didn't reply to the wrong message here?

Re:Cry me a river.

[dfghjk]

There was no loophole. Tivo released all its code under the terms of the GPL.

The GPL has always been about code being free. Tivo code is free. When the "I want your stuff" fanatics realized they couldn't modify the Tivo product (though there was never a suggestion that they could) they were furious. Stallman realized that his vision of free code wasn't enough, it needed to be "free code only on suitable hardware". It is RMS and the FSF that has changed the GPL because their true motivations, it was never because of a loophole. Tivo's code IS free, its hardware platform is not.

The GPL is about the freedom of code and it always said that GPL code could be used in commercial products as long as the GPL was respected. The ramifications are unambiguous when the product is software, but when it is a mixture of software and hardware, the GPL only impacted the software portion. The reaction when this was tested exposes the true nature of RMS, the FSF, and their fanatics. The RMS GPL is not really about the freedom of code, it's about RMS's freedom to use the product of your work. It is not enough that Tivo gave away all its software modifications in compliance with the GPL, RMS believes he should dictate how Tivo makes its dedicated hardware platform as well. He doesn't just want the freedom of Tivo's code, he wants the ability to modify Tivo's product. Tivo doesn't make a computing platform and there's no reason for anyone to expect that they do. As RMS gets more militant and more restrictive in his licenses he risks his own relevance.

Re:Cry me a river.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Way to shaft all the people who bet their
> business on your software, bub, by changing
> the license terms. And the /. crowd complain
> about Microsoft licensing practices.

Have you seen the kinds of onerous licensing changes that Microsoft introduces from one version of Windows to the next? And sometimes even just with service packs?

And to re-emphasize what DarkOx pointed out, Microsoft then stops selling the older licenses. Sure, you can keep using the copies you already have licenses for (until they end support for product activation and "genuine" verification), but that's it. With the GPL you can continue using what you've got and continue to make more copies of it forever.

As with Microsoft, if you want the new stuff you abide by the new terms. Except that with the GPL continuing to use the old stuff remains a meaningfully realistic and viable option. Or you can make your own changes to the old stuff (or pay someone to make changes), which is an option you never have with Microsoft.

And none of this even mentions the fact that the GPL only places terms on redistribution. If you're not redistributing it you can use any version you want internally with no restrictions whatsoever. Microsoft's licenses dictate what you can and cannot use, even internally, and how and under what conditions you can use it. And you actually pay money for this privilege.

I know which kind of licensing I'd bet *my* business on.

Re:Cry me a river.

[brouski]

I'm sorry these assholes modded you down. I think this is one of the best posts in the thread.

Re:Cry me a river.

[bheer]

> I replied to the parent poster about their mistaken belief that current GPL2 code in use would change license

Eh. As you and I both noted, the chance that the kernel would change is practically zero. Now, the problem is other code. If package foo changes to GPL3, and you depend on it being GPL2, you've got a problem and you have to fork the last-known GPL2'd version so that your legal liability is limited. So yeah, your existing code won't change license, but in practice that doesn't mean anything -- the codebase you depend upon *will* change license (if the maintainers switch from v2 to v3) and you've got to do something about it.

For key infrastructure projects, you'll probably see some corporations banding together to provide a GPL2 fork. And an increasing interest in BSD-derived userland tools.

Re:Cry me a river.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, you sniveling twelve-year-olds, "troll" means someone who is posting dishonestly to provoke response, not someone who posts a legitimate point with which you happen to disagree.

Re:Cry me a river.

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to shaft all the people who bet their business on your software, bub, by changing the license terms. And the /. crowd complain about Microsoft licensing practices.

Your inability to reason logically helps to explain why outfits like Microsoft continue to prosper.

Re:Cry me a river.

[caseih]

You're argument is a fallacy.

No one is pulling the metaphorical rug out from under the feet of unsuspecting companies. Tivo, like many others, used linux for only 2 reasons. One is that they perceived it was free (it is about freedom, not no cost). They could freeload off the community and make a lot of money, which they have. The other reason is that they felt there was a loophole in the GPL that would allow them to abide by the strict terms of the license, but not actually have to grant any of the freedoms of the GPL to their customers. They knew what they were doing. They purposely chose to see the GPL (with their loophole) as if it were the public domain, or even BSD. Look, the only reason companies get in trouble with the GPL is when they forget that it is a normal copyright license. It's about freedom, but with obligation. Tivo has *not* been shafted. Sorry.

No, the GPL is not viral. It does not magically force your code to be open-sourced just because you have some GPL code in the system. But if you choose to license others' code under the terms of the GPL, it is about granting the same freedoms (modify, extend, redistribute, etc) that allowed you to use the code to others, which Tivo does not. If Tivo was mistaken about the terms of the GPL, or feels that the are the victim in this case, they should have hired better lawyers when they first decided to license GPL code. Note that Tivo's proprietary codecs, encryption, UI, and other pieces of software they themselves wrote would remain their own despite the core OS and libraries being GPLv3.

So the fact that they are crying means either that a) they are worried someone will find evidence of a real GPL violation if they can get access to the hardware and tweak things, or b) they are worried that hacking the hardware will somehow harm their business. The latter is more likely. Part of it may be MPAA pressure, but I think the bigger part is that Tivo's hold on the market is tenuous and once one starts hacking the hardware, Tivo's core moneymaking services (the subscription part) disappears in an instant. But they made the bed; they can lie in it.

Back to the GPLv3. If you want to use someone's code, you have to license it. That's just the way it works; copyright law has no other provisions. You can choose to abide by the GPL, or license someone else's code. It's that simple. If Tivo wants to use GPLv3 code, they'll have to abide by it's license, which has now been expanded to make sure that artificial hardware locks around the code cannot be used to limit freedoms on the code itself (the code that belongs to others, or the code that Tivo extended that was GPL). Up until now Tivo has essentially been exploiting a weak GPL. Now they are crying that their free lunch got taken away. Apparently they have forgotten that the GPL is about freedom, but not necessarily cost.

Your prediction is pretty silly too. The *only* reason that IBM has invested in Linux in the first place is because of the GPL. The GPLv3 just makes more solid the reasons that IBM is already involved in Linux. Ubuntu forking GPLv2 software? Uh huh. Honestly, it's only the proprietary embedded hardware makers that are going to cry about this. They are welcome to fork GPLv2 stuff. At that point, though, they lose all the advantage of their previous free lunch anyway.

Honestly, when I read comments like this that so obviously miss the point and distort the issues, I wonder how the open source community can survive with so much internal ignorance. Microsoft hasn't much to worry about when we spread their FUD for them.

Re:Cry me a river.

[bheer]

> GPL is when they forget that it is a normal copyright license. It's about freedom, but with obligation.

I'm still waiting for people to acknowledge that the GPL's version of "freedom" not free as in speech, but "free" as in "RMS' idea of what freedom should be". Frankly, for an organisation that celebrates freedom so much, they are essentially targeting specific organisations, e.g. the embedded hardware guys and Microsoft/Novell.

This is a shame because the embedded hardware guys who embed Linux you dismiss are an important part of the Linux market and are probably responsible for getting Linux into more users' homes than most distros!). As for MS/Novell, well, $deity forbid that we make it easy for commercial software and OSS to work together.

Here's why the GPL3 is bad for business: it has shown itself for what it is: an ideologically-driven legal document. And those *always* make for bad business, because you cannot predict where it will go next. If you're laughing at Novell now, what happens if/when in a few years *you* are on the FSF's shitlist and the GPLvNext comes out?

(An obvious target, which RMS wanted to target in the GPL3 but backed away from, are ASPs, i.e., anyone who provides software as a service over a website. I work for an ASP btw and am relieved our use of GPL-licensed software is pretty much limited to using gcc and PHP.)

Freedom my ass. If the bill of rights were written based on current expediencies like the GPL is, we'd be living in a ideological gulag reminiscent of the Soviet Union's less-than-stellar days.

And for those of you saying "oh the _current_ license won't change, they can always stay where they are", you know that's a meaningless statement. The right to use a program object (executable, library, whatever) programmatically is a very limited right when divorced from the right to updates to that object. Most library vendors know this and provide lifecycle policies for this. Hell, even Microsoft -- notorious for slipstreaming license terms -- provides for _seven years_ of updates, even for people who _don't_ accept slipstreamed updates but did accept the original EULA. I still see nothing about a sunset period or grace period in the current GPL3 drafts.

Re:Cry me a river.

[NoOneInParticular]

What use is code if you can't run it? FSF/GNU has never been about just freedom of code, it's about the freedom of operating/changing devices that you bought. The freedom to tinker. The existence of the general purpose computer quickly made code the most important part, as with code, you could do anything.

The original incident that triggered RMS to start GNU was the fact that he couldn't fix a broken printer driver because he lacked the code to do this, and the vendor wouldn't let him have it. Now we get Tivo, who does give the code, but makes sure you cannot run it on the device the code is made for. Exactly the same result.

Nothing strange with the FSF reaction here. Tivo found a loophole to disallow people to tinker with their product. This one is now closed.

Re:Cry me a river.

[Alsee]

There was no loophole.

I agree that no loophole exists, but that is a technical and arguable point.

Tivo released all its code under the terms of the GPL.

TiVo is only in GPL compliance if the loophole actually exists. As I said I don't think it does... I say that TiVo is in violation of the GPL.

The GPL says that you only have permission to distribute an executable if you offer the full source for THAT executable. TiVo is in violation, they are distributing an executable version of other people's software, and they are deliberately supplying incomplete source that is insufficient to recompile THAT executable.

You cannot distribute a Cray executable of some program, and then supply source code for a similar but different executable... such as similar but lesser source that is adequate to compile a Commodore64 executable.

End of story. GPL violation and copyright violation. We just need one of the affected copyright holders to take on the major hassle of suing TiVo for it.

TiVo either needs to supply the full source needed to recreate the executables they are distributing (including the "secret key" they use during the compilation of that exact functional executable), or they need to be legally barred from continuing to distribute that software and to pay copyright infringement damages to all Linux programmers.

-

Re:Cry me a river.

[bheer]

> The GPL2 has no terms of expiration. Anyone useing anything GPLv2 is free and clear forever.

Except the right to updates. Which is a pretty big right for software infrastructure. Which every responsible software vendor gives you, once you accept the EULA. Even in the worst case (MS), if you've accepted the EULA to XP, you get updates for seven years per their lifecycle policy. Some of the updates provide "additional functionality", e.g., Windows Update->Microsoft Update delivers additional functionality and requires an additional update. Or Windows Media Player 11 adds new DRM features and requires agreement to a rather nasty EULA, but you still get updates to WMP9, which XP came with, even if you don't agree to the updated EULA.

> What the FSF is doing here probablly amounts to one of the most evenhanded and kind resolutions to a contract dispute in HISTORY.

What the FSF is doing here is shaping the GPL to suit its ideological needs, twisting the meaning of "freedom" to really mean "whatever RMS is really keen on". You might want to read the rest of my response here.

Re:Cry me a river.

[caseih]

The meaning of "freedom" as embodied by the GPL is clearly spelled out in the license. For me the GPL is there to protect my code from exploitation. I want my code to stay free and useful to folks. If Tivo wants to use my code in a non-GPL way, they can license it from me for a fee.

There's no problem embedding GPL'd software. Just abide by the license when developing and distributing such software. How hard is that?

You talk as if Linux somehow has to become the same as the competition or the enemy to succeed. What's your big deal anyway? Why would the GPL (any version) automatically be good or bad for business? For those that understand the GPL, it's intention, and spirit, the GPL is just another business tool that serves a number of companies very well. For those that don't, like Tivo, it can bite them. That is not the fault of the GPL nor should it be changed. Software of all kinds *is* ideological to a point.

Your last point clearly shows your position. You don't understand free software in particular, or maybe even open source software, at all. Either that or you do and you're purposely spreading this ignorance. This is almost a direct parrot of Microsoft's party line on the GPL. Unbelievable. Anyway. Anyone who wants to is welcome to leave GPL'd code alone. There are lots of alternatives that will be glad to take one's money. No one ever has the excuse, we didn't understand the implications of the GPL, regardless of version.

Your EULA argument is bogus and does not address the other person's post who talked about producing code based on Microsoft's licensing agreements. THE GPL IS NOT A EULA! You can use GPL'd software indefinitely without agreeing to anything. At least until the moment you decide to distribute the software, which is only possibly under the GPL if you don't negotiate a specific arrangement with the copyright holders. And that software you use under the terms of the GPL can be used indefinitely under those terms. There's no need of a sunset agreement because there never is a sunset.

As for newer programs switching to the GPLv3, I'd urge you to review how Microsoft has continually changed the licensing that comes with the various tools and runtime libraries of Visual Studio (which is more directly applicable to the discussion, not the EULA for windows itself). Just as in Linux were different versions of a program could be released under different source code licenses, so does Microsoft.

Re:Cry me a river.

[bheer]

I don't really know what MS's official line on the GPL is (it was "anti-American" at one point, I have no idea what they think now) but my point of view comes from interacting with real businesses looking at open source. The bottom line is: just when they were starting to get comfortable with GPL2, the new buzz about GPL3 has increased legal scrutiny of the use of any open source beyond the trivial (by that I mean using Linux workstations, writing PHP pages and using MySQL databases)

> At least until the moment you decide to distribute the software, which is only possibly under the GPL if you don't negotiate a specific arrangement with the copyright holders.

The problem is, TiVo was not in the business of distributing software under the GPL2. They were in the business of distributing a box. Now, under GPL3, they are suddenly vulnerable. To companies, this says: if the OSS community does not like you, they'll get you when they change license agreements. Note that most of them do get the "you're free to continue using the current license" routine and will take it into account, but being cut-off from updates because your upstream provider changed the license one fine day is a scary prospect.

> GPL is just another business tool that serves a number of companies very well.

Indeed. IBM loves open source because it devalues software companies (they lost that war, and how) and promotes software services, which Big Blue can market better than anyone else. The worst of it is that RMS doesn't even see that he's basically shilling for Big Blue's business strategy. Welcome to a world where the only business software worth selling is software that so Byzantine that it takes an army of IBM Global Services consultants to install it for you.

Re:Cry me a river.

[init100]

Prediction: if the GPL3 comes out the way RMS has been saying it will, Ubuntu, IBM and others will fork the GNU system in a heartbeat

If IBM were going to fork the GPLv2 software anyway, why would they voice their concerns over the DRM clauses of the GPLv3 to the FSF? According to several sources, IBM's concerns are pretty much the reason why the DRM restrictions now differ between consumer and business environments.

By the way, why would Ubuntu fork the GPLv2 packages? What do they have to lose with the GPLv3? I think that you are just tad too quick in assuming that "everyone" will just fork the last GPLv2 release of the GNU packages.

Re:Cry me a river.

[init100]

Except the right to updates. Which is a pretty big right for software infrastructure. Which every responsible software vendor gives you, once you accept the EULA. Even in the worst case (MS), if you've accepted the EULA to XP, you get updates for seven years per their lifecycle policy. Some of the updates provide "additional functionality", e.g., Windows Update->Microsoft Update delivers additional functionality and requires an additional update. Or Windows Media Player 11 adds new DRM features and requires agreement to a rather nasty EULA, but you still get updates to WMP9, which XP came with, even if you don't agree to the updated EULA.

Maybe you should suggest that they only apply the GPLv3 to any new version that includes new functionality, and keep a GPLv2 branch that only provides security updates. Oh wait, you can already do that yourself (which isn't possible with Microsoft products), so they don't need to keep such a branch.

In essence: Since the code is free software, you can fix any security flaws yourself (and even add functionality you would want to have). Any new (and thus GPLv3) version is analogous to a new version of Microsoft software with an amended EULA.

In addition, there is no right to updates with free software. You didn't pay a dime for it, so you cannot demand that they provide any updates for you. That they'll do it anyway, albeit with an updated license, is another story.

Re:Cry me a river.

[init100]

As for MS/Novell, well, $deity forbid that we make it easy for commercial software and OSS to work together.

Did you just crawl out from under some rock? Nobody criticizes the interoperability and virtualization agreements, it is the patent agreement that is criticized, and it is just this part of the Novell-Microsoft agreement that the GPLv3 targets.

Here's why the GPL3 is bad for business: it has shown itself for what it is: an ideologically-driven legal document. And those *always* make for bad business, because you cannot predict where it will go next. If you're laughing at Novell now, what happens if/when in a few years *you* are on the FSF's shitlist and the GPLvNext comes out?

This is pure FUD. The GPL has been very clear since time immemorial that it is all about protecting the four freedoms outlined by the GPL. That is all it intends to do. The companies targeted by the GPLv3 have all used creative ways to sidestep the requirements of the GPLv2 while still technically complied with the license. It could come as no surprise that the FSF intends to close such loopholes.

Only companies that use loopholes and creative sidestepping need to worry about new versions of the GPL. Companies that do not do such things have nothing to worry about.

Freedom my ass. If the bill of rights were written based on current expediencies like the GPL is, we'd be living in a ideological gulag reminiscent of the Soviet Union's less-than-stellar days.

Ahh, a not so subtle variant of the age-old "GPL is communism" FUD.

The right to use a program object (executable, library, whatever) programmatically is a very limited right when divorced from the right to updates to that object. Most library vendors know this and provide lifecycle policies for this. Hell, even Microsoft -- notorious for slipstreaming license terms -- provides for _seven years_ of updates, even for people who _don't_ accept slipstreamed updates but did accept the original EULA. I still see nothing about a sunset period or grace period in the current GPL3 drafts.

You don't have a "right to updates" with software that you received for free. You paid for Microsoft software, and thus it is sensible for them to provide updates to old versions for several years after a new version is available. But just like Microsoft, I would imagine Red Hat to provide updates for a long time without any change in the software licenses, and my guess is that Red Hat won't ever supply GPLv3 updates to RHEL5 since it was released when the GPLv3 was not yet finalized (I know, it still isn't finalized).

If you got the software for free off the web, you can still hire a software developer to implement security fixes into the current (GPLv2) version for as long as you wish.

Re:Cry me a river.

[caseih]

Tivo *is* (re)distributing software under the terms of the GPL. Whether they want to or not, they are a distributor, despite the "box" being their sole game. They comply with the strict requirements by providing the source code for the kernel and other parts that are GPL. They are in compliance with the letter of the GPLv2. They knew from the beginning that they weren't in compliance with the spirit and intent of the GPL, but up until now that didn't matter. But Tivo isn't the one who holds the copyright on the code, although they have a perpetual license on the code they currently do use under the GPLv2. Now, though, it all suddenly may matter if they want to continue getting the free lunch. Given Tivo's intentions, I believe they did make a huge mistake to take the free lunch rather than develop their own stuff or license under more favorable terms something else. Tivo proved that the GPLv2 could be used in just as proprietary of circumstances as code under any other licenses.

The intent of the GPL has always been to make sure that the end users have certain freedoms. If IBM can make a lot of money by using this as a tool, so be it. In the end, I as a developer, or even end user, who uses the GPL, is far better off from IBM's actions than I am from Tivo's. IBM takes, extends, makes money, and releases. Tivo just takes and makes money. Only companies who fail to understand how the free software movement works lose. Many small companies, such as RedHat, are clear winners because of IBM's actions. IBM may not love these companies, and may compete with them into the ground with their service strategy, but nevertheless, the GPL significantly levels the playing field and the barriers to entry, if the rules are understood.

Whether the GPLv2 or GPLv3 makes business sense for you, or for Tivo, or for company XY, is none of my concern. For me, I'd have to choose to license software under the most favorable terms I could, whether that be BSD, Microsoft's various licenses, the LGPL, or the GPLv3, depending on my needs. As for my own software, I tend to license it under GPLv2 (sometimes "or newer"). If a business wants my code bad enough, I can negotiate any license arrangement I want.

Re:Cry me a river.

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no loophole. Tivo released all its code under the terms of the GPL.

Tivo agreed to the GPL, which requires distribution of source code, where source code is defined as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."

Tivo distributed source code, but then implemented numerous technical measures to prevent the operation of modified software. Tivo may argue that this complied with the letter of the agreement, but it clearly contravened the spirit of the agreement. The intent of the ageement was that users should be able to modify the software, and Tivo sought to circumvent this. So yes, they were exploiting a loophole, and did something clearly contrary to the intent of the agreement. For this reason, the GPL3 also requires distribution of installation instructions, which clearly prohibits withholding what Tivo withheld under GPL2.

Potentially important legal battle?

[Grave]

If I am understanding this correctly (and IANAL, so maybe I'm completely wrong), does this mean GPLv3 circumvents the DMCA? If that's true, and TiVo continues to use GPLv3 software, would the content producers actually risk taking anyone to court who modified (or provided instructions to do so) a TiVo in order to circumvent DRM? Afterall, if such a case went to court, the end result would be either the GPL is invalidated (rather unlikely) or the DMCA is struck down.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so please correct me if I have this all wrong.

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[Eric Smith]

No, the GPL (v3 or otherwise) doesn't circumvent anything. What gave you the idea that it did? That's like trying to argue that an EPROM programmer is a circumvention device.

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[servognome]

No, the GPL (v3 or otherwise) doesn't circumvent anything. What gave you the idea that it did?

Sadly, That won't stop some lawyer to sue under DMCA. Remember there's a case where Media Rights Technology is suing companies under DMCA for not using DRM.

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[Grave]

Well, the DMCA states that you can't remove/disable DRM. The GPLv3 "allows" users to remove DRM.

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[Eric Smith]

The GPLv3 doesn't grant anyone permission to break the law. Obviously it cannot.

The point of the anti-DRM provisions of GPLv3 isn't that if someone uses GPLv3 code for DRM, the users get any legal right to circumvent it. The point is to prevent GPLv3 code from being used for DRM in the first place.

In other words, if I release FooSoft 1.8 under the GPLv3, and SomeRandomCompany uses it in their product with DRM, then tries to sue people that modify SRC's version of FooSoft to circumvent the DRM, it will be a reasonable defense to point out that SomeRandomCompany knew (or should have known) before they started using FooSoft 1.8 that its license (GPLv3) precluded its use for DRM.

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[ShatteredMind]

The point of the DMCA is to prevent illegal circumvention of DRM. So, by putting code under the GPLv3 (or deriving your code from it) you are giving the user the right to remove the DRM modifications, thus there is no illegal circumvention. This is just making sure that Tivo allows modification of code (even DRM code) that they modified, just as they were allowed to modify it.

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that is idiotic.

Tivo: uses loophole in GPLv2 to use DRM to restrict user modifications to software.

DMCA: you can't circumvent copy protection

GPLv3: you can't use DRM to restrict user modifications.

Tivo has a choice: use old versions of software that lets them restrict user modifications, or drop the restrictions and use newer GPLv3 versions.

This has nothing to do with DMCA, as it has nothing to do with circumvention. The owners of the GPL software in question are updating the licence to close the hole.

The DRM would not be circumvented, it would be legally prevented by license.

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[LordVader717]

I think it will be more like this: Circumventing the copy protection will still be illegal, but by using DRM the company is breaching the license agreement for the code. Thus, they must either scrap the DRM or else stop using GPL'd code.

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it, and IANAL but one of my CSC professors is, you are legally entitled to modify the code, that's exactly what the GPL gives you. So the only person who can be at fault could be whover first released a DRM schema under the GPL. However there's no conceivable way anyone would license a drm scheme to be released under the GPL. The main idea, it's not "effective" if you explicitly allow people to bypass it.

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what if they don't use the GPL code for DRM. What if the DRM is done by a seperate module or by other hardware and simply enabled within the GPL code.

Would simply commenting out the line
#define ENABLE_DRM
be illegally circumventing DRM?

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[Corwn of Amber]

Why not release a DRM scheme under the GPL? With keys transmitted by SSH and hardware crypto. Open every spec, it still is quite unbreakable without at least a soldering iron.

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[Aim Here]

Erm the particular phrasing of the GPLv3 draft is that 'No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures. When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technical measures.'

Meaning it's phrased as a waiver by the copyright holder/distributor, and therefore they'll find it impossible to successfully sue under the DMCA for violating copy protection implemented in GPLv3. Not that it matters anyway, I think - nobody uses open source copy protection.

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like trying to argue that an EPROM programmer is a circumvention device. You might be surprised.

A certain satellite television provider was threatening to sue me for over two years because I purchased an ISO smartcard programmer that *could* have been used to modify their older (and quite obsolete) access cards.

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[m50d]

Afterall, if such a case went to court, the end result would be either the GPL is invalidated (rather unlikely) or the DMCA is struck down.

No; the GPL provision is "you waive your right to use the DMCA or similar laws in certain ways", not "the DMCA is now invalid"

Re:Potentially important legal battle?

[Eric Smith]

If the code is linked with GPLv3 code (even dynamically linked at runtime), then it will be a violation of the GPLv3 license. The copyright owner of the GPLv3 code will have grounds to sue the company that sold the product for copyright infringement, and collect either actual or statutory damages, either of which could be a *lot* of money.

Tivo <3 GNU, really!

[Anonymous Coward]

Note how Tivo said "GNU/Linux", hoping that RMS will take note, pardon them, and grant Tivo an exemption in GPLv3.

Well, duh!

[jpetts]

TiVo operates on a business model that GPL3 is **expressly** designed to eliminate.

See this essay by RMS and search for "tivoization".

Nothing in the least bit surprising here...

Re:Well, duh!

[Ash Vince]

Don't Google search boxes operate on a similar business model?

They sell / rent these very expensive boxes that you put on your corporate intranet and then get a local google search that you can alloy to spider your very sensitive documents without fearing they end up one a public web. I believe google prohibit you from messing with them at all in case you were able to extract too much infomation about googles proprietary search algorithms and figure out how they work. I mention this because I believe that google uses linux as a base for these boxes but then build alot on top of it.

I think the GPL3 is an interesting idea but I am worried it may force a huge amount of companies to stop using linux altogether.

Re:Well, duh!

[cp.tar]

Therefore, poor TiVo can bitch and moan that Stallman & Co. are out to get them.

Which is what they're doing.

Surprise, surprise.

Re:Well, duh!

[sjf]

From the end of Stallmans essay:

Copyright 2007 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.

Funny, isn't this the BSD license in a nutshell ?

Re:Well, duh!

[RobNich]

They're using RedHat 7.x for the boxes I work with (according to the software updates they provide). I don't think they would need to provide source for their components, as it all runs within Tomcat, etc.

Re:Well, duh!

[cybereal]

No, common mistake. The notice is that one line, if it was the old BSD thing, it would require you to recite every author along the hierarchy of change in every revision.

If 10 people made changes, the final version would have 10 author names listed.

The notice in this case is just like the one required explicitly by the GPL actually :)

Re:Well, duh!

[LordVader717]

It's hard to make a point for distributing source code for an article.

Re:Well, duh!

[weicco]

I tried to ask this in another discussion here but noone answered. I'll try again here...

In Finland lower court decided that CSS mechanism used in DVDs does not make an effective technological protection mechanism (exact wording from GPL v3 latest draft). Court even raised an question about if there is any such mechanism or ever will be. If this gets to high court and it decides that there's no effective mechanism what happens to GPL v3 anti-DRM clause?

What I mean is if court decides there's not such thing could DRM code be distributed under/with GPL v3 because... there's no effective technological protection mechanism in the first place (which is a good thing of course that there is no such thing).

Re:Well, duh!

[CryoPenguin]

You can already implement DRM in a GPLv3 program. The GPLv3 just says you can't sue anyone for breaking your DRM using your code. And it just so happens that if you implement DRM in a GPLv3 program, breaking will tend to be easy.
So what would change if the courts ruled that nothing counts as an "effective technological protection mechanism"? That paragraph of the GPLv3 would become redundant. You'd still be allowed to break DRM, and it would still be easy to break any DRM that has an OSS implementation. The only difference is that you'd also be allowed to break non-GPL systems.

Quoting RMS's explanation of the latest draft:

GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs. It doesn't forbid DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add them.

Re:Well, duh!

[Chelloveck]

TiVo operates on a business model that GPL3 is **expressly** designed to eliminate. See this essay [fsf.org] by RMS and search for "tivoization". Nothing in the least bit surprising here...

I have very little sympathy for either side here. Yes, Stallman et al are taking their ball and going home. They are specifically trying to prevent companies like TiVo from doing what they're doing. Boo-hoo. But it's not like Linux is the only game in town here. There are other OSs, commercial and free, that TiVo can use. Yes, change will affect their business. So what?

I've said all along that the GPLv2 is a load of fetid dingos kidneys. The GPLv3 is a steaming pile of something I'd normally flush. I have no idea how something which promotes "freedom" can have pages of text restricting said freedom. It's not freedom, it's pages of ideological diatribe disguised as a software license. In the words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." You want a truly free license? Look to something like BSD. That sort of license is actually free, without pushing any ideological agenda. "Here's our code. We hope you like it. Do with it what you will." That, my friends, is free (libre) software.

Re:Well, duh!

[Tickletaint]

Parent post is proof positive that intelligence is GPL-incompatible.

Re:Well, duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been on both sides of this argument. In the early days of the unixodbc effort, a programmer working at Borland released his code, but wasn't clear on the license or lack of license. A team of us who'd picked up his code - mainly Brian Jepson http://www.jepstone.net/ - asked which license he explicitly wanted to release his code. He elected to use GPL and give it to the FSF (Stallman). For a short period of time, very short, this seemed ok, until we actually read the GPL. I was using this code in an unreleased commercial product, so this wasn't good. We had to convince RMS to change the license from GPL to LGPL, which really made the most sense for an ODBC driver manager. After much though it was changed to LGPL and my product continued forward. This choice made many ODBC Driver providers nervous, so they created their own version, but remained backwards compatible with unixodbc. If we had to, we would have written our own ODBC driver manager from the specifications and ate the cost as part of our total development costs. This commercial product was used by less than 10,000 people world-wide.

I also own a TiVo - unhacked. The TivoToGo capabilities do mostly what I want, but it would be nice to not have to deal with DRM in the .tivo files at all. I suspect Tivo is used by over 1M people and if the DRM couldn't be circumvented, about 10% of them would be really mad. The other 90% are sheep and won't take the time/effort to bother with TTG. GPLv3 will help all the tivo users, should the tivo company elect to migrate to newer GNU/Linux code released under GPLv3. That is their choice.

I also own a Divx/DVD player. The company that released the product http://www.mecotek.com/ was caught violating the GPL (xvid) and rather than release the source code, they elected to go out of business - that's what it appears to me. The real problem began with Sigma Designs http://www.sigmadesigns.com/ using GPL code in their "reference implementation." I feel screwed - the product could be extended, except for the manufacturing company. That sucks.

In summary, any company that builds their business on GPL code shouldn't expect that many of the users wouldn't also desire to tinker or replace their code completely. That should be highly expected - I look for products that use GPL code for exactly that reason. All in all, I'm in favor of GPL-based products that I'm allowed to tweak. I'm also in favor of companies that chose not to support any product that has been taken beyond the original firmware. That is also their choice.

Re:Well, duh!

[westlake]

TiVo operates on a business model that GPL3 is **expressly** designed to eliminate.

and if TiVo's budiness model is successful - and cannot be eliminated - where does that leave the developer who commits to GPL3?

Re:Well, duh!

[jZnat]

TiVo could easily just allow their customers to change the code in their TiVo's, or they could load the code into ROM so that nobody can modify the code without replacing the ROM. I don't see how allowing their customers to hack around with their TiVo's is going to fuck over their business model...

Re:Well, duh!

[drew]

Uh, no. They're not.

They are disclosing information that is material to the operation of their business in a regulatory filing, as required by law. Yes, you and I and anyone else who has been following the GPL v3 draft process or has followed Stallman's work over the past few years already know all of this. But Tivo's investors don't necessarily know. Tivo is required by law to disclose that to them in their regulatory filings because it could affect their profitability and therefore their stock price. Tivo would have to have their head in the sand not to know about this, and therefore they could face serious penalties if they did not disclose it, regardless of whether they are actually worried about the problem or not. Have you ever read these kind of filings before? They include everything, and they always describe the worst possible case. I remember when Amazon was at its peak around $100, their filings regularly said things like "It's possible that this company will never operate profitably." Obviously the people running the company don't think that, or else they would be running the company, but they still have to say it.

It seems to me that writing an entire article about Tivo being "worried" based entirely off of their regulatory filings is already being very bold. To take it a step further and state that they are complaining about the actions of the FSF unfairly targeting them with no further support of the claim is rather beyond ridiculous.

At any rate it's not like they're going to be losing their existing codebase. At worst, this will slow down their future development cycles.

Re:Well, duh!

[Huwawa]

Doesn't the GPLv2 state that one is not allowed to release further versions of GPLv2 software under a different license? That pretty much makes the FSF switching future software to the GPLv3 a moot point, since Tivo can keep doing what they're doing with v2 software.

Re:Well, duh!

[mr3038]

In Finland lower court decided that CSS mechanism used in DVDs does not make an effective technological protection mechanism (exact wording from GPL v3 latest draft). Court even raised an question about if there is any such mechanism or ever will be.

If I've understood correctly, the point was that CSS mechanism used in DVDs does not make an effective technological protection mechanism, because it's a known method.

Compare this to AACS, for example. Decryption method (without a proper key) for AACS is not publicly known. As a result, it could be considered to be an effective technological protection mechanism by the court. And if it were considered as such, then even disclosing information about how to decrypt AACS (making the decryption method available to public) could be illegal in Finland (and in many other countries).

However, when AACS gets broken and the method is released to public, then it's probably safe to use that method in Finland.

Re:Well, duh!

[weicco]

Heh. Nice. It's illegal to circumvent AACS and when you break the law (make method publicly available) it becomes legal to circumvent it :)

Could be good news for BSD projects

[TodMinuit]

This may finally be the motivation the BSD world needs to replace GNU software, like the C library and compilers, with truly free alternatives. Here's hoping.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[A beautiful mind]

By this logic a dictatorship is the only free system, because it includes the freedom to take away yours. And the system lives with that "freedom".

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Eric Smith]

This may finally be the motivation the BSD world needs to replace GNU software, like the C library and compilers, with truly free alternatives.

The problem with "truly free software" is that companies/people are free to make it non-free. While that would be great for companies like Tivo, it is bad for end users, since they do NOT get the freedom to further enhance the proprietary fork of the code.

I personally don't see why the "BSD world" thinks that producing software that other people can turn proprietary is a good thing. However, if they write the software they have obviously the right to use any kind of license they want for it.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[ricree]

Agreed. GPL may be more restrictive than the BSD license, but it certainly is more conducive to creating a community of free software.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[91degrees]

Anarchy is the only free system, but most freedom lovers aren't all that keen on that as a concept. The GPL is free in most respects except that you are not free to make in non-free. Some people see this as a price worth paying.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[A beautiful mind]

I could easily knock down your flimsy argument

Then do.

but I'm not going to turn this into yet another GPL vs BSD, true mean of freedom, debate.

Don't you think it is a bit hypocritical saying this, since you were the one who started the debate in the first place?

We both know neither of us will change our mind.

Speak for yourself. I can always be convinced, given solid, reasonably articulated arguments. So, knock down my flimsy argument and convince me.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[The Bungi]

People who release software under BSD- or MIT-type licenses are mostly grownups who know exactly what they're doing and generally don't mind the TERRIBLE side effect of using a truly free license that's supposed to give you all the freedom in the world except under certain cases. We don't need to hear the "zOMFG SOMEONE IS GOING TO TAKE YOUR SOFTWARES AND MAKE THEM NON FREE" argument again. We get it. No one can make my code "unfree". It's mine, and everyone else's to do whatever they want with it as long as they don't blame me if they fuck something up. Short of the public domain, that's the definition of "free" as far as I'm concerned. The GPL is a social agenda instrument, not a software license.

Developers who use the BSD licenses believe in true freedom, even if someone claims it comes at the expense of theirs. They don't want you to join a club or learn a secret handshake or pray to a little idol. They want you to have the code and get on with it. You can even give back if you want, but that's your choice.

Some people claim that the GPL is much more effective at creating and fostering community. I disagree. It's just that the communities that form around BSD code bases are far less radical, divisive and paranoid. We just want to write some possibly useful code and give it away to anyone that might find it so. We don't want to spend half our time trying to figure out who is "infringing" some endless, obscure legal minefield most educated people wouldn't understand after reading three times.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[evanbd]

I tend to be a GPL fan. For stuff I write, it's my preferred license. However, there are a few cases where I think BSD type licenses are superior. The major one is where you're trying to create a standard. For example, Ogg Vorbis -- it is far more valuable to the community if it *does* get included in proprietary places, because promoting the *format* is a good thing. BSD promotes exactly that. There are plenty of similar examples.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Brotherred]

Yeah just like Windows Server 2003. Thanx for that shaft BSD. Hey I look at it this way. If Tivo and Novel are not happy with the license that goes with our code then they are FREE to write their own to go with their own code built in house!!!

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[dvNull]

Well said.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[xanalogical]

> Some people claim that the GPL is much more effective at creating and
> fostering community. I disagree.

Unlike a futile BSD vs GPL debate, this is a rather factual one. There are more and larger communities using GPL than BSD. If nothing else, look at the size of the Linux community vs the sum of the BSD ones. The GPL ones are larger and growing ever larger. How can you disagree with those numbers?

The reason is that more people are those paranoid GPL types than are the sharing BSD types. Some may wish it otherwise and some may work to change it, but let's not hide from the facts.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[iamacat]

The problem with "truly free software" is that companies/people are free to make it non-free.

They are also free to make it more free. If I write BSD-licensed code, people are free to use it in GPL applications, Artistic licensed applications, Creative commons-licensed applications... If I release a device driver under GPL, it can not be ported to FreeBSD or Darwin.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[The Bungi]

How can you disagree with those numbers?

I don't, but I wasn't referring to quantity.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Tanuki64]

'Free' in this context depends much on the view point. From the point of view of a mere user, the GPL is more free. From the point of view of a developer, the BSD license is more free. I am a professional software developer, but the amount of software I use professionally dwarfs the amount of software I use occasionally as a mere user by several orders of magnitude.Therefore I prefer the GPL.

To generally say license "foo" is more or less free than license "bar" is nonsense and very often a sign that a least one part of a discussion is not objective.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[kestasjk]

Agreed. GPL may be more restrictive than the BSD license, but it certainly is more conducive to creating a community of free software. That depends on your definition of free, doesn't it.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations. You just discovered that there isn't a single solution to every problem.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

OK, I'll bite. Exactly how does the BSD license allow you to take away someone else's freedom? That's like saying that performing a Shakespeare play somehow prevents other people from performing it. The people who put on the specific performance may say what can and can't be done with a specific performance (e.g. whether it can be recorded, the recording distributed, etc.), which is the way it always has been. Anyone else can still go back to the original and create a new performance. The BSD license is essentially the same thing as having works in the public domain (except that you are required to credit the author). The point of the public domain is that works are free for all comers to use as they wish. This has been the case as long as copyright has existed. Saying that you can somehow take away somebody else's freedom by using works in the public domain, or under the BSD license, is pure doublespeak.

In fact, the GPL is really what takes away your freedom. It essentially says that if you want to create a derivative work, you must abide by certain restrictions. What this effectively does is grant certain rights to the recipients of derivative works in exchange for certain restrictions on freedom to create those derivative works. Not as sexy sounding as "preserving freedom", I suppose.

You may support the use of the GPL based on your wanting to promote open source, or your wanting to prevent people from profiting from your work, or a multitude of other reasons. But it is duplicitous to say the GPL preserves freedom.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." To that I would add, "Restrictions are Rights."

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[cheater512]

If you RTFA then you will find out that TiVo is worried because under GPLv3 they cannot take away your freedoms.
If they used BSD then they could.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[jaseuk]

You wouldn't have a very useful Linux system without XFree86 / XORG, Apache, Tomcat, SpamAssassin, Sendmail, QMail, Postfix, Perl, PHP, ISC BIND, ISC DHCP, Postgres, Webmin and the various other packages that are under non-GPL licenses.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Corwn of Amber]

Agreed. Then the license for the software that TiVo uses should include a "NO DRM" clause. That's GPLv3 for you.

If the law prevents them from doing Just That then they either relocate their legal adress to some place without that very law or get out of business.
Or carry on with their useless boxes I won't ever buy as long as they implement evil features like DRM and force-showing ads.
Once again : if you want me to watch ads it's because the advertisers have given you a ton more $ than I'll ever be able to. Thus you give me the service for free. And I'm going to strip the ads ANYWAY because I don't want to have them embedded in content I will still be watching in years from now.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[bl8n8r]

> you are not free to make in non-free.

Not entirely true. You are not free to alter-and-incorporate the codebase without making those changes freely avaialable to everyone else.

It's too bad if Tivo goes under, but in the scope of DRM they cannot continue either.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[asc99c]

The nature of the licences forces GPL contributors to remain in the GPL community. I am convinced that BSD code is used a lot more, and has a much bigger 'hidden' community within the commercial sector. I've used BSD code within commercial applications and been very pleased with the results. My day job pays well and any stuff I do outside of that I'm happy to give away - and if someone else could make a profit off it, that's fine too. Unfortunately, other than for a couple of really tiny apps that are completely my own work, I've never had any say on the licence. My own work I just do pure public domain. Everything else has been GPL licenced projects although I prefer BSD.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Crayon Kid]

And on your definition of "conducive", and of "community", and of "creating", heck, and of "definition" and so on. Come on, it's ridiculous. RMS has been spending decades explaining "free". Let's not split hairs.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that most who argue GPL vs BSD etc thinks only of one party to the conflict of interest at a time. Think of 3 parties: The developer, the user, the company who makes a product out of the devs code.

GPL:

The developer gets to do whatever he wants with his code, and any derivative work under the terms of the GPL.
The user gets to use the program.
The company gets free labor and hopefully a good product, and have to give a little back.

BSD:

The developer gets to do whatever he wants with his code, but usually not with derivative work, and may have to spend time reimplementing features that the company already added.
The user get to use the code, but there may be two diverging products, each with nice features. In the end, everything in the developers version will end up in the company's version.
The company gets free labor and hopefully a good product, and don't have to give anything back.

The difference is the distribution of freedom.

BSD: A net reduction in freedom, creating frustration and wasted time for the developer, maybe even competing with the company, assuming the developers goal is to create as great a product as possible. If instead the developers goal is to use the BSD license then I guess he achieved his goal.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Crayon Kid]

Exactly how does the BSD license allow you to take away someone else's freedom? [...] In fact, the GPL is really what takes away your freedom.

Microsoft+Novell, Tivo, DRM, software patents... ring a bell? Feel pretty free, do you, around them? Enjoy seeing free software made proprietary? Enjoy seeing stuff that hasn't been written yet claimed by an asshole who got enough money to buy himself a patent?

Do you need to be drawn a picture to understand that pure freedom, without anything to enforce it, is anarchy and soon devolves into the law of the strongest? Public domain or the BSD license will never get you freedom. They will simply dump stuff by the curve for whoever's strongest to pick up and to keep for himself.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[mattcasters]

I guess the reasoning with GPL is that by making sure the license (under which GPL-ed software is released under) stays GPL. That way, you guarantee a certain degree of freedom. Software that can be distributed as binary-only as such does not offer that guarantee.
And therefor, using the same logic, the conclusion has to be that GPL is "more free".

The degrees of freedom as I see them reflected in the GPL license, refers to the rights of the end-user, more than to those of the developers.

Anyway, discussing licenses is always something nice to do if the weather is bad or if there is no more dirt left to clean up in the back yard. .02,

Matt

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[booch]

Guido, your argument was very good. You had me questioning my own preference for the GPL over BSD license. (My preference in that direction is not very strong, and there are situations where I prefer the BSD license.) But cheater512's argument was stronger (and nice and succinct, as you pointed out). I don't understand why you had to cut him down.

My best analogy of BSD versus GPL is to question which provides more freedom: the freedom to do anything, or the freedom to do anything except enslave someone and remove their freedoms. It's a philosophical question, and I can easily see people taking either position. I don't believe that there's a right answer to the question. In modern society, we choose the latter.

Admittedly, the Free Software Foundation's (and Open Source guideline's) four freedoms are not as important as the human right not to be enslaved. (Richard Stallman might disagree; he believes the four freedoms are fundamental human rights for the modern world.) But having and keeping those 4 freedoms is quite liberating. It allows you to control your own destiny when it comes to the software you use.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[WgT2]

By this logic a dictatorship is the only free system, because it includes the freedom to take away yours. And the system lives with that "freedom".

By your logic you just condemned the GNU license in that: it takes away your freedom to 'not release' changes you have made to GNU'ed software and the 'freedom' under GNU'ed software absolutely lives by that dictated 'freedom'.

I only disagree with the parent poster in that I would have 'completely free' instead of 'truly free'.

However, as I think about it 'completely free' isn't 'completely' accurate either in that I think the difference between the BSD and GNU licenses is this:

• the BSD license make the end user free (to do what they want with the software)
• the GNU license(s) make the actual software free (for others to use/chance it as well)

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

Ah. Pure freedom isn't freedom. You make my point better than I ever could have.

As for free software being made proprietary... That's just not the case. Free software stays free. You still have the choice to use the free alternative, if it works better for you. You can expand it, rewrite it, do whatever you like with it. That's why it's free software. And, frankly, if you're not free to do with it as you please--even if that means incorporating it into closed source software--it's a lie to call it free. You may not like what other people do with it, but hey, that's the price of freedom. People won't always do things you like. As I said before, you could call use of the GPL promoting open source, or anti-corporate, or whatever the ideology du jour is. But it's a perversion of the term "free" to use it in this context.

And I don't see what software patents have to do with anything. This is not a discussion about patent reform, it's about software licensing.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[gnud]

Not entirely true. You are not free to alter-and-incorporate the codebase without making those changes freely avaialable to everyone else.

NOT true. You are not free to DISTRIBUTE modified versions, without making the source aviable under the GPL to the customer. No part of the GPL says you have to set up a webpage and show your changes to the world, but you're not able to restrict your lisencees (if any) from doing just that.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. If you want your standard consistently implemented, why would you choose a license where vendors can close their deviations from the standard implementation. embrace, extend and all that. At least wth GPL, all the variations will be out in the open. Or if you really believe BSD is better for this, then why not just public domain it?

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[that this is not und]

Public domain or the BSD license will never get you freedom. They will simply dump stuff by the curve for whoever's strongest to pick up and to keep for himself.

I thought we had established clearly that when a 'copy' of something is made, the original is not taken away, and nobody is denied possesion of it. That's the whole basis that a LOT of people here use to justify 'copying music/movies.'

'Whoever is strongest' can NOT 'pick up and keep for himself' for example, the NetBSD code base in any meaningful way that denies anybody else the right to do the same.

I'd be interesting in seeing what kind of 'picture' you're going to draw that illustrates anything meaningful. Go for it, though.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[drsmithy]

The problem with "truly free software" is that companies/people are free to make it non-free.

Please explain how a piece of BSDL software can be made "non-free".

I personally don't see why the "BSD world" thinks that producing software that other people can turn proprietary is a good thing.

Because it's a less deceptive use of the word "free".

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Anarchy is an unstable political system. Feudalism, which is stable, will quickly replace any anarchy, and frankly I have no wish to be any more of a serf than I already am, so let's have a little respect for the few remaining laws that guarantee my freedom from those that would enslave me.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[that this is not und]

It's too bad for Linux if Tivo goes under.

The big stink would essentially KILL Linux in many organizations. If you don't think it would be a headline topic essentially forever afterwards, and the big red WARNING that any commercial entity sees flashing before their eyes when anybody internally suggests Linux for anything, you're kidding yourself.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[CastrTroy]

To further illustrate your point, let's just imagine that Linux was under a BSD license. Then, when some router manufacturer used that code in their router, the end user wouldn't obtain the source, and wouldn't be a able to freely modify the router to do what you want. With BSD you aren't garaunteeing that the source will always be available for the user to modify, fix, or extend. The GPL provides this, ensuring that something released as free, stays open, so that whoever uses the code has access to the source. I've even seen certain projects, which are licensed under BSD where the author wouldn't release the source to you unless you gave a $10 donation. Although I'm aware that the GPL has wording that allows them to charge for the cost of distribution of the source, I don't think I've ever seen a GPL application require that you pay them for the ability to download the software, and certainly not one who's compiled binary fits in 219 KB.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[drsmithy]

By this logic a dictatorship is the only free system, because it includes the freedom to take away yours. And the system lives with that "freedom".

Well, that depends on whether your definition of "freedom" means you should be able to control the things you do, or the things other people do. doesn't it ?

Remember the difference. The BSDL is about what you want to happen with *your* code. The GPL is about what you want to happen with *everyone else's* code.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

I "cut him down" because my whole point was that Tivo cannot take away your freedoms. They may not give you any new freedoms, but they can't take away anything you already have. You may ask, what about your right to hack your Tivo? I'd respond, what about their right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked? They are equivalent freedoms. You may not like their rights, and may in fact prefer to deprive them of those rights. And that's fine, but don't say you're promoting freedom. You're forcing Tivo to do something they didn't want to do in order to be granted a license to use your software. Force is antithetical to freedom. The "why" doesn't really matter.

Again, your argument about enslavement suffers from the same fallacy. Nobody can enslave you and remove your rights, any more than someone can remove your rights to use software that you have a license for. Your rights are still there no matter what anyone else does. In fact, that analogy is not very good at all, because when software is released it is copied. One person may do something with the software, and it has no bearing whatsoever on what you choose to do with it.

To sum up, yes, I personally am opposed to both the effect and the intent of the GPL. But that's not really relevant here. Even if I were in favor of using the GPL--to promote open source for example--I would still take exception to the notion that the GPL provides freedom, but the BSD license does not. It's the other way around. The GPL may have other benefits, but promoting freedom isn't one of them. Freedom means the ability to do whatever you want with software, even something other people may not like. When you cannot do that, it is because your freedom is restricted.

I believe in the BSD license because I believe that for something to be truly free, it must not be encumbered in any way. Credit is fine (although I'd accept the argument that works in the public domain are "more free" than BSD licensed works), because it doesn't take away the essential freedom to do essentially whatever you want with software. Any further restrictions, though, are just not free.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[blowdart]

RMS has been spending decades explaining "free"

You say explaining, I say redefining. You also assume that everyone agrees with RMS's explanations and redefinitions; some of us (who release code under the BSD license) don't; adding a restriction takes away "freedom" not adds to it, and the GPL3 nonsense simply underlines that way of thinking for me.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[pppppppman]

I thought this was the _point_ of GPL v3. To stop tivo (and others) from making a non-modifiable kernel (among probably some other stuff).

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

Let me give you an example. Say you have three available software licenses for source code.

1) You may change this software however you like and do whatever you want with the result.

2) You may not change this software in any way.

3) You may not change this software in any way, unless you use this license for the resulting software.

You are trying to tell me that 3 is "more free" than 1. In reality, it's just a variation on 2, the most restrictive license possible. I'd accept the argument that it promotes open source, but stop conflating source code availability with freedom. Under license 3, the price of that particular freedom is somebody else's freedom. You may not care because you end up benefiting in some cases, but there is a freedom cost.

Incidentally, as this all relates to Tivo--I'd be willing to bet they won't use any new GPL material in their new systems. In fact, they'll probably remove whatever GPL material they already have as they migrate to a closed source system. Once bitten, twice shy. So, the net result is a loss of freedom, I guess you'd say. Way to go, freedom advocates.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Waffle Iron]

I'd respond, what about their right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked?

Once Tivo has sold it to me, it's not "their product" any more. It's my property, and any "freedoms" regarding it belong to me. As it happens, the particular copyright license in the software that Tivo chose to redistribute may help ensure that Tivo is prevented from interfering with my freedom to use my property as I see fit.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Professor_UNIX]

That depends on your definition of free, doesn't it.

The ironic thing is that at the end of the day, the BSD license is more "free" than the GPL in that it allows you to do whatever you want with the code, including bundling it in with proprietary code and not releasing your enhancements. It sucks for the original authors, but they released their code under that license fully acknowledging companies had permission to take their work and build on it without giving anything back. That is "free", but not necessary conducive to building communities obviously.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

The BSD license freedom is the only reason why BSD, which is without any doubt a great OS for servers and networking, doesn't even come close to Linux when it comes to device drivers. The reason? Small developers hired to write a device driver for some company appliances aren't forced by the license to distribute the source code along with the appliances.
Take this situation, multiply it by several thousands companies that use Linux and BSD (take away those that violate the GPL anyway), let some years pass until now and you get the picture why BSD is way behind Linux in the areas outside the core development group.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[aussie_a]

Why don't you release under the public domain then? After all, the BSD adds a restriction, hence it takes away "freedom" it doesn't add to it.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[aussie_a]

This is the best explanation on the differences I've ever seen. Well done.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

Well, that's why I said "attempt" to prevent you from hacking their product. You're just as free to attempt to bypass those countermeasures. Why should you get freedoms that Tivo can't have? Because you bought the product? When you bought it, you knew what the restrictions, both legal and technological, on it were. You chose to buy it anyway. Asking for anything else is just greedy. You can use your Tivo in any way you see fit and in any manner you are capable of. I don't understand why Tivo should be required to help you do so, however.

You're not interested in freedom. Sometimes real freedom leads to results you won't like. You just want to play pretend hacker with your toys.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[that this is not und]

The GPL ones are larger and growing ever larger. How can you disagree with those numbers?

The GPL ones are fragmenting and scattering ever moreso. It's fine, I guess. But there have only been two or three major forks in the BSD-freenix community in it's entire history.

I could care less that somebody has pulled together a wad of scattered disorganized tarballs and are calling it 'xxx Linux.' If you don't understand my point, oh well.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Blue Stone]

As I understand it, basic Hindu philosophy on the matter of spiritual freedom is similar: through a spiritual practice, you gain greater freedom, but some of the things you can do with your freedom will take away that freedom: crude example - taking addictive drugs: you're free to take them but your freedom will be reduced if you exercise your freedom in this manner. It's the philosopohy that to preserve freedom you have to refrain from doing things which reduce that freedom. Looking at it from the other side - how free are you if you exercise freedoms that reduce your freedom? That's what the GPL (v.n) seems to be all about.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Thrip]

the BSD license is more "free" than the GPL The question isn't whether the license is free. The question is whether the software is free. Tons of little BSD daemons are slaving away behind bars in corporate prisons, while the Linux penguins are romping around free under the southern lights. Of course Tivo is worried: GPLv3 is a cake with a file in it for the poor guys locked up in Tivos, so they can bust out and join their brethren, holding flippers and singing songs of freedom and joy.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[mattcasters]

Never feed a troll and all that, but you are missing the point I was trying to make.
I was talking about freedom as a user. Software is written for a certain use. Contrary to what you may believe, software is NOT about the developer, it's about the end-result. That is all IMHO though. Certain aspects are borderline philosophical.

    If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to witness it, does it have any meaning?
    If a piece of software is written and nobody uses it, does it have any meaning?

In general I think software wants to have a certain purpose, wants to be used.

As far as I see it, Tivo violates the GPL and they should publish the source code. It's a simple as that. If they didn't like to publish the code, they should not have used it. The Tivo users lost freedom because Tivo violated the GPL license.

> Under license 3, the price of that particular freedom is somebody else's freedom

I don't see how you can claim that since that certain someone didn't gain or lose any freedom in the process. When you opt to use the GPL-ed software you have a freedom to use it. You should give that same freedom to others. It's as simple as that. Take it or leave it.

Matt

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Waffle Iron]

Why should you get freedoms that Tivo can't have?

Because apparently, Tivo couldn't be bothered to write their own goddamned software. So they decided to use somebody else's at no charge, and the authors of that software thought that end users should have those freedoms.

You have the typical low-level software developer blinders on. The GPL is not all that concerned about the 1% of people who redistribute software; it's concerned about the 99% of people who are end users. You're just upset because you can't take the software gratis, then redistribute it under your own terms. That's not a concern for end users, but the restrictions that you would add under your terms would be.

When you bought it, you knew what the restrictions, both legal and technological, on it were.

The legal "restrictions" on it, the GPL, are what you're complaining about here. As far as technological shortcomings, property owner has a right to fix what he owns.

You just want to play pretend hacker with your toys.

Yeah, and you just want to play patsy to some OEM and tell yourself that that's somehow "freedom".

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Orange Crush]

I don't understand why Tivo should be required to help you do so, however.

Because they're selling devices running an operating system that was developed by a community under a "share and share alike" philosophy. They're profiting from this community--which is fine by itself--but a lot of members of the community are really miffed that we can't go out and buy a Tivo, put in a custom kernel, run myth, tinker, etc. If it was my code, I'd be upset too. In fact, I'd be upset enough to make sure all future versions explicitly prohibit this behavior.

Tivo followed the letter of the law w/ the GPL 2, but they violated its spirit. GPL 3 spells it out more. They can either update their codebase themselves or unlock the boxes they're selling, but many folks in the FOSS community aren't willing to help a company that locks down free software.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Antimatter3009]

The best way I've ever seen the GPL vs. BSD debate put was something like this: GPL makes software free, BSD makes people free. BSD allows people to do much more with the code, meaning they have more freedom. However, GPL forces that code and any changes you make to be free as well, taking away some choice from the people, but ensuring the software itself and all variations will remain free. It seems like this argument is centering around the definition of free and what it applies to. Really, there are two different applications of the word.

I'm personally a fan of GPL. I think that if code is made free, companies shouldn't take it and make money off it without giving anything back. I'll even admit that, yes, it's a restriction on their freedom. However, I think it's worth it to force them to share with the community that allowed them to make their money in the first place. That said, BSD certainly has its uses depending on your goals. I think they're both very good and useful licenses. You really shouldn't worry too much about which is better, because there isn't actually a good answer. It's just a matter of preference. They're both good, they're both useful, and they can both coexist just fine. Neither will go away, and they aren't competing with each other. It's just a developer choice.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

I resent being called a troll just for having an unpopular opinion. How would you like it if I said "never respond to an obstinate asshole and all that..."

In general I think software wants to have a certain purpose, wants to be used.

Actually, software just hates to be anthropomorphized.


As far as I see it, Tivo violates the GPL and they should publish the source code. It's a simple as that. If they didn't like to publish the code, they should not have used it. The Tivo users lost freedom because Tivo violated the GPL license.


Then you have no idea what you're talking about. The issue here is not publication of source code. The issue is that version 3 of the GPL requires hardware that GPL software runs on to not prevent tampering or modifying the finished product. This has nothing to do with source code availability, so you can stop mindlessly parroting the party line.

I don't see how you can claim that since that certain someone didn't gain or lose any freedom in the process. When you opt to use the GPL-ed software you have a freedom to use it. You should give that same freedom to others. It's as simple as that. Take it or leave it.

When you modify GPL software, you must distribute it under the same license. You cannot prohibit users down the line from doing the same things you did, but you also cannot permit them to do things you couldn't do. In other words, your options are fewer--in fact, you have no options. If you don't see that as restricting your freedom, then you are very confused about your terms. Sadly, I think most GPL advocates are as well.

Don't be scared of freedom. It won't bite.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

"the BSD license make the end user free (to do what they want with the software)"

Except that if a proprietary company takes products under a BSD license and puts it in their product then I lose any freedom to do what I want with the BSD licensed product.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

Well put. I agree completely with that--except about preferring the GPL to the BSDL. I think more people end up benefiting from the use of the BSDL rather than the GPL. I enjoy my Tivo and Mac OS X, thanks to open source software. But I've never been worried about the future of OS X due to licensing issues. I honestly expected the day to come however when the GPL would bite Tivo on the ass. As a result a product that I and many others enjoy using, in part because of its open source nature (and resultant "hackability") could be significantly changed or removed from the market completely, thanks to the vitriolic anti-corporate stance of the authors of the GPL. And it is anti-corporate. You can talk about how you think software companies should do business, and that would be a valid subject for debate, but it's not how they currently do business. And the GPL is designed to be incompatible with that method--intentionally so.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[KutuluWare]

I'll assume that your house and your car are also licensed under the GPL. After all, it wouldn't do to take away my freedom to come in and use your bathroom and listen to your stereo and eat your food.

Tivo isn't taking away any freedom from me that I have any right to expect. If I purchase a piece of TiVo equipment than I should expect that TiVo gets to determine how that piece of equipment works. If I don't want to abide by their restrictions on running Linux, I go get Linux somewhere else. If I want to run Linux on a DVR without TiVos restructions, I build my own DVR. Obviously, I don't have the skill, nor inclination, to build my own, which shoots down two of the key arguments in favor of the GPL. One, most people, even most developers, don't give a crap if they have access to source code for some huge software project, because there is no way they're going to waste their time diving into that code to do anything. And second, people who whine that TiVo is limiting their rights by locking down what runs on the TiVo actually want to be able to hijack TiVos hard work and effort building the hardware, and are pissed off when TiVo claims their completely natural right to stop you.

The part that GPL advocates never seem to want to explain is that the GPL isn't about freedom in general. It's about freedom for the users. To get that freedom, the GPL quite explicitly takes away freedom from other people; specifically, developers, distributors, etc. To be fair, the language of the GPL, the FSF propoganda, and RMS himself never hesistate to make this point clear; just everyone else. Those people who get their freedom taken away do so voluntarily, knowing full well what they are doing, but it's just ridiculous to pretend it's not happening to make the GPL seem more "pure" than it really is. Like everything else that involves more than one person, its merely another way to decide where one freedom stops and another starts.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Jackmn]

The ironic thing is that at the end of the day, the BSD license is more "free" than the GPL in that it allows you to do whatever you want with the code, including bundling it in with proprietary code and not releasing your enhancements.

It is less free because it allows you to strip that freedom from the end users of your code.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[YomikoReadman]

Except you are trolling at worst, and flamebaiting at best.

Wikipedia defines trolling as follows:

A troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.[1] They may also plant images and data on networks that others may find disturbing (usually indirectly relating to the individual in person) in order to cause confrontation. While not necessarily related to hacking, such a practice is against the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in the United Kingdom, where mischief is caused in order to ensure chaos is spread.

If you're not doing that, then I don't know what you're doing.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[someone300]

If you, as a developer, were to distribute it under a closed source license, then the developer, who chose that he wanted his hard work and derivatives to always remain free to all those who want to see it, loses his freedom.

From the end user point of view, the developers freedom is irrelevant and the GNU GPL can be argued to produce better software since it stops commercial entities from picking up someone's work, using their weight to put loads of features into it and not release anything back to the community. Many original creators would be uneasy about being unable to use derivatives of their own work, and in the end, the users have a problem, since now the free software is left dying as the commercial software takes off, and a commercial license may be far more restrictive as to what an end user can do.

If a developer wants to create a piece of software, and wants to derive from a GPL piece of work, then he has to accept that the original creator wants certain rights and freedoms maintained over his work, or he has to find a piece of work by a developer who doesn't mind or recreate it himself.

I'm a GPL fan myself. Maybe it's because I want the opensource community to take off, or maybe it's because I feel that removing certain freedoms (e.g. the right to shoot people without repercussions from the law) allows a greater overall freedom. In the end, both licenses can coexist, and really neither are limiting freedoms in any sense. After all, in this capitalistic society, it's the original creator's right to decide whether he wants to allow commercial entities to take his work without giving anything back to the community, or whether he wants to limit certain distribution terms to allow end users more freedom. It's his call.

I think though, that your argument contains some logical flaws.

1. You assert that limiting terms in the license makes software less free.
2. Commercial entities are free to apply very limiting licenses, which I think we can agree are less free for both the end user and the developer.
3. You assert that providing software under the BSD license is the "best" choice since it allows maximal freedom, including freedom to change the license (given 1)
4. You seem to assert that any other license is less free
5. Assuming a commercial entity changes and relicenses software under a restrictive commercial license, given 3 you'd feel that this software is less free
6. By allowing software to be relicensed using the BSD license, you are using the freedom to invoke 5 on a particular piece of software as an advantage, despite claiming that you would never want software to be less free. This could cause an overall more unfree software climate.

You want the freedom to change the license but never want it to be invoked? May as well restrict that one freedom?

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

Personally, I don't think Tivo's rights should trump yours any more than the other way around. But you're not interested in the terms of the GPL anymore. You're not even interested in the notion of freedom. You just want Tivo to do whatever you think they should do, because of your personal notion of what's fair.

I'm not even complaining about the GPL. Tivo followed the terms of the GPL, and you should absolutely have any rights that the GPL provides you. Why do you suddenly think you're entitled to more than that? Because you think it's not fair?

Tivo chose to use it, and now they're seeing the results of that decision. It'll certainly wake up other companies to the realities of using GPL software. Apparently, when the authors of the GPL see something they don't like, they see fit to change the rules and further restrict freedom in the name of promoting freedom. It's a lie. The only freedom is what you're permitted.

Stop confusing your unfettered ability to take apart your toys with freedom. You can say the GPL is the best license for whatever reason. But you cannot say it promotes freedom. Read through it some time, and count the number of "you may not"s. You're just fooling yourself if you somehow believe "you may not" grants you more rights.

No, the GPL is designed to prevent people from using your software in a manner that you feel is unfair. Just call a spade a spade, and we have no dispute.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

Ah, I didn't realize civilized discussion was déclassé.

How are my messages "derogatory or otherwise inflammatory"? Because I don't agree with you? Because I actually have an opinion that I am trying to defend?

I think you're the troll here.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting that you are both spending a large part of your posts telling the other person what he thinks, believes, and wants. One would assume that you both would have more understanding of your own mental processes than those of a stranger.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Dogtanian]

Except you are trolling at worst, and flamebaiting at best. Wikipedia defines trolling as follows: [snip] If you're not doing that, then I don't know what you're doing. (Disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with the OP's opinion. Whether I do or not is irrelevant).

IMHO, there was nothing in his post to indicating that trolling was his intent- he expressed and defended reasonably an opinion that ran against the Slashdot norm. By contrast, your misleading implication that he was trolling- ironically- smacks more of a troll itself.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[pnewhook]

Once Tivo has sold it to me, it's not "their product" any more. It's my property, and any "freedoms" regarding it belong to me. As it happens, the particular copyright license in the software that Tivo chose to redistribute may help ensure that Tivo is prevented from interfering with my freedom to use my property as I see fit.

Don't be ridiculous. Just because you bought something doesn't mean you have unlimited rights to do as you wish to it. Would you consider a book that you bought now exclusively yours, then copy it and redistribute it? Of course not.

What about your house? You own your house so does that give you the right to modify your water, gas and electrical hookups to bypass the meters? No.

Your car? Do you have the right to drive your property you bought however you feel like? No - there are rules you must abide by.

Tivo has a right to do what they want to their products. If you buy it and attempt to take it apart, well then that's fine and your right, but they also have a right to put mechanisms in place to deny you further service if you do.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

3. You assert that providing software under the BSD license is the "best" choice since it allows maximal freedom, including freedom to change the license (given 1) ...
6. By allowing software to be relicensed using the BSD license, you are using the freedom to invoke 5 on a particular piece of software as an advantage, despite claiming that you would never want software to be less free. This could cause an overall more unfree software climate.

I never said BSD was the best license. I just said it was more free than the GPL. Some people may prefer the GPL, and that's fine. I don't, but I respect their rights to use whatever license they wish.

And your last argument is a straw man. I never said I'd "never want software to be less free". I want people to have the maximum amount of freedom to do as they please with my work. Whether that's change it and re-release it, or put it in a closed source program, or even modify it and release it under the GPL. When I release software under the BSDL, I'm saying that I don't care what you do with it, as long as you give credit where credit is due. That's all. I'm not interested in the "overall... free[dom]" of the "software climate" (although I do feel that the BSDL benefits the community on a greater scale than does the GPL--but that's a separate debate).

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Orkie]

If I choose to give away my code for free, then I'm generally not to bothered what happens to it. If somebody takes it, improves it and makes money fair enough - if I had been able to do that, I wouldn't have released it in the first place. If credit is given, it is indirectly beneficial to me as I become associated with what is presumably a decent product if people are buying it (otherwise I just deny any involvement other than a small amount of initial code ;)). I can see why people would want to use the GPL and maybe it's not such a bad thing for finished applications, but where I have an issue is the linking. I really don't see any point in putting in a load of effort making this awesome library if not everybody can use it. I guess the LGPL is good for libraries in this case (I certainly don't mind using LGPL-ed libraries, it can be a small inconvenience but at least anybody can make use of the result). Forcing people to use the GPL because they want to use your library seems silly to me. If you care how *your* code is treated, use the LGPL which will protect it without interfering with other people's. Otherwise, use something more free and much simpler - you'll get more people using and appreciating your work which is certainly the reason I release stuff for free :).

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[McGiraf]

So? why do you care if commercial entites use Linux. I, and a lot of people, will continue using it and creating software for it even if no one uses it commercialy. And anyway it is just companies producing software for money (or hardware driven by linux like Tivo) that will be scared of it. It will not change nothing for all the other companies.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[grumbel]

### why would you choose a license where vendors can close their deviations from the standard implementation.

Because you want them to use your standard in the first place.

### At least wth GPL, all the variations will be out in the open.

When you provide your implementation under GPL you have a very good chance that nobody is ever going to touch it, there would be no variations to begin with. People would continue to use MP3 instead of OGG. With BSD on the other side OGG is quite popular, not so much for iTunes and friends, but a lot of games use it instead of MP3.

### Or if you really believe BSD is better for this, then why not just public domain it?

Not sure, but I think public domain doesn't exist in some countries, so BSD might give a more solid legal stand.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[ico2]

I agree.
They take away freedom 1 (freedom to change the software to suit your needs (in this case by removing DRM)) which is unacceptable!
GPL3 was created to prevent the kind of evil that had not even been imagined at the time GPL2 was written.

Even if the linux kernel is never licensed under GPL3 (and IIRC Torvalds said it was possible (after saying no to a previous draft)), the linux kernel is useless without the basic software to run on it (such as gnulibc and the basic utility programs which WILL be licensed under GPL3 since they are gnu projects).
There are some alternatives to the above mentioned software which may even be more suitable than the gnu software (such as busybox to replace the basic apps and uclibc to replace glibc as they are smaller and more suited to the kind of embedded use TIVO wants them for) which are currently licensed under GPL2, I hope that they also choose GPL3 soon.

What people are forgetting here is that just because a company uses open source software, doesn't make them a company the community should protect.

I hope very much that both TIVO and Novell either mend their ways or go out of business in the very near future.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Truekaiser]

We get it. No one can make my code "unfree".

Company A sees your code and knows they can use it in their big project A
Company A takes your code, files a software patent over it. seeing as it can 'greese' the system it gets the patent despite prior art.
Company A sends you a cease and desist letter saying your stealing their code from project A and you are hurting their sales, they also call you a pirate and theif.
you give in cause you don't have the millions to fight the claim in court to prove they stole it from you and not the other way around leaving alone the fact you put the code under bsd which ALLOWS them to do this.

Company A has now effectively taken your code made millions on it, and charged you with thousands in fines. Which you have to pay now or go to jail. this would not of happened if you put the software under the gpl because then the same copyright law they just used against you could protect you.

by not caring your now thousands in debt.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Waffle Iron]

us. Just because you bought something doesn't mean you have unlimited rights to do as you wish to it. Would you consider a book that you bought now exclusively yours, then copy it and redistribute it?

The specific act of copying the information in the book is regulated by copyright law. Other than that, I'm free to do what I wish with the book, including modifying it and using the modified book.

You own your house so does that give you the right to modify your water, gas and electrical hookups to bypass the meters?

I wouldn't expect to, since I don't own the meters or utility pipes.

Do you have the right to drive your property you bought however you feel like?

If I drive on my own land, pretty much as long as I don't hurt anybody. Haven't you ever wondered why NASCAR drivers don't get speeding tickets during races?.

they also have a right to put mechanisms in place to deny you further service if you do.

And the people who wrote the software that Tivo uses have the right to prevent them from applying those mechanisms to copies of that software which Tivo redistributes. See the book example above.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[russotto]

If I purchase a piece of TiVo equipment than I should expect that TiVo gets to determine how that piece of equipment works.

You have the emphasis in the wrong place:

If I purchase a piece of TiVo equipment

Get it? You've bought it. It's YOUR equipment now, not Tivos. Sure, they went through a lot of hard work and effort to build that hardware. Then they sold it. At that point, their claim on that particular piece of hardware was exhausted.

Like everything else that involves more than one person, its merely another way to decide where one freedom stops and another starts.

This sort of relativism is simply a smokescreen. Merely because two arguments can be made syntactically equivalent or parallel does mean they are of equal value. You can argue that my freedom to not be murdered is an infringment on your freedom to murder me, but it's pretty clear that there's more freedom with prohibitions against murder than without.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[someone300]

I see, so what exactly are you arguing? Given what you've said, I assume it's the license itself rather than the overall effect on the community.

Are you arguing that BSD is more free as a license itself, or that developers should use BSD. They are completely different debates I guess. I'd say that I probably agree with the first one, since as a license itself it gives the receiver of the software more freedoms. Whether developers should use BSD is a moral argument, so it's a lot more complicated, but so long as you're just applying it to your work in the "This is how I want my work to be used" sense, then it's fine.

Though arguing that developers should use a particular license or that certain licenses are restricting freedoms of the community/developer in a greater sense is pretty difficult.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[brouski]

Is that what you think this about? Tivo won't release the source code?

Here you go, buddy. Knock yourself out.

With that out of the way, maybe now you can educate yourself about what this argument is actually about, before looking foolish again.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Shadowfire3000]

Wow, it is amazing how people will take up for the big guy, even when the big guy is not in the right of way sort to speak. Just like we as consumers have to abide by laws and licenses, the businesses and corporations must and should play by the same rules too!

The whole problem here is not based on the licensing of the GPL or BSD and how the licenses control usage of software that the companies or corporations use, but the fact that the companyies that *CHOOSE* to use the code written by someone who is not on thier payroll or in their company roster, therefore cutting down the time it takes them to have to make code and send out the product (in other words they are benefiting as well). Those companies and corpotations only want to play by the rules that will benefit them only, including ignoring the recpective parties who developed the code orignially and by not obeying the GPL or BSD licensing!

These companies and corportations write up licensing and EULA's for same such reasons and expect you to abide by them (those companies and corporations even enact leagal proceedings when they feel the agreements have been broken), shouldn't the developers of the GPL & BSD expect the same? I believe so!

Personally I don't care that these companies and corporations use the GPL, BSD, LGPL or any licensed code/software for that matter as long as they stick with the licensing respective rights reserved. But if these businesses or corporation companies go and use the code/software that is not theirs in the first place, they should at least - as Microsoft just recently put it - Play by the rules (the irony of them saying that.. unreal! should we take a look under the hood of XP and Vista???) - That would be what the license of the GPL and BSD state how you can use the code - nothing more... and nothing less. This seems to be hard for the businesses and corporation parties to do, mainly because they feel they have to make $$$ off of every last item they do or put to the market.

Once again I have not problem that these companies and corporations use GPL & BSD licensing, but they need to stay with in the guidelines of the license and not complain when they decided they don't want to abide by the licensing. There is tons of software that is licensed under other respective licensing. They can use those software, pay for the rights to a company that makes software, buy those companies or develope there own stuff. Its as simple as that, but to complain about a license just because you have your own agenda, and don't want to allow progress, creativity, and innovation to the industry? That is lame, and an a unwarranted argument.

Unfortunately these such licenses as the GPL & BSD licens have to exist, so that the greedy, corruptible and such people who have no moral fiber will not be able to infringe on other corporation, company, consumer, or users rights, by doing anything they please and not allowing credit or avability to give back what they themselves have also gained from the community.

These companies and corporations have gained help through using these GPL or BSD licensed code or programs, which in a business setting is usually compensated by money to the party who developes the code/program, but in the case of the company using GPL, the owner/devloper of the code is allowing the company or corporation not pay, but only give back to the development of the code or program used. I think this is beyond fair for the companies and corporations to have to abide by since it truley is a win-win situation in the long run for both parties.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so Tivo should use BSD.

Otherwise they are just using a loophole that allows them to use Linux in a way that is against the intent of the GPL and agaist the intent of many of the software authors. By violating the intent of the authors and the GPL, they are possibly "taking" future development and derivatives that would have occured away from the authors

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[russotto]

Hmph. I've ported a GPL device driver to OS X (I don't know if it works under Darwin). I'm not sure why people think you can't do that. The device driver isn't a derivative work of OS X. Not even the binary. The in-memory image of the device driver linked with the kernel might be considered a derivative work of both (but might not; it might be considered separate works even then; Copyright law wasn't really meant to handle computer programs, and it often shows), but nothing under the GPL prevents a user from creating such a derivative work.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

They are equivalent freedoms.

Yet given the choice between the BSD and GPL licenses, you must deny one or the other. Saying that they are equivalent then claiming that GPL is not "promoting freedom" for denying one, while BSD denies the other yet isn't tarred with the same brush, is simply wrong.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[maxx_entropy]

All the the new, fancy and popular linux based TomTom GO units with DRM'd mapdata would possibly appear be in the same boat...so to speak. Would the GPLv3 allow one to unDRM previously loaded DRM'd material on a device? Or only NEWLY created data .....?

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[CyberLord Seven]

Who modded this "Troll"?

This is NOT a troll. Aussie has an argument here. You may not agree with it, but it is still valid.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[teh kurisu]

Except the BSD licence doesn't take freedom away from anybody. The code is still free no matter what downstream developers do with it.

A better analogy would be this: BSD is like Iceland, a free country that doesn't force its freedom upon other countries. The GPL is like the USA, a free country which tries to bring freedom to other parts of the world.

I think software under the two licences should co-exist. Certainly the world would be worse off if Linux and the like didn't exist. But isn't it great that Microsoft were able to make their software better by using the BSD TCP-IP stack? Isn't it great that Apple were able to build OS X on top of BSD?

Also worth mentioning is the fact that closed-source software can build on GPL'd software if the owner releases it separately under a paid-for commercial licence (such as MySQL). So derivatives aren't necessarily free - but this helps the open source industry as it provides a revenue stream. So freedom at all costs isn't necessarily desirable.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[azenpunk]

you've got 3 wrong. the GPL doesn't say you may not change this software in anyway unless you use this license for it. you can keep your changes private and not license it at all. the GPL license only affects your changes of a piece to a piece of software if you want to distribute it. it's a fine distinction but an important one.

the point of the GPL is to prevent you from limiting another persons freedom with that piece of software.

to respect the freedoms of another individual requires that you, from time to time, restrict yourself in some way. this is what the GPL asks, from my understanding of it anyway.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

One reason might be that it is legally impossible to release anything into the public domain in most countries (As some of the non economical rights are considered inalienable. (The US is a bit of an exception)

the BSD Licence is valid in most countries and does require proper author attribution.
It is legal to remove the authors name from a PD Work in the US for example.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[metamatic]

You may ask, what about your right to hack your Tivo? I'd respond, what about their right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked? They are equivalent freedoms.

Their "right" to control what I do with my TiVo ended when they sold it to me.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Kjella]

Let me give you an example. Say you have three available software licenses for source code.

1) You may change this software however you like and do whatever you want with the result.
2) You may not change this software in any way.
3) You may not change this software in any way, unless you use this license for the resulting software.

You are trying to tell me that 3 is "more free" than 1. In reality, it's just a variation on 2,

Hmm let's try rewriting those since you seem to confuse source code with software:
1) You may change this source code however you like and make it so that users are forbidden to change the software in any way.
2) Users are forbidden to change the software in any way.
3) You may not change this source code in any way, unless you let users change the software.

Notice how similar 1) and 2) sound now? As long as it's a binary with no source, what good does knowing that it contains BSD code do me? Unless I'm willing to ditch all the non-BSD code, find and piece together what's in there and roll my own builds, it doesn't help me worth a damn. There's two completely conflicting benefits being claimed by BSD:

1. It's much easier to create proprietary derivates
2. We are "more free"

But, the more proprietary derivates I use, the less free I become to do anything about them.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

thats why you can't 'buy' a box anymore- you have to pay more per month for the box 'rental',

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

Not really. No matter what the license is, you still have the ability to take it apart and hack on it until you get it working. They just don't have to make that easy for you.

Well, under the GPL version 3, they would. Personally, I think that's excessive. I mean, would storing the GNU utilities in ROM violate the license? At any rate, it restricts their freedom without affecting yours. Remember, you're just as free to mess around with your Tivo as you would be if it were completely closed source. But that's not a freedom guaranteed by the license--it's guaranteed by the fact that you bought it and it is now your private property. It may be easier or harder for you to see any results from your activity, but that has nothing to do with freedom per se.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Loconut1389]

TiVo can't do a damn thing if you buy one and modify it, unless you connect to their service. They have a right to refuse service to anyone, and they choose to do so for anyone that tries to connect with a detectably altered box. Sure, you have the right to modify the box, but they can then refuse you service. It's a very simple construct. You have a right to modify your car, or your gas meter, but they have a right to take away your license or cut off service.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Cannelbrae]

Some of these companies are stuck in a hard spot. With GPL 3, they are beening told to give back more than they were previously.

Sure, they shared their modifications and allowed others to make use of their code, they just protected their hardware. In many cases, this protection is either legally required or is required by their buisness model. For example, I'm the MPAA was rather concerned about TIVO. As they were a closed platform, they could work with MPAA to find a balance between freedom for the customer and content protection.

The PS3 is in a similar position. Sonys buisness model is to sell hardware at either a loss or little profit and then make money selling games. If the platform must be open, they are no longer in control of what is released on it.

And yes, it could be argued that their buisness model is invalid as it relies on restricting end user freedom. If they are forced to sell the consoles for a profit, they could easily be priced out of the market. Closed source competitors would have a significant buisness model advantage as they could sell their hardware could be much cheaper.

So the argument moves to 'well, they don't have to use GPL'. And again, thats valid. But it does mean there is one less company potentially contributing changes back to the community, instead likely funding a closed source alternative.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[ScrewMaster]

Your problem, Guido, is that you're dealing with people who have an emotional stake in the GPL and open source in general. If they were entirely rational on the subject, they'd accept that a. it has faults and limitations because if it didn't, there'd be no need for a V3 and b. by definition the GPL does apply certain restrictions in exchange for certain privileges. That tradeoff may or may not be "good" depending upon a developer's intent when releasing software, but people should choose their licensing scheme with open eyes.

In any event, what I took from your comments was that that so-called "freedom" of GPL'ed software comes with a price. It does, and it's a price that many are perfectly willing to pay, but you should know that you're paying it.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

Right, I said that above. It pays to read the whole thread before going off half cocked. Of course you have the right do whatever you want with your Tivo. But they have the right to build it in any way they want so as to make it hard for you. As I said above, would storing the OS in ROM violate the GPL 3? What about using security screws on the case? Threatening to terminate the warranty if the case is opened? It gets kind of ridiculous.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[pnewhook]

Thank you for proving my point. Pretty much everything you buy has restrictions and guidelines that are specified or implied that prevent you from doing absolutely anything you want with it, as your original post suggested.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than thinking about this from the perspective of a DEVELOPER, consider what these licenses mean when translated to the USERS (which is the whole point of the GPL):

1) You cannot change the program.

2) You cannot change the program.

3) You may not change this software in any way, unless you use this license for the resulting software.

The third option sure doesn't seem to be the "most restrictive" of the three to me.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[JoesRagingBileDuct]

You fail to understand what the GPL is really about. Yes the BSD license is more free, but GPL is about the distributor not being allowed to lord over those they distribute to, that is the particular freedom they are trying to promote. GPL says that "once I give it to you, it is yours to do with what you will, provided you give the same right to those you distribute to." Closed source says "once I give it to you, it is still mine." DRM says the same thing. To understand why the GPL is important you have to think of it on those terms. BSD only goes part way, because they don't propagate the freedom to end recipients. It is more free but it is less interesting and important because of it.

GPL is important and useful because it promotes social justice and fairness. BSD fails to do this.

DRM is completely anathema to the spirit of the GPL and is actively harmful to it. What use is the source if the data is locked away with DRM? If you don't own the data then owning the software is of little use. The fact that the GPL is going in a anti-DRM direction is a Good Thing.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Loconut1389]

You're implying the BSD license won't hold up in court. Within the scope of your argument, there's no difference between the BSD license and the GPL license. Just putting your code under BSD license does not give them ownership of the intellectual property and they cannot legally patent it. They may get away with it until someone steps up to the plate, but if you weren't keeping your code in a non public place where no one can verify its age, you'll eventually win in court and be entitled to lots of legal fees.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[runningduck]

Well, that's why I said "attempt" to prevent you from hacking their product. You're just as free to attempt to bypass those countermeasures.

Actually, without the GPL3 you can lose the freedom to attempt to bypass those countermeasures. I guess you might argue that you are free to bypass those countermeasures so long as you do not get caught, but that holds true for any crime. The GPL3 is an attempt to maintain the same freedom as the GPL2 in the face of the changing legal landscape with laws such as the DMCA. Now you may or may not like the GPL[2|3] for whatever reason, but the GPL3 is consistant with the GPL2 in the face of a changing underlying legal foundation and without the GPL3 all GPL2 software can become effectively non-free do to newer anti-circumvention laws.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[burnin1965]

'Whoever is strongest' can NOT 'pick up and keep for himself' for example, the NetBSD code base in any meaningful way that denies anybody else the right to do the same.

It is true that the "strongest" would not be able to directly deny access to the NetBSD code base but I prefer the GPL because the methods used by the "strongest" are not usually direct but are more subtle and indirect. Rather than denial of access to the open source code the methods involve denial of access to resources and markets.

If the licensing of the code does not require that contributions be given back to the project community then the community is lessened by keeping the skills and work implemented by the developers within their respective proprietary circles. It can also make it possible for a market dominant corporation to use the code to maintain market dominance and lessen the possibility of an open source project from utilizing that market to support the project.

As examples I'd ask how Microsoft has contributed to the NetBSD project for their use of the TCP/IP code or how they have contributed to the zlib project. Apple is another interesting example of which I believe there are contributions but even as late as Feb. 17th there was desire "to see Apple be more forthcoming" with their work with the FreeBSD code base.

So while "the strongest" would not have the ability to deny access to the original code base they can have a significant impact on the viability of open source code based on the method upon which that code is licensed. The question as to whether the BSD or GPL is more "free" is sixes IMO because depending on which license is used the level of freedom shifts between sides.

And how does this relate to the topic at hand, Tivo and GPL3? I'd say that Tivo's comments are based on the assumption that their business model is based on controlling how consumers utilize their service and I suspect is incorrect. As with many businesses making profits from GPLed software the value is in the service they provide not their control over software itself. IBM and Red Hat are making hundreds of millions to billions off GPLed software that anyone can download, modify, and use as they please because the value is in the service they provide. The same goes for Tivo so as long as they provide value in their service they have nothing to fear from GPL3.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[644bd346996]

Hmmmm... Somehow, I get the feeling that TiVos don't have many of those installed.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, the 99% who are end users. Now I see. Is that the same 99% of the end users who could give a rats ass about having, or even knowing knowing about the source code? How many Tivo owners want the source code? I'd guess it is that 1% that redistribute code that the GPL isn't concerned about.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

No, 1 and 2 still don't sound at all similar, so your argument fails. "You may change this source code however you like" is completely the opposite of "Users are forbidden to change the software in any way." In fact, if you got the closed source program with BSD code in it, you could just go back to the original code and make your own changes, if you were inclined to do so. So your freedoms, and the freedoms of the end users who receive the closed source binaries are exactly the same.

In fact, as you have it, 3 is still just a variation on 2. "You may not, unless..." Granted, it's significantly less restrictive than a closed source license, but do not forget that you are sacrificing some of your freedom by using GPL code. You have to decide for yourself whether the benefit makes it worth it.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[mickwd]

"The GPL may have other benefits, but promoting freedom isn't one of them. Freedom means the ability to do whatever you want with software, even something other people may not like. When you cannot do that, it is because your freedom is restricted."

Isn't the point of this discussion the fact that Tivo feels they will be restricted by the GPLv3 precisely because they will not be able to restrict the purchasers of their product ?

"To sum up, yes, I personally am opposed to both the effect and the intent of the GPL."

Do you really mean "opposed to", rather than "prefer BSD for your own work" ? If "opposed, why are you opposed to what other people want to use ? Do you want to restrict their freedom in some way ?

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[mabhatter654]

And when Tivo adopted use of GPL software instead of writing their own from scratch, or using BSD, or buying it from somebody, they accepted restrictions of the license with their distribution of the software they got for Free as in dollars! This is where the BSD guys miss the boat. Many people are free NOT to use GPL'd software in their projects, just like you're free not to copy version of microsoft windows without paying for it! If you get stuff from the "club" for free, you have to play by the rules of the "club". Software like Microsoft windows comes with sever restrictions on USERS of the software... developers are nearly completely cut out technologically and legally. The most trouble you can get in for GPL is to modify and redistribute, what SOMEBODY ELSE created for FREE, with the restriction that you share too. If you don't like that one restriction, don't use their work.. for free.. without expectation of payment... in your business.

BSD isn't always free for USERS... that is what GPL was designed to address, not developers. The history of GPL was created expressly because manufacturers began the practice 20+ years ago of locking developers out of their OWN programming on mainframes and devices by enforcing "secret" software and making developers pay for access to make devices continue to work with new systems, or to get you code from one proprietary system to another. The original catalyst for GPL was printer drivers. Those used to be freely available specs to make your purchase work with any system you might need to use... then some company refused to allow a collage professor to use their printer with one more new system...he didn't require them to do any work, just provide info so he could update his system. instead of buying a new one at a high price... GPL is a stab against software things like "vendor lock-in" and marketing "planned obsolesence" that's so common now to buy a whole new device for "one more feature" that should be a free software update we don't even protest it anymore. BSD allows manufactures to continue the practice, with code developed for free, while GPL does not. It's the focus of who the software is FREE for.. I know if I put work out there for free, I'd mean it to stay free.. If you don't like that, you're free not to use it!!!

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[eison]

GPL: In payment for me letting you use my work, you will in turn let your users use the work you derive from it. If my work is valuable enough to you, it will be worth it.
BSD: In payment for me letting you use my work, you will put me in a copyright notice.

I don't see why BSD is so much better for a developer. Why do you think it is?

I don't buy the freedom argument; if you truly cared about freedom, why place any restrictions on what can be done with your code at all? Public domain is clearly more free than BSD.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Just Some Guy]

Pretty much everything you buy has restrictions and guidelines that are specified or implied that prevent you from doing absolutely anything you want with it, as your original post suggested.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. There are exactly two things restricting you from using your own property as you see fit:

1. Contractual oblications, and
2. The law.

If the law doesn't forbid it and you haven't signed a contract stating otherwise, you can do anything you want with your property. Anything. If I want to turn my toaster into an attack robot, or use my Faberge egg for a hammer, that's my right. My stuff - my decicion.

You listed a bunch of illegal acts as examples of restrictions on what you can do with your property, and not one of those is relevant to the subject at hand.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Planesdragon]

By this logic a dictatorship is the only free system, because it includes the freedom to take away yours. And the system lives with that "freedom".

By this logic, I shouldn't be allowed to kick my daughter's boyfriend out of her room in my house, I'm shouldn't be able to keep people from smoking in my house, and I should be unable to turn off my TV.

Denial of freedom as a condition of some other free action is a necessary part of freedom. The only one who shouldn't be able to do that is the government, whose actions are only rarely "free".

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[frost22]

No.

above all it sucks for the *recipient*!

It is the recipent's freedom to modify what he gets that gets lost.

Tivo is an excellent example, if they really prevent people from tinkering with their own tivos, I couldn't care less at their whining about GPLv3.

All they need to do is lift those arrogant restrictions.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[andymadigan]

For your first argument, the GPL allows you to do what you want with your copy of something, so someone's car and home being GPL would only mean they had to give you the designs for them if they gave them to you.

As for the real argument. Why does a company need the right to dictate what you can and can't do with their product? Car companies don't tell me I can't modify the car to add a new engine or upgrade the air conditioner. Once I purchase a product, the manufacturer no longer owns it, and they cannot tell me how I can or cannot use it. They can tell me that I can't copy the contents of the disk and give those contents to other people, as that might hurt their ability to sell more TiVos. However, me modifying my TiVo should not hurt their ability to sell more of them. Only the DMCA allows them to enforce their restrictions.

Put another way, does a company that sells hammers have the right to tell me I can only use their brand of nails with the hammer? Or that I can't take apart the hammer?

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[JoesRagingBileDuct]

You are 100% wrong about this, I have no idea who moderated you insightful. The GPL is EXACTLY about this. Its says "when I give you a copy of this software, it is completely YOURS. But you must pass the privilege on." This is why you get rights to a copy of the source when you get a GPLed binary. This is not true of proprietary software, and that may be where you are confused.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[mabhatter654]

It's not even that severe because Tivo can continue to use and modify the versions they already distribute under the old terms. But they'll have to do security and feature updates on their own or from a community of GPL2 only developers. The GPL isn't retroactive to the already published code.. the change won't take anything AWAY from them that they already have. once the change happens, they won't be able to use NEW updated code unless they agree to the new terms of distrbution. Kind of like how they won't trade out my old series 1 system for a new shiny version 3 with HD for free, under the same monthly terms of service, without more money being paid to them. How rude of them to make their products so not-free!

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[frost22]

in cases like tivo, the original bsd license 1is the enabler that *allows* the vendor to take every single freedom about his product away from me.

The bsd license is nice for vendors trying to use it, and it is hassle free. But it is *bad* for people in the marklet, because they end up with non free software.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

I depends whos freedom you talk about.
BSD license is about PROGRAMMER/CODERS freedom to use the code as they see fit.
GPL license is about CUSTOMERS/USERS freedom to use/modify what they pay for.

There is a conflict there. If you know that happend to RMS, you know why he define the license like this. If you know where BSD comes from, you see that that license is fair. But it depends who hat you put on.

There both stands for a freedom, but different. And by that, they reduce someone else freedom. As customers usally is the weeker part, I go for GPL. But some times BSD is a better choise.
But I guess that is all up to the one who is the copyright owner (the one who has made the code).

Bottom line:
If you can't agree with the license that follows with the code, just write your own code or find some other code that you can agree with there codes license.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[allthingscode]

Since they were willing to play games with code under GPL2 the same way that Microsoft and Novell were, it's obvious they didn't use Linux because they believed in the freedom it granted. They chose it because someone else had already written it. If that's all they want the software for, they either need to go buy the software or find a BSD version. If they want to use GPL software, they need to follow it's rules.

There are plenty of people who might argue that this is not customer oriented, but like RMS, I think the exact opposite is true. Which gives more options to the customer:
1. Take the computer as is.
2. Take the computer and be able to modify the software.

Now, if Tivo wants to make a closed system, they need to develop their own software. The don't have to choose software under the GPL.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

this isn't flamebait - he's agreeing to disagree

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

I see, so what exactly are you arguing? Did you bother to read all the prior comments that Guido posted? If you go back to the begining of the thread, you will find the answer.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Perhaps it has less to do with the definition of "free", but rather has to do with the time frame invoked. What is immediately "free", say spending your paycheck on a whim, while maximizing choice and freedom at time t0, won't necessarily lead to maximized freedom over an interval of time (say from t0 to when your rent and car payment comes due). RMS takes a long time-lime sort of view.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[runningduck]

1. You may change this software however you like and do whatever you want with the result.
2. You may not change this software in any way.
3. You may not change this software in any way, unless you use this license for the resulting software.

The GPL in general is an attempt to restore intellectual freedoms taken away by underlying copyright law. Without copyright laws all published code would be free from the perspective of both BSD or GPL crowds--although compiled code might have to be disassembled first. You may or may not agree with how the GPL accomplishes this "freedom correction," but you cannot argue about the relative freedom a particular license provides without adding the underlying copyright code into the discussion.

The purpose of the GPL is to create a microcosm of code exchange where intellectual freedoms are protected in spite of copyright laws. I believe RMS' hope was that the economic mechanics of the GPL would eventually create sufficient value such that it was easier to participate in the community even for commercial interests than not, thereby further growing the community. Regardless of RMS' intention or you personal view of the GPL, I think that history has demonstrated the power of the GPL to build these communities such that TiVo would opt to use a GPL foundation for their products in the first place.

As for TiVo's ultimate fate, they are much more likely to die due to cable companies and congress mucking around the cable card standards to prevent full interoperability or in some cases even base compatibility than to be hurt of the GPL3. So ironically, TiVo will be killed by the same anti-circumvention laws they are complaining the GPL3 is designed to eliminate. The problem is fundamentally with the law not the license.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[NuShrike]

Only your first example has any relevance to copyright.

For the house example, yes, but it has nothing to do with copyright, but contractual obligations. I can mod it for solar and battery setup etc. For the car, yes I can but I have some non-contractual obligations to obey on the road. However, I can modify the car all I want and even resell it with the mods, as long as I don't represent it as from the original manufacturer.

Copyright is really about non-compete meaning you can purchase something and do anything you want to it as long as you don't "resell" it in a way that competes with the original author. I think this meaning has been entirely lost.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"In fact, the GPL is really what takes away your freedom. It essentially says that if you want to create a derivative work, you must abide by certain restrictions. What this effectively does is grant certain rights to the recipients of derivative works in exchange for certain restrictions on freedom to create those derivative works. Not as sexy sounding as "preserving freedom", I suppose."

It doesn't sound as sexy to expand the terms into phrases. Yet, "a rose, by any other name." This quote of yours is actually a wonderful argument for the GPL "preserving freedom". Thank you.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why don't you release under the public domain then?"

Because with public domain, you can lose credit as authors of that code. The convention to put authorship on public domain work is courtesy and convention, not something legally required. Some people may not have a problem with people using, modifying, or distributing their code, but still want their initial efforts mentioned.

While I'm certain someone will say that maintaining authorship is a restricted freedom, most people would consider not doing so akin to plagiarism.

"After all, the BSD adds a restriction, hence it takes away "freedom" it doesn't add to it."

Typical revisionist history. The essence of the BSD license well precedes the popularity of the GPL license, which really only rose because of Linus's work, not Stallman's meddling. The argument that the GPL increased restrictions on freedoms holds pretty firm. (Then again, your arguments also show a general lack of understanding between the licenses.)

Furthermore, you ignore that at the advent of the BSD license, the legal environment around copyright was different than it was today. The thought (rightly put forward at the then present, now past) was that licenses were the only way to afford positive affirmations of rights under existing law and court cases. This is why BSD licenses, which some people include the old Apache and MIT licenses, came to exist.

Prior to the case (similar to the situation that affects works such as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) I think involving Fox, public domain protections were not clear. Up to that time, it was entirely unclear *and untested* that a public domain work (such as a character) could not be re-rolled into a new work and copyrighted, thus affording the old character all current legal protections as if it was created new.

In any case, GPL3 really shows the colors of the GPL camp, which is not about maintaining use and rights but sticking it to corporations and maintaining license lock. The proof is in the pudding, as it were--you've added restrictions. Compare that to the BSD license, which has removed a restriction, and that's saying something given there's like there were only 4 or so to begin with.

In any case, I still think license choice should be up to the author; unfortunately, most authors go the popular route, not the comprehension route. TiVo deserves to be burned for their decision, because they didn't look at the history of the GPL camp or the impact of a license change. Then again, I also think there's minor protestations are crap; there's not much keeping them from rolling the old GPL2 licensed code forward--in fact, doing so may actually get major interest because there are likely other individuals and companies that think GPL3 goes too far.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Virgil Tibbs]

I would respond by pointing out that the GPL does not protect all freedom, it protects the user's freedom.
truly free software is released under a BSD-like license, but these llicenses do not respect the user's freedom because there is no copyleft to protect the software from being released under a different license,

If you are just showing your displeasure of the GPL of by objecting to the GPL in relation to the word free that is fine, but remember vthat the accurate way of describing the GPL is that it respects the b>user's freedom, and not sleazy business tactics...

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[civilizedINTENSITY]

The right to prevent hacking a device you've purchased, versus the right to hack a device you've purchased, needs to be addressed in terms of the license in use and the rights tivo had to distribute the device to the person who bought it. In terms of morality, in general it seems to me that DRM is flawed. The social experiment to increase the common good by pretending that psuedo-rights exist is failing due to a power grab that unfairly tilts the scales against the common good. In terms of the GPL, while tivo may have found a legal loophole for their immoral acts, it is unsurprising that a revamped GPL closes said loophole.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

You are trying to tell me that 3 is "more free" than 1. In reality, it's just a variation on 2, the most restrictive license possible. I'd accept the argument that it promotes open source, but stop conflating source code availability with freedom. Under license 3, the price of that particular freedom is somebody else's freedom. You may not care because you end up benefiting in some cases, but there is a freedom cost.

I think you're missing the point. When Joe Basementdweller develops a piece of software and distributes it under the terms of the GPL, he is giving the freedoms detailed in the GPL to every single end user of his software. The moment he attaches the GPL to his code, every single person on Earth who might some day receive a copy of his program automatically gets the rights enumerated in the GPL. These rights come from the original developer, when the code is first written (or at least the first time the GPL is placed with the code). Every potential end user now has these rights forever.

If a company or individual comes along later, uses Joe's code in their project, and don't respect the terms of the GPL (or find some loophole that violates the spirit of the GPL) they are taking away the freedoms of the users they then sell their product to. Richard Stallman believes that every person should have these rights for every piece of software written. He believes that these rights are individual rights that everyone is entitled to. You might disagree with this notion, but I don't necessarily think it's such a crazy idea.

Even if you don't think that these are necessarily inalienable rights, they were still given to the end user by the original developer in the case of the GPL. If someone doesn't abide by the terms of the GPL, then they are taking away rights from the end user. Tivo got an entire operating system including thousands of utilities and libraries for free; all they have to do is continue to respect the deal that the original developers of that software had already made with their end users, anything less than that is taking away freedoms that already exist.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[cabalamat3]

You may ask, what about your right to hack your Tivo? I'd respond, what about their right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked? If I buy a Tivo, it belongs to me and I should be able to do whatever I like with it (as long as I don't harm anyone else of course, e.g. by bashing them over the head with the Tivo). If Tivo don't like that, they shouldn't sell their boxes to people. After all, once I sell you something, my rights over it cease. I personally am opposed to both the effect and the intent of the GPL. [...] Well, software licensing is all about what effect you intend to get out of the license. I can see instances where FGPL licensing is appropriate, where BSD licensing is appropriate, and where proprietary licensing is appropriate.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually, in a fair world where basic rights were truly taken into account, I would assume that anyone who bought a book would have the right to make a PDF (or HTML) copy of the book to carry on their laptop. This "of course not" attitude seems to me to indicate that IP is a property right rather than a social experiment.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Using ROM shouldn't be a problem so long as I have access to the source code and can burn my own ROM to replace the original and good new code can run.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[enrevanche]

if a "restriction" reduces the "freedom" to restrict is it really reducing freedom?

Two of the most important "restrictions" in the GPL v3 relate to DRM and Software Patents. These are two of the most restricting features in technology. Restricting them does not reducing overall freedom.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Making the screws hard to open isn't a problem. I can always just cut through. ROM isn't a problem, as I noted in reply to your post that you are quoting. Terminating warranty if I do manage to get the case open seems an artificial impediment to my using my rights under the GPL and I'd like to see that sort of abuse eliminated.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Rephrased slightly, to indicate that what people pay attention to and whats important aren't always the same thing:

"Now I see. Is that the same 99% of the citizens who could give a rats ass about having, or even knowing knowing about habeas corpus? How many citizens want habeas corpus? I'd guess it is that 1%".

Likewise, most people only pay attention to their heart beat when something seems wrong.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"I'll assume that your house and your car are also licensed under the GPL. After all, it wouldn't do to take away my freedom to come in and use your bathroom and listen to your stereo and eat your food."

Well, that flies in the face of the obvious differences between real property and make-believe property. If you were to see pictures of my house and car online, and you decided to build your house to look like mine, even to the point where you bought the same stereo and laid out the same fruit bowl, then cool. Just don't try to copy me, then prevent other people from copying me too.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry man, Guido's right, if I understood his point correctly.

Seems that what he's saying is, putting greater restrictions on Tivo's use of the software, even if it's meant to increase usefulness to other people, is not an increase in freedom... and so we shouldn't call it that, no matter how bad RMS wants us to.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[mattcasters]

> do. In other words, your options are fewer

Again, from a developer viewpoint, I tend to agree with you.
From a software user-viewpoint your remarks are not true.

Just because you repeat an argument over and over again, doesn't make it become more true.

Please also note that I released my own software under LGPL to allow "commercial" and closed source use of my software.

Finally, by dissing my remarks as if they where coming from an "GPL or open source advocate" and by doing your best to deliver ridicule to my statements, you did indeed earn a "-1 trolling".

Have a great day,

Matt

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Ash-Fox]

You may not change this software in any way, unless you use this license for the resulting software.

I really do like how you managed to simplify the argument so far down that it really makes license three look more negative than it really is.

Yes, it limits one person's rights, but it limits one person's rights to give everyone certain rights. In my opinion, it's more of a "Your rights end when it infringes on other peoples' rights" type license.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[civilizedINTENSITY]

If you make legal modifications to a car (add a stereo or turbocharger), who has the right to revoke your right to drive it? That is ridiculous. I don't think you own your gas meter. You can add another gas powered water heater for that new bathroom you put it in, though. What is interesting to me is the difference between purchasing a car, modifying it, and being able to drive on public streets; and purchasing a tivo, modifying it, and being able to use on the public airways. Oh right! The FCC! These communication channels are owned by the public and allowed to be used only in-so-far as the licensee meets the interests of the public good. Maybe we need to make public airways (and cable, etc...) more like our public freeways.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[mattcasters]

What good would it do me? It still wouldn't allow me to do with the Tivo device what I would want, would it?
They carefully made sure they complied with the GPLv2 but at the same time they knew damn well that it was going to be a close call.
As such I consider them to be violating the spirit of the GPL. Hey, it's an opinion, nothing more.

Now that GPLv3 patches the hole they made use of they come crying for help? Give me an f-ing break.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[teh kurisu]

As I've said already, releasing software under the GPL doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be used in non-free software. The BSD licence ensures that the freedom to use software in this way is available to any commercial operator, not just those that are willing to pay for the closed-source licence.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Xeth]

GPL makes software free, BSD makes people free

Yes, but sometimes free software makes people free. GPL developers would seem to have the perspective that the people freed by free software are better friends than those that wouldn't share.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[statusbar]

You do not understand. The GPL GIVES you additional rights.

The difference between the GPL2 and the GPL3 is that the GPL3 gives you a little bit less additional rights.

Tivo is free to use linux and they still can do DRM in hardware if they want, which would work just fine for their usage.

But they can not lock up their system with a secret password.

--jeffk++

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[fritsd]

All the examples you give are border lines between your rights and the rights of others in society around you; this is simply not the case if you modify your Tivo, your neighbour's car alarm will not suddenly go haywire and the electricity company will not suddenly complain that your meter's running backwards. The Tivo is a consumer appliance and not regulated like e.g. a mobile phone; any modifications therefore involve only you (owner) and the appliance.

I'll now try to give some better counterexamples to your examples.

If I buy a book, it's exclusively mine, and I can sell it to a second hand book shop for whatever money they are willing to give (not possible with DRM). I'm also allowed to visit a second hand bookshop and legally buy books there.

If I own my house, I'm allowed to buy a different central heating system whenever I want; the state only demands that it's installed by a professional and that it's certified to work properly. If a function on that Tivo is worthless and I can get a download of an improved version that someone wrote, but Tivo makes it impossible to install this non-signed binary, then I think it's exactly the same situation as your house analogy: you want to improve your property (to get a lower heating bill) but even though you're formally allowed to do so, the architect buried your heating system under 3 meters of concrete so you wouldn't be able to upgrade it.

The famous slashdot car analogy: just use the open-source analogy. What would you prefer to buy, a car with the hood welded shut or a car which you can get serviced at any licensed mechanic? "Tivoisation" is then where the source code is freely downloadable and fully upgradeable, you're just not allowed to actually run the upgraded version. Would this then be a car with a perspex hood that's still welded shut but at least you can see which bit the black smoke is billowing out of?

Tivo has a right to do what they want to their products. They decided to use software that they didn't have all rights to do what they want with; only what is permitted by the license. I think that they tried to do a run-around of that license, prompting the FSF to try to upgrade the license to prevent that specific kind of trick. So here we are now with GPLv3 a bit more mature and a bit more ugly than GPLv2 :-).

BTW I agree that Tivo has the right to claim "warranty void when upgraded" and even to refuse to repair an upgraded Tivo. But nobody here disputes that right. A company cannot be held liable for what an army of "better idiots" can invent with their product (remember the story of the microwave oven and the dog; after the dog was parboiled, could the owner have sued to get a replacement microwave oven from the company because their current one smelled of dog?).

To pull that microwave analogy through: should there be a law that explicitly forbids consumers to use the products they bought for any other than the designated purpose (we could call it the "implicit tivoization law" or the "microwaved dog law" for all I care)? Imagine the effect THAT would have on society and innovation. Society is an ugly, mature compromise and Tivo stepped over an invisible border line.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Incidentally, as this all relates to Tivo--I'd be willing to bet they won't use any new GPL material in their new systems. In fact, they'll probably remove whatever GPL material they already have as they migrate to a closed source system. Once bitten, twice shy. So, the net result is a loss of freedom, I guess you'd say. Way to go, freedom advocates.

Loss of freedom? You are free to use closed source Tivo. The existance of GPL material doesn't take away your freedom to choose alternatives. GPL is a license, it's about terms you have to meet to (re)distribute ^W convey(v3) the software. It's more analog to communism(or socialism, someone might argue) than to anarchy. Take it or choose an alternative.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[sabernet]

Regardless of your motive, logic or argument, you've insulted people("How was the Kool-aid?" wasn't insulting?). This has made you a troll. You wished to drive home your point or extend your thread by inflamming other people. That is textbook troll. You don't have to T@lk 7ik3 th!2(or however they write) to be a troll.

You've disregarded the rules of intelligent debate and now are bitching because people called you on it.

So lighten up or shut up would be MHO.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[pnewhook]

So you agree as well. The original posters comment that he can do whatever he wants bacause it is his property is completely false.

And Tivo has done what exactly with their restriction? There is nothing that they have done that is not permitted by GPL V2 which they were using with the Linux software. They are not breaking any laws either by not letting you modify their software.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[pnewhook]

What Tivo did was within their rights according to the GPL V2. So whats the problem?

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[fritsd]

The BSD license (as I see it on a Debian computer, /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD) has no patent clauses at all; it's nice ans short and readable. So I'd think it would stand up in court but only be applicable to conflicts about copyright on your code.

"Intellectual property" is REALLY the wrong word in your response. IANAL but you're using the words "putting your code" ... and "legally patent it" in one sentence. Patents are NOT about your code. Your code is copyrighted and shielded by the BSD licensed but *IRRELEVANT* w.r.t. the patent: The methods and concepts that are implemented by your code are what gets rubber-stamped with a 20 year software patent.

Next, the patent being granted, you have a good chance to as you say "eventually win in court": agreed. However this is only the case if you have the stomach and the money to litigate that "prior art" case to the end, which can seriously cost years of time and hundreds of thousands of dollars, during which you're not allowed to use or sell the software (because the USPTO has legally granted the monopoly right to the patentee).

Also I believe the USA has no rule that the loser pays the court costs so from a business point of view, your legal representative might advise you to give in to their demands because it's your only realistic option.

And what if you do litigate it to the end and the company "patent troll litigation version #21, Inc" suddenly goes bankrupt? You may get that one patent invalidated but you're poor. Next, you're suddenly sued by a newly sprung up company "patent troll litigation version #22, Inc" who discovered that you are violating one of *their* software patents because your program is more than 1000 lines long :-)

Oh I don't know.. I guess I just don't like the idea of software patents :-( you may now call me a zealot, I guess.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[pnewhook]

However, I can modify the car all I want and even resell it with the mods, as long as I don't represent it as from the original manufacturer.

Really? So which modern car actually comes with a source code listings from the manufacturer for the microcontrollers and engine management computers so you can modify it as you like?

And no you cannot modify the car how you like - if you wish to drive it on the road you still have to conform to the local laws regarding what is acceptable.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Public domain is clearly more free than BSD. Please go back and read Guido's prior comments.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

Stop confusing your unfettered ability to take apart your toys with freedom. You can say the GPL is the best license for whatever reason. But you cannot say it promotes freedom.

I disagree. You seem to look at BSD or public domain as your comparison baseline. I look at copyright law as the baseline. Compared to the default restrictions provided by copyright law, the GPL certainly promotes freedom. That the BSD gives you some freedoms the GPL doesn't does not make the GPL a restrictive license. In my opinion, restrictive licenses are licenses that try to add restrictions beyond those given by copyright law.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Loconut1389]

tampering with the odometer, removing the governer, and other things could cause you lots of fines and possible license suspension, just to provide ac ouple of examples.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Loconut1389]

oh, and you're exactly right- you can do whatever you want (except perhaps the odometer? unless its properly logged I think) as long as you don't drive on public streets which is analagous to modifying a tivo and signing into their service.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Loconut1389]

who doesn't hate them- even MS has said that they don't really like them but get them because they must.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[AmbyVoc]

Nobody can enslave you and remove your rights, any more than someone can remove your rights to use software that you have a license for

That's because there are some restrictions that prevent this from happening.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Old Benjamin]

Building communities or no, the result would be that much of the software would have to be written from scratch. The result would be things would become more expensive. It's all well and great to have all this 'free' software, but if you don't let people use it unless they make their things 'free', they won't make them, and we'll all be worse off.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

They have a right to refuse service to anyone, and they choose to do so for anyone that tries to connect with a detectably altered box. Sure, you have the right to modify the box, but they can then refuse you service.

If that was the only thing they did, there would probably be no dispute. What they do, that the GPLv3 is aiming to prevent, is to brick (in other words, refuses to operate) your TiVo if you load it with software that isn't signed by TiVo.

This is what the dispute is all about. They take code that is supposed to be free (in the sense of the four freedoms granted by the GPL) for every recipient, and then remove one of the freedoms granted by the GPL (the freedom to modify the software and run the modified software) using a DRM system that checks that the software is signed by TiVO (i.e. that it is an "official" version) before starting the TiVo. If the software does not pass the signature test, the TiVo refuses to start.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[A beautiful mind]

Xfree86 was axed in most places for it's license.
Perl is dual licensed under GPL and Artistic.

You have a point, I'm just nitpicking on your examples.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[HiThere]

Tivio wasn't exactly the target. The fact that the term Tivioisation is used is purely coincidental. That's just how some people mispronounce MS-Novell.

My general feeling is: "Too bad. They can't continue to get rich by copying other people's work and not giving anything back." At first I wrote "stealing", but that's slightly stronger than I meant. It's like calling copyright violaters pirates...only not as flagrantly off-scale. Then I substituted taking, but copying is the exact term. It just doesn't include the feeling, which is due to their locking it into a black-box and refusing to let people see what's inside. My feeling is if they were capable of stealing it, they would, and without moral qualm. I would not mourn to see them die. If they all died today, humanity's ethical average would improve slightly. (Only slightly, and they are far from the worst around. This doesn't make them good, or even average.)

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[pnewhook]

If I own my house, I'm allowed to buy a different central heating system whenever I want; the state only demands that it's installed by a professional and that it's certified to work properly. If a function on that Tivo is worthless and I can get a download of an improved version that someone wrote, but Tivo makes it impossible to install this non-signed binary, then I think it's exactly the same situation as your house analogy: you want to improve your property (to get a lower heating bill) but even though you're formally allowed to do so, the architect buried your heating system under 3 meters of concrete so you wouldn't be able to upgrade it.

I have a programmable digital thermostat. I think that I can write better logic to lower my heating bill but the company wont give me the microcode. Are they evil corporate nazis by preventing me from modifying their stuff? No.

The famous slashdot car analogy: just use the open-source analogy. What would you prefer to buy, a car with the hood welded shut or a car which you can get serviced at any licensed mechanic?

I just bought a gasoline-electric hybrid vehicle. There's practically no servicable parts in the engine, and I cannot take it to just any licenced mechanic since he wouldn't have the first clue as to what to do with it. Also I like the digital display for the fuel economy and the satellite radio, but I think I can do it better. Will they give me the source code so I can modify it myself? No, of course not.

There are now cars on the road that have 100k mile warranties on the engines, with no servicable parts. Its a sealed unit and you have to do nothing but change the oil. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

To pull that microwave analogy through: should there be a law that explicitly forbids consumers to use the products they bought for any other than the designated purpose (we could call it the "implicit tivoization law" or the "microwaved dog law" for all I care)? Imagine the effect THAT would have on society and innovation.

At my university (true story), a couple of guys took two old microwaves, ripped off the doors, defeated the door safties and reprogrammed them as a transmit - receive pair for digial communication. Worked perfectly but dangerous as hell. Do you think if my neighbour across the street and I set up such a system for communication between our computers that noone would be able to do anything about it?

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[NoOneInParticular]

Maybe he's explaining it improperly, as it actually is very simple. GNU is about freedom for end-users, the one at the bottom of the distribution chain. GNU attempts to be 100% free for these end-users throughout the distribution chain. If the distributor has the ability to change the code, so has the end-user, etc. BSD is a distributor-friendly license, and doesn't care about end-users. If the distributor can change code, he can prevent the end-user of doing that, hence restricting the freedom of the user.

So both licenses put freedom at different places. With GNU: freedom for users, restrictions for distributors. With BSD, freedom for distributors, including the freedom to add restrictions to their users.

BSD's restrictions are implicit, and therefore seem non-existant. However, end-users (non-distributors) have less freedom in the BSD model than they enjoy with the GPL.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[NoOneInParticular]

If you make a distinction between end-users and distributors, it can be made more accurate:

The BSD license gives freedom to the direct recipient of the software, be it an end-user or a distributor. The distributor can lock up the software for their end-users.

the GNU license(s) give freedom to all the end-user of the software, no matter how many distributors are in between. It does this by restricting distribution.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[locofungus]

### why would you choose a license where vendors can close their deviations from the standard implementation.

Because you want them to use your standard in the first place.

And when Microsoft extends your kerberos standard but doesn't publish what their extensions mean so nobody else can support their extensions?

You want your standard to be "free" you need to "GPL" your standard. You want your code to be free, you need to "GPL" your code. You want your users to be free you need to "BSD" your standard or your code.

Tim.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes.

But who do you think adds the DRM restriction? TiVO? no.... they don't gain anything by prohibiting you as a consumer to do whatever you like with your recorded content.

Truth is that the content owners still demands these sort of systems, and if TiVO would like to continue selling working boxes, they have to do what the content owners tell them.

If the GPLv3 forces them to open up their boxes, this means they have a couple of options. 1) Use the oldest available software available not under version 3. Will work for a while but not forever 2) Use software under another license. Probably very expensive to integrate a completely new OS (that is what it will become) on their boxes 3) Write replacement systems themselves. Sometimes expensive, sometimes actually what they probably wanted to do anyways. Anyway, GPLv3 can't even be considered for such a system as the TiVo, don't fool yourself into thinking that they even could consider it.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[NoOneInParticular]

Free software can be made proprietary through patents. Let's say your write a piece of BSD licensed software that, unbeknownst to you, uses a patented algorithm. Patent holders comes, sues, wins, and starts to distribute your code under his own license. You are now not allowed to distribute your code anymore, and the only copy is owned by the patent holder. Free software made proprietary.

I think the GPL and Apache license are immune to this kind of attack, but many other licenses are not.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

As I said before, you could call use of the GPL promoting open source, or anti-corporate, or whatever the ideology du jour is. But it's a perversion of the term "free" to use it in this context.

I guess that means that you also consider countries with laws imposing restrictions, such as the ban on murder, robbery, rape, burglary, etc, to not be free countries. In my opinion, freedom for society at large is increased with those laws, even if it imposes minor restrictions on individuals. After all, it isn't a major restriction not not be allowed to harm other people. My freedom is increased by not being killed/robbed/raped/etc by other people.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[NoOneInParticular]

If you look at software distribution as a tree, with distributors as the nodes and end-users as the leafs, then the BSD license only gives freedom to the immediate children of the code writer. GNU software gives complete freedom to all leafs/end-users, and does this by restricting the behaviour of nodes/distributors. It has nothing to do with giving freedom to software, that's impossible. Both give freedom, only to different people. If you're a distributor, BSD rocks. If you're an end-user, GPL rulez.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[nagnamer]

Well, public domain is definitely the most free way to distribute software. It also includes (and is most certainly no limited to) the freedoms to take away credit, and also restrict free distribution in the future of modified copies (I think).

The point is, there are two ways to define freedom, so to speak. One is the upstream way, where the freedom is what the authors say it is. You are free (have a license) to do whatever the author says you can, and the freedom is therefore subjective, but can protect the author's work if the author so wishes to. As for the downstream freedom, it is what users think they should be able to do with the software (or whatever creation). This freedom includes patenting, taking credit, selling, hacking, whatever a user can possibly conceive of.

Unfortunately, you can't claim to have enabled absolute downstream freedom if you want the upstream freedoms at the same time. Those contradict each other. The moment you say "I want the credit for my work" you are restricting those users who maybe don't want to give you credit.

It's a thin line, but a line nevertheless. Now, I'm not saying either freedom is better. The latter can only work if there is respect among people (which is usually not the case, especially when financial gain is in the mix), the former is too subjective to please everyone.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[TeknoHog]

By your logic you just condemned the GNU license in that: it takes away your freedom to 'not release' changes you have made to GNU'ed software

Not true. It's OK not to release any chnages you make to a GPLd software. The only requirement is that software must come with its source code. For example, if a company uses and modifies GPLd software internally, they don't have to release any changes to the outside world. Also, you can sell a piece of GPLd software to one person, and you don't have to distribute the source to anybody else.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[m50d]

Nor would we have a very useful BSD system without many pieces of GPL software.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[m50d]

Because with public domain, you can lose credit as authors of that code. The convention to put authorship on public domain work is courtesy and convention, not something legally required. Some people may not have a problem with people using, modifying, or distributing their code, but still want their initial efforts mentioned.

And some people may not have a problem with people using, modifying, or distributing their code, but still want anyone who does so to release the modified versions under the same license. In both cases they are applying restrictions.

While I'm certain someone will say that maintaining authorship is a restricted freedom, most people would consider not doing so akin to plagiarism.

No question of "akin to"; it is plagiarism, plain and simple. But it's still the addition of a restriction.

Typical revisionist history. The essence of the BSD license well precedes the popularity of the GPL license, which really only rose because of Linus's work, not Stallman's meddling.

Anyone who was actually trying to use a unix system in 1990 knows the GPL mattered back then too. But in any case, which came first has no bearing on which is more free.

Furthermore, you ignore that at the advent of the BSD license, the legal environment around copyright was different than it was today. The thought (rightly put forward at the then present, now past) was that licenses were the only way to afford positive affirmations of rights under existing law and court cases. This is why BSD licenses, which some people include the old Apache and MIT licenses, came to exist.

Nevertheless, now we know. So there is no need to use the BSD license any more.

In any case, GPL3 really shows the colors of the GPL camp, which is not about maintaining use and rights but sticking it to corporations and maintaining license lock. The proof is in the pudding, as it were--you've added restrictions.

The GPL has never been about having the least number of restrictions, it's about having the most freedom overall.

Compare that to the BSD license, which has removed a restriction, and that's saying something given there's like there were only 4 or so to begin with.

But if you're going for the "fewest restrictions possible" route, why not remove them all?

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

The way the BSD license reduces freedom is simple: It practically requires that proprietary software is better than BSD licensed software. If the converse is ever true then the proprietary vendors can just adopt the superior free software code and reverse the situation. The obvious consequence is that it forces users who want the best software to contend with a license agreement far more restrictive than the GPL. Unless those who make the best software use a free software license that prevents proprietary vendors from doing that.

To address the public domain analogy, consider it this way: Imagine that rather than putting your work in the public domain, you put your work and all derivatives of it into the public domain. Obviously that would generate more freedom than merely putting the original in the public domain, because public domain works are freer than copyrighted works by your own admission. It "restricts" creators of derivative works merely by denying them the coercive power of copyright in order to preserve the freedom of everyone else. And that is the intent of the GPL.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[m50d]

You may ask, what about your right to hack your Tivo? I'd respond, what about their right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked? They are equivalent freedoms.

They have the right to attempt to make it unhackable. They do not have the right to make it illegal for me to try and hack it (which is what they would be doing, via the DMCA, without these restrictions in the GPL), and don't you dare try and tell me those rights are equivalent.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

3) You may not change this software in any way, unless you use this license for the resulting software.

I don't really know which license this describes. I guess that you are trying to claim that this is an accurate description of the GPL, but that is just plain wrong. A more accurate description would be:

You may use (run), study and change this software in any way you wish, but if you want to distribute the derived work to other parties, your derived work must use this license.

Internally in one organization, GPL software can be used just like if it was public domain software. It is the act of distribution to external parties that subjects derivative works to the restrictions spelled out in the GPL.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[NoOneInParticular]

Please explain how a piece of BSDL software can be made "non-free".

Simple: patents. Infringe a patent and the owner of your BSD code is the patent holder.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You say explaining, I say redefining. You also assume that everyone agrees with RMS's explanations and redefinitions; some of us (who release code under the BSD license) don't; adding a restriction takes away "freedom" not adds to it, and the GPL3 nonsense simply underlines that way of thinking for me. Y'all got your heads stuck in the wrong place.
The GPL is not about freedom for the developers -
its about freedom for the end users.

See the whole "Freedom to Tinker" essay, but in a nutshell its about making sure that any user who receives software can modify it to do what he needs it to do. It all started when RMS was stuck with a proprietary printer driver that had a bug - the vendor wouldn't fix the bug and he couldn't fix the bug because he didn't have the source code.

So all your arguments about which license is the most free are moot. The GPL is about maximizing the freedom of the end user, anyone else who benefits is just coming along for the ride.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I will bite back.

The BSD liscence does restrict freedom, while the GPL doesn't. Yes, the GPL places restrictions on what you can/can't do with source code/binaries. But the restrictions that the GPL imposes are restrictions on restrictions themselves. Confused? Take this analogy. In the States, I can own land and rent it out. If I rent it to someone, I am not allowed to build a huge fence around the area, blocking the leasers from leaving/entering their own property. Therefore the government is putting a restriction on my right to impose restrictions on other people inorder to guarantee freedoms to everyone.

The GPL works like that. It not only helps protect the freedoms of the author of the code, but it also prevents situations in which people take the code, and add a tons of restrictions before reselling it to other people, thus limiting the end-buyer's freedoms. With the BSD liscence, anyone can take code, make whatever changes, and then sell a restricted version, taking away the freedoms of their customers (think Apple).

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

• the BSD license make the end user free (to do what they want with the software)
• the GNU license(s) make the actual software free (for others to use/chance it as well)

Except that's not right either. End users are the people who run the software, not write it or sell it. The GPL is about assuring that the people who run the software have the ability and the right to tweak it however they need to. Such as fixing bugs without being solely reliant on the good graces of a potentially defunct software developer.

Tivo's attitude is entirely compatible with BSD license's intent, but it isn't compatible with the GPL's intent to allow the tivo unit's user to fix bugs like DRM (yes, DRM is definitely a bug in the eyes of the user, and remember it is the user's interests the GPL protects).

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

Forcing people to use the GPL because they want to use your library seems silly to me.

The argument goes like this: LGPL is good for libraries that have proprietary (or at least non-GPL) equivalents, since that removes the necessity to have two essentially equivalent libraries installed at the same time (one for GPL software and one for other software). An example is the C library. By allowing non-GPL software to link with it, the LGPL C library can be the only C library on the system. If the C library would be licensed under the GPL, non-GPL software would have to use a parallel non-GPL C library, even though both libraries provide essentially the same functionality.

If the library doesn't have a proprietary (or non-GPL) equivalent, selecting the GPL for the library gives an advantage to software licensed under the GPL compared to software licensed under other licenses. The benefit of this approach to the free software community should be quite obvious.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Eric Smith]

Suppose you release package Foo under the BSD license. Now a company uses a modified version of that software in their product Bar. As an end user, I buy a Bar. Now I've got a product running a non-free version of Foo. The company won't give me the sources to their version, so I can't modify or enhance it, or fix bugs. That's about as non-free as software gets, and it was clearly facilitated by the BSD license.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

Also worth mentioning is the fact that closed-source software can build on GPL'd software if the owner releases it separately under a paid-for commercial licence (such as MySQL). So derivatives aren't necessarily free

This is only the case because software developers that want to submit improvements to MySQL (the company) have to agree to give MySQL the right to do this (since the contributors hold copyright over their improvements). If they didn't have this requirement, they could only dual-license code developed in-house.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

meta-nitpick: he said XFree86 / XORG. although xorg is gpl, so it's not really an example.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

who doesn't hate them- even MS has said that they don't really like them but get them because they must.

Their recent actions (patent threats, that is) speak for themselves w.r.t. "we only get them because we have to". A little farther back they aggressively lobbied for software patents in the EU, arguing that they would be a necessity for the software industry to continue to flourish. Microsoft is against software patents where they harm them, but strongly in favor when they can use them to harm others.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

If you want your standard consistently implemented, why would you choose a license where vendors can close their deviations from the standard implementation. embrace, extend and all that.

I see what you mean, but if we want proprietary software companies to be able to use it in their products, the GPL is a no-no. Fortunately, there is a license in between: The LGPL. The library would be protected against EEE by the LGPL, but still allow proprietary software to link with it.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[dreamlax]

That highly depends on what side you're on. For DRM proprietors, of course, what a restriction that would be. For end users, not so much. Restricting a restriction is still a restriction. The purpose of adding restrictions is to limit what is possible. DRM is a restriction, but that doesn't mean that restricting DRM is not. Someone's freedom is taken away either way.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

Because it's a less deceptive use of the word "free".

Is the FSF use of the word free really deceptive? I don't think so. Many if not most people would consider our western democracies "free countries", where you are allowed to do whatever you want except harming people. These restrictions are analogous to the restrictions placed on software licensed under the GPL. Thus, I would hardly call the use deceptive.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[RobBebop]

You are defending corporate freedom over individual freedom. For shame, Tivo shill.

And you confused a point of the GPL. You or Tivo can change any GPL software however the hell you want. You can even sell a product based entirely on a GPL software suite that you didn't even contribute anything too (which is what Tivo does!!!). The restricted freedom is that when you distribute the GPL product, you must include the source code or a written offer to provide the source that is valid for a minimium of three years (according to the latest GPLv3 draft).

This lack of a written offer of source is what burned the FSF when Tivo used Linux as a base system. They wrote a separate program that was served on a layer above the base system, and thus protected the proprietary nature of their product. The caveat of GPLv3 is that this isn't allowed, and it has been my understanding that in addition to MSFTs hardware DRM to degrade HD video signal, Tivo's usage of GPLv2 was a major reason for the changes in the FSFs license model.

That said, BSD *is* more free than GPL to a business, but if you argue that GPL is less free for an end user, you are sorely mistaken.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[willrj.marshall]

I beg to differ. The current copyright/patent system is designed in such a way that completely free software (BSD, public domain et al.) can be made less free by unscrupulous parties (extending and not releasing changes, etc). The GPL, for better or for worse, is defined to protect GPL code from what could be defined as a "hostile" legal system. The only freedom the GPL blocks is the freedom to restrict freedom. I would argue that the GPL removes one set of *specific* freedoms from the end user - in return for which it increases the overall freedom of the GPL ecosystem. This is an interesting concept. I think an accurate comparison is anarchy vs a (good) government of some kind. In theory, anarchy is the most free system, as it poses no restrictions on behaviour whatsoever. However, in practice, an anarchic system tends to concentrate power in the hands of a (charismatic, rich or similar) minority. This minority can, due to the nature of an anarchic system, impose any rules on those around them they choose - provided they have the power to enforce them. The net result of this is that the anarchic system becomes in practice less free than a regulated system would be. It becomes necessary to impose rules and regulations on those who wish to join a social system in order to prevent them removing freedom from those around them. Everyone loses a few of their freedoms (the right to kill, the right to steal, etc), in return for which the overall freedom of that society increases. I rather think something similar applies to software.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[bnenning]

You may ask, what about your right to hack your Tivo? I'd respond, what about their right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked? They are equivalent freedoms.

Before the DMCA, I'd have agreed. Ideally Tivo could cripple their product however they wanted, and I could buy it (at which point it becomes *my* product) and uncripple it. But thanks to the DMCA that makes me a criminal, so the freedoms are not equivalent and the only way to restore balance is to prevent Tivo from using free software to enforce control of my hardware.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Khazunga]

Oh, analogies. Always wrong by just that bit. I'll dismantle these

Don't be ridiculous. Just because you bought something doesn't mean you have unlimited rights to do as you wish to it. Would you consider a book that you bought now exclusively yours, then copy it and redistribute it? Of course not.

What about dismantling the book and using it to light a fire? The physical good is mine. I want to do anything to it. I should be allowed to.

What about your house? You own your house so does that give you the right to modify your water, gas and electrical hookups to bypass the meters? No.

Go read the utility contracts. You don't own the pipes and lines until after the meter.

Your car? Do you have the right to drive your property you bought however you feel like? No - there are rules you must abide by.

I can drive my car in my property using my feet only, while drinking, smoking and talking on the cell phone if I want to. The critical part in your sentence is the shared driving space, with shared rules, naturally.

Tivo has a right to do what they want to their products.

No. They forfeited that right when they leveraged GPL software. Now they must abide by the GPL.

If you buy it and attempt to take it apart, well then that's fine and your right, but they also have a right to put mechanisms in place to deny you further service if you do.

GPL is all about granting the end user the right to tinker, take apart and reuse. GPL2 was not so clear on hardware based distribution. GPL3 sets it straight, and fucks TiVo. Tough luck. Play by the book and let people tinker, or write your own software (or pick BSD, for christ's sake).

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

Then you've bought into the GNU propaganda worse than anybody. This has nothing to do with software patents, and no, the GPL is no more immune to patent violations than any other license. Why would it be?

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[higuita]

BSD: freedom to use the software for what ever you like, even change the licence, and so remove freedom for others to whatever you have done to the software

GPL: freedom to use the software for what ever you like, but you are never allowed to change the licence

BSD have more freedom, but on the long run, GPL garantee the freedom of the software and faster develop time, as new code in GPL is still GPL. In BSD, new code may not be BSD, forcing the BSD developers to do extra work to reach the same level.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

Tivo shill?

No, I'm not defending anyone. And you are confused about your terms. There is no difference between corporate freedom, individual freedom, or any other kind of freedom. There is only freedom. And you are willing to sacrifice some of it in order to make others behave like you want them to. For shame, fascist pig.

You may be willing to do that, and that's your choice. But don't pretend it has anything to do with freedom.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit, people. They complied.

If you're complaining about them making modifications to GPL code and not releasing those modifications, it's moot. Shut up.

If you're complaining that they created their own proprietary software on TOP of the GPL'd code that they won't release the source to, that's utterly retarded. Shut up.

If you're complaining that they used GPL code to run a piece of hardware that they designed, then made it so that their hardware design will only run their signed and "blessed" software, then you have the crux of the real argument, but that falls under the same argument whether or not they used their own software platform or Linux.

What we're down to, then, is RMS complaining that he can't rewrite the Xerox printer software to do what he wanted again.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Waffle Iron]

I think that I can write better logic to lower my heating bill but the company wont give me the microcode. Are they evil corporate nazis by preventing me from modifying their stuff?

They are if they grabbed somebody else's GPLd microcode and shipped it in the thermostat.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[bentcd]

adding a restriction takes away "freedom" not adds to it The GPL isn't about freedom for developers, it's about freedom for users. Therefore, developers lose a freedom so that users can have more of it. It's not much of a surprise, of course, that it can be hard to sell this paradigm to developers :-)

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

It "restricts" creators of derivative works merely by denying them the coercive power of copyright in order to preserve the freedom of everyone else. ...by using the coercive power of copyright. And that is my point.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[pnewhook]

What about dismantling the book and using it to light a fire? The physical good is mine. I want to do anything to it. I should be allowed to.

Sure you can. You can also do anything physically with your Tivo, including smashing and burning it too. So what? The analogy referred to the content contained within - the software on the Tivo and the ideas and words in the book.

I can drive my car in my property using my feet only, while drinking, smoking and talking on the cell phone if I want to. The critical part in your sentence is the shared driving space, with shared rules, naturally.

No, you are incorrect. In most states it is illegal to be in a parked car in your driveway (your property) while drunk. Having the engine running while drunk is grounds for arrest as it is likely that you intend to be on a public road. You do not actually have to be on the road to be arrested for DUI. Look it up - and as an aside, you should actually research what you write before saying it. It's not enought for you to just believe it to be true, it actually has to be true.

No. They forfeited that right when they leveraged GPL software. Now they must abide by the GPL.

They did not. Tivo is abidng by the GPL V2 which was in effect when they wrote and distributed the Tivo software. They have done nothing wrong.

GPL is all about granting the end user the right to tinker, take apart and reuse. GPL2 was not so clear on hardware based distribution. GPL3 sets it straight, and fucks TiVo. Tough luck. Play by the book and let people tinker, or write your own software (or pick BSD, for christ's sake).

Tivo is not fucked by GPL V3. They distributed their stuff under V2 and releasing V3 does not change that -except they cannot now use new stuff released under V3. Their existing stuff is still valid and protected. Tivo did play by the rules of GPL V2.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

Admittedly, it was a bit of a pissy response on my part. I sort of thought it was self evident that the guy wasn't really responding to my argument in any relevant way, and I shot back in kind. However, I don't think that the occasional nasty remark classifies me as a troll. My argument is still valid. I've gotten my fair share of nasty responses in this thread alone, and I've responded to many of them, because there was still an intelligent remark behind the snarkiness.

It's easy in an online forum to read comments as nastier than they really are, because we can't pick up a lot of our social cues like we can from face to face contact. Not that I wasn't trying to be a bit harsh, mind you, but I wasn't intentionally trying to flamebait anyone.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[10101001 10101001]

Just because you bought something doesn't mean you have unlimited rights to do as you wish to it. Would you consider a book that you bought now exclusively yours, then copy it and redistribute it?

I would if there were no copyright. But, then, that's what makes copyright so magical and unfair, because it violates the principle of unlimited right to something you buy.

What about your house? You own your house so does that give you the right to modify your water, gas and electrical hookups to bypass the meters?

Last I checked, water, gas, and electrical hookups were "owned" by you. If the discussion was one of TiVo "renting" their machine to you, you'd have a much more solid argument on this point.

Your car? Do you have the right to drive your property you bought however you feel like?

Depends. I can drive my car however I feel like it on my own property or on the property of others for whom I agree with (if it weren't the case, the Indy 500 would be illegal). Now, if your point was that on public roads there are restrictions on cars, I'll agree, that most of those restrictions are unfair and unreasonable. The move towards a public road system enshrined under traffic law came about as a result of a push by government to improve economic conditions by guarantee to business and consumers a fluid means of transportation of goods. If the interest were that of personal freedom, the focus would still be one of building roads for pedestrians and not considering them a burden that slows traffic. Was this your point?

Tivo has a right to do what they want to their products. If you buy it and attempt to take it apart, well then that's fine and your right,

Except that such is a DMCA violation and illegal. Oopsie.

but they also have a right to put mechanisms in place to deny you further service if you do.

Well, I'll agree on that point. But then, that's why people want to hack TiVos to use external services and avoid allowing TiVo to butcher the system you spent time and energy on. Of course, something like the GPLv3 is a move to motivate companies like TiVo to either (a) open up their system to the hacks and leave those people be or (b) use other software, thereby decreasing the association of GNU/Linux and ilk with closed systems that are made to be hack-proof. Of course, TiVo can do whatever it pleases, as it can continue to update their GPLv2 software for as long as they please. But, then, the objective of the FSF through the GPL has never been especially direct. If it were, the FSF would be a lobbying firm to enshrine the "four freedoms" into law, instead of trying to motivate people to use software that guarantees the "four freedoms".

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

the GPL v3 was largely written before the MS/Novell deal. RMS has specifically mentioned TiVo as an example of why v3 was needed. You fail it, cocksucker.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with "truly free software" is that companies/people are free to make it non-free. While that would be great for companies like Tivo, it is bad for end users, since they do NOT get the freedom to further enhance the proprietary fork of the code.

Which is about 99.95% useless as there are only a relatively small number of people with the know-how to further enhance the software and only a small portion of even those who give a flip enough to actually do it.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[GoCoGi]

Whether something provides freedom really depends on your definition of freedom. I will come back to that later.

For now, let us call the restrictions that are attached to public domain software R_0, and the restrictions attached to GPL software R_1. You cannot have a R_0-type license that promotes itself, because you can derive software with more restrictions from R_0 software. The so-called "viral" nature of R_1 guarantees, that the mere presence of R_1-type induces the creation of more R_1-type software. R_1 is a subset of R_0, but if you only consider R_1 to be essential, R_1-type software is clearly more useful than R_0.

The only problem that could arise (and that is what everyone who hates the GPL fears), is that R_0 \ R_1 (essentially the ability to derive software without R_1) is not granted to you. The question is: should this be viewed as part of your fundamental freedoms?

You can talk about the "freedom to derive proprietary software from any code", but that is not really the point. You can also talk about the "freedom to kill random humans", but most people would not say that laws against murder take freedom away from anyone. The question really is, what are freedoms are fundamental, that is, what freedoms should everyone have?

This is a controversial subject, but we already know you can't just include everything in the set of fundamental freedoms (let us call it R_E), as we have seen with the law against murder. So you have to provide a reason, why something should be a fundamental freedom or not, just saying "I can't do X, so I am not free" is not valid, if X is unspecified.

Now comes one reason why I think that R_0\R_1 is not in R_E, but you may have arguments against it, so _please_ bring them in:

If you believe that R_0\R_1 is a fundamental freedom, and you distribute BSD software, you allow other people to engage in immoral behaviour. And that is actually the only additional freedom you get. Like distributing a knife that can kill people, when you can distribute a knife, that can do everything the other knife can except killing people. You cannot really do this with knives, but if you believe that killing people is an absolutely wrong thing, you should distribute those knives in that case. And that is what you (GPL-enemies) think: You believe that R_0\R_1 is fundamental, yet you distribute killing knives. If you _still_ believe that R_0\R_1 is fundamental, you have a paradox.

I think the right solution is to realize that R_0\R_1 is not in R_E, then you do not have the problem, and you lose no additional freedoms execept the paradoxical one. But in that case the GPL is clearly superior to BSD-variants.
This is no proof that R_0\R_1 is not fundamental of course, but you will have to show me strong arguments, as why you still think that R_0\R_1 is a fundamental freedom, give the apparently paradoxical results that follow.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[GoCoGi]

The last "give" should read "given".

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[aussie_a]

Because with public domain, you can lose credit as authors of that code. Aaah, so you do think its good to restrict people's freedoms. In that case we're simply disagreeing on where the restriction becomes better for society overall. You think having your ego stroked is all that's needed, whereas others think keeping any changes made to the code free so everyone can benefit from them is important.

Typical revisionist history. No I'm simply making the argument blowdart did, applied to something he doesn't want it applied to.

you've added restrictions Actually clarifications have been added. The spirit has remained the same the entire time, its just not everyone felt like following the spirit of the GPL, so clarifications were added to ensure that the spirit must be adhered to. Imagine if there was a loophole that allowed people to remove the credit placed in BSD code? Surely the BSD license would be modified to take away this loophole.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[ClosedSource]

"RMS has been spending decades explaining "free"."

Perhaps he wouldn't need so much time if he just used the word properly. I'm about the same age as RMS. We never elected him President of the dictionary club so forgive me not giving a rats ass about his personal definition.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Kadin2048]

The difference between the GPL2 and the GPL3 is that the GPL3 gives you a little bit less additional rights.

Depends on who "you" is. I think this is the crux of the whole public-domain/BSD/GPL2/GPL3 argument. Each one can be argued to be 'more free,' from a different point of view.

As the end user of a piece of software, I get the most freedom to use it and do stuff with it, if it's GPL3. That keeps the developer from locking it up behind a wall of checksums and boobytraps, or (at least in some earlier drafts of the GPL3, although I think it was removed later) releasing it as a web service that keeps me from taking it an running it on my own server, etc.

But as a downstream developer, I get the most freedom, if the code is public domain -- I can take it, change it, put my name on it, sell it at a profit, make locked-down or web-service implementations of it, add all sorts of weird proprietary additions to it and keep them secret to trap my customers, whatever.

The BSD license, in my opinion anyway, is a license, by programmers and for programmers. It preserves the openness of code, and ensures that upstream developers get the credit they want, but basically allows downstream developers to do whatever they want with it, save a few restrictions.

The GPL licenses have always tended towards user freedom at the expense of developers, and if it wasn't for the ideological bend of Stallman et al, there probably wouldn't be much software made under it, since most users who benefit from the GPL (as compared to the BSD) aren't developers themselves. It's dependent on a relatively small number of able individuals' desire to produce something that benefits a large number of people who aren't as able (to program).

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[ClosedSource]

Your analysis is wrong. The BSD license gives more freedom to both customers/users and programmer/coders than does the GPL. Part of that extended freedom is the ability to use BSD'd code, combine it with non-BSD code and release it under any license you wish including the GPL (which GNU has historically taken advantage of). Just as the BSD license has nothing to do GPL'd code derived from BSD'd code, the BSD license has nothing to do with applications that use other licenses even if the code was also derived from BSD'd code.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Joe Snipe]

Tivo has a right to do what they want to their products

Not to beat a dead horse, but Tivo's "product" is built on someone else's code, and the GPL is attempting to protect that someones rights, no?

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[drsmithy]

Suppose you release package Foo under the BSD license. Now a company uses a modified version of that software in their product Bar. As an end user, I buy a Bar. Now I've got a product running a non-free version of Foo.

No, you have a product called FooBar. I.e. a combination of Foo and Bar.

The company won't give me the sources to their version, so I can't modify or enhance it, or fix bugs. That's about as non-free as software gets, and it was clearly facilitated by the BSD license.

The code for Foo remains "free". The code for Bar, does not. The BSDL code remains "free", even if a product that is using it is not.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[drsmithy]

Is the FSF use of the word free really deceptive?

Yes, because they assume "free" and "GPLed" (or equivalent) are synonymous and use the terms interchangeably, despite that not being a definition most people would perceive.

I don't think so. Many if not most people would consider our western democracies "free countries", where you are allowed to do whatever you want except harming people.

They would, but they'd be wrong in a very real sense, as evidenced by the numerous laws involving victimless crimes (pretty much anything surrounding drugs, for example).

However, I understand the point you are trying to make, that we ostensibly have a "free" society due to the restrictions placed on certain activities (eg: murder).

However, it's not analagous, as laws like that are about keeping things that are "yours", "yours", whereas the GPL is about making things that are "theirs", "yours".

These restrictions are analogous to the restrictions placed on software licensed under the GPL. Thus, I would hardly call the use deceptive.

Perhaps if you subscribe to the FSF doublespeak. However, requiring someone to GPL their own code if they wish to distribute some sort of GPL-code-derivative isn't in the same ballpark - heck, not even playing the same game - as laws against, say, murder and theft. The former are assumptions about what you should be able to do with *other people's work*, the latter about the assumptions that can be reasonably made regarding *yourself* and *your property*.

That is, unless you happen to agree with the collossal arrogance of people who consider the "right" to modify and redistribute someone else's work is somehow on par with so-called "human rights" like freedom of speech and self-defense. If that's true I doubt we'll be able to find a common ground.

The word "right", in the context of various "human rights", carries a heavy meaning and using it for such mundane things as licensing of source code significantly cheapens its value.

"Open Source" is a *vastly* more honest term that "free software", because it conveys accurate meaning without relying on loaded/ambiguous definitions of the word "free" which only a relative handful of people even know, let alone subscribe to. Of course, the term "free software" was chosen precisely *because* of that loaded meaning, which in my mind puts it in the same arena as the kind of political propanda that is used to justify - amongst others - the various "War On X" projects.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[drsmithy]

Simple: patents. Infringe a patent and the owner of your BSD code is the patent holder.

Broken patent laws are an entirely different discussion.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[mrsteveman1]

"I don't understand why Tivo should be required to help you do so, however."

Because Tivo uses the Linux kernel, which they knew when they developed around it that user rights were guaranteed. If they don't like that they shouldn't have used the Linux kernel.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[ben there...]

Incidentally, as this all relates to Tivo--I'd be willing to bet they won't use any new GPL material in their new systems. In fact, they'll probably remove whatever GPL material they already have as they migrate to a closed source system. Once bitten, twice shy. So, the net result is a loss of freedom, I guess you'd say. Way to go, freedom advocates.

Has TiVo contributed any changes back to GNU/Linux? Has the use of GNU/Linux by TiVo benefited the projects used in any way? Has it benefited compatibility and interoperability in any way? If not, fuck 'em, to put it bluntly. TiVo switching to proprietary code will have absolutely zero influence on GNU/Linux, instead only on TiVo's bottom line.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you CAN "tamper with the odometer" as long as it is documented. How else can one legally replace a faulty speedo/odo unit, or a gauge cluster, or in newer cars with digital odometers, the ECM or BCM? You can even reset the odometer to 00000 on a classic car, providing the original mileage prior to reset or replacement of the original odometer is clearly documented and revealed to the buyer.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[msuarezalvarez]

I cannot but observe, while I compose this message in a 100% free operating system, with every single binary stored in the various bin directories in the box released under a free licence and with their source sitting in one of my partitions, while I read your message as rendered in a quite nicely designed free font, and while I listen to music released under a free licence in a format which is 100% free being played by a free player---as I said, I cannot but observe that your remark that "we'll all be worse off" is quite against my experience.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd respond, what about their right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked?

Well, no one is forcing TiVO to use GPL'd software in the first place..

If they're so worried about 'their product being hacked' etc, maybe they should rewrite their whole software from scratch (as closed-source) so they don't have to worry about little things like the GPL.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[anandsr]

Those "some of us" are declining in their percentage, precisely because of the Dictatorship is the most free system, effect. BSDs lose lots of developers because a company can pick them up, pick the code and keep it to themselves. With GPL they can't do so, they can take the code but since they have to give the modifications back there is not much point in making the resulting the code proprietary. So even if they pick up developers and the code, the code does not lose its developers. Its also better for the developers. All the Top Linux developers are employed with companies but they still contribute a lot to Linux. Contrast the situation to the case of BSDs the developers have only two options either support themselves via freelancing or some other job, or give up working on BSD in the open and get employed at a company developing a proprietary version. I don't think BSD license helps its developers.

Its not like BSD is a useless license, it has a specific application and that is developing new languages and protocols. In these cases you want everybody including proprietary interests to use your code in their product to allow better interoperability. This is why BSD license was the right license for use when Unix was young. But now that it is very widespread BSD actually doesn't make sense for OS development. I would think that it would be a better license for the Gecko engine of the Mozilla code, than GPL.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Eric Smith]

Which is about 99.95% useless as there are only a relatively small number of people with the know-how to further enhance the software and only a small portion of even those who give a flip enough to actually do it.

Wrong. Even though only 0.05% are capable of modifying the software, and fewer do it, it only takes one such person to do a useful and desirable mod and distributed it, for many people to benefit.

How many times have you had some piece of consumer electronics that had a bug or misfeature that irritated you, or that you thought could have easily been more useful or convenient if only they'd made some minor change? But of course, with most consumer electronics, the software is proprietary, and you can't do it.

With GPL'd software, you can, or someone else can, and share the results with you. Except that Tivo found a loophole in GPLv2 and was able to build a system that ran GPL'd code but could not be modified. The GPLv3 closes this loophole. The only people this hurts are people trying to force DRM onto consumers that don't want it.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Eric Smith]

If you want to play semantic games and claim that by compiling BSD code and putting it into a box, it's no longer the same code, I'm sure you and any other like minded people can go amuse yourselves that way. Most reasonable people (and, for that matter, US Copyright law) see it as clearly still being Foo (albeit a modified Foo), and thus have lost the freedom to modify and enhance that Foo.

Sure, they could go get the original Foo, and start from scratch. They could also try to build a new civilization from scratch by banging rocks together. That's not the point.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[drsmithy]

If you want to play semantic games and claim that by compiling BSD code and putting it into a box, it's no longer the same code, I'm sure you and any other like minded people can go amuse yourselves that way.

I didn't, you (apparently) did. You didn't say "compiled", you said "modified".

Most reasonable people (and, for that matter, US Copyright law) see it as clearly still being Foo (albeit a modified Foo), and thus have lost the freedom to modify and enhance that Foo.

If it's just compiled - that is, unmodified - you have lost nothing, because you can just go out and get the BSDLed source for Foo and modify it to your heart's content.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[poopdeville]

In fact, the GPL is really what takes away your freedom. It essentially says that if you want to create a derivative work, you must abide by certain restrictions. What this effectively does is grant certain rights to the recipients of derivative works in exchange for certain restrictions on freedom to create those derivative works. Not as sexy sounding as "preserving freedom", I suppose.


Phrasing the GPL's intent that way borders on bad faith. Your description is abstract to the point that it applies to every license, including the BSD and "All Rights Reserved" licenses.

The GPL's restrictions are responsibilities the licensee must comply with in order to ensure any sub-licensee's freedom to modify and distribute the licensed code. Public domain licenses are certainly more free in the sense that a licensee has more rights. However, among these is the right to limit any sub-licensee's rights.

Now, which sort of license will afford the most people the most meaningful rights? There is a very strong case that the GPL is more free in this sense. So which sense is the right one to use? I prefer the BSD sense, but I am sympathetic to this sense as well.

In any event, the idea that with freedom comes responsibility pre-dates Orwell by several centuries.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

Well, actually, they have contributed changes: http://www.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp

I don't know if those changes are generally useful or not, but they have made them available for others to use. However, I'm referring more to the fact that, because it uses Linux and some (more or less) standard hardware, it is possible for people to write utilities and such that can improve your Tivo's capabilities. Tivo may not approve of these things, but that's the tradeoff for using open source software. Although they may try to use some protection schemes to prevent the software from being wholly replaced, it is still possible to see basically how the whole system runs. And if they go completely proprietary, everyone loses that ability. Seems to me like the GPLv3 is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[ubernostrum]

You also assume that everyone agrees with RMS's explanations and redefinitions; some of us (who release code under the BSD license) don't; adding a restriction takes away "freedom" not adds to it

You might want to read the BSD license very carefully; it's more viral than people commonly believe.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[revengebomber]

Listen, this whole argument is silly. Some people think that "freedom" means letting other people do whatever they want with their code. Some people think "freedom" means guaranteeing that their code will remain with other "free" code.

I personally like the GPL, simply because the thought of my work in someone else's closed-source product makes me uneasy. Others like BSD, because the thought of their code in as many places as possible, or the principle of do-what-you-want, is what pleases them.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[revengebomber]

BSD is freedom for the users, GPL is freedom for the code.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Orkie]

I understand that, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. I still think it means there is overall a lesser number of projects using the library which means some of its potential is wasted. It also means there are less things written for the 'free software community' to use or the quality of things is worse in some cases. An example of this is libmad. I work on the Open2x project (open source firmware replacement for the GP2X) and a little while ago I had to make a decision as to whether to use libmad for MP3 support in SDL_mixer. The only alternative is smpeg which uses floating point operations and is very slow on the GP2X's ARM. I ended up having to use smpeg over the far superior libmad (the difference is a dedicated MP3 player with smpeg that struggles when it is the only thing running and an action packed game using libmad which still decodes MP3s perfectly) purely because libmad is under the GPL. Had I chosen to package it with libmad, everything which ran on the firmware and used SDL_mixer (which is a lot of stuff) would be forced to become GPL.

It is common practice in the GP2X community to simply give source away in return for credit and a free copy of anything commercial that comes out of it. This kind of friendly sharing of code purely for the sake of helping people out rather than promoting a cause would die out if people were forced into using a particular license - there would be less usable code out there because of that.

Using the GPL for libraries doesn't help the community, it just tries to force the GPL upon people.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Khazunga]

No, you are incorrect. ... ... ... It's not enought for you to just believe it to be true, it actually has to be true.

I am sure. Article 2, paragraph 1 (translated): This code applies to traffic on public domain roads, managed by the central government, autonomic regional governments or by municipalities.

They did not. Tivo is abidng by the GPL V2 which was in effect when they wrote and distributed the Tivo software. They have done nothing wrong.

They abided by the letter of GPL2, not by its spirit. GPL is a hacker license. It basically grants any end user the license to hack. It is flawed because it has no provisions for software being distributed as part of a more complex hardware product. GPLv3 fixes these holes. So, ...

Tivo is not fucked by GPL V3.

Tivo is fucked by GPLv3, inasmuch as their business model is based on a closed platform built by open software contributions. I couldn't care less that their business model got screwed.

(yes, technically, they could fork every GPLv2 project and maintain all these projects themselves. Won't happen.)

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

qmail is way more than non-GPL. It is not free software at all. Not even close.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[JasterBobaMereel]

The book is mine ... I can burn it, give to a friend, sell it, write in the margins, but the contents is not mine so I cannot print copies and sell those ...

The house is mine and the pipes/cables etc inside are mine but the meters and the pipes/cables outside are technically not mine , so I cannot modify or bypass them

The car (Aha a car analogy!) If I drive it on my property I can do what I like, crash it drive without proper licence, insurance etc ... but on the public roads I must obey the rules of the road

If Tivo sold me a box I can do what I like with it ... If they sold me a service they can restrict what I do ... Tivo is normally both so this is where the Grey area comes in they use the box to restrict how I use the service ?

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

well actually, the "most free" way to release any code would be a license that allows any recipient to enslave, beat, burn, criminally frame or seize the assets of the developer that released said code. after all, if you attempt to prevent someone from stabbing you in the throat, you're restricting their freedom.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

It is common practice in the GP2X community to simply give source away in return for credit and a free copy of anything commercial that comes out of it.

Then I guess you must use a custom license, as the BSD license does not have any such provision.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

Using the GPL for libraries doesn't help the community, it just tries to force the GPL upon people.

That depends on which community you mean. Using the GPL for libraries certainly helps the free software community. It may not help the community of proprietary software companies, but then I guess that this is not the goal.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

However, it's not analagous, as laws like that are about keeping things that are "yours", "yours"

What about the limited terms of patents and copyrights? You could argue that they are also making what is "yours" "ours". I wouldn't agree with that argument though, since you cannot own "intellectual property", you are merely enjoying a few time-limited exclusive rights to your intellectial products. You own the rights, but not the intellectual products.

whereas the GPL is about making things that are "theirs", "yours".

No it isn't. If your software depend on software developed by someone else, it is only fair that the other developer has a say in how you license your combined (derivative) work. After all, nothing prevents you from writing an equivalent package yourself, where you would have all rights to it. If yu don't like being forced to use the GPL for derivative works, don't use GPL software as a foundation for yours.

However, requiring someone to GPL their own code if they wish to distribute some sort of GPL-code-derivative

But it doesn't require that. Unless of course, your "own" code depends on the GPL software. If it does, you simply have to accept that you have to comply with the license of that software.

I don't see what all the complaining is all about. If you don't like the requirement that derivative works are also licensed under the (L)GPL, don't base your code on GPL code. It is as simple as that. But I understand, you want to use the code, but not share your code accrding to the requirements of the (L)GPL. Well, tough luck.

isn't in the same ballpark - heck, not even playing the same game - as laws against, say, murder and theft. The former are assumptions about what you should be able to do with *other people's work*, the latter about the assumptions that can be reasonably made regarding *yourself* and *your property*.

I still assert that the analogy holds. Both sets of restrictions are there to stop people from reducing other people's freedom.

That is, unless you happen to agree with the collossal arrogance of people who consider the "right" to modify and redistribute someone else's work is somehow on par with so-called "human rights" like freedom of speech and self-defense.

It is an analogy, which doesn't mean that it is on par (i.e. equally important). The point is that both systems use minor restrictions for individuals to acquire greater freedom for society as a whole.

By the way, again, the GPL does not claim to have any effect on other peoples' work, unless that work is a derivative of a program licensed under the GPL.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Orkie]

Things can still be open source and not under the GPL you know. Loads of people seem to believe GPL == "free software now though (not saying you're one of them). And in response to your other post about the need for a custom license, they don't really have clear 'licenses', they just say when they give it out what they'd like to get back, if anything.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[e2d2]

Then we need to ask ourselves - what is the goal of linux? Is it to maintain a free open source patent free OS, or is it to cater to commercial needs.

I for one say to Tivo and company - tough shit. Linux is not a money tree you can pluck money from without returning something to the group. Perhaps another OS with a less restrictive license would be more appropriate.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[blueskies]

Too bad #1 is Public Domain not BSD.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[djchristensen]

I think RMS is speaking of freedom from the point of view of the code, not the developer or user. I'm not sure RMS give's a rat's ass about your freedom. And if that's the case, he's not redefining freedom. Those that think so are placing themselves in the center of the discussion and not the code.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Subaru cars you can modify the engine code to do what you want. Subaru cannot stop you from doing this but at the same time they can deny warranties.

Check out Cobb accessport and ECUTEK.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Cramer]

They make all their GPL code available to anyone (www.tivo.com/linux), not just those to whom they have sold binaries as the GPL clearly states. And you are free to make as many modifications as you wish -- thousands of people already do. You'll have to replace the boot rom ("BIOS") -- that isn't even remotely GPL'd -- so it'll boot without a valid signature.

PLUS, Tivo's Linux kernel is based off 2.1. It cannot be retroactively re-licensed under GPLv3 - PERIOD. The other various tools are based on pretty old pre-GPLv3 source as well. I don't think the developers at Tivo, Inc. are very concerned with what's going on w.r.t. modern kernel development.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[NuShrike]

Heard of the plug-in Prius? Lots of modified battery code there. Heard of ECU chips on Ebay?

Following road/FCC laws for the "operation" of the purchased item, again, is parallel to copyright.

qed

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[drinkypoo]

RMS has been spending decades explaining "free"

You say explaining, I say redefining.

RMS has spend decades explaining "Free Software". He is not attempting to define what the word Free means except from the standpoint of the software. I'm not a huge RMS fan and I have reservations even about the normal GPL (although I do sometimes release software, such as it is, under the GPL) but you are simply making a common misinterpretation. It's not about freedom for users, or for developers, but for the software.

Developers have more freedom without the GPL; Copyright law already gives them the right to license the code [more or less] as they see fit. End-users of the code have more freedom in some ways, and less in others, when they receive GPL software - depending on what you compare to.

The idea, in any case, is to free the code. The term is really something of an implied anthropomorphism. The GPL fulfills information's supposed wish to be free.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[toadlife]

However, end-users (non-distributors) have less freedom in the BSD model than they enjoy with the GPL. What twisted form of logic did you exercise to come to that conclusion?

Can you please explain what extra rights the GPL provides the end user over the BSD license?

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Eric Smith]

The point was that it is modified, compiled, and put in a box. I should have been more clear, sorry.

Suppose the vendor adds a system call and two device drivers to the BSD kernel. Perhaps they've added 1500 lines of code. Your claim is that it's no longer a BSD kernel. I think most people would disagree. It's clearly not a *stock* BSD kernel, but nothing has magically made it cease to be a BSD kernel, any more than if you hack the kernel slightly on your desktop machine at home, it ceases to be BSD.

My point is that while clearly I am still free to download the upstream BSD kernel, it doesn't help me much with respect to the vendor's product. Concrete example: suppose the upstream kernel changes to support larger hard drives (as happened at the 128GiB limit on the Tivo). If the vendor has turned their BSD kernel proprietary, the fact that the unmodified kernel source is available isn't sufficient for me to be able to use that upstream kernel change on the box. Thus I've lost the freedom to enhance/extend/modify the BSD kernel running on that box.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Old Benjamin]

And the Tivo? Aren't you better off because it is cheaper?

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[djchristensen]

I was going to say this whole car analogy has been taken way too far, but then I realized maybe not. There are laws that apply to certain car modifications that have nothing whatsoever to do with any rights of the manufacturer to prevent you from making those modifications. The DMCA would be analogous in this case, where removing DRM from a TIVO would be prevented not because of TIVO's rights, but because of a Federal law.

But this whole line of reasoning misses the point, anyway. The real issue is that TIVO is taking GPL'd code, including that in a product, and then locking it up in such a way as to prevent users/owners from modifying it. Ignoring the GPL aspect, they have every right to do that.

To beat the car analogy a little more, GM has every right to design a dashboard that uses custom wiring, connectors, and mountings for their stereos that would make it very hard to get an after market unit. They can even go so far as to patent some of that stuff so that you can't go out and buy a drop-in replacement from someone else. They can't prevent you from ripping theirs out and cobbling together some way to hook up a different one.

TIVO can design their hardware/software to be really, really hard to modify or replace, but they can't prevent you from trying. The DMCA is another story.

But getting back to the GPL issue, TIVO is taking advantage of the efforts of developers of GPL software and then forcing restrictions on users. If this violates GPLv3, then so be it. TIVO is free to license some other OS or write their own, or maybe even use BSD. Heck, if they were using a proprietary OS, you might see a statement in their SEC filing like, "Our OS vendor is likely to go out of business, forcing us to find an alternative". That's really pretty much the same thing from their point of view.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[WgT2]

Sort of.

In order for a proprietary company, like Microsoft, Apple, and a host of other companies, to restrict you they have to re-license the changed product such that you would not have access to their changes (since it is no longer under the BSD license). Their "new-ish" creation would no longer be the same BSD-licensed software, but a different product and under their control: they, the companies, would have exercised their end-user freedom under the BSD license.

The product they started with, which would be BSD-licensed, would still be available for you to do what you want to do with it; that iteration of the software would still be free to you, the end-user.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[NoOneInParticular]

Okay, needs further clarification. Direct end-users (those that have no middle-man between the original writer) have exactly the same amount of freedom under BSD and GPL. Indirect end-users, getting their software through a middle-man, have more freedom under GPL than they have under BSD as the middle man can have changed whatever terms he wants. Hence GPL nets more freedom to end-users.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[NoOneInParticular]

All patents can do to GPL software is kill it. What patents can do to BSD software is remove the developers right to it, and sell it as if they owned it.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[NoOneInParticular]

True, but this route is a certified way to make BSD code proprietary. In this scenario GPL code would only be killed, not raped and enslaved.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[WgT2]

Tivo's attitude is entirely compatible with BSD license's intent, but it isn't compatible with the GPL's intent to allow the tivo unit's user to fix bugs like DRM (yes, DRM is definitely a bug in the eyes of the user, and remember it is the user's interests the GPL protects).

I agree, especially about the bugs.

However, it would have been better for me to use a word other than 'end-user', since it traditionally means exactly what you said it does, and instead used something to express a generalized entity, whether it be an end-user or a company.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[toadlife]

While a middle-man can come in and "lock up" a derivative of a BSD licensed piece of software, he can never lock up the original. While the rights granted by licenses more liberal than the GPL may have undesirable (to some) long-term results, no rights are directly stripped by the BSD license. Every hear of the saying, "Freedom isn't free?"

Hence GPL nets more freedom to end-users. Though that is still your opinion, and I still don't agree with it, at least it's fairly logical. :)

In saying this, you are placing a set value on various freedoms and assuming that everyone shares these values. The value of being able to see source code is not the same for everyone. For some (most?) end-users, that value is non-existent.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

No, your security is increased. Not your freedom. Think about it for a second. If these laws go too far, your freedom could be removed entirely. So how does it make sense that laws increase your freedom to a certain extent, but if they go much farther then you have less freedom than you would naturally have? Don't confuse freedom with security.

In our society, we trade a degree of freedom for a degree of safety. And that's fine, but never forget that you are giving up some freedom for every law passed--it's a zero sum game.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[pnewhook]

Heard of the plug-in Prius? Lots of modified battery code there. Heard of ECU chips on Ebay? Following road/FCC laws for the "operation" of the purchased item, again, is parallel to copyright.

Yes, and in these instances companies (mainly universities) have reverse engineered the engine management computer or supplied a replacement. No Hybrid auto supplier has released the source sode to their engine management computer.

Someone can easily do this to the Tivo by supplying a complete replacement OS and application. There's nothing wrong with that.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[pnewhook]

Subaru cars you can modify the engine code to do what you want. Subaru cannot stop you from doing this but at the same time they can deny warranties. Check out Cobb accessport and ECUTEK.

But Subaru did not supply the code for you to modify. Some company has reverse engineered the engine management computer and is supplying a mod kit that you can change parameters to. Subaru did not release the source code to their engine management computer.

Someone can easily do something similar to the Tivo by supplying a complete replacement OS and application. There's nothing wrong with that.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[drsmithy]

What about the limited terms of patents and copyrights? You could argue that they are also making what is "yours" "ours". I wouldn't agree with that argument though, since you cannot own "intellectual property", you are merely enjoying a few time-limited exclusive rights to your intellectial products. You own the rights, but not the intellectual products.

Firstly, "limited copyright terms" are rapidly becoming folklore. Secondly, I was speaking outside of the concept of "intellectual property", in a more ethereal sense about something that is "yours" in the sense that its something you have created, rather than an object you have some sort of legally-enforced power over.

The GPL depends utterly on copyright to work. While I personally don't agree with almost all aspects of copyright law, the fact remains that the GPL and that it would be pointless and useless without it.

No it isn't. If your software depend on software developed by someone else, it is only fair that the other developer has a say in how you license your combined (derivative) work.

Why is it fair if that GPLed code only makes up, say, 5% of the final product ?

After all, nothing prevents you from writing an equivalent package yourself, where you would have all rights to it. If yu don't like being forced to use the GPL for derivative works, don't use GPL software as a foundation for yours.

How predictable. This argument always appears in an attempt to deflect commentary about the GPL away with the "but no-one makes you use it" straw man.

But it doesn't require that. Unless of course, your "own" code depends on the GPL software. If it does, you simply have to accept that you have to comply with the license of that software.

Clearly you misunderstood what I meant by "GPL-code-derivative". I was referring to code that would be considered "derivative code" by the GPL. I would have thought that was obvious, since my comments would be utterly pointless without that assumption.

I don't see what all the complaining is all about.

I was complaining about the deceptive use of the term "free" as a synonym for "GPLed" and how the deliberate choice of such loaded terminology identifies it as common political propaganda being use to further an idealistic goal.

I personally don't like the GPL, as I think it frequently ends up being an unfair exchange, deceptively "marketed" as generosity (in both directions - although I don't mind the LGPL, it's much more likely to result in an equitable transaction). However, I don't dispute someone's choice to license their code however the hell they want. What I *do* find annoying, is the deceptive use of the word "free" as a synonym for "GPL", the hostility from the cult of GNU towards people who don't agree with their loaded definition of that word and the implication that those people are wrong in some sort of objective manner.

I still assert that the analogy holds. Both sets of restrictions are there to stop people from reducing other people's freedom.

If you follow the view that the additional privileges the GPL bestows are, in fact, worthy of the term "freedoms" rather than just the results from a simple transaction of goods and services one might also get in a traditional contract, then the analogy holds. Personally, I don't agree with that in the slightest and I take offense when people like RMS - and those who subscribe to his views - assert that I am making some sort of moral failure by doing so.

Here's another way of looking at it. When someone kills you, or steals from you, or misrepresents you, you have suffered harm and your "human rights" - as the term is fairly commonly accepted across the civilised world - have been infringed. When you choose to voluntarily use a piece of non-GPLed software instead of a piece of GPLed software, neither of these things have happened. That's the difference. Feeling safe and secure in your person and property is a genuine "freedom

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[msuarezalvarez]

No,not really. I don't think I've been closer than, say, 10.000 km to a tivo in my whole life.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

Things can still be open source and not under the GPL you know.

I know, that's why I specifically used the term free software community instead of open source software community.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

No, your security is increased. Not your freedom.

No? My freedom would be very small if I would be dead.

Think about it for a second. If these laws go too far, your freedom could be removed entirely. So how does it make sense that laws increase your freedom to a certain extent, but if they go much farther then you have less freedom than you would naturally have?

You've obviously never heard of nonlinearity. I see no contradiction in that having some laws increase your freedoms, but having too many restrict it.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[init100]

Why is it fair if that GPLed code only makes up, say, 5% of the final product?

It doesn't matter how small part of the final product it is, you chose to use the code covered by the GPL, and thus you are bound by its terms. People contributed code under the GPL for a specific purpose, i.e. that it remains licensed under the terms of the GPL until the end of time. What gives you the right to change those terms because it makes up just a small portion of your products? If it is so small, you could have written a substitute yourself.

How predictable. This argument always appears in an attempt to deflect commentary about the GPL away with the "but no-one makes you use it" straw man.

So? Tell me why the argument is wrong, instead of (ignorantly) calling it a straw man. Do you even know what a straw man is? Then you should be able to tell me what argument I made up and pretended that you subscribe to.

I was complaining about the deceptive use of the term "free" as a synonym for "GPLed"

Then you can complain until the end of time, because I (and others) don't think that it is deceptive, and will continue to use the term free software to mean among others software covered by the GPL.

Pretty much the whole *point* of the GPL is to have an effect on other people's work. That's why it has that "viral" clause in it.

The GPL does not try to cover other separate works on the same medium, only those that actually depend on the covered code. Thus, I take issue with the use of "viral" in the context of the GPL. This "contagiousness" of the GPL is often painted as a unique property of the GPL, but it hardly is. Most proprietary licenses also cover derivative works, and are thus as "viral" as the GPL. The BSD license and equivalents are pretty much the only "non-viral" licenses that exist.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[booch]

Again, your argument about enslavement suffers from the same fallacy. Nobody can enslave you and remove your rights, any more than someone can remove your rights to use software that you have a license for. Your rights are still there no matter what anyone else does. You're claiming that slavery never existed? Or are you playing a word game, saying that slaves had the right to be free, but their rights were just ignored? It's a fact that slavery did exist, even though we now recognize a human right to not be enslaved. People were taking away those rights from the slaves.

Even if I were in favor of using the GPL--to promote open source for example--I would still take exception to the notion that the GPL provides freedom, but the BSD license does not. It's the other way around. Did you actually read my response? I said that either opinion was valid.

The GPL may have other benefits, but promoting freedom isn't one of them. Freedom means the ability to do whatever you want with software, even something other people may not like. When you cannot do that, it is because your freedom is restricted. I think I see the problem here. You're looking at freedom narrowly, particularly applying to developers. The GPL takes a wide view of freedom. The GPL wants freedom to extend to as many people as possible. Thus, it places the freedom of the recipients of the software higher than the freedom of distributors. That's its whole essence. So when I say "more freedom", I mean it provides freedom to a wider subset of the population.

The essential freedom to do essentially whatever you want with software. Any further restrictions, though, are just not free. Again, I think you missed my whole point. If I release software under a BSD license, and Microsoft takes that code and releases it under a more restrictive license, then the people receiving my code through Microsoft no longer have the freedom to modify the code. Even if Microsoft made no substantial changes to it. You admit yourself that the right to modify code is a freedom. You could argue that my code is still available from my own web site, or that anyone who got it from another source is still free to use it. But maybe my web site is gone; maybe not many people got it. Perhaps I'm OK with that possibility. But perhaps I want everyone who receives my code to have the same rights to use my software that Microsoft had when they received it. In that case, I'd choose the GPL, which would ensure that everyone who receives my code receives the rights I wanted them to have, no matter how they received it.

Perhaps a good compromise license would be to use the BSD license, but require that the distributor provide the original source they received, without the modifications that they added.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

You're claiming that slavery never existed? Or are you playing a word game, saying that slaves had the right to be free, but their rights were just ignored? How did you get from "nobody can enslave you" to "slavery never existed"? Who's playing word games now?

I'm finding this discussion tedious. The pro-GPL people just want to define "freedom" however they like. Fine. Apply that definition to your whole life, and I'll just sit and watch sadly as you give up your real freedom for some of this "freedom" that you're permitted by others.

No sacrifice of any freedom can increase freedom per se. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as we give up a fair amount of freedom in exchange for security, or convenience, or other benefits of living in modern society. But be careful, and don't pretend you're giving up freedom in exchange for more freedom, or you will find one day that you have none left.

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[Guido del Confuso]

No, your security is increased. Not your freedom. No? My freedom would be very small if I would be dead. There are many instances throughout history where people have been willing to sacrifice their lives to resist an oppressive totalitarian regime. Tell those people that they were better off living a slave than dying a free man.

You do not seem to understand the difference between freedom (what you are allowed to do) and ability (what you are capable of doing).

Re:Could be good news for BSD projects

[drsmithy]

It doesn't matter how small part of the final product it is, you chose to use the code covered by the GPL, and thus you are bound by its terms. People contributed code under the GPL for a specific purpose, i.e. that it remains licensed under the terms of the GPL until the end of time. What gives you the right to change those terms because it makes up just a small portion of your products?

Another straw man argument. I have never suggested anyone has the right to use "intellectual property" in ways its creator(s) did not intend (except as an inherent part of my wider arguments against "intellectual property" in general).

If it is so small, you could have written a substitute yourself.

5% of a project as big as, say, KDE, is still a lot of code. Not to mention the percentage of code is only one way a "fairness measure" might apply.

So? Tell me why the argument is wrong, instead of (ignorantly) calling it a straw man.

It's not wrong, it's irrelevant. Hence the reason I (accurately) identified it as a straw man.

Do you even know what a straw man is? Then you should be able to tell me what argument I made up and pretended that you subscribe to.

The arguments you appear to be making up and pretending I subscribe to, are that people should not be bound by the restrictions of the GPL if they don't want to be and that people are forced to use the GPL against their will.

Then you can complain until the end of time, because I (and others) don't think that it is deceptive, and will continue to use the term free software to mean among others software covered by the GPL.

And you will continue to alienate, confuse, deceive and frustrate the majority of the population who don't know - let alone understand - your definition of the word "free". Especially since the vastly more accurate and significantly less loaded term "open source software" exists.

The GPL does not try to cover other separate works on the same medium, only those that actually depend on the covered code.

Wow. Another standard straw man. Didn't see that one coming.

Thus, I take issue with the use of "viral" in the context of the GPL.

You can "take issue" with it all you want, but that won't change the fact that the primary point of the GPL was to produce more GPLed code by "infecting" source code and that this aspect is one of its - if not the most important - defining features.

This "contagiousness" of the GPL is often painted as a unique property of the GPL, but it hardly is. Most proprietary licenses also cover derivative works, and are thus as "viral" as the GPL.

And we get another standard straw man argument using the typical apples and oranges comparison of "most proprietry licenses" to the GPL.

I can only assume there's some "use these straw men to deflect any vaguely critical comments about the GPL" handbook, since the same ones get trotted out every. Single. Time.

Possible FUD and/or chilling effect on F/OSS?

[Null Nihils]

I've already heard a lot about how the legal dept's of companies discourage the use of GPL'ed and Open Source software. Corporations fear any form of risk, however remote. (Unlike a government, they'd never install a thermal exhaust port that could be used to blow up their space station.) Corporations want to have total control over everything they are involved with. This has, from what I've heard, slowed FOSS adoption significantly.

If more fears of the GPLv3 affecting business models are heard, could the coming of the GPLv3 cause a chilling effect on FOSS adoption in the commercial sector? Or worse, could opponents of FOSS twist concerns about the GPLv3 into a FUD campaign? Perhaps they have even started already...

Re:Possible FUD and/or chilling effect on F/OSS?

[joe 155]

The FUD has already started... like the comment you just posted.

For pretty much any company the new GPL will work pretty much like the old one. If you've never used the GPL in bad faith then there will almost certainly be benefits for you (or at least no draw-backs). This will only have an effect on those who used the GPL in bad faith (like Tivo), who we should hope we can either make put up (ie. do something good for the community) or shut up (stop using our work in a way we didn't want).

James: GPL gooood, Tivo baaad

Re:Possible FUD and/or chilling effect on F/OSS?

[slarrg]

Corporations want to have total control over everything they are involved with.

This just does not strike me as true. It seems that lately companies are in a race to see who can outsource the most functions from their business (manufacturing, accounting, design, engineering, research, phone support, sales, etc.) Most companies will happily outsource any business function if they can save a few bucks by doing so. I've watched companies completely rearrange how they do things and rethink their own requirements just to be able to outsource something. GPL v3 will simply require companies to decide whether free software is more important than the DRM they want to build.

I think it'll be a lot easier for Tivo to hire lobbyists and lawyers to allow them to continue to exist while using GPL v3 software than to completely redesign their software with another OS. Of course, they would like to not spend any money for either option but the consumers are better served by forcing this legal battle into the light of day so it can be legally settled for once and all like the VCR/Tape recorders/Radio debates of years before.

Re:Possible FUD and/or chilling effect on F/OSS?

[jonwil]

Likely Tivo will continue using the linux kernel as it does now (since the kernel wont go to GPLv3). Any userland it is using it will replace with other (not GPL) stuff or keep using the old GPLv2 version.

Re:Possible FUD and/or chilling effect on F/OSS?

[babbling]

Corporations want to have total control over everything they are involved with. This has, from what I've heard, slowed FOSS adoption significantly.

That doesn't make sense. Perhaps you meant to say "FOSS distribution" rather than "FOSS adoption". Free Software is all about giving people and organisations complete control over the software that they use. That's why, if you receive a copy of GPL-licensed software, you are also entitled to the source code of that software. Having the source code ensures you will have complete control over the software that you run.

Boo hoo!

[Eric Smith]

They've gotten a free ride for a long time, and not contributed anything back, and now they might not get to use some of the free stuff that comes out in the future.

It must really suck to be them.

Re:Boo hoo!

[jmv]

They've gotten a free ride for a long time, and not contributed anything back, and now they might not get to use some of the free stuff that comes out in the future.

You need to realise that the GPLv3 will change nothing to their contribution. If they did changes to the kernel under GPLv2 (no idea whether they did), they'd already have to release the changes and GPLv3 will change nothing to that. The area where GPLv3 would change things for them is the fact that right now, they distribute the source for the kernel, but people who get that source can't actually *run* it on the hardware because that requires a key only Tivo has. GPLv3 (if they use it) would force then to allow users to run modified programs on the hardware.

Re:Boo hoo!

[topham]

GPL 3 would have a more significant impact on their patent holdings.

The GPL doesn't cover works outside of their own domain; as such if Tivo were creative enough they could still restrict things and comply with GPL3. Personally I support Tivo. Tivo would not exist today if they hadn't restricted the Series2 units. I have one and hacked it; but I reverted it back when service was available where I live. Tivo is an excellent product that is on the border between profitability and cost-sink. There are now commodity type products which do the basic functionality of the Tivo and they are now slowly being marginalized inspite of having a superior product to most other offerings.

Tivo made the source code, with kernel patches as necessary, available to others; that was the extent of their legal obligations.

As a developer I would be more inclined to license software under BSD than GPL; but there is no way I could ever consider licensing something I put together under GPL v3. I also would never consider modifying, and distributing said modifications for anything under GPL v3. GPL v3 is a disaster from a developer standpoint; and a dream come true for the end-user. The only group I see using GPL v3 is FSF.

Re:Boo hoo!

[ciggieposeur]

GPL v3 is a disaster from a developer standpoint; and a dream come true for the end-user. The only group I see using GPL v3 is FSF.

Well, *I* intend to switch to v3 in a few more months for my OSS projects and I'm a developer. Though I do in general get RMS's idea about a commons of free software and laud his approach, my reasons for GPL are far more practical: in the unlikely event that I create some software that has lucrative market potential, and someone out there wants to use it in a non-free capacity, I want them to *pay me* for the privilege. I would gladly sell them a typical commercial-style license (i.e. *not* BSD) for the right amount of cash. Until a market need arises however my stuff is meant to be used by whomever and I get to mention it in job searches.

I also would never consider modifying, and distributing said modifications for anything under GPL v3.

Most of my modifications to existing projects are minor, and thus I license them "public domain" so the maintainers can do whatever they want with it. I see little point to a BSD-style license (public domain + attribution) when public domain itself is available.

Re:Boo hoo!

[vakuona]

Well, if anyone from Tivo is listening. They could just stop selling the TIVO boxes, and since they would still own them, they would be under no obligation to release their keys even if they used GPLv3 licensed software. This avoids them distributing the software, and well, sidesteps all these problems.

Re:Boo hoo!

[Eric Smith]

The GPLv3 won't change anything because they're using GPLv2 and will continue to do so. But if they'd used a GPLv3 kernel from the outset (had there existed such a thing at the time), they wouldn't have been allowed to lock users into running only their proprietary build of the software. They used a loophole in GPLv2 to do that; they are required by GPLv2 to share their sources, but they build their system so that you can't actually run modified code on it. The GPLv3 won't allow that.

Re:Boo hoo!

[jmv]

Doesn't work, the GPLv3 has a definition of conveying that covers that properly. You're not the first to think of this (non-existing) loophole.

So...

[kinocho]

So fuck them. Yeah, fuck them. Does the customers need the DRM in their lives? I thought so...

Unfortunately, they still have two other ways to take:
-Ignore completely the different upgrades to come to the software and keep maintaining the dammned DRM.
-Change everything to... let's say BSD? Last time I checked they were not forcing anything in the license.

Why they just not drop the drm and put the functionalities the customer wants? I will never understand bussiness choices...

I pray every day for every DRM abusing bussines to DIE.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

TIVO doesn't have non-tamper software so DRM can be implemented. It has always been there to force you to get a subscription from TIVO to get the channel schedules, and more recently, to fuck with your ability to skip commercials.

If they don't like it

[unlametheweak]

If they don't like it, then don't use.

If using freely obtained software (with the associated licenses) is hurting their business, then they should just start spending some money hiring developers and making their own fully proprietary software. You can't have your free beer and drink it too.

Re:If they don't like it

[Chief Camel Breeder]

That's an option if they were starting now, but they are already using and porting to a new OS is going to be really hard. For TiVO, GPL v3 looks like bait and switch: "yeah you can use our OS for free...oops, now you're committed, you have to give what we want." A commercial company might do this to extract licence money. FSF is doing the same with political capital.

PS: the whole point about the free beer is that it's a political bribe to the workers who want to drink it, not to "keep" it.

Re:If they don't like it

[unlametheweak]

Yes there are obviously political motives involved. But as others here have already pointed out, companies should know by now the spirit of the FSF, and any software that uses its licenses. The licensing has evolved over the years, and continues to evolve. People should expect that. I don't see this as a bait-and-switch here. I am sure Tivo and others will adapt. It will cost them, but they will adapt.

"The original purpose of the FSF was to promote the ideals of free software." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundat ion

I expect there licenses to adapt with the changing technological, economic and political environment as well.

Re:If they don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean you can't have your free beer and sell it too.

Re:If they don't like it

[unlametheweak]

BTW, the phrase I used "You can't have your free beer and drink it too." is actually a pun on the term "have your cake and eat it too"

The "free beer" part is actually a reference to the way free software licenses are often described. "Gratis" is often referred to as "free as in beer.

The proverbial reference to the oft-maligned and under-rated Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

Not sure if you understood that. At any rate, I hope that helps out for anybody who may not "get it".

Re:If they don't like it

[BigBuckHunter]

Tivo consists of two main components.. The hardware and the service. They currently restrict rights at the hardware level, and authenticate/authorize on the online service. All they need to do is restrict rights at the service level. They could simply add a clause to the TOS that says "Devices not running certified builds of the TIVO OS are not permitted to receive programming information, or in any way connect to TIVO's backend services".

IMHO, This is what TIVO should have done from the beginning.

BBH

Re:If they don't like it

[Chief Camel Breeder]

I understand free software perfectly, thank you, including the rather important point that it only comes with highly selective freedoms. My point was that the pun against "having your cake" conceals one of the truths of the analogy. Socialists offering free beer to workers was a tactic to conjure apparent political support from non-politicized voters. Offering software to businesses gratis is similar; by and large, the businesses don't care about the politics, they just want the "gift". Businesses using free software are not necessarily supports of free software.

Re:If they don't like it

[808140]

There's no socialism here, though. Nor was there any bait-and-switch -- most people who know, including Bruce Perens, have been saying for a long time that what Tivo is doing is probably not compliant with even the GPL2. It's certainly not compliant with the spirit of the license. Whether or not Tivoization would be found to be violating the GPL2 is not completely clear and a matter for the courts to decide, but it's by no means clear legal ground. The GPL3 takes out the gray area and makes it explicit.

There seems to be an attitude among certain segments of the Slashdot population that just because something is offered at no-cost, that its copyright license is somehow less worthy of compliance than the licenses of proprietary software. Tivo decided to use Linux in a way that was clearly in violation of the spirit of the license it was released under, if not the actual letter, and you're calling the authorship of a new license that brings the spirit and letter of the original closer together bait-and-switch?

In the still extremely unlikely event that the Linux kernel is some day released under the GPL3, Tivo cannot be retroactively prohibited from using the software they use today. Which means, assuming (and it's a big assumption) that their current use of the Linux kernel is not already in violation of its current license, they can continue to use their GPL2-licensed kernel for as long as they want. They will simply be unable to benefit from the kernel's continued development.

Obviously, businesses that use free software aren't necessarily supporters of free software, but they use the software because they benefit tremendously from it. You'll forgive me if I don't shed a tear for their plight.

Re:If they don't like it

[The Cisco Kid]

The GPL very clearly indicates that authors choosing to release softwre under it may choose to relicense it under future versions of the GPL. So any competent lawyer working for Tivo should have been able to recognize this when they first evaluated using GPL software, and they should have known about this possibility from the start.

Of course, that doesn't mean they arent going to complain and whinge about it to try to scare people away from GPL3

Just drop the DRM

[jonwil]

Is there any actual law that requires Tivo to implement DRM on its PVRs? Would not doing so break any laws? (I am referring to a normal Tivo, not one with CableCard or other pay TV stuff in there)

How is Tivo different from a VCR? (which, IIRC, is legal under the Betamax decision)

Re:Just drop the DRM

[Eric Smith]

VCRs are required by US law to include/support DRM (Macrovision). If you make the argument that a Tivo is a VCR, then yes, the Tivo would have to support DRM as well.

Re:Just drop the DRM

[davmoo]

Besides any direct law, there is another reason they include DRM. And that's the fact that "content providers" (read: networks and film companies) will drop large legal problems their way if they don't. Look what happens to many other products that circumvent or ignore DRM, like for instance, attempts at commercial software to copy DVDs.

And the US Congress has shown an unholy love for the studios and DRM.

Re:Just drop the DRM

[BluhDeBluh]

The reason for "Tivoization" is to stop people buying the boxes, which are loss-leaders for TiVo, and then modifying them to do other things or bypass TiVo's mandatory subscription.

The "problem" is a deliberate corporate and marketing decision.

Re:Just drop the DRM

[Mr2001]

The Macrovision requirement is in section 1201(k) of the DMCA, which specifically refers to "analog video cassette recorders". TiVo doesn't make analog recordings or use cassettes, so the Macrovision requirement doesn't apply.

Re:Just drop the DRM

[jonwil]

Products which remove existing DRM are illegal under the DMCA. Hence, the DVDCCA can sue anyone decrypting DVDs without permission (or more to the point, making software that decrypts DVDs). However, a DRM free Tivo would not violate the DMCA unless it contained a HDMI input with HDCP (in which case decrypting the HDCP output and storing the result in an unencrypted form would be a DMCA violation) it removed/ignored Macrovision from an analog video stream (again a DMCA violation) or it contained a cable/sattelite decoder such as CableCard (in which case decrypting the encrypted signals and storing them in an unencrypted form would be a DMCA violation).

As of yet, there is nothing in US law or any of the various specifications (such as ATSC/NTSC) requiring that a video capture device store its content in an encrypted form (laws like that have been drafted before IIRC but none have actually passed through congress)

So, a Tivo that does not support HDCP, cable/sattelite TV or macrovision ignoring/removal would not be illegal under current US law. Which means the MPAA would have nothing they can sue Tivo for (note IANAL so I may be unaware of a law that DRM free Tivo would be in violation of)

Re:Just drop the DRM

[SuiteSisterMary]

One could make the argument that the TiVos that encode incoming video do make an 'analog' copy; that is, the copy is an analog of what's actually being received. The TiVos that are integrated with something like the DirecTV systems, which simply save the incoming data bit-for-bit, on the other hand, wouldn't be analog.

Re:Just drop the DRM

[Mr2001]

Such an argument would be destroyed by simply reading the text of the DMCA. 1201(k) requires specific kinds of copy protection to be implemented for a "VHS format analog video cassette recorder", "8mm format analog video cassette camcorder", "Beta format analog video cassette recorder", "8mm format analog video cassette recorder", or an "analog video cassette recorder that records using an NTSC format video input and that is not otherwise covered under clauses (i) through (iv)". Notice the word "cassette" in all those terms, and the calling out of specific analog recording formats.

Furthermore, those terms are defined; the meaning of "analog" is not just left up in the air where any old hyperchicken can redefine it to suit his case. For example, 1201(k)(4)(A):

An "analog video cassette recorder" means a device that records, or a device that includes a function that records, on electromagnetic tape in an analog format the electronic impulses produced by the video and audio portions of a television program, motion picture, or other form of audiovisual work.

Good riddance

[iamacat]

It's one thing for companies actually selling movie downloads to use DRM since otherwise they wouldn't get any content to sell from the movie producers. But TIVO is not getting anything from the media companies. They are including DRM so that their box might get bundled by a cable provider rather than actually chosen by users on it's merit. They should have started a rebel business and sell boxes that record component HD signal from a cable box and switch channels using an IR transmitter. As it is, nobody will mourn their passing.

Re:Good riddance

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's more like good riddance to Linux as GPLv3 will just open the door for Solaris and BSD to come in. GPLv3 will further alienate companies as risk increases for those companies who may not know where they want their product to go in the future. They will err on the cautious side and base their products and code on other OS'es and even proprietary ones even if they believe that they will never infringe on v3 just to avoid any problems in the future should they decide to change directions and don't totally agree with the philosophical ideas of a hostile v3 open source community.

Re:Maybe, maybe not

[Eric Smith]

I know that many of the BSD'ers don't like the GPL, but why should the GPLv3 be any more of a problem for them than GPLv2 was?

GNU has always made its motives clear

[dircha]

For crying out loud, they based their product on a system (GNU) whose founder - Stallman - openly believes that development and distribution of software that violates the so-called "4 essential freedoms of software users" are unethical and should cease. That's Tivo, that's what they do. The founder of the system they chose to base their business model on clearly and openly states that these practices are unethical and that it is the goal of the movement he founded, to eliminate them.

If they couldn't have been bothered to figure this out before they went down this road then someone in their development organization needs to be fired.

Re:GNU has always made its motives clear

[babbling]

You're correct, but I'd just like to also point out that they could just keep using the GPLv2 software they're currently using. All the GPLv3 will do is prevent them from exploiting the community's future work.

Re:GNU has always made its motives clear

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS is a fucking douchebag faggot. He is nothing but the shit stain on your shoe after walking through a field.

I'm trying

[chrispycreeme]

I'm trying to feel bad for Tivo, but it isn't working for some reason. I wonder why that is... wierd.

Re:I'm trying

[Anonymous Coward]

True to its name, "weird" breaks the "i-before-e" rule.

Re:Maybe, maybe not

[The Finn]

I don't follow how BSD will be affected by GPLv3. neither NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD use the GNU C library. code generated by gcc isn't covered under the GPL.

BOO HOO!!

[EEPROMS]

Like BOO fsking HOO!, I dont use Tivo, Tivo doesnt make my life any better and I dont see much coming out of Tivo FOSS wise that really makes me want to care either.

"GPLv3 would prohibit TiVo's no-tamper setup"

[dgun]

One of the basic problems here is companies like TiVo who have been sold on the idea that it is their place to enforce the law.

Re:Maybe, maybe not

[pchan-]

The BSD projects still use gcc and GNU C library

The BSDs most certainly do not use the GNU libc. While it is true that you cannot compile the system without gcc, you can definitely have a running BSD system with no GNU tools installed. It would be fairly bare bones (back to csh), but it's possible.

Here's a link to the OpenBSD libc for your browsing pleasure.

Who doing whom a favor?

[Tharkban]

First, there is MythTV which does what a TiVo does, I think (I haven't used either). Second, we don't need TiVo, the free software community is doing them a favor by letting them have the software, not the other way around. I'm happy if they use free software, it grows the community, assuming they want to be a part of it. However, they have shown that they do not want to be part of the community, they want to lock the community out of their own work. Sorry, but I just can't agree with that. If TiVo continues acting the way it has then I say "Give me back my code, you don't get to play with it." I completely agree with the GPLv3 on this one.

Re:Who doing whom a favor?

[Anonymous Coward]

No MYTH does not do what TIVO does. TIVO pops out of the box and works. MYTH has similar functionality. Actually superior functionality. It's expensive, effortfull, timeshifting for the few. TIVO is cheap and easy timeshifting. VERY different things.

It's not completely TIVO's choice in anycase. They are a tiny tiny nothing of a company, certainly compared to the MPAA Mafia. Then there are the properties they license and do not own the rights to. These are not under their dominion. You want someone to hate. Steve Jobs. Ruler of Apple, Pixar, and Disney. Disney. They're the real enemy here. TiVo is beholden unto them by force of law. Forsake the kitten because it lacks the noble character to maul Sher Khan. Yeah, take your ball and go home, and guess what, trot it out tomorrow and no one wants to play with you anyway. Such is the fate of the GPL 3. In the end all this does is lend creedence and leverage to more monolithic entities. The free choice that's the whole point of the thing withers, and must be pruned back for want of corporate mana.

Re:Maybe, maybe not

[Anonymous Coward]

It may surprise you to know that code compiled with GCC is not required to be distributed under the GPL. In fact, quite a few commercial binaries are compiled using GCC.

Gee,

[nagora]

Maybe I was wrong.

The Real World!

[Goth Biker Babe]

I know that everything I say will be considered heresy by the linux faithful so I expect to be modded down but I don't care.

The problem is that RMS is a spaced out hippy with not concept of the real world and there are an awful lot of people who think the same way. The GPL is a virus that infects any software it touches. GPLv3 is worse than GPLv2.

In my day to day work I avoid using any software that is GPLed because of commercial concerns (out side of my control) I cannot release details of software. So I have to reinvent everything and the open source community loses out on anything beneficial I may have done. A lose lose situation.

And why cannot release details of the software? Because its encryption libraries and DRM. Well don't DRM I hear you say. The real world situation is this. Media companies want DRM. I agree that its not useful and doesn't actually benefit the media companies but until their minds are changes its here to stay. Whether that's right or wrong its a fact. There's nothing we can do about that.

So using logic. The media companies want DRM. So any companies wanting to show their content have to comply with their requirements and use DRM. So don't show their content some may argue. But the providers are commercial companies. If Dish network didn't show Sci-Fi channel for example viewers may switch to DirecTV. So if providers are using DRM their software has to be proprietary which precludes GPLed code.

But what do I care. I get paid to be a consultant who works out how to get around such problems such as using publishable modifications within the GPL code which IPC to proprietary code. Or, more often, looking for the BSD equivalent which allows me to publish those bits I want to publish.

So yes, I can understand TiVo's concerns. And all that GPLv3 will achieve is forks in code (GPv3 vs GPv2 versions) or re-implementations dividing the effort and spreading the open source community thinner.

Re:The Real World!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what?

The purpose of the GPL is go guarantee users' rights, not developers. I say screw the developers that screw their users the rights to see what the software they run does and the ability to modify it.

One day I hope you realize the kind of ass you've been.

Re:The Real World!

[Anonymous Coward]

They wouldn't have DRM if people like you refused to work there and build it. But that's not the real problem. They're welcome to try it in the market so far as I'm concerned if it weren't for the bigger problem:

They wouldn't have force of law behind DRM if shills and politicians didn't make it so.

Shills and politicians rarely show signs of ethics. Engineers do. Hence the reason I have little need to listen to your argument. Yes, those people will want DRM, but without the willing help of geniuses like us, they wouldn't get it.

Stop being a pawn in their hands and go build software that actually benefits the world. No, I'm not saying don't make money. Just stop fucking over average people to benefit festering assholes and garner yourself a paycheck.

Re:The Real World!

[pavera]

I really don't understand your argument, but ok.

You are saying that DRM cannot be implemented in an "open source" product because the GPL stops you. That isn't true. You can implement all the DRM you want, but if you do it on a GPLv3 code base, you can't sue under the DMCA.

Further, DRM is simply an encryption scheme with a couple bells and whistles on top (like counting how many times a thing is decrypted)... Some of the most secure and best encryption/security systems that are available are open source systems. It is entirely possible to implement a DRM system using open source code. You will argue that "the key will be available to anyone, and it won't be secure". Well, as hackers have proven, any system that is dependent on a single (or a small number) of keys is extremely susceptible. Use some PKI, give everyone their own key, don't store the keys in the software or in the system. Alternatively, letting open source guys hack on your code will probably make it the most secure DRM system in the world. Don't tell them its for DRM, just tell them you want a really secure encryption/security scheme.

Re:The Real World!

[evanbd]

Some of us prefer to stand by our principles, even when it means making a decision that is not the easiest one, or the one that brings us the most money. You say there's nothing we can do about the fact that media companies want DRM, but there is. We can decline to implement it. Sure, one person won't make much difference. But each skilled developer who declines to work for them means they have to pay a bit more, use someone slightly less skilled. A drop in the bucket, to be sure. Far easier to throw up our hands and say 'oh well, that's what they want, they'll get someone anyway.' Sometimes doing the right thing is hard, but if enough people do, it can make a difference.

In the real world, it takes coordination to make that happen in a way that will make a difference. The GPL, and the GPLv3, is exactly that -- a set of principles to stand upon, in a coordinated fashion.

The world needs extremists. Progress rarely happens without them.

Re:The Real World!

[jpetts]

I was about to say that what you are saying is not at all heresy, but merely a matter of choice. But then I though of the etymology of heresy and realised that it is heresy. A series of choices, yours and others, have led to this situation. But it is the choices that have determined the outcome, nothing else.

The problem is not that "RMS is a spaced out hippy". The problem is that he is not compromising, and others are. When the crunch comes to the crunch, other people are found wanting, not RMS. He is, and has always been consistent.

Don't like GPLvX? Don't use it. Nobody has ever forced anyone else to use any version of GPL, and nobody will. 'Nuff said...

Re:The Real World!

[siddesu]

"In my day to day work I avoid using any software that is GPLed because of commercial concerns (out side of my control) I cannot release details of software. So I have to reinvent everything and the open source community loses out on anything beneficial I may have done. A lose lose situation."

A lose-lose situation? How? If you aren't planning on giving derivative work back to the free software community in exchange for the free use of their software, they don't benefit.

Seems to me that (just like Tivo's) your dislike for the GPL comes only because you don't really want give back where you take.

Re:The Real World!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that RMS is a spaced out hippy with not concept of the real world and there are an awful lot of people who think the same way. The GPL is a virus that infects any software it touches. GPLv3 is worse than GPLv2.

GPL is viral? What a crock. You are a thief, that's what.

No one forces you to use any GPL software.

No one forces you to disclose your changes to GPL software, except in one case. You cam modify it all you want, use it for yourself, and no one will ever force you to do any thing, except for that one case. Hundreds of companies modify linux in house for running their business, and never disclose it.

That exception is the case when you add modifications to GPL software, and try to make a profit by keeping the modifications secret, but selling the modified software.

That is the case where you take the free GPL software - the fruit of other people's labour -, modify it, sell it, and keep all the money for yourselves.

The people who made the original software want their share, and they dont want money, they want the source code of the modifications.

If you cant provide the source code for your modifications, stop stealing other people's work, and instead of using GPL software, write your own.

You think you have a right to use GPL software as you wish - you dont. The GPL software is licensed to you. If you cannot accept the GPL, dont use GPL software.

Stop whining that you cant steal. All this "viral" FUD is really whining about the fact you cant rip off GPL software.

Are you gonna add fancy lights to Brooklyn bridge, claim it as your own, and try to sell it next?

Re:The Real World!

[Goth Biker Babe]

So what happens. I stop doing the work and someone else will do it. May be in the US or the UK, or may be in India or China. There will always be people who will do the work. At least I can try and get something useful out of the work and can at least ensure that the end product is reliable.

Re:The Real World!

[Goth Biker Babe]

"A lose-lose situation? How? If you aren't planning on giving derivative work back to the free software community in exchange for the free use of their software, they don't benefit."

That's exactly what I mean. I don't get to use a developed and tested software solution and the open source community doesn't get any derived work I may have come up with based upon that solution.

Re:The Real World!

[fabs64]

This is idiotic, you just, quite eloquently, argued RMS's point.
If open source software is unable to be used for DRM schemes (at least how the media companies want), then the DRM schemes cost more to produce, making them less attractive in a business sense.

I'm unaware how you using GPL'd software for a purpose that most of the authors would disagree with is beneficial to the open-source community as a whole.
If you want to make money implementing something like that, fine, be my guest, but don't expect me or anyone else who disagrees with what you're doing to fucking help you.

Re:The Real World!

[Goth Biker Babe]

I'm not a thief. I do not try to keep modifications secret. As for disclosure that's up to my employer. I advise where disclosure is required or advisable. I am not averse to disclosure where I have modified a GPLed piece of code in fact I encourage it.

But when I have piece of software A, which is open source, that has to work with piece of software B, which is priorietary and I cannot publish as I do not have the rights, I will work in a way that allows me to publish the changes to A and still have it work with B.

You really didn't read my original post did you.

Re:The Real World!

[dvNull]

In my day to day work I avoid using any software that is GPLed because of commercial concerns (out side of my control) I cannot release details of software. So I have to reinvent everything and the open source community loses out on anything beneficial I may have done. A lose lose situation.

So how exactly does the community lose out? Since you are developing proprietary software, you are not releasing anything so how does it benefit the community?

And why cannot release details of the software? Because its encryption libraries and DRM. Well don't DRM I hear you say. The real world situation is this. Media companies want DRM. I agree that its not useful and doesn't actually benefit the media companies but until their minds are changes its here to stay. Whether that's right or wrong its a fact. There's nothing we can do about that.

So using logic. The media companies want DRM. So any companies wanting to show their content have to comply with their requirements and use DRM. So don't show their content some may argue. But the providers are commercial companies. If Dish network didn't show Sci-Fi channel for example viewers may switch to DirecTV. So if providers are using DRM their software has to be proprietary which precludes GPLed code.

Tivo is allowed to use Linux in their product. But then they would have to abide by the rules of the GPL if they wish to use GPL'd code. If they wish to restrict the rights of others, then they should have written their software from scratch. Tivo had it easy. They got to profit off the freely available Linux, and then used a loophole in the GPL to get around the requirements. You claim that people who use proprietary software and media need to abide by the license, then why is it so hard for you to understand that you should play by the rules of the free software community?

The point is not the DRM, but the fact that they got to profit off the work of many developers while using a loophole to get around the license requirements. They have to abide by the rules now and thats a bad thing?

Don't get me wrong. I am all for the rights of people/companies to release proprietary software. I just don't think its right when the very same people/companies whine about being forced to comply with the license.

Re:The Real World!

[Anonymous Coward]

In my day to day work I avoid using any software that is GPLed because of commercial concerns (out side of my control) I cannot release details of software. So I have to reinvent everything and the open source community loses out on anything beneficial I may have done. A lose lose situation.

So we lose out on anything beneficial you may have done .. which you just said you wouldn't release anyway because of DRM. I must be going crazy because I think you just contradicted yourself in back to back sentences.

Re:The Real World!

[dvNull]

I don't see why GPL'd software cannot work alongside proprietary software. In fact I use both GPL'd and proprietary software.

However what I think you mean is that you want to link your proprietary software with the GPL'd software or make a work based on the GPL'd software.

Now if you replace the GPL'd portion with proprietary code from another company, you still have to pay a licensing fee or get permission and still may not be as free to do with the 3rd party proprietary code as you wish to.

You are complaining because the GPL will not allow you or your employer to relicense the free code you have received to restrict the same freedoms in others that you enjoyed.

And while Free Software is open source, open source is not always free software.

Re:The Real World!

[Goth Biker Babe]

"So how exactly does the community lose out? Since you are developing proprietary software, you are not releasing anything so how does it benefit the community?'

Some software is proprietary some is not. Software in a device is not all one or the other. The trick is trying to keep the proprietary stuff at a minimum. The changes to the non proprietary stuff could be useful to the open source community and are therefore available.

Re:The Real World!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that RMS is a spaced out hippy with not concept of the real world Um, he's working to destroy that part of the real world. For a guy who doesn't have a concept of it he's been pretty successful.

Re:The Real World!

[dvNull]

Then build your own replacements. The reason you want to use Free Software is because a lot of it is tried and tested and it keeps your development costs down. You want to be able to reap all the benefits without having to give back. You are essentially saying 'I want to keep my costs down by using available software, but I want to relicense it the way I want'

In that case, by all means use BSD. But if you do plan on using anything which is Free Software, then the community will resist all attempts at making it non free. And a hypothetical 'I might release something' is hardly a reason to allow people to take away the freedom that the GPL provides.

Re:The Real World!

[siddesu]

Come on now, you don't get to use free software only because _you_ choose not to. Why are you blaming your choice on the community? Blame it on yourself -- YOU are not willing to accept the GPL.

Again, the community neither wins, nor loses. If you feel like you're losing out, it is your problem. Same situation as Tivo ;)

Re:The Real World!

[Goth Biker Babe]

If I have GPLed code and proprietary code, I have to follow the rules of the proprietary code developer. I have no choice other than to use that proprietary code since it is a security system which is required for a product to work on a specific network. I cannot combine them because the GPL would infect the proprietary code and I don't own the proprietary code.

So the only flexibility is in the non proprietary code. If I can use open source code I may improve it which benefits the community. If I can't it doesn't. Sometimes you have to compromise and its not easy.

Re:The Real World!

[Goth Biker Babe]

Yes I am not willing to accept the GPL. I am not willing because it can infect software that I do not have the rights to.

Re:The Real World!

[UncleFluffy]

I am not willing because it can infect software that I do not have the rights to.

GPL code doesn't "infect" anything. It's an invitation to enter into a contract, which you are free to accept or refuse. If you don't have the rights necessary to enter into said contract, that's not the licensor's problem. Like everyone says: "don't like the GPL? write your own goddam code and stop whining".

Re:The Real World!

[Goth Biker Babe]

I think the idiot here is the one who thinks that the software and/or device manufacturer has any control over the DRM on the content. Many companies who make money from producing proprietary code also produce open source code as skunk works or because they support their developers who do it. Without the profits they make that code wouldn't exist.

Re:The Real World!

[fabs64]

Not saying they have any control over it, saying that I don't like the idea that they could use my work to profit by selling it, see how this copyright thing works?

Re:The Real World!

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't really the target of GPLv3. The point is to make the whole DRM economy more expensive option eventually affecting the folks who do make the decision.

Re:The Real World!

[the_womble]

You said:

I don't get to use a developed and tested software solution and the open source community doesn't get any derived work I may have come up with based upon that solution

Which is not consistent with:

Yes I am not willing to accept the GPL

If you are not willing to accept the GPL, which essentially says you must contribute back your derived work if you redistribute it, then you are not willing to contribute back, so how could the open source community benefit from your work?

I am not willing because it can infect software that I do not have the rights to.

It cannot for the simple reason that you cannot change the licensing terms unless you have the rights. If you mix GPL code with non-GPL code you are simply in breach of the copyright on the GPL code.

Re:The Real World!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not willing because it can infect software that I do not have the rights to.

It cannot for the simple reason that you cannot change the licensing terms unless you have the rights. If you mix GPL code with non-GPL code you are simply in breach of the copyright on the GPL code.

Isn't that what he said?

If there's some reason that you MUST use proprietary code, using GPL'ed code can easily get you into a situation where it requires you to release that code under the GPL as well. Except the copyright terms of the proprietary code do not allow this, so you're screwed.

Re:The Real World!

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

In my day to day work I avoid using any software that is GPLed because of commercial concerns (out side of my control) I cannot release details of software. So I have to reinvent everything and the open source community loses out on anything beneficial I may have done. A lose lose situation.

I don't get it. If you're dealing with other commercial code, how could the open source community have ever benefited from "anything beneficial [you] may have done"? You can't release your code back to the community no matter what. The only person losing out is you because you've decided to deal with companies who are restricting you and preventing you from using GPL code. It sounds to me like you're just upset that you don't get someone else's code for free with no restrictions. If that's such a horrible situation, why aren't you just as upset with the "commercial concerns" for putting restrictions on the code that they give you?

And why cannot release details of the software? Because its encryption libraries and DRM. Well don't DRM I hear you say. The real world situation is this. Media companies want DRM. I agree that its not useful and doesn't actually benefit the media companies but until their minds are changes its here to stay. Whether that's right or wrong its a fact. There's nothing we can do about that.

No offense, but I don't think the free software community really wants your DRM code, we're not really losing out here.

Re:The Real World!

[swillden]

If there's some reason that you MUST use proprietary code, using GPL'ed code can easily get you into a situation where it requires you to release that code under the GPL as well.

Wrong. Mixing GPL and non-GPL code does not require you to release the non-GPL code under the GPL. You have three other options: (1) Don't distribute the code, (2) remove the GPL code before releasing or (3) find the author(s) of the GPL code and negotiate a license that works for you. If the GPL code is essential to the functioning of your program, and you must release, and you can't negotiate another license, you'll have to replace it with new code that you write, or with code that you acquire under some other license which does meet your requirements.

Claiming that the GPL code will *require* you to release your code under the GPL, however, is FUD.

Re:The Real World!

[thethibs]

Actually, Tivo isn't whining. They are advising their shareholders, through a mandatory SEC filing, that they may have some unplanned costs that could affect their share value. These are the costs associated with recovering from what could turn out to have been a bad decision: to tie a product strategy to an unstable development regime beyond their control. The filing is matter-of-fact, which indicates that they have a plan for dealing with it.

Implementing with GNU/Linux was, for all intents and purposes, making a deal with the GNU community which is voided by GPL3. Given the anti-capital culture that suffuses FOSS, they should have known they were sleeping with the enemy. I'm going to hazard a guess that the decision to go GNU/Linux was driven from the bottom.

I'm thinking that, right about now, Tivo product management is wishing they'd stuck with Plan-A and popped for the extra buck or two per unit for QNX.

Re:The Real World!

[gnasher719]

'' If I have GPLed code and proprietary code, I have to follow the rules of the proprietary code developer. I have no choice other than to use that proprietary code since it is a security system which is required for a product to work on a specific network. I cannot combine them because the GPL would infect the proprietary code and I don't own the proprietary code. ''

Actually, you got that exactly wrong: You cannot combine them because the proprietary code would infect the GPL'd code and you don't own the GPL'd code.

Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

The problem with "truly free software" is that companies/people are free to make it non-free. While that would be great for companies like Tivo, it is bad for end users, since they do NOT get the freedom to further enhance the proprietary fork of the code.

Proprietary forks are rarely bad for end users in general. The vast majority have no interest in enhancing the code, or getting someone to enhance it for them. However end users in general benefit from the proprietary code forking off of open code. Compare Apple's Mac OS X to Microsoft's Windows. Consider Microsoft's use of the TCP/IP stack. GPL 3 type tactics merely encourage companies to reinvent the wheel, to indulge in not-invented-here tendencies. Such tactics also deter investors and make it that much more difficult from startups to form or succeed. It squeezes the middle between the hobbyists at one end and the big companies at the other. I'd argue that end users benefit when there is a healthy and vibrant startup community.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[Znork]

"GPL 3 type tactics merely encourage companies to reinvent the wheel,"

You mean, encourage companies _who do not want to share back_ to reinvent the wheel.

When they are free to proprietarize the open code, then _everyone else_ has to reinvent the wheel. Take a look at the vast horde of failed or utterly changed BSD based proprietary unixes over the last two decades.

Copylefts minimize the duplication of effort by ensuring that all effort cooperatively survives and evolves; allowing proprietary offshoots merely raises the baseline off which the duplication and NIH syndrome starts.

"It squeezes the middle between the hobbyists at one end and the big companies at the other."

Again, the last two decades indicate otherwise. I see few small to midsize BSD companies these days; the main winners seem to be the large companies. Which fits well when you have a joint baseline; the large companies can throw more resources on building above the baseline than the small, and as they dont have to give back, the smaller ones will have a hard time competing in the next round.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[Kjella]

Proprietary forks are rarely bad for end users in general. The vast majority have no interest in enhancing the code, or getting someone to enhance it for them. However end users in general benefit from the proprietary code forking off of open code. Compare Apple's Mac OS X to Microsoft's Windows. Consider Microsoft's use of the TCP/IP stack. GPL 3 type tactics merely encourage companies to reinvent the wheel, to indulge in not-invented-here tendencies.

Of course standing on the shoulders of giants helps. However, over time you'd wish that these giants get taller so that the gap between what open source can deliver and the user expects gets smaller. How much has OS X done to promote the BSD desktop? Preciously little. Companies don't want the proprietary layer to get thinner, they want it to get thicker so that any competitors must reimplement more to compete. Either through fair means by building a better mouse trap, or dirty "embrace-extend-extinguish" tactics. Open source is used only because a proprietary kernel wouldn't give Apple any advantage big enough to justify the cost. You're missing the fact that every company is in the "force other companies to reinvent the wheel" mode.

Such tactics also deter investors and make it that much more difficult from startups to form or succeed. It squeezes the middle between the hobbyists at one end and the big companies at the other. I'd argue that end users benefit when there is a healthy and vibrant startup community.

Yes, it's really hard to make a startup when there's a bunch of GPL zealots that'll immidiately create an OSS clone. But, what would you like to do about that? Make GPL verboten? If anything this proves that the GPL creates a more efficient marketplace where you can either create value faster or get out. And you're ignoring that if proprietary software had their way, it wouldn't be "take open source and add our little value add code on top" it would be "take open source, reinvent whole proprietary layer, then add our little value add code on top".

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[Corwn of Amber]

It's really hard for TiVo to abide by the software's license too it seems!

Fuck them and their evil business model. I want CONTENT not ads. If I'm paying for a service then I expect my eyeballs not to be sold to advertisers. Or they make it free NOW for everyone who asks so that there are infinitely more people for them to sell.

If they REALLY earn that much more money by selling one user's eyeballs than by the subscription then it must be free or they are coprophagous. "Digest it twice! It may be disgusting but at least you make sure you get all the nutrition you can out of your food!"

The Really Smart thing to do right now would be to open a company in some country with no digital laws at all and sell PVRs that 1.connects to anything (UHF and cable and DVB and Sat-receivers etc) - without paying of course! (If there *are* any ads I'm not going to pay) - and 2.strips the ads from everything (I'm not going to watch any of your ads anyway, fuckers).

I'd buy one. For no more than $400 obviously - that's about the marginal cost of production, counting 1TB disk space, 1 cpu, 1 gpu, RAM and a mobo.
(Except that hardware is subject to price-discrimination in an highly evil way. The real versions are horribly expensive and everything else is ridiculously underpowered. Does it really cost nVidia ten times more to produce a 8800Ultra than a 8500GT? No it does NOT. If they wanted to kill off ATI they'd just have to sell the REAL chips, like GeForce8-based Quadros, for $80. They sell chips for $80 too and they are produced in the same factories with the same methods and same everything. So they'd still turn a profit.)

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[DaleGlass]

Huh? No, nobody benefits much from proprietary forks except the companies making them.

Who has benefited from the BSD code usage in OS X? Well, Apple and... pretty much nobody else. I haven't benefited from Microsoft's use of the BSD licensed TCP stack, only Microsoft has.

Now compare one GPLd project I'm familiar with: Second Life.

I and other developers benefited from the released source because now I can add my improvements and fix bugs, which can find their way to their official client.

Linden Labs has benefited because people worked on and improved parts that were less critical to LL at the time, so they wouldn't have had them for a long time. There was a LL developer on the mailing list (forget who), who said something along the lines of "I was going to do work on that, but turns out somebody already done it!". The result for LL is that the client gets developed faster than it would be otherwise. It also improves things a lot in the more boring and obscure parts of the codebase. A LL developer probably won't see much interest in overhauling the chat log system, but a contributor who isn't skilled enough to work on the renderer might.

The general userbase also benefited: Bugs are getting fixed faster. Knowledgeable users now can give informed replies to technical questions. Inside SL, there seems to be an emerging industry where companies pay developers to make modifications to the viewer. Developers can code new features requested by users who can't. For instance, I've coded a few hacks (not very elegant still, but they do the job) that work around some limitations in SL.

Now THAT is a vibrant community. The usage of BSD code by MS and Apple isn't, it's simply freeloading. Obviously people writing BSD licensed code are in their own right to allow it, but it doesn't really benefit anybody but those who are taking it.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[babbling]

This is why you should pick a license appropriate for your software. Richard Stallman has actually endorsed the use of BSD-like licenses for Ogg Vorbis libraries since it is in the interests of the community to have such code in use as widely as possible.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[that this is not und]

Take a look at the vast horde of failed or utterly changed BSD based proprietary unixes over the last two decades.

Instead, I will just look at the screen of the system I am typing this on. I'm not staring directly at the software this system is running (a current release of NetBSD) but I CAN make active use of it. And I will be able to do so for the forseeable future.

I couldn't be so certain if I were staring at the screen of a display attached to a Tivo device, it seems.

I'd like to have somebody draw up for me the big bloody flow diagram of 'failed' BSD systems. I have Saluz' 'A Quarter Century of UNIX' and understand some of the history. Stallman didn't dance onto the scene as 'save' us from anything. The hardware just got so cheap and standardized (thanks mostly to Microsoft, for so generously rollng their juggernaut forward to insure there was lots of obsolete hardware available, similar to that spare unused PDP-7) that it was inevitable that the Freenixes would become viable (Freenuxes also, I guess).

There is one HELL of a lot of ideology-driven revisonist history being written. The approach I suggest above isn't necessarily the complete picture. It's a better stab at it than a lot of the happy-shiney bullshit that GPL zealots rattle off, though.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[wolverine1999]

Seems like you forgot all the different bsd variant os's.... various dead ends

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[that this is not und]

Who cares! I could point you at dozens of 'dead end' Linux distros.

Why spend time dwelling on failures and/or completed tasks?

My point was that the GPL is NOT the antidote to said 'failures.' There is no antidote to the end of software development projects, unless we're to adopt some Stalinist 'one single true path' approach where we all 'pull together' to some group-driven dictate. Which, frighteningly, I see some people seemingly advocating. It scares the HELL out of me to think that the only thing left might someday be Linux, or some GPL-bound codebase.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[that this is not und]

How much has OS X done to promote the BSD desktop?

What in god's name is the 'BSD desktop.'

I grow tired of supposed 'geeks' adopting marketing metaphors, and seeking to DRIVE us all along said metaphorical tracks.

And you're ignoring that if proprietary software had their way,

You're using this player you call 'proprietary software' as a scarecrow. There isn't one 'proprietary software' who you fight the holy war against. There's just _think_about_it_ all kinds of non-GPL software. In MANY forms and licensed in MANY different ways.

Put down the Crusade Banner, folks.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[that this is not und]

The Really Smart thing to do right now would be to open a company in some country with no digital laws at all and sell PVRs that 1.connects to anything (UHF and cable and DVB and Sat-receivers etc) - without paying of course! (If there *are* any ads I'm not going to pay) - and 2.strips the ads from everything (I'm not going to watch any of your ads anyway, fuckers).


You should definitely do that. Because then I will round up a bunch of Venture Capitalists. We'll buy a single one of the PVRs your heroic company produces. We'll build a factory across the street (in that same 'no digital laws' country).

Oh, and also, Microsoft will set up their 'Linux Factory' down the block. GPL? Surely you jest!

Oh- and your comment about the variable price of nVidia chipsets is the truth glaring right back at you. They're not selling you the hardware! They're using the hardware to enclose the IP that they're selling you!

It's frightening when overgrown boys start dictating how companies should set up their business plans.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[Anonymous Coward]

These are RIAA-like companies that believe their biggest asset is their(or other's) code. In free software knowledge how the code works is a big commodity. It's mostly traded on respect, but I see no reason not to be a financial commodity as well. These people that miss the point will end up alienating their biggest asset: people who know what the code does and how to modify it to do what you want.

Tivo right now reminds me of Bill Gates' Open Letter to Hobbyists. They think of these 'hobbyists' as a competitor rather as an asset. Companies like this, making free software, will destroy their chief assets due to their stupidity.

the main winners seem to be the large companies. You say that large companies can create more code, but they can also use more code. Meaning that they can exploit a large codebase better than any 'hobbyist' would.

Those that choose to reinvent the wheel will be left buying real wheels from people that are already building jets. We can't have any sympathy for those greedy companies, there's more than enough code to go around. One person(or company) can't understand it all, and they shouldn't be able to!

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[Maondas]

All Apple users benefited from their use of BSD code. By utilizing existing code, the apple development team was able to focus on other issues - such as the user interface. Similarly everyone has benefited from Microsoft's use of the BSD stack - did you really want them writing their own stack anyways? Using a known-good stack gives them more time to work out other bugs in their system.

The free use terms of the BSD license did in fact benefit a large number of people when looked at in the context of development time.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[putte_xvi]

Apple do publish the modified kernel source code, though. And they have contributed a few interesting things as open source, such as launchd and the upcoming Darwin Calendar Server.

They have also, of course, released their modified version of KDE's KHTML as open source (WebKit), as well as their changes to GCC and other GPL licensed projects.

So they do release source even when they're not forced by the license. Presumably to gain goodwill. Just freeloading would probably hurt their chances of appealing to the Linux/BSD using market.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[DaleGlass]

All Apple users benefited from their use of BSD code. By utilizing existing code, the apple development team was able to focus on other issues - such as the user interface. Similarly everyone has benefited from Microsoft's use of the BSD stack - did you really want them writing their own stack anyways? Using a known-good
stack gives them more time to work out other bugs in their system.

They benefit exactly as much as they would have had if Apple had licensed their kernel from say, Sun or QNX.

What's the difference between those scenarios and BSD? That Apple didn't have to pay for it. So IMO, Apple is the only one that got anything out of it. BSD didn't get anything, and the users got what they would already have had anyway.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[metamatic]

Apple contributed the self-defragmenting filesystem code to BSD. They've made other improvements to BSD as well.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[Ash-Fox]

What in god's name is the 'BSD desktop.'

This is a modern OpenBSD desktop.

That is the default x11 desktop on OpenBSD -- I am not kidding.

I grow tired of supposed 'geeks' adopting marketing metaphors, and seeking to DRIVE us all along said metaphorical tracks.

I like poking fun at it. ^___^

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

"GPL 3 type tactics merely encourage companies to reinvent the wheel,"

You mean, encourage companies _who do not want to share back_ to reinvent the wheel.

More importantly, it gives a competitive advantage to companies who do share back.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[diamondsw]

If I had mod points, I'd give them to you. This is probably the first argument I've seen that actually makes me consider the GPL reasonable. I tend to be in the BSD "do whatever the hell you want with the code" crowd.

Ultimately, Tivo should have used BSD - just as Mac OS X did. Hell, it's not like they've needed to use all of the cutting edge updates to the kernel and userland (they're still on a 2.4 kernel, if I'm not mistaken). Furthermore, the fact that they can port their crown jewels to Java (the user interface) says to me that porting from Linux to BSD, while not trivial by any means, would be entirely feasible.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[Znork]

"I couldn't be so certain if I were staring at the screen of a display attached to a Tivo device, it seems."

Indeed. An update can turn your Tivo off permanently. And you do not have the cryptographic keys needed to make it work again. Which is one thing the GPL v3 tries to address.

"I'd like to have somebody draw up for me the big bloody flow diagram of 'failed' BSD systems."

There's a fairly good one (which includes most unixes, both successful and otherwise (it lacks some tho, DG/UX is one I've worked with which I note is not there)) at http://www.levenez.com/unix/.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[Maondas]

Well, Apple didn't have to pay licensing costs to Sun or QNX, right? So thats money that could be re-invested elsewhere. You're right BSD didn't get anything - but would you expect to get anything if you're giving away something? Thats what gifts are all about; sacrificing your assets to improve someone else's assets.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[Znork]

"I could point you at dozens of 'dead end' Linux distros."

Distros are a bit different tho, they are usually not under the GPL as a whole. But for the parts that are, improvements and changes can be merged into main branches, even if the offshoot dies.

"There is no antidote to the end of software development projects"

As long as the source is available there is no end to the project. There may be a hiatus or a lack of progress, but Free sources do not die the way proprietary codebases do.

"It scares the HELL out of me to think that the only thing left might someday be Linux, or some GPL-bound codebase."

It doesnt scare me the same way having only proprietary codebases would. It would be boring and not a good idea from an idea-evolutionary point of view tho.

As a whole tho, I'd prefer the abolition of copyright as a monopoly right and replacing it revenue rights/incentive rights instead, which would bypass the whole issue.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[Jesus_666]

(Except that hardware is subject to price-discrimination in an highly evil way. The real versions are horribly expensive and everything else is ridiculously underpowered. Does it really cost nVidia ten times more to produce a 8800Ultra than a 8500GT? No it does NOT. If they wanted to kill off ATI they'd just have to sell the REAL chips, like GeForce8-based Quadros, for $80. They sell chips for $80 too and they are produced in the same factories with the same methods and same everything. So they'd still turn a profit.)

So there's no difference between the budget and premium lines? Of course there is. The premium lines usually are newer and implement the cutting edge of what NVIDIA (apparently they went to all uppercase) can offer whole the budget lines are two generations old. One thing that makes the GeForce 8800 more expensive than the GeForce 6800 is the fact that NVIDIA needs to recoup the development costs for the GeForce 8 series while it has already done so for the 6.

Of course you still pay extra for buying the gibbest cards simpley becaused they're the premium line, but don't pretend that NVIDIA had zero cost developing the stuff.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably, the only really important closed source software in the TiVO boxes is the DRM module. In earlier systems, they could use whatever software they liked, modified as they liked and even share back to the community, which I would guess, they have probably done a lot of times.

Now however, with GPLv3 suddnly they will be forced to grant you access to the DRM-modules, something that the content owners would never allow not even in binary form. So although it might only be on small piece of the system that is actually closed, they will not be able to continue using GPLv3 programs in their system.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[init100]

I read your sig link:

When GPL Violations are Sarbanes-Oxley Violations.

Did you write the article? In this case, I have a question. From the article:

Unlike a mere GPL violation, this misrepresentation is a crime, and carries criminal penalties.

Wouldn't a GPL violation mean that any rights to the software are terminated, and that the violator is thus infringing copyright? AFAIK, copyright infringement is a crime.

Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ...

[Corwn of Amber]

With the amount of R&D they do and all, if they sell only one chip with everything in it for a price anyone can pony up, calculated to recoup costs and pay everyone well (so that they can buy GeForces too), you have a healthy company and economy.

The system which maximizes shareholders' values does not do that.

I don't think they even produce enough of those insanely expensive cards to recoup their R&D costs on them only, but I'd certainly like to make sure. With numbers.

Linux shooting itself in the foot

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Linux and open source in general shooting itself in the foot? If a company is considering using open source and then realize that at some time in the future a revision to the license, let's call it GPL4, might come out and completely kill their business model, some will not want to take that risk. Essentially they'll be placing themselves at the whims of FSF, the open source community, and whoever else is involved in creating new versions of open source licenses.

Re:Linux shooting itself in the foot

[Anonymous Coward]

nope, you got it all mixed up. GPL and free software is not and never was about protecting the business model of a company. it is about protecting the right of the users to have access to the source code. as other folks have said above, if someone has found a hole, and built their business in that hole, it is their problem what happens when the hole is filled up.

other questions?

Re:Linux shooting itself in the foot

[UncleFluffy]

If a company is considering using open source and then realize that at some time in the future a revision to the license, let's call it GPL4, might come out and completely kill their business model, some will not want to take that risk.

Nope, license revisions are not retroactive. The code that they're already using is still licensed under the original license. If their business model relies on "we assume that we will continue to receive valuable code for free in the future for ever and ever, amen, without doing anything in return" then, yes, they're fucked. But people that dumb deserve to be.

Re:Linux shooting itself in the foot

[The_Spud]

The UK Labour party once produced a manifesto so unpopular it was known as the longest suicide note in history. I can't help feeling that GPL v3 is heading the same way.

If I was microsoft and was looking for a way to consign linux back to being a hobbyist toy this is exactly what I'd do. The only reason that linux has made the advances that it has in the last 5 years is because the corporates have become seriously interested in it and there is suddenly money in open source software. For years the claims that the GPL is viral has been dismissed as fud but now the same people are claiming that because Microsoft didn't put an expiry date on the Novel vouchers they will have to be bound by the terms of a license not written yet and have to give up patents?

If that doesn't have the corporates running for the hills I don't know what will. People will look at tivo being fucked because of the license terms being changed and will think twice about investing serious money because of potential nastys in future version of the GPL.

Linux needs the big companies using it to keep money in the system otherwise the much vaunted give the software away for free, sell services model is fucked.

Re:Linux shooting itself in the foot

[AndyCR]

If I was microsoft and was looking for a way to consign linux back to being a hobbyist toy this is exactly what I'd do. If you were Microsoft, you would create a license that more strictly helps the software to succeed? I like your vision of Microsoft. Please take it over.

For years the claims that the GPL is viral has been dismissed as fud but now the same people are claiming that because Microsoft didn't put an expiry date on the Novel vouchers they will have to be bound by the terms of a license not written yet and have to give up patents? The "viral" aspect of the license has no relation to the licensing on the coupons. If Novell's latest SuSE comes with software under the GPLv3, then Microsoft distributing coupons for it is by definition distributing coupons for GPLv3 software. Nothing to do with the "virus" aspect. If an OEM got 30,000 coupons to distribute that were good for "the latest version of Windows" at the date of redemption, would you expect the license to be different from the boxed version? Would you say it was unfair, because the license changed?

If that doesn't have the corporates running for the hills I don't know what will. People will look at tivo being ****ed because of the license terms being changed and will think twice about investing serious money because of potential nastys in future version of the GPL. The spirit of the GPL doesn't change, period. There are no commercial interests which will cause it to change. Adhere to the spirit of it, and you'll be fine, right up to the time GPLv4,297 goes into effect. Don't adhere to the spirit of it, IE exploit loopholes in it to violate that spirit, and... Well, you'll end up like our friends at TiVO.

Might I add that all they have to do to come into compliance is let you run custom versions of Linux on the TiVO. Not exactly a hard thing to do.

Linux needs the big companies using it to keep money in the system Again, big companies are free to use it as long as they comply with the terms of the license. It's no different than proprietary software.

It doesn't change anything for TiVo!

[91degrees]

It says as much in the article. GPL 3 doesn't prevent the use of DRM. It just prevents you from using legal means to prevent people from removing the DRM, which is something that there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in anyway. The wording in GPL2 may well have been a perfectly valid defence in case of a DMCA complaint. GPL3 just makes it more explicit.

Re:It doesn't change anything for TiVo!

[IkeTo]

Did you actually read GPLv3? It quite explicitly requires that everybody distribute the software will not just also give out the source code when asked, but also tells how a modification of the software can be installed to the hardware that the software was distributed in (which means it is not legal to use a digital signature to prevent running modified binaries). It does not just prevent one to use "legal means", but one of the "technical means" to achieve DRM. Well... you can do DRM with GPLv3 code, but expect people to modify it and edit it out, install it to his own hardware to make sure it works, and post a patch to the world to tell how to do it in their hardware as well. And according to the license, you must provide a way to do all these. Of course, as long as the software distributed is not the one doing DRM, it doesn't matter, so it is still possible to do DRM (say, in hardware), but not in GPLv3 protected code.

Re:It doesn't change anything for TiVo!

[PipOC]

Actually it prevents them from disallowing the removal or diabling of the code that implements DRM, not preventing it's circumvention, which is illegal under the DMCA. Removing the code that encodes the media with DRM does not circumvent the DRM measure, but rather makes it so that there is no longer any DRM to circumvent, which is not illegal.

Re:It doesn't change anything for TiVo!

[91degrees]

The DMCA only prevents the removal of DRM without permission. The GPL v2 grants that permission in that it grants unlimitted permission to modify the code.

How much longer...

[Anonymous Coward]

...until that 'loophole' is closed as well? GPLv4, perhaps?

Re:How much longer...

[fyrewulff]

The day they do that is the day everyone jumps ship from the GPL.

Or...

[Nom du Keyboard]

If the currently proposed version of GPLv3 is widely adopted, we may be unable to incorporate future enhancements to the GNU/Linux operating system into our software, which could adversely affect our business,

Or you could remember who your true customers are and quit putting anti-consumer features (e.g. DRM, removal of the 30-second forward skip, automatically deleting recordings) into your product!

Re:Or...

[Goodgerster]

They know who their true customers are; that's the problem.

Re:Good riddance-Sadly, You're Wrong...

[Nom du Keyboard]

But TIVO is not getting anything from the media companies.

Sadly, you're wrong. TiVo is getting a lack of lawsuits from the media companies for implementing a variety of anti-consumer, anti-fair use features in their boxes.

Not really...

[XanC]

Note the word "verbatim". The ability to make modifications is a pretty big part of BSD.

Re:Good riddance-Sadly, You're Wrong...

[iamacat]

What are VCR manufacturers doing to achieve lack of lawsuits for providing exactly the same features without DRM?

Wasn't this the whole point ?

[Builder]

I thought that one of the major drivers of the GPLv3 license was to stop the tivoisation that Tivo made famous.

In which case it's working exactly as designed.

Re:Wasn't this the whole point ?

[Brynosaurus]

Microsoft, Novel, now TiVo... Exactly the right turkeys are squawking. GPLv3 appears to be doing its job well before it's even been released.

The real question here is:

[Britz]

Should the GPL force the device makers to make it possible for everyone to open up and hack the devices, or should it merely force them to open the code, so you can recreate the device with you own hardware.

After all you can use GPL code to lock the device down. Just make it only accept signed patches only through secure channels.

Re:The real question here is:

[Stumbles]

Well duh...... it is real simple. If you use GPLed code and distribute then you have to abide by its terms. There is NO FORCING about it. You either ACCEPT the licensing terms or YOU DO NOT accept the licensing terms. So if you use GPLed code to "lock down a device" and distribute that device with the code, that means you HAVE ACCEPTED the licensing terms and MUST make that lock down code available as source code.

Re:The real question here is:

[Anonymous Coward]

this is what tivo is doing, and the definition of tivoisation. gplv3 is supposed to prevent this from happening.

Boo hoo. Write your own software then.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Its that simple

Re:Boo hoo. Write your own software then.

[MLease]

Seriously. Why don't they just hire people to maintain their own version of Linux? Start with the base they have, under GPL2 (which already works for them), then if they need modifications to it, roll their own. If they don't want to comply with the terms of GPL3, then they don't get to use the uncompensated efforts of the community.

-Mike

Troll (was Re:The Real World!)

[Goth Biker Babe]

Now why doesn't this surprise me. Slashdot isn't a discussion forum where people with differing opinions. Its a forum where boys can all agree with one another except when comparing OS-X/Linux/Windows or Macs and PCs.

DRM is restrictive and that is a problem. Generally I disagree with DRM. But all those people who upload stuff on to peer to peer or copy their mate's CD collections are stealing. When not coding I help run a night club and have a lot to do with live bands. Many of them are small bands who have to have day jobs to support them and selling CDs is a much needed income. I get so pissed when I find ripped off copies of their music on line.

Now people are complaining that the non DRMed music available on iTunes has their personal details in. Well you're buying the music for you. Your complaints were that DRM restricted the devices you could play the music on. That is no longer the case but still you complain. Now its because should you then upload that music for people to copy it can be traced to you. Well too bloody right. Its theft!

To be honest I am unaffected by DRM. I can record movies off of my satellite tv box and archive them. I can play tunes I have downloaded from iTunes on my laptop, works laptop, my desktop machine, my ipod and so on. Where I need to strip DRM its not difficult and the DRM means that music is available that wouldn't otherwise be available.

I can't wait for the day we are DRM free but until then if we have to live with it, lets come up with best compromise we can.

Re:Troll (was Re:The Real World!)

[dvNull]

I can't wait for the day we are DRM free but until then if we have to live with it, lets come up with best compromise we can.

And why should the compromise be allowing proprietary companies to use a loophole in the license to avoid compliance? And this is especially ironic that the loophole is used in the name of preventing copyright violations and illegal distribution.

If companies want to implement DRM let them do all the work on their devices. Why should the free software community do the hard work in building devices which restricts the use of the software they built?

Re:Troll (was Re:The Real World!)

[something_wicked_thi]

Now why doesn't this surprise me. Slashdot isn't a discussion forum where people with differing opinions. Its a forum where boys can all agree with one another except when comparing OS-X/Linux/Windows or Macs and PCs.

So let me get this straight - you post a message that says the following:

1. You call the GPL viral without any substantiating evidence.
   
2. RMS is a "hippy".
   
3. The community is losing out because it can't benefit from your code.
   
4. You are losing out because you can't use the community's code.
   

Point one is obviously wrong, and I can understand why people treat your post with such contempt based on that alone, as it displays your complete ignorance of copyright law. The GPL applies only to code placed under it, and derived works of said code. If you integrate GPLed code into an application, your application is not automatically GPLed. If someone calls you on it, you have a choice. You can tear out the GPLed parts, or you can make the entire thing GPLed. Alternatively, you could come to some agreement with the copyright holder. These choices are the same as if you were caught violating any other copyright, except that normally, you don't have the choice of escaping unscathed by putting the entire app under the GPL. In other words, the GPL gives you more options if you are sued for violating it, not fewer. People like you obviously haven't grasped that concept, despite other people trying very hard to beat it into your heads. I don't know why I'm bothering to explain it now.

Point two is laughable. RMS may or may not be a hippy, but you calling him such doesn't lend anything to your credibility, especially when it has no bearing on the discussion. I guess you have little other factual information so you must degrade to ad-hominem attacks.

Point three displays quite a bit of presumption. The community doesn't need or want your code if it's code to implement DRM, so the community hasn't lost anything. And that's without even discussing whether your code is even worth the bits of storage it uses.

Point four is, perhaps, your only valid point. I have no sympathy for you, however. You know what kind of industry you are in and you've chosen to work there. You're no better than the media companies that want DRM. Unlike them, you can't even claim ignorance of the technology.

Finally, you post this latest drivel about how slashdot users are boys, which, in itself, is a piece of Slashdot groupthink. Therefore, you really can't claim any high ground there. You claim that you can strip DRM when you like, but it's against the law in the US, and, if you are in the US, you have just admitted to a crime. The US isn't the only country with laws like that. You say that there's nothing wrong with embedding personal information in a song so you can identify the person stealing the song. As you can probably guess, that's as ineffective as DRM. You say you are pissed whenever you see people sharing music from an artist that has a day job. I just spoke with an artist who doesn't have a home not five hours ago. I bought a copy of her CD. She almost begged me to copy it and send it as far and wide as I could. She ranted about DRM and iTunes. She'd probably find what you do despicable and think your anger severely misguided. Think about it for a little while. It might do you some good. At the very least, stop making a fool of yourself in such a public place.

Re:Troll (was Re:The Real World!)

[VGPowerlord]

If you integrate GPLed code into an application, your application is not automatically GPLed.

Er... yes it is. That is rather the point of the GPL. Heck, you can't even link against a GPL library without your project becoming GPL because of it, hence the existance of the LGPL.

Re:Troll (was Re:The Real World!)

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you miss a CRUCIAL point: DRM (or any kind of copy-protection) is always a pain for the honest (buying) user, but only an annoyance for the people who pirate.

With or without DRM, the problem is the same: people who don't want to pay would pirate anyway, people who want to buy would buy anyway. So, why piss off the people who buy your stuff and make it hard for them since it WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING ANYWAY for you revenue?

If you take my example, I buy videogames, I never pirate them thought it is extremely easy. But when I have to fight against some stupid kind of protection, that makes me ANGRY. Example: FarCry, to play the game I had to buy a new DVD player, because mine was not recognized by the protection system. Then I has to uninstall a virtual CDROM tool for the same reason. WHY? I bought the #@% thing!

Another example: the DRM on Acrobat PDF files. What a pain! I wanted to try it, I found an example where a demo file (used to show the process) was rendered unreadable when I changed my hard drive (I do it once every 1 or 2 years to bigger more silent one). Do you really think I'm going to taking such a risk on bought content? I'm a big books buyer, but I'll NEVER consider buying eBook with DRM because of that.

The REAL point is people's behaviour. And education. I'm always surprised when I see people who thinks that it is perfectly legal to copy Word, Photoshop, etc. from someone else's install CDROM. And I'm talking about adults with money, not starving students. They don't understand (sometimes because of hypocrisis) that if nobody buys then people will stop producing commercial content. Idiots. And no, restricting buyers liberty to fight that behaviour is NOT the answer.

Re:Troll (was Re:The Real World!)

[DaleGlass]

I just spoke with an artist who doesn't have a home not five hours ago. I bought a copy of her CD. She almost begged me to copy it and send it as far and wide as I could.

You know, this is something that gets on my nerves sometimes. Somebody will say something about some company, product, or person, but will never say the name, even if there wouldn't be a problem with it. Say, why exactly aren't you using your opportunity here and plugging a link to the torrent, or the artist's blog if she has one? This would also lend greater credibility to your post.

You probably have a big audience here, and I could use more music. So where can I get it?

Re:Troll (was Re:The Real World!)

[Goth Biker Babe]

" I just spoke with an artist who doesn't have a home not five hours ago. I bought a copy of her CD. She almost begged me to copy it and send it as far and wide as I could. She ranted about DRM and iTunes."

That's probably why she doesn't have a home. She keeps giving away her music. Now that's perfectly fine if either (a) she doesn't mind living on the streets; or (b) she has many friends and family who will pay for her to live. But for everyone else who has to pay their own way, buy their own musical instruments, tour, and so on. The money is sorely needed.

Re:Troll (was Re:The Real World!)

[something_wicked_thi]

You probably have a big audience here, and I could use more music. So where can I get it?

Apologies. You're right. Her name is Samantha Murphy.

Re:Troll (was Re:The Real World!)

[something_wicked_thi]

Your reading comprehension is wonderful. Let me try again. If you link against or include GPLed code, you have done something wrong if your application is not GPLed. But violating the copyright does not give the damaged party the right to relicense your code at its discretion, under the GPL or otherwise.

Think it through, please. If I distribute a story with the license that says that, "If you distribute this story, then I get one dollar for every word in the entire book that it appears in, I own the copyright of all your books, including the one my story appeared in, and I am entitled to have your first-born son as a slave." If someone were to steal my story, does that mean I'm entitled to all of the above? Of course not. The author who stole my story could do the above to meet the license, but odds are he wouldn't. If I sued him, there are two likely outcomes. One outcome is that I seek an injunction to stop him from distributing my story, and seek monetary damages. The other case is that the author pays me a sum of money that I consider reasonable to buy a license for the work.

Do you understand now? If not, I suggest you talk to a lawyer because I can't think of any simpler way to put it except to say that, when an injured party seeks relief for you violating a copyright, there are more options than you being forced to relicense your work under terms that are acceptable to the injured party, especially when you are TiVo.

Re:Troll (was Re:The Real World!)

[something_wicked_thi]

That's probably why she doesn't have a home. She keeps giving away her music. Now that's perfectly fine if either (a) she doesn't mind living on the streets; or (b) she has many friends and family who will pay for her to live. But for everyone else who has to pay their own way, buy their own musical instruments, tour, and so on. The money is sorely needed.

She owns a home, which she sublets. Anyway, you've completely missed my point. Without people giving away the music, nobody ever finds out about the artist. The people who really don't like file sharers are the ones who are already established. The ones who are trying to build a fanbase ought to be embracing this new way of advertising. Unless they really don't think they are good enough to sell records when people know about them, of course. The main problem with file sharing is that the advertisement is also the final product. However, in the mainstream, it appears that this isn't actually harming music sales all that much, so maybe it's not a big problem, anyway. I certainly haven't seen you quoting any evidence that these artists have lost sales because of the sharing.

Re:Troll (was Re:The Real World!)

[DaleGlass]

Well, that actually pretty good :-)

That's fine

[Sycraft-fu]

However then don't get mad if companies do as you suggest and stop using Linux. Linux is getting widely used in embedded type devices because it is good quality for that and doesn't cost anything. Thus it is a good starting point. The condition of having to release source code changes is minor enough that companies are ok with it. However it isn't the only game in town. There's plenty of commercial solutions like vxWorks, QNX and even Windows (there's a special embedded version of XP you can get). While many companies would rather not pay the money, if the Linux license becomes too restrictive, they'll do it.

Make no mistake, that's what they are talking about with the GPL is a more restrictive license. The idea behind it may be to encourage more free development but the license itself is more restrictive.

This isn't necessarily a good thing as you have to have a balance if you want to be large and get good stuff back. If you license is too open, like a BSD license, everyone may use your stuff, but you'll never see any of it back and thus it doesn't do you any good in terms of having more contributed. However if you license is too restrictive you can find yourself in a situation where people don't use your stuff at all. Even if you license is designed to ensure that everyone has access to all the changes, that doesn't do any good if no changes are made.

One of the reasons that Linux enjoys the success it does is that I think the GPLv2 does a great job of striking a balance. You still have to give your code out, but there aren't really any restrictions of what you can do with it. I am worried that if a more restrictive license starts to take over, you'll see companies moving away from Linux.

Maybe you are ok with that, and if so that's fine, but recognise that if you decide to play hardball and say "We are going to make you do this or you can't use our stuff," that people may say "Ok fine, we won't." If that happens, you aren't really in a position to bitch about it.

Re:That's fine

[Anonymous Coward]

However then don't get mad if companies do as you suggest and stop using Linux. Linux is getting widely used in embedded type devices because it is good quality for that and doesn't cost anything.

Well since the embedded companies are not paying anything, them changing from Linux to QNX/vxworks causes no losses. Also the Linux code published by most embedded Linux vendors is so horrible quality that it's generally useless for community.

People might actually care if tivo and other vendors would be seen as operating within the community instead of freeriding. FSF was happy enough to change GPLv3 allow IBM to use DRMish restrictions on Linux mainframes. The value of IBM's contributions was clear, and IBM talked with FSF with their concerns. Tivo and other linux device lockers does not appear to have come out to defend their practice, and the Linux kernel changelog is remarkably void of contributions from tivo.

Just because a company "uses Linux" does not mean that they are necessarily benefiting the Linux ecosystem.

Re:That's fine

[Loonacy]

"but recognise that if you decide to play hardball and say "We are going to make you do this or you can't use our stuff," that people may say "Ok fine, we won't.""

Are you talking about GPLv3 or TiVo here? That statement could apply to either.

Re:That's fine

[Crayon Kid]

[..] if the Linux license becomes too restrictive [..]

"Too restrictive"? What the hell are you on? GPL v3 simply makes explicit some things that GPL v2 already mentioned implicitly. It's an attempt to stop assholes from exploiting several loopholes in v2. The rest of the thing keeps the same spirit as v2, and it's not more restrictive than it. Well, now, if you feel that v2 was restrictive as well, tough on you.

Re:That's fine

[Tickletaint]

If you license is too open, like a BSD license, everyone may use your stuff, but you'll never see any of it back and thus it doesn't do you any good in terms of having more contributed.

Ah, but you see, BSD developers aren't such selfish bastards as to demand to "see any of it back," and they're not so limited in thought as to believe society suffers unless it works to further their political ends. BSD developers are happy to share their code for anyone's benefit, not just their own.

Re:That's fine

[Bruce Perens]

We'd like some companies to stop using Free Software: the companies that can't comply with the license in both letter and spirit, and insist on engineering loopholes - be they in hardware (Tivo) or in law (Novell-Microsoft). Those companies work to de-motivate the developers of the software that they are using, who contributed their software on a share-and-share-alike basis and expect that to be respected. We would do better without them.

Bruce

Re:That's fine

[iamwahoo2]

And when they go to Wind River for VXWorks they are going to be offered Wind River's Linux at a lower cost. Why? Because Wind River knows that it cannot stay in the VXWorks business forever. They cannot keep pace with Linux and manage to keep the costs low on VXWorks. Selling embedded Linux solutions is cheap and easy.

Re:That's fine

[Anonymous Coward]

>We would do better without them.

And yet the FSF hasn't gone after hardware manufacturers who provide binary drivers for free OSes even though they're already in violation of GPL2.

Expediency to avoid destroying their own movement? I call it hypocrisy.

Re:That's fine

[Kidbro]

And yet the FSF hasn't gone after hardware manufacturers who provide binary drivers for free OSes even though they're already in violation of GPL2.

Care to elaborate on exactly what manufacturers provide binary only drivers for GPL2 licensed kernels to which the FSF holds copyright?
Read the entire question before answering.

Re:That's fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright or no, observe that there have no massive call to arms, no open letters, no blanket condemnations, calls for boycotts or any other of the things that are well within the FSF's power.

The FSF is canny; they are willing to tolerate hypocrisy if it helps them get into power. Like M$, they know they can always tighten the thumbscrews after they become dominant.

Re:That's fine

[Chandon Seldon]

so limited in thought as to believe society suffers unless it works to further their political ends.

When your political end is freedom, society *does* suffer if that end is not furthered. Discounting anyone who promotes a political goal may make your life easier in the short term, but if everyone does it we won't be able to maintain a free society for very long.

Re:That's fine

[marcosdumay]

Didn't you know that Duke Nuken Forever is being built with proprietary drivers to run on Hurd?

Ok, very cliché... But I couldn't resist the urge.

(The best part is that proprietary drivers on Hurd may be completely clear. Not even a gray zone, like Linux.)

Re:That's fine

[init100]

And yet the FSF hasn't gone after hardware manufacturers who provide binary drivers for free OSes even though they're already in violation of GPL2.

Where is the violation? The driver isn't licensed under the GPL. The combination, when loaded into memory, would probably be in violation if distributed, but distribution of the combination never happens. It could also be argued that distributing the kernel with a proprietary driver module (even as a separate file on disk) would be in violation of the GPL, and that is probably why most Linux distributors do not include those, but rather let users download these drivers separately from trird-party repositories.

Since users are allowed to do whatever they want with GPL software on their own systems (that is, if they do not distribute the modified software), there is no violation even when the user loads the proprietary kernel module into their GPL:ed kernel.

Re:That's fine

[Bruce Perens]

AC wrote:

And yet the FSF hasn't gone after hardware manufacturers who provide binary drivers for free OSes even though they're already in violation of GPL2.

The FSF doesn't own the copyright of the Linux kernel, and they have not been asked by the copyright holders to help with their defense. One of those two things needs to happen before FSF can intervene.

Re:That's fine

[Shagg]

However then don't get mad if companies do as you suggest and stop using Linux. Linux is getting widely used in embedded type devices because it is good quality for that and doesn't cost anything. Thus it is a good starting point. The condition of having to release source code changes is minor enough that companies are ok with it. However it isn't the only game in town. There's plenty of commercial solutions like vxWorks, QNX and even Windows (there's a special embedded version of XP you can get). While many companies would rather not pay the money, if the Linux license becomes too restrictive, they'll do it.

So if Linux becomes too restrictive they'll pay more in order to use commercial software, which is completely restrictive? Huh?

Make no mistake, that's what they are talking about with the GPL is a more restrictive license. The idea behind it may be to encourage more free development but the license itself is more restrictive.

Yes, the GPL is way more restrictive than the license you can get from Microsoft for the Windows source code (which doesn't exist).

No offense, but I think you're missing the point somewhere.

MOD PARENT DOWN - COMPLETELY WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent is +4 Interesting. Which is bad since its completely and utterly false.

Re:Good riddance-Sadly, You're Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you never heard of Macrovision.

FLOSS in a Fortune 500 company

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a Fortune 500 company (manufacturing, not IT) which quietly started using FLOSS in large-scale projects two years ago. In this case the legal department didn't care, but ossified elements in corporate IT did. Back in the day, nobody was ever fired for choosing IBM; today it's Microsoft. The corporate IT Microsoft supporters met trouble when they couldn't explain why the MS proposals were 5, 10, in one case 16 times more costly than FLOSS solutions (taking into account consulting days and time of deployment). GPLv3 is fine because it means the code my company relies on will stay free/libre. Tivo is certainly free to hire 250 developers and write a kernel and toolchain, or buy the Microsoft offering. Good luck to them, they will need it.

So none of Tivo's legal counsels...

[walter_f]

...told them about the implications of GPL to begin with?

So Tivo has been spending lots of money on low-quality legal consultancy for years.

And as to spending money:
Tivo should start spending money, real money, today, on a DRM-friendly type of software base for their gear.
Tivo should consider something like Windows Embedded and start shelling out tons of money for licences.

From me, just a cordial "harr, harr" for Tivo (and all the others of that ilk). :-)

Well done, Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen, Larry Lessig, and whoever contributed to the GPL, esp. GPL v3.
Many thanks to you all.

Walter.

Re:Good riddance-Sadly, You're Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Recording in a lossy analog format that you cannot make perfect copies of as many times as you want?

But what about what Perens wrote?

[rjforster]

Bruce Perens wrote this back in March.
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9312220011.html
He basically said Tivo have nothing to worry about if they are willing to do a bit of work to implement their checking process in a different way.

Given that the text of the GPL3 has changed since he wrote this, do his points still stand true?

Guard against secret protocols and data formats?

[tepples]

No one can make my code "unfree". But the developer of widely used proprietary software can take permissively licensed code and add compatibility with secret protocols and data formats. By some estimation, these are even worse than proprietary software. At least copylefted source code serves as a reference implementation of a protocol or data format.

There's a simple solution

[melted]

Use FreeBSD. Or any other BSD for that matter. There isn't anything in Linux that makes it Tivo's only choice. If GPL V3 gets pushed onto commercial users of Linux (Google, Amazon, others), they'll just switch to *BSD within a year, tops.

Re:There's a simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

And tell us, who will support BSD licensed software in commercial products by writing new features, as there are NO GUARANTEES of the effort ever being given back to the community??? I know I sure as hell wouldn't. I want it to be GPL, just so nobody can rip off me or the community.

If you think it's bad for your business then that's just too fucking bad, you have none of my sympathies.

Re:Good riddance-Sadly, You're Wrong...

[Mr2001]

Those lawsuits would be baseless anyway. TiVo is understandably afraid of having to pay the enormous cost of a legal battle with Big Content, but make no mistake: they'd win in the end. There's nothing legally requiring them to implement DRM or other annoying features (except maybe the CableCard license, which only applies to the pricey Series3 units).

It's unfair!!

[pakar]

*scream* The GPLv3 is unfair!!! We got this source for free to use in our commercial product with minimal changes... Now we cannot use DRM with it...

*ironic*

I just hate companies like this.. They get something for free and think they can do anything with it, and don't even care about the wishes of the people that has written the actual source.

But hey.. They can still user DRM'ed stuff with that box... They just have to implement some hardware-chip that will do the DRM decoding and then the software just needs a driver to know how to send it to the chip.. But ofcourse adding something like that to the box will probably cost them more than doing it all in software.
And with a DRM chip they would not have this problem with the GPLv3 and people could do all the mods they wanted on the TiVo..

A program's copyright doesn't extend to its output

[tepples]

This section of the GPL FAQ implies that FSF has no plans to require that the output of a copylefted program be put under that same copyleft.

Absolute rubbish!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing stops them writing a descrete DRM application on top of Linux/GPL'd code.

It is the restriction to GPL'd code that this will prevent.

And personally I see nothing wrong with them deciding to shut down their application if they see changes to the base OS, they don't need DRM to do that just something like a tripwire approach.

Re:Absolute rubbish!

[suv4x4]

Nothing stops them writing a descrete DRM application on top of Linux/GPL'd code.

It is the restriction to GPL'd code that this will prevent.

And personally I see nothing wrong with them deciding to shut down their application if they see changes to the base OS, they don't need DRM to do that just something like a tripwire approach.

Apparently you have no idea what GPLv3 is about, do you.

Re:Absolute rubbish!

[jonwil]

There is nothing in the GPL (v2 or v3) stopping Tivo from adding code to the proprietary media recorders and codecs (that handle the DRM stuff) so that such applications will refuse to run if the OS has been tampered with in ways Tivo does not like.

Consumers are not the customers

[tepples]

Or they could stop restricting their customers. In corporate America, consumers are not the customers. Consumers are the product to be sold to the real customers: the members of the Motion Picture Association of America.

Re:Consumers are not the customers

[bogjobber]

It seems like every day I see someone say this on /., and it's just hyperbole. *Both* parties are customers. If you don't like a product, you can walk away easily. Your statement implies that they are somehow forcing you to use their product. Nobody is forcing you to watch TV.

If you don't like it then don't use it. It's as simple as that.

Re:Consumers are not the customers

[tepples]

If you don't like a product, you can walk away easily. Your statement is true of television picture but not of radio or of television sound. If a TV or radio is on in a public place where I must do business, then yes, I am being forced to listen to it.

I'm talking about the GPL

[Sycraft-fu]

The vast, vast majority of people here aren't buying TiVo because it is Linux based. They don't give two shits what OS their DVR runs on. If the GPL ends up making Linux not usable for TiVo, they'll switch to another OS. It's not like once you've gone with one platform you can never change. For example the WRT54G used to be Linux based, however starting with revision 5 they switched to vxWorks which let them cut the RAM and Flash in half.

Re:I'm talking about the GPL

[Corwn of Amber]

Yeah. But I'd buy a TiVo if I could hook it up to my box and copy the recorded shows as standard MPEG files with the ads stripped.

I won't ever buy a DVR that does not let me do Just That Right Out Of The Box. And if that's illegal then maybe I'll start a business building Just That. In Armenia, they don't have digital laws yet... I think... and those are generally paid for by the local industries, so if it works really well I might buy a no-DRM law, too.

Re:I'm talking about the GPL

[that this is not und]

I won't ever buy a DVR that does not let me do Just That Right Out Of The Box. And if that's illegal then maybe I'll start a business building Just That. In Armenia, they don't have digital laws yet... I think... and those are generally paid for by the local industries, so if it works really well I might buy a no-DRM law, too.

Go ahead. I'm sure there are native Armenians who will be eager to have your 'R&D' facility working for them, helping boost the output of their production facility down the road.

Is DRM really the boogeyman to you?

DRM! (scared ya? just kidding!)

Re:I'm talking about the GPL

[Jesus_666]

For example the WRT54G used to be Linux based, however starting with revision 5 they switched to vxWorks which let them cut the RAM and Flash in half.

And then they released the L revisions because they noticed that the WRT54G was so popular because it was Linux based.

Not a big deal

[nurb432]

They just move to a BSD-centric model and stay away from GPLized code.

User Products

[tepples]

Don't Google search boxes operate on a similar business model? They sell / rent these very expensive boxes that you put on your corporate intranet Google search boxes and other appliances designed exclusively for use on a corporate intranet are not "consumer products" under the definition in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act (15 USC 2301):

The term "consumer product" means any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed). The anti-Tivoization provisions of the GPLv3 apply to "User Products", which are defined similarly to "consumer products" under Magnuson-Moss:

A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product," which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.

Re:User Products

[Ash Vince]

Wow, thanks for the info.

So will this also exempt companies who sold rack mountable servers, with customised versions of linux on them (think RAQ's although I know they are know longer available direct)?

Surely they would also be exempt as they are not for use the sense defined above, but I am clueless in regard to US law or the legal definition of a consumer product.

Source code means editable

[tepples]

It's hard to make a point for distributing source code for an article. GPLv3 defines a work's "source code" as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." For a work other than a computer program, this corresponds closely to the concept of "transparent copy" under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Suffer?

[matt me]

Tivo users suffer under their current GPLv2 abuse. Their rights are unjustly stolen from them, exploiting a circumstance hard to imagine in 1991 when the GPLv2 was published. Tivo knows this full well. Now is time to clean up their act (before GPLv3 would be best) or else they await a just upcommance.

Solution

[oPless]

Drop linux, use *BSD.

Why the heck are they using linux anyhow? They *know* they have to release any modifications etc etc etc. It's not as if it's a surprise or anything.

Is there a specific bit of functionality present in linux that *BSDs don't have? Frankly I doubt it.

What Real World?

[vtcodger]

***The problem is that RMS is a spaced out hippy with not concept of the real world and there are an awful lot of people who think the same way.***

Sounds to me like you want something for nothing and are displeased that you aren't getting it. GNU is Stallman's house. You play there, you play by his rules.

You are perfectly free to not use GPLed software. You are also free to to organize an effort to rewrite the GNU utilities and license your version in some way that fits your (rather peculiar if you ask me) view of reality.

Not all businesses find GPL to be intolerable. Linksys, for example, uses GPLed software, and, as a result, made their Broadcom chip drivers available to the public. Doesn't strike me as being nuts or unbusinesslike in any way.

BTW, it would be more appropriate to accuse Stallman of being a Socialist or Communist than of being a Hippie. Not that there is all that much wrong with people who believe that hitting other people over the head with sticks is not necessarily the best way of interacting with others.

Re:What Real World?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all businesses find GPL to be intolerable. Linksys, for example, uses GPLed software, and, as a result, made their Broadcom chip drivers available to the public. Doesn't strike me as being nuts or unbusinesslike in any way. Linksys was caught violating the GPL and was forced to release their code http://lwn.net/Articles/51570/. You'll also note that they quickly switched operating systems for their routers towards a non-GPL solution http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4082801849.html . And only due to market conditions did they reintroduce a line of routers that can still be hacked by dd-wrt et al. I've elected to **not** purchase Linksys/Cisco equipment - last purchase was a Buffalo router that also runs dd-wrt http://www.dd-wrt.com/.

Re:What Real World?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, they only released a BINARY Broadcom driver AFAIR (again a violation of the GPL since it linked with GPL code). Linux kernel people had to reverse engineer it.

No one sees the irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

The general tenor here is "It's RMS's right to specify how you get to use GNU software, and you have to honor that." But at the same time, everybody's so down on DRM. What about the content creators' right to specify how you you get to use their creations? You all want to be able to use that content however you want to, on whatever devices you want, whenever you want.

The cry for the removal of DRM, to give you the freedom to do what you want to with media, is no different from a desire to stick with gpl v2 so that you can continue to use the software any way you want.

So now we've got two religious nuts, RMS, and the Entertainment industry, both creating things they are trying to restrict you from using in any way you want.

Re:No one sees the irony?

[zotz]

Far from it.

One set is trying to use the law for all it's worth and to get stronger and more restrictive laws passed.

The other set is trying to use those laws to undo their negative effects.

Do you seriously expect people in the know to buy the idea that the **AA buys and the FSF boys are the same?

How many teenagers and grandmothers have the FSF boys sued? How much is their total settlements from such suits?

all the best,

drew

Re:No one sees the irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Details of legality aside, they are both trying to control what we can do with their creations. Why is one any better than the other? You either believe in the rights of property creators to control such things, or you don't. You can't say one is right and the other isn't. FSF is doing the same thing, just for their particular flavor of religion.

Re:No one sees the irony?

[zotz]

Once, again, the FSF is using something they don't believe in to undo the effects of that thing.

Have you ever heard of using the enemies weapons against him?

Have you ever heard the phrase "Hoist by his own petard"...?

They are not the same thing.

Until the law changes, the rights exist. Or at least the powers exist. In law. They can use what is at hand to try and undo the damage, or they can let others make things worse. If you see them take up the arguments of intellectual property, or if you see them pushing for longer copyright terms, or if you see them trying ot restrict the right to run programs with EULAs, or if you see them pushing for jail terms for copyright violators, let me know. Until then, I am not gonna buy your argument that the two groups actions amount to the same thing. Sorry.

all the best,

drew

Leeches

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, well, the whole purpose of the GPL is to discourage leeches and encourage co-operation. Nobody forced Tivo et al to mooch off GPL code. They are free to either re-invent it all, or to become honest players.

He who keeps taking our ball and goes home with it, has to play alone or bring the ball back...

Maybe so

[artifex2004]

TiVo is understandably afraid of having to pay the enormous cost of a legal battle with Big Content, but make no mistake: they'd win in the end.

You may be right, but I've got a ReplayTV, and I remember them going bankrupt defending the ability to automatically skip commercials.

Good.

[cabalamat3]

Good. I hope leeches like Tivo either (a) learn the error of their ways and repend, by either not using GPL'd software, or by removing the DRM, or (b) go bankrupt.

Re:Maybe, maybe not

[Crayon Kid]

This means that either the BSD projects will have to fork GPLv2 versions of affected software or (hopefully) re-implement said software.

Why on Earth would they? What's so offensive in GPL v3 all of a sudden, as compared to v2? It simply closes some loopholes that were abused by evil corporations. It has nothing to do with the BSD side of things. Why should the BSD crowd care about that anymore than they did about v2?

FUD time

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it's all well and good that we know this, but the GPL3 also gives TiVo and MS and others a chance to spread FUD, and they probably will in an attempt to get the FOSS community to somehow cave. It's easy for them to spread in the media "Well see? If you don't do what the FOSS community says, they'll just turn against you and rewrite the license to say 'give up all your ip for free!', they really are communists!", and then businesses would avoid GPLed software because of the FUD.

Still, it would take a lot of people to change their minds and rally behind something, and it would have to make sense to everyone in the community, and this avoids dealing with the reasons behind the change, but you can bet they'll try anything to get people to stop touching FOSS.

Who cares?

[gilesjuk]

Are you telling me TiVo will re-write the entire product without Linux? of course not. They use Linux for a reason, it's cheaper and easier.

They can either change policy to stay with Linux or they can use another OS. Nobody is going to lose any money if they use something else anyway.

Re:A program's copyright doesn't extend to its out

[Hal_Porter]

This section of the GPL FAQ implies that FSF has no plans to require that the output of a copylefted program be put under that same copyleft.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGP LToolsForNF

Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons--for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the output which is derived from the program's input inherits the copyright status of the input.

As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs. This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction. We made the decision because there were other tools comparable to Bison which already permitted use for non-free programs

It seems like they could set up GCC so it copies parts of itself into the output and then the output would be covered by the GPL. They only need a code change, not a license change.

Freedom

[TimTucker]

"Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one"

You're talking about libgcc

[tepples]

It seems like they could set up GCC so it copies parts of itself into the output and then the output would be covered by the GPL. Parts of GCC and Bison already do copy themselves to the output, but these parts are under an exception to the GPL, and FSF hasn't mentioned anything about ending those exceptions. For instance, the libgcc exception is worded as follows:

In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs, and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming from the use of this file. (The General Public License restrictions do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of the file, and distribution when not linked into a combine executable.)

Re:Linux shooting itself in the foot: what crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Blablabla

As far as I know, IBM has no problems with GPLv3. Doesn't get much bigger than that. It is just the leeches like Tivo that might get hurt. Is it so hard to understand what "playing fair" means?

The clout of so many of the best programmers in the world actually liking that what they're creating is their own property instead of that of their bosses is unstoppable. It seems to me it's only those software people that are insecure about their capacities are somehow opposed to the GPL.

How does BSD help them?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were sifficient, they would be using it already.

Re:How does BSD help them?

[Skapare]

BSD certainly has less community support than the more popular Linux. And it has fewer features, such as drivers. But in the embedded space, this difference is less. Quite many embedded devices do use BSD. Having originally chosen Linux doesn't mean Linux was the only choice that could work.

The big issue, actually, will be glibc. Future versions of it likely will be GPLv3, making it something unusable with DRM. Whether other libraries, such as uClibc, will follow to GPLv3 is unknown. But if all these choices go away, the BSD option is still there. You get a BSD kernel with the BSD libc.

Going with BSD would definitely have some cost to retro fit everything. And possibly, some code will need to be hacked that didn't need to be hacked in Linux. But BSD is most certainly a viable choice.

Die Die Die.

[ultramkancool]

Ok, I for one hope TiVo just dies. MythTV forever :)

Well, Linus likes the GPL3 now

[diegocgteleline.es]

I thought Linus said Linux wouldn't be distributed under GPLv3

Tht's what he said with previous drafts of the GPL. But he is pretty pleased with the last GPL3, and he has said that he's not so much against relicensing the kernel under the GPL3, altough it's so hard that it may be technically unfeasible

Rather...

[hhcv]

Linux Says Tivo Could Make It Could Suffer Under GPLv2

One notable feature available in Linux and not BSD

[MLS100]

A journaled filesystem. No, softupdates does not count.

Amen!

[A nonymous Coward]

I have been bitten too many times by locked down software to want to get a Tivo. I love the concept, and I'd even feel good about supporting an innovative company, but not at the expense of putting up with DRM. Tivo as lost sales with me precisely because they lock things up, and if they switched to GP:v3 and unlocked things, they would gain sales.

Re:Amen!

[A nonymous Coward]

Who cares? Linux is not a popularity contest. I use Linux BECAUSE OF the GPL and BECAUSE it is good, not because big corps are using it to save development time and money.

Re:Amen!

[Anonymous Coward]

"GPLv2 works fine there because it allows companies to use Linux and make as much change/addition as they like and keep it in-house. Disallow that and Linux will start to be abandoned by businesses and will share the fate of so many other good ideas gone wrong because of insane idealistic 'leaders'."

The emphasis is mine and you are correct on this point. I, however, cannot see what you are going on about as GPLv3 also allows you to make changes to the code and keep it in-house. The only time you need to publish your code is if you decide to distribute the product "out of house", and this applies whether it is GPLv2 or GPLv3. What you are implying amounts to FUD or you totally misunderstand the issue!

Re:Amen!

[gfxguy]

But that's only because you're looking at it as a computer that does something instead of a device that does something. I'm not sure what you mean by "lock things up", but do you use the same arguments about buying the TV, VCR, and DVD players?

It's just a consumer device, and considering what you are getting, it's dirt cheap.

Now, if you're talking about a Myth Box, or an MS MCE edition, then they are selling you a computer, first and foremost, that has software to do something specific. And you pay for it. A lot. A lot more than Tivo.

Re:Amen!

[Rich0]

Relax - there isn't anything that you can do with GPLv2 that you can't do with GPLv3, except try to restrict the rights that GPLv2 was created to secure in the first place.

If you don't like it use some other OS, or write your own from scratch. Perhaps it is the GPL that is the reason that so many companies are embracing linux in the first place - after all they could have just used BSD from the beginning.

Many companies find the GPLv3 to be just fine, or even an improvement. After all, if their business model doesn't consist of trying to restrict their user's GPL rights then they're not giving up anything, and in fact they stand to benefit from the elimination of competitors who do have this business model...

Even BSD is going to be hard for them

[Stu101]

We are all saying how they can transfer to BSD.

However, has it occured to anyone else the MASSIVE R & D, testing, tooling costs that would be involved in reinventing it all, even if some of it is already written.

It would also effectively create two versions of TIVO, a old, unmaintained one, and a shiny new DRM infected one. Guess which one will get pushed out more. That is, unless they are going to "reflash" everyones box with a huge multi megabyte update over the phoneline.

good

[nanosquid]

That's the idea: to prevent the Tivoization of Linux.

And I won't be losing any sleep if Tivo gets in trouble over this; while their products have been pretty good, their patent claims have been outrageous (for the latest example, see here).

GPL is more business friendly sometimes

[A nonymous Coward]

As has been pointed out many times, with the BSD license, any changes you contribute back can be used by your competitors without them having to contribute back in turn. Thus you are giving your competitors a free ride if they are inclined towards the selfish side.

Of course this only applies if you contribute changes back. The penalty for not doing so is the increased hassle over time of keeping your private changes in sync with the mother lode.

As many others are pointing out, Tivo chose Linux because its code base suited them better. They wanted the superior capabilities of Linux for their business, whether because of drivers or license I know not, but they liked it better. Now if they don't like that, they can go with an "inferior" choice like BSD, or they can pay for a proprietary OS which may be better or worse technically. But the technically "superior" free choice now has a cost. Their free ride is over. Cry me a river.

Re:GPL is more business friendly sometimes

[LWATCDR]

"As has been pointed out many times, with the BSD license, any changes you contribute back can be used by your competitors without them having to contribute back in turn. Thus you are giving your competitors a free ride if they are inclined towards the selfish side."
The same thing with GPL code.
If you competitors don't contribute back any code they also get a free ride.
Frankly I really like a lot of GPL projects and code. I like a lot of BSD projects and code. This software as a religion just makes me nuts. What really drives me crazy is that now the FSF is using the GPL to make people do what the FSF thinks is right.
Welcome to the church of Free Software and the high priest of orthodoxy.

And we care because?

[proxy318]

"Oh, if GPLv3 is used, we won't be able to use our pointless DRM any more!" Cry me a river, TIVO.

Let them suffer.

[AndyCR]

Really? Gosh, that's a surprise.

Let them suffer. They've been leeching off of work never intended for them in a proprietary fashion for far too long.

Re:Just a kernel doesn't do much for you WTF!?

[EvilRyry]

How did this get modded +5? glibc isn't even licensed GPL! Notice we have commercial software for Linux? That all links to glibc, and it kind of has to. Which is why it is licensed LGPL.

As for Tivo being scared of GPLv3, stop locking down your devices like the dicks you are and you won't be adversely affected. Problem solved!

Re:Linux shooting itself in the foot: what crap

[The_Spud]

Blablabla

Wow how can I possibly contend against such an eloquent refuting of all my points.

The clout of so many of the best programmers in the world actually liking that what they're creating is their own property instead of that of their bosses is unstoppable. It seems to me it's only those software people that are insecure about their capacities are somehow opposed to the GPL.

The supposed 'best programmers in the world' won't be able to spend as much, if any time on writing open source stuff cause they'll be no money in it if the big boys fuck off and start using solaris/ A n other comercial unix. What you don't seem to get it is it was a big struggle to get companies with serious money to use linux and creating uncertainty and potential issues with intellectual property for these companies is likely to drive them straight to Redmond.

RMS will be happy

[NightFears]

we may be unable to incorporate future enhancements to the GNU/Linux operating system into our software

Heh, so suddenly it makes sense to include the "GNU/" prefix. Learning how to give credit where credit is due - the hard way ;)

GPL3

[minus_273]

GPL3 will be the bullet that hits the foot of open source. This is going to do more damage to commerical adoption than anything MS could have done.

Re:GPL3

[The Cisco Kid]

The goal of (Free SOftware) is NOT 'commercial adoption'.

I could give a damn wether corporations use Linux, including Tivo.

The goal is to not use non-free software, and for the software to do what *I* want.

Also note that even GPLv2 was claimed to be sufficient to prevent 'commercial adoption',
and that was before there was any signifigant critical mass at all.

Tivo will find a way to adapt to GPLv3, or they will die. If the die, something more viable will take their place.

Re:GPL3

[LingNoi]

Why is commercial adoption so important?

Please reconsider

[mpapet]

The big stink would essentially KILL Linux in many organizations.

This statement is wrong in so many fundamental ways it displays a total lack of knowledge regarding Tivo's hostility to the GPL.

What the Tivo people did was privatize Free (as in speech) software. It is roughly analogous to stealing a painting from a publicly-funded museum and hanging it up in your house. They accomplished this a number of ways including a signature check of some kind during startup. The implications are:

1. Source code is _useless_ now
2. Source code is no longer Free.
3. Source code cannot be modified.

This is a novel approach that disables numerous fundamental intents of the GPL and captures, for Tivo's sole benefit, the countless man hours that have gone into building Linux-based operating sytems.

Furthermore, businesses that will not like Linux under GPL v3 or think the spirit of the GPL doesn't apply to them (Tivo, that's you) should be using BSD.

Re:Please reconsider

[ChadAmberg]

Sorry but your analogy is pretty crappy. For it to work that means that they removed Linux from everyone else.
More like they copied the painting from the museum. Everyone else still has access to the original. And then they painted a mustache on the subject of the painting. And now everyone is bitching because they think that this new version must be in the museum also.

Re:Please reconsider

[NoOneInParticular]

Ah analogy time, and no car in sight! More accurate: Tivo made copies of a painting from a museum, puts a mustache on it, and is now selling the copies to unsuspecting users claiming its a faithful copy of the original, but disallowing them to remove the mustache. The museum is now reconsidering its copying policy.

Re:Please reconsider

[TeraCo]

Stealing? Surely you meant 'copyright infringing'. At least that's what the people who download the latest episode of Retardos 90210 tell me.

Re:Please reconsider

[NoMaster]

Actually, you're not far off being right, but wrongly (if that makes sense...)

Tivo made copies of a painting from a museum - perfectly legitimately, as the museum's principles allowed, nay, encouraged this. They then put them in bags, and sold the bags as 'magic bags' which see into the future, show you the past, and from that learn the things you like to see.

Some strange people got all excited just because the bags had a copy of a painting in them...

Now, for this and other reasons, the museum wants to change their policies. Which is fine. But here's the bit everybody's missing: Tivo are still allowed to reproduce and distribute from the copy they already have!

Re:Please reconsider

[Random BedHead Ed]

Furthermore, businesses that will not like Linux under GPL v3 or think the spirit of the GPL doesn't apply to them (Tivo, that's you) should be using BSD.

Yeah - or they should be writing their own damn software. That's one of the things that leaves me with no sympathy with the TiVos and Linksyses of the world: in the old days they would have had to do all the engineering themselves. Now they get software gratis. But the deal is that the gratis software is also free. If they don't like the deal, the exit is clearly marked.

This is why I tend to like the GPL over the BSD license. There is less opportunity for abuse, particularly with GPLv3 - a license that still allows TiVo to have much of their software engineering done at no cost, as long as they don't do something nasty like prevent their customers from running modified software on their own hardware.

i wonder

[yourmomisfasterthana]

i wonder, could you sue someone for writing bad code for a project based on a GPLv3 because they were unable to explain how it actually works? i mean, if you wrote the code bad enough (but still had it somehow work) you'd have a DRM scheme more powerful than AACS...

"you're too stupid to use our license! get out of here!"

Re:i wonder

[IkeTo]

> i wonder, could you sue someone for writing bad code for a project based on
> a GPLv3 because they were unable to explain how it actually works? i mean,
> if you wrote the code bad enough (but still had it somehow work) you'd have
> a DRM scheme more powerful than AACS...

Then the program writers are depending of the assumption that they have better ability than the collective ability of everybody who tries to read the source code. In my understanding, this might succeed only if you are writing a niche system that there are few who are in any way interested in it.

Most and least free: Public Domain

[davidwr]

On one hand, Public Domain software is the most free license out there. You can literally do anything you want with it, no strings attached.

On the other hand, by making a single non-trivial change you can make it as proprietary as anything you wrote yourself, and handcuff your users as much as they will tolerate.

This happens all the time in the music industry:

People take out-of-copyright music, make a new arrangement, slap a fresh (c) on it, and treat it as if it were their own original creation.

"Viral" licenses like GNU limit your rights by forcing you to pass the freedoms on to others in the community. Of course, when the copyright expires in BIGNUM years, the original code enters the public domain. When that happens, see above.

I'm predicting...

[petrus4]

...a fairly large scale exodus to FreeBSD once the GPL v3 comes out.

The responses to the last few articles that have had anything to do with the GPL have been utterly toxic, on both sides. If the Linux community keeps this up, eventually there will only be the diehards left; nobody else is going to want anything to do with them.

Here's the link for those who want it. It might be a bit less polished than Ubuntu, but you won't have to put up with the toxicity that is standard around here, and if you make improvements to it and want to earn a living from such, nobody has a problem with it like Linux users do. Enjoy.

Only their changes, not the open code, are prop...

[AHumbleOpinion]

When they are free to proprietarize the open code, then _everyone else_ has to reinvent the wheel.

You subscribe to a fallacy, open code remains open. Only their changes, not the open code, are proprietary.

Re:One notable feature available in Linux and not

[Isaac-Lew]

What about this:

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2006 -June/001962.html

I don't know if it's actively in use, however it indicates that there is at least 1 JFS available for FreeBSD.

Devastating Riposte, Dude

[mkcmkc]

Yeah, you have to look at the whole picture. Being able to walk down the street naked is not the sine qua non of freedom...

Re:A program's copyright doesn't extend to its out

[stinerman]

It seems like they could set up GCC so it copies parts of itself into the output and then the output would be covered by the GPL.

Notwithstanding the exception mentioned by a sibling poster, GCC is still under the GPL. You could simply revert any change.

which is precisely what some want

[hany]

we may be unable to incorporate future enhancements to the GNU/Linux operating system into our software

Which is precisely what some supporters of GPL, want.

I know, it's hard to do business while using GPL software as a core.

But who said that all developers of GPL-ed software are happy that someone is using their work to make money without giving something back to the developers and without following some ... say phylosophical ideas which are behind the license?

To make the business based on Free Software and/or Open Source really successfull and sustainable, it is not sufficient to please only shareholders of the company.

IMO same applies not to just GPL-ed software, but to some degree also to so called commons: air, water, culture, ...

crocodile tears

[fuego451]

TiVo reminds me of the guy who murdered his parents then begged for mercy from the court because he was an orphan.

They violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPLv2 and now they are worried because, under GPLv3, they can't continue to take advantage of OSS to insure their business future. I say, good riddance.

Re:crocodile tears

[fireylord]

MOD PARENT UP Exactly right, free beer and speech, NOT free lunch. Let them develop their own os for their freedom restricting drm laced wares.

Re:Good riddance-Sadly, You're Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

What are VCR manufacturers doing to achieve lack of lawsuits for providing exactly the same features without DRM?

They fought this battle in Court, and won. By being brave and principled, they secured for us (whether that was their intent or not) the very freedom Tivo is based upon:

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)[1], also known as the "Betamax case", was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use.

THAT is what they did "to achieve lack of lawsuits", they fought the assholes and won. The pussy (Tivo), that cuts backroom deals and drops the consumer as customer is not doing anything to further secure your rights.

GPL vs. BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL and BSDL each have advanteges and disadvanteges, but since GPL gives more freedom to the end-user, rather than the developer like the BSDL, it logically has better surport from the end-user... which is most of the people out there. Developers like Microsoft and Apple LOVE the BSD, but most end-users don't, and that is why "Linux" is more well-known than "BSD"

Re:GPL vs. BSD

[bpechter]

I guess they should move the Tivo to FreeBSD then...

this HAS to be satire...

[Virgil Tibbs]

It's too bad for Linux if Tivo goes under.

yep, i would go to be crying for weeks if Tivo went under...

Let's see..

[Hooya]

> Would you consider a book that you bought now exclusively yours, then copy it and redistribute it? Of course not.

You said it! the authors have a right to have their works be used in a manner acceptable to them (rights granted withing the copyright framework etc.). Conveniently Tivo doesn't seem to want to honor that right of the FSF. Just because they bought it at $0 doesn't mean Tivo can pretend it's in free domain. Tivo doesn't seem to want to play by the rules set fourth by the creators/distributors of the GPLed software but doesn't seem to have any problem whatsoever turning around and expecting that their customers play by their rules. Don't you think that a tad bit hypocritical?

> What about your house? You own your house so does that give you the right to modify your water, gas and electrical hookups to bypass the meters? No.

you didn't by the hookups, you bought the house.

> Your car? Do you have the right to drive your property you bought however you feel like? No - there are rules you must abide by.

I do have the right to drive it however I like as long as I do it within my property. When I use public areas, yes, there are rules of sharing the public areas I must abide by to make sure it's equitable to everyone sharing the public areas. but the rules are for sharing the roadways not for how to use my car, my property. Ever notice how the driving booklet says "Rules of the Road"? and not "Rules for using your car"? If I kept my car within my premises I'm fairly certain I can drive it however I damn well please.

> Tivo has a right to do what they want to their products. If you buy it and attempt to take it apart, well then that's fine and your right, but they also have a right to put mechanisms in place to deny you further service if you do.

And the GPL and the FSF don't?

Re:Let's see..

[pnewhook]

When I use public areas, yes, there are rules of sharing the public areas I must abide by to make sure it's equitable to everyone sharing the public areas. but the rules are for sharing the roadways not for how to use my car, my property. Ever notice how the driving booklet says "Rules of the Road"? and not "Rules for using your car"?

So if I drive perfectly legally, share the road, and stay within the speed limit, I'm allowed to modify my car by placing a (legal) machine gun on the hood? I think not.

> Tivo has a right to do what they want to their products. If you buy it and attempt to take it apart, well then that's fine and your right, but they also have a right to put mechanisms in place to deny you further service if you do.

And the GPL and the FSF don't?

I never said they didn't. But what Tivo has done was perfectly valid with GPL V2, so why is everyone so bent out of shape?

Re:Let's see..

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I drive perfectly legally, share the road, and stay within the speed limit, I'm allowed to modify my car by placing a (legal) machine gun on the hood? I think not.

Actually, you could, assuming you legally owned a machine gun and had an unconcealed-carry permit that wasn't precise about where and how you were allowed to carry it. Granted, it would take less than a month for your neighbors to raise hell and get a law passed that outlawed such modifications, but you'd be able to do it until then.

Anything that isn't explicitly illegal is legal. Of course, it's what not what you think is explicit that matters, but what the court system thinks.

Re:Let's see..

[pnewhook]

Since it's illegal in most states to add too much tint to your windows, I'd be surprised as hell if it wasn't already illegal to put a machine gun on your car.

Great news!

[Peeteriz]

"They're also designed to shut down if the software is hacked by users trying to circumvent DRM features. But GPLv3 would prohibit TiVo's no-tamper setup."

Well then, great news, isn't it :) If I own the TiVo, then I should be able to try and modify it's software - and with GPL that *MUST* be allowed, too bad that they've found some workaround for the current version of GPL that goes against the whole concept of the user being free to use and modify the code.

You want it to be GPL

[melted]

And they want to make money. With GPL 2 these two goals could coexist. With GPL 3 they can't. As a business, they care little about ideology.

Freedom isn't the right to do anything you want

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "freedom" and "rights". According to your (apparent) definition, any law restricts freedom because it prohibits certain actions. But should people be free to murder people at will? Laws against murder protect the right to live. By prohibiting certain actions you create freedoms. The point of the GPL is to protect freedom by prohibiting certain actions.

Thus your argument is fundamentally confused.

Why is GPL3 a problem for TIVO

[bobstaff]

I assume that TIVO has their own application running inside a TIVO box, which they can license as they see fit.

As long as the measures they take shut down their application but leave the kernel and any other GPL software running, how are they violating GPL3?

The box would not be much use without the TIVO application running but that's what they're trying to achieve.

They could also just delete the data files (programs) for their application when the security measure is triggered, surely deleting data files is not a violation of GPL3.

My own thoughts

[Evets]

Stallman, however, indicated that the ban does not apply to products meant to be used primarily in business environments.

This is an interesting quote. It appears I'm going to have to research the GPL v3 a little bit further.

Aside from that - I don't see much REAL news here. Tivo basically has stated that they are riding on the backs of open source developers, haven't done much of anything in return, and now that those developers have an easy option of migrating to a license that protects their work from the likes of Tivo they have to spend some time thinking about how exactly to move forward.

Tivo certainly could migrate to foundational software with BSD style licenses, but it will take some time rebuilding everything and re-testing. They can also migrate to proprietary licensed software as a foundation. Further, they have the alternative of re-structuring their DRM protection. They could also spend time, money, and energy lobbying needed GPL projects for alternative licensing.

They are not without options, and given the fact that their "innovation" has made zero contributions back to the group of developers that formed the foundation of their business, and given the fact that they prefer to strip rights from consumers(DRM), developers(licenses), and other innovators(patents) I don't see why they gain much sympathy at all.

If you don't like GPL3, don't develop under it. FSF and the GPL are designed to foster the OSS community. If you want to provide your users with more freedom, provide an alternative license, use an alternative license, or write your own license. If you don't like GPL3 from an end user perspective, don't use GPL3 software, lobby for alternative licensing, or promote alternative projects that don't make use of the GPL.

Re:My own thoughts

[marcosdumay]

Stallman, however, indicated that the ban does not apply to products meant to be used primarily in business environments.

This is an interesting quote. It appears I'm going to have to research the GPL v3 a little bit further.

That is real. The rationale from the FSF is that corporate entities want restricted hardware for a variety of reasons*. So they'd better focusing their energy at the weak party (customers) that seems to sufer more from that.

* Maybe good reasons, maybe not. There is no judgment about that at the GPLv3 rationale. My oppinion is that they aren't good reasons (even more now, after the last draft) and their oppinion will change at future.

RMS wants a free corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS wants to be the big boss over OSS coders.

Kinda like a non-profit corporation where anyone who adopts the gplv3 is forced under it.

Basically they'll be able to make free software as HE sees fit. and only coding what HE desires.

RMS had the right idea years ago. Nowadays he seems to have become full of himself (that pic of him dressed as a saint, anyone?) and believes no one should have the freedom of ideas and creativity, just people who stamp out code under what he deems "acceptable"

that isnt freedom, that's a dictatorship. He's becoming what he rallies against most. Or maybe that was his plan in the long run?

Re:Just a kernel doesn't do much for you WTF!?

[Sancho]

I'm not sure they have a choice. DirectTiVos have to respect DRM. If they don't, DirectTV won't let them steam the content. I think its similar for TiVos which accept CableCards. And TiVo isn't big enough to put pressure on the people holding them to these restrictions.

It boils down to exactly what they say. GPLv3 won't let them use DRM, and the content providers won't give them access to the streams without it. They don't have enough clout to pressure either group to relax their policies, so they're kinda screwed.

No, not at all the same with BSD code and GPL code

[A nonymous Coward]

Have you been sleeping under a rock? BSD code changes can be distributed as binaries with no recourse to seeing the source. GPL code changes MUST be distributed with the binaries or at least made accessible. There is a HUGE difference.

As for your personal opinion of the FSF, hoo hah. If you don't like the GPL, don't use the code. He who writes the code chooses the license. You are more than welcome to say in your church of copyright ignoramusses.

What He said.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sine qua non
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sine qua non or conditio sine qua non was originally a Latin legal term for "without which it could not be" ("but for"). It refers to an indispensable and essential action, condition, or ingredient. In recent times it has passed from a merely legal usage to a more general usage in many languages, including English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, etc. In Classical Latin the correct form uses the word condicio, but nowadays the phrase is sometimes found to be used with conditio, which has a different meaning in Latin ("foundation"). The phrase is also used in economics, philosophy and medicine.

An example of the term's usage was annotated in H.W. Brand's biography of Andrew Jackson. The book included a toast given by Andrew Jackson on the occasion of Jackson receiving of an honorary doctorate from Harvard. The President responded to his listeners, "E pluribus unum, my friends. Sine qua non."

Web apps using MySQL

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean any web apps using GPLv3 software like MySQL has to released as open source? That really sucks!

Could be good news for downloaders.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The point is, there are two ways to define freedom, so to speak. One is the upstream way, where the freedom is what the authors say it is. You are free (have a license) to do whatever the author says you can, and the freedom is therefore subjective, but can protect the author's work if the author so wishes to. As for the downstream freedom, it is what users think they should be able to do with the software (or whatever creation). This freedom includes patenting, taking credit, selling, hacking, whatever a user can possibly conceive of."

Gee! This almost sounds like the content creators vs the illegal downloaders debate all over again.

Re:Could be good news for downloaders.

[nagnamer]

"Gee! This almost sounds like the content creators vs the illegal downloaders debate all over again." That just proves the debate is unavoidable. :)

The FSF will be pleased

[lysse]

Good to have official confirmation from the people it's specifically aimed at that the GPLv3 will do the job it's intended to do.

Meanwhile, TiVo might want to look into an interesting little niche project, whose licensing might be more suited to their specific business model, called NetBSD. They might have to do a little more assembly themselves, of course... but then, sponging off a community whilst deliberately frustrating the very motive for allowing them to do so could never be described as a sustainable practice, could it?

Ideas want to be free.

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, as I think about it 'completely free' isn't 'completely' accurate either in that I think the difference between the BSD and GNU licenses is this:"

Release under the BSD if you want ideas to be free. Release under the GPL if you want code to be free.

Re:Just a kernel doesn't do much for you WTF!?

[init100]

GPLv3 won't let them use DRM

Actually, the GPLv3 lets them use DRM for content to their hearts' content, just not use DRM to prevent people from modifying the software on the device. One solution would be to allow modification of the (GPL) software, but keep the DVR software proprietary. Their servers could refuse service to anyone not using their proprietary DVR software, while still letting users modify other software on the device.

bribe congress

[firewood]

This could easily be fixed by commercial entities with enough lobbying clout. It worked for the RIAA/MPAA. Just get congress to defang GPL-type licenses by changing copyright law right underneath it, and not in the way that Stallman would prefer. Congress could do this by simply limiting the maximum judgment amount and injunction rights for OSS copyright infringement to some trivial value (e.g. a multiple of the copyright holders actual market price for their primary distribution mode, or some other legal definition of zero for free beer).

Gee ain't that too bad

[baomike]

This is something I am going to worry about for a minute portion of a nanosecond.

Re:No, not at all the same with BSD code and GPL c

[LWATCDR]

You don't get it.
If you release your code as GPL then anybody can redistribute it. So if you contribute to the GPL code base your competitor can use it. For example Ubuntu could use SAX2 and I wish they would. I actually like GPL2 I don't like GPL3. I don't like DRM but I understand the requirement for it to keep from being sued. RMS doesn't like Tivo but frankly millions of people do like Tivo and how has Tivo hurt FOSS? I can tell you that more than once I have had people tell me that
1. They don't know anybody that uses Linux.
2. Linux is too hard to use.
I simply ask them if they have ever heard of a Tivo? When they say yes I tell them that it runs Linux. Then I explain that Linux is used in many small devices as well as supercomputers. Tivo has done a lot of good for FOSS.
I don't like RMS, he is a zealot and that is always a reason for concern. His insistence on calling Linux GNU/LINUX is a good example. Is he going to demand every piece of software compiled with GCC? The latest version of GPL seems like him trying to stop the popularity of Linux. It all seems like some desperate atempt at keeping in the spotlight. Maybe his is a nice person in real life but his public stance is that of someone trying to from a religion.
I would never want to stop people from having the right to create software without some government or corporation giving you permission. Frankly I feel that is a real danger. I fear that GPL3 by making FOSS less comfortable for big companies will under cut their support for FOSS. If that happens we will lose our big friends like Novell, Intel, and IBM and be left to fight the monsters by ourselves. I think that is RMS's goal and frankly it is counter productive to FOSS becoming mainstream.

Could be good news for legal scholars.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Get it? You've bought it. It's YOUR equipment now, not Tivos. Sure, they went through a lot of hard work and effort to build that hardware. Then they sold it. At that point, their claim on that particular piece of hardware was exhausted."

There's a bit of misinformation here. When someone sells you something, they don't sell you all the rights to that item. You for example couldn't make counterfeit Tivos nor sell them under the Tivo name. Remember society isn't about absolutes, but compromises, for both parties.

Why is this a problem?

[jav1231]

Why can't they simply shutdown their proprietary software instead? The idea that they are somehow forced to keep their entire system in tact just because of GPLv3 is silly.
FUD much!?

Quit your whining

[Anonymous Coward]

And move to BSD, then you can do whatever you want TiVO.

Re:No, not at all the same with BSD code and GPL c

[A nonymous Coward]

You don't get it. First, the argument was that there is no difference between BSD and GPL, about as dumb a statement as can be made. Second, the author of the code gets to set the license. If Tivo doesn't like the license, they can use other code, either free and inferior, or proprietary and expensive and quite possibly very hard to customize.

Them what writes the code sets the license. Them what uses the code have to obey the license. Them what don't like that can whine on slashdot and make no difference.

My heart bleeds for them!

[dpastern]

They didn't have to use the GPL. This is a company that has deliberately sought to reduce end users rights with DRM, something I find abhorrent. The GPL v3 is an attempt to stop companies from using GPL'd software and doing this particular thing to its end users.

My heart really bleeds TIVO. You should have used BSD software, that allows you to screw over end users without a 2nd thought :)

Dave

Could be good news for adults.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The best way I've ever seen the GPL vs. BSD debate put was something like this"'

The GPL treats everyone downstream like children. The BSD treats them like adults.

Which freedoms are courtailed by the GPL?

[jotaeleemeese]

The freedom to benefit form others' work without giving back squat.

The freedoms taken away are the freedoms of the egoistic, egocentric, individual or comapny. No wonder MS and Apple use BSD software, that should tell us a lot about what we needs to know about who finds those "freedoms" useful.

You have to give a rat's ass.

[jotaeleemeese]

If you distributed software that is GPLed.

You can even use it and not give a rat's ass. That is how nice the GPL is to you.

Re:You have to give a rat's ass.

[ClosedSource]

Actually, you can even distribute GPL'd software without caring about RMS's definitions. The GPL is a legal document and as long as you abide by it you're within the law.

Uh?

[jotaeleemeese]

That is an audio format.

You can implement encoders or decoders using whatever licence you want.

Crappy example frankly.

Re:Uh?

[Anonymous Coward]

But he's saying that it's better to write an implementation—a parser for that format—with a BSD-type license, so that closed-source projects can use the code without having to write their own implementation. (If I'm writing a simple audio player, do you really think I'm going to write my own implementation of Ogg Vorbis for it? And if I did, do you think it would be a good implementation which would show the true capabilities of Ogg Vorbis?)

For what it's worth, libvorbis is famously BSD-licensed, for this specific reason, and the arrangement is even Stallman-endorsed. I think it's a very good example.

Re:Uh?

[evanbd]

The default decoder is BSD licensed. This pushes adoption of the format by allowing commercial use (eg, in games) without worry. It's a case where BSD is an excellent choice. The point isn't that other people can implement their own decoders under whatever license -- it's that they can use the *default* decoder under its license in any way they want to. And, as a result, they do. That licensing decision has been a *huge* benefit to the Ogg format.

Where is the ground where your ear is planted?

[jotaeleemeese]

Many is with big corps in different industries (oil, finance).

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense to me, but that is perhaps because these industries do not have software as their main activity and use it only as a tool.

If you ear is planted in Redmond, yeah, I suppose you will not hear moch pro FSS noise there.

For bunnies sakes, Sun and IBM have gone all pro FOSS, you can't get much bigger than that.

Is your name FUDie or what?

bullshit sophistry

[Anonymous Coward]

You may ask, what about your right to hack your Tivo? I'd respond, what about their right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked? They are equivalent freedoms.

They are not equivalent freedoms, because you are calling a goose a cow. Yes, they have the right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked, but they do not have any right to prevent you from exercising your right to attempt to hack your property. This is what you fail to acknowledge, and why your view is simply wrong. The GPL forces both sides to allow the other side equal freedom in attempts. The BSD license allows one side to use the law to prevent the other from exercising its rights. So under BSD, only TiVo has rights, the hacker does not. This is enforced by copyright law, not any "attempt to prevent their product from being hacked". Under BSD, TiVo can block even the attempt. Under GPL, both sides can attempt all they like, and the superior technical skills will win. Ergo, GPL is the more free license, and clearly the most beneficial to society in the long run.

Re:bullshit sophistry

[Guido del Confuso]

*Sigh*

Yes, they have the right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked, but they do not have any right to prevent you from exercising your right to attempt to hack your property. This is what you fail to acknowledge, and why your view is simply wrong.

Nope, you're an idiot. I acknowledged this completely. They do what they can to stop you from hacking when they design it, then you do what you can to overcome those restrictions. They can't (or, shouldn't be allowed to, I believe) stop you from doing what you want with your own property. They could deny you service if they detect you hacked their system, of course, but that should be their right.

The BSD license allows one side to use the law to prevent the other from exercising its rights.

No, it doesn't. You only have what rights are granted to you in the license, so you can't "exercise" rights you don't have. That's the basis of copyright law. That being said, the GPL does do exactly what you just said, if you think about it...

GPL3 is protected from SW patents

[Anonymous Coward]

albeit not fully. Apache (and SISSL) are more protected, since they state that if you use SW patents, you can't use their code. GPL just says that if you use GPL code and patents, then patents in GPL code you produce (even by proxy) are controlled but no other.

BSD has no protection.

Re:No, not at all the same with BSD code and GPL c

[LWATCDR]

"Them what writes the code sets the license. "
Too bad that RMS doesn't agree with you. The amount of whining he does about how evil none GPL software is legionary. I have heard it called a crime against humanity on Slashdot.
So you are saying that I don't have a right to express why I fell that the new version of the GPL is counter productive to FOSS? I notice that they also selected to ignore my comments of how Tivo using Linux was a benefit to the the community. You are just stating a party line. As I said I think that the GPL is fine as it is and doesn't need to change to protect the user from Tivo. What I do worry about is how the GPLv3 could play right into Microsoft's hands. I can see Microsoft getting the government to go along with the idea of signed binaries. Binary software can have virus and other malware. Distributing binary software is just too dangerous without over site. So only programmers that have a license will have the right to distribute binaries so they can be tracked. What about the end user? Well they will have the right to sign their own binaries to use on their own computer. RMS will be so happy because the GPLv3 will be enforced by law and all FOSS software will only be available as source code. It will also kill FOSS as a threat to Microsoft.
RMS will probably never see this as a problem because in his mind he will feel that everybody will then learn the "advantages" of having the source code an will follow on his divine path.

Now THIS is "insightful" -

[BLKMGK]

What you've said sums this argument up pretty well IMO! TIVO took GPL code who's spirit was that changes had to be released back (and to be fair they did) but then hardware locked the systems such that if anyone modified them the sysem refused to run. They didn't violate the specifics of the license but they certainly seem to have violated the spirit which was to allow people freedom to work with the code. I'm *not* a contributor of code, it's not my talent, but I am certainly one of the ones who was fairly frustrated by what TIVO did. That TIVO is upset about GPL3 is fine by me - some of the changes were made to specifically block the crap they pulled. :-)

The BSD license I've not ever learned too much about and this discussion has been pretty enlightening. The point you've made about having code run in more places vs having changes released back is a very good one and appears to define the two camps well. I would imagine that writing code and then having it improved upon by others would be pretty cool, I'm surprised that many people are comfortable allowing their code to be used\modified by others (credited or not). Different strokes for different folks it seems and you've captured the two shools pretty well I think - I believe I'd probably be more of the GPL type.

It will be VERY interesting to see how many adopt the GPL3 license. That Linus isn't is interesting but I guess if everyone else does it won't matter too much. TIVO might actually be forced to write their own stuff from a more basic level moving forward, serves them right IMO for having locked the hardware to begin with - "content providers" be damned. Close the hardware? Write your own damned code....

Cry me a forest.

[Anonymous Coward]

"There was no loophole. Tivo released all its code under the terms of the GPL."'

Speaking of which. Anyone here remember the brooha over Google and web services? Amazing how quickly everyone has forgotten that. The GPL is a minefield, legal, spiritual, or otherwise. The BSD is a very simple license, no lawyer required. No lenthy villification on slashdot.* I'll take peace of mind over whining and crying any day of the week.

*Never mind the irony of this forum talking about spirit and rights while not granting content creators the same.

Companies with some backbone disagree.

[jotaeleemeese]

http://www.neurosaudio.com/

You are incompetent in reasoned thought.

[jotaeleemeese]

There are people out there that are creating software that is obviously very useful.

They are giving it away for free and they are putting conditions of how it is distributed, if at all. Their choice of licensing terms is completely inconsequential, call freaking license of hell if you wish, that is beyond the point. They wrote the software, they are the ones that have the legal right to decide how to distribute it and copy it (thank copyright for that).

Enters Tivo, your company, and it appears you as well. YOu want to grab that code, do whatever you want that is profitable for you. Well, sorry to break this to you, but that is not how the world works. You are using other people's work, so either you abide by their rules or you go and find somebody else that writes that software for you or you write it yourself.

I think most reasonable people will accept that.

If you can't release details of the software you are developing, can you please pray tell us how would the community possibly benefit from something you can't give? I find utterly ludicrous that you are accepting your hands are tied to share but you still somehow would want to use software that force you to share. You can't have it both way buddy. Neither can Tivo or your company.

Fragmentation may come, but I doubt in the way your are envisioning, what will happen is that we will be able to differentiate foe from friend, companies that just took FOSS for the free ride will have to leave the gravy train, companies that agree with the fundmanetla issue aobut access to software and freedom for end users will continue working in GPLed projects.

Funnily enough, MS and all its patent nonsense has helped us to see the benefit of including details about patents in the new version of the license. Corporations can continue "innovating", since they are reputedily so good at it I am sure they will not miss the contributions of "hippies" and "zealots".

You are not being clear.

[jotaeleemeese]

If you can't give details of what you are doing (due to contractual constraints), how for the life of the bunny can you share your monmentous programming achievements with the community?

Sorry, but there is a logical blockage there, go grab some Drano and unclogg it because what you are saying is not compiling.

Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect - lets use the original analogy. Imagine the axle is public domain, and the wheel hasn't been invented. Entity A invents the wheel based on the work that was done on the axle, and keeps it closed because the axle license allows this. Everyone else has to literally reinvent the wheel.

If the axle was GPLed Entity A has to either let everyone copy the wheel or not distribute it.

Too many companies made $$$ from the contribution

[MrJerryNormandinSir]

of the blood and sweat of avid linux developers and hobbyists. Tivo, Samsung (those cool LCD televisions run Linux!!!), LinkSYS and
others. Redhat too. Think about what they charge for advanced server. Plus advanced server is anything but, the "tweaking" they did killed AS 2.1 and 3.0-- anyone remeber the vm problem that I posted on the dell poweredge forums??? they killed Linux in the
enterprise for a while. Whitebox didn't have the problem because those tweeks were ripped out and the current kernel from the wild was used. Anyway.. think of all the $$$ Redhat made due others contributed works. GPLv3 protects us from the novell/micoshaft
deals. Novell is gonna have a hard time now... GOOD! they had no business makeing that deal. I also believe GPLv3 is gonna cause the kernel to fork. That's not going to be good for us Linux avid hobbyists or the commercial parasites.

This is fundamentally flawed

[P1erce]

If you buy a car, lets say a "Ferrari" any model at all, you dont own the licence or any rigt to its design. As such you are not allowed to recreate the car you just bought in any way. Particularly in design and in style.

As such this applies to buying a TiVo, a compeitor cant buy a TiVo and say, i own the design, the source code and its copyright. So really you have no right to touch what TiVO did, despite whatever licensing its under.

Okay you can argue that TiVo uses the linux operating system as a platform, but really just because they made something that runs on a GPL'd operating system doesnt mean they should give you source, espically if not a single line of code used inside the product is GPL'd.

You know if linux wants to stop being a cult and become mainstream it really should think about the issues with this. Why so many enterprise companies dont want to use linux is evident in this thread.

tivoisation

[yahurd]

well it is the TIVOISATION clause