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."
Whatever happens with everything else, I thought Linus said Linux wouldn't be distributed under GPLv3
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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?
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.
"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.
Even if Linux doesn't go GPL3, presumably they're using a lot of GNU userspace stuff, like glibc.
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.
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...
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
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.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
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)
Well, the DMCA states that you can't remove/disable DRM. The GPLv3 "allows" users to remove DRM.
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.
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?
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.
I'm trying to feel bad for Tivo, but it isn't working for some reason. I wonder why that is... wierd.
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.
NetBSD: the cathedral vs the bizzare.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FAQs are evil.
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.
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.
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
Maybe I was wrong.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
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.
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!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
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."
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.
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...
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
"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.
The day they do that is the day everyone jumps ship from the GPL.
"We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
Note the word "verbatim". The ability to make modifications is a pretty big part of BSD.
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.
What are VCR manufacturers doing to achieve lack of lawsuits for providing exactly the same features without DRM?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Its that simple
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
What would Lemmy do?
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.
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.
...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.
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".
What would Lemmy do?
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.
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?
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?
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).
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
*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..
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.
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.
They just move to a BSD-centric model and stay away from GPLized code.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
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.
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
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.
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.
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!
You may be right, but I've got a ReplayTV, and I remember them going bankrupt defending the ability to automatically skip commercials.
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.
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?
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
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.
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.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseG
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.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
"Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one"
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
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
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
Linux Says Tivo Could Make It Could Suffer Under GPLv2
A journaled filesystem. No, softupdates does not count.
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.
Infuriate left and right
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.
http://www.writeitfor.us - Writing IT for the IT generation.
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).
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.
Infuriate left and right
"Oh, if GPLv3 is used, we won't be able to use our pointless DRM any more!" Cry me a river, TIVO.
Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
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.
If there's anyone I hate more than stupid people, it's intellectuals.
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!
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.
If there's anyone I hate more than stupid people, it's intellectuals.
Wow how can I possibly contend against such an eloquent refuting of all my points.
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.
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.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
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.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
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!"
-Yourmomisfasterthanabeowulfcluster
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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...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.
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.
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.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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.
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...
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
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, ...
hany
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.
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
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
yep, i would go to be crying for weeks if Tivo went under...
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
> 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?
"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 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.
Well then, great news, isn't it
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?
No offense, but I don't think the free software community really wants your DRM code, we're not really losing out here.
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
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.
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.
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.
I guess they should move the Tivo to FreeBSD then...
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
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.
Infuriate left and right
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"
I am trolling
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.
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?
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.
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).
This is something I am going to worry about for a minute portion of a nanosecond.
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.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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!?
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.
Infuriate left and right
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
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That is an audio format.
You can implement encoders or decoders using whatever licence you want.
Crappy example frankly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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....
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
http://www.neurosaudio.com/
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
'' 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.
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".
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
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.
*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...
"Gee! This almost sounds like the content creators vs the illegal downloaders debate all over again." That just proves the debate is unavoidable. :)
Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.