Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
Too bad !
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
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?
"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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.
Agreed. GPL may be more restrictive than the BSD license, but it certainly is more conducive to creating a community of free software.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"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.
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."
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".
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
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.
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...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
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.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
[..] 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.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, and you just want to play patsy to some OEM and tell yourself that that's somehow "freedom".
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.
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.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
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.
I wouldn't expect to, since I don't own the meters or utility pipes.
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?.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.