There's a difference between what Apple does and what MS does with service packs.
Service packs are rollups of security and bugfixes and that's it. XP SP2 was an exception because they screwed the development process of Longhorn so bad they had to release SOMETHING in the mean time, especially to fix all the huge flaws of the original XP and SP1. It was free yes, but in reality SP2 was a significant update not just a service pack.
Apple on the other hand actually introduces significant new features when they rev the version of OS X, and they do in fact charge quite a bit for them, and release them more often making it more expensive to maintain, but its worth it in my opinion.
This is actually the first Mac I've had, prior to that i've been using MS stuff since DOS 5. So while its funny to paint people as fanatics drinking the kool-aid, the reality is quite different.
It's funny to pull out the kool-aid line I know, but for what i get from Apple its worth the price to me, especially compared to XP or to a lesser extent Vista.
No i agree, in particular the EeePC situation shows why they are hesitant to end XPs support. They have nothing to put in that market at the moment, even WinCE isn't up to the task without some significant work, and XP embedded isn't intended for such a device, if only because their license appears to restrict its use to single purpose machines like slot machines and ATMs.
They have a history of supporting older OS for a long time, this isn't the first situation where they've done this, though with XP it does seem longer than usual.
Windows 2000 (end of 1999) is still supported for security updates and will be until July 13, 2010.
Windows NT 4 (from 1996) was supported with security updates until December 31, 2004.
Satellite has to be encrypted because they broadcast everything all the time, over an entire country. If they don't encrypt it, people can receive it without paying, its a compromise. They need to just quit broadcasting everything at the same time, just like cable needs to quit using the entire coax line. IP transmission on demand is the future.
If they quit doing that, this sort of DRM likely wouldn't be necessary, and at that case i agree, the DRM is anti-consumer and completely ridiculous.
We do diverge here a bit, i value having the source for certain things simply because i can make use of it elsewhere, and i can see what its doing. I'm not as concerned about modifying software in place, though i realize other people value this greatly.
Fuck RMS, he is irrelevant to this discussion. RMS "own words" are meaningless if you want to debate license issues, he can't arbitrarily reinterpret the license by speaking in public.
All that matters is what the license ACTUALLY SAYS, and both of us spelled out exactly what it says about keeping software free. I'm not even sure where you got the idea that i interpreted the GPL wrong, clearly i haven't.
"YOU MADE A CLAIM AS TO WHAT THE CORE GOAL OF THE GPL WAS. I REFUTED IT YOU REFUSE TO BELIEVE RMS'S OWN WORDS."
You didn't refute anything, you repeated what i said in more detail by spelling out those 4 freedoms:
"in reality the core goal of the GPL is to make sure anyone who IMPROVES GPL software releases that code for use by others, especially for other uses. Bzzzzt.
1. the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
2. the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors,
3. the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, and
4. the freedom to share the changes you make."
Yea, you spelled out exactly what i said. Nowhere in that list does it say anything about hardware or freedom to tinker.
"Laugh. So you think that a license that grants developers MORE freedom to distribute the code that what copyright does is going to get knocked down and the result will be what? Default copyright restrictions is what, which means tivoization wannabe users won't be able to use GPLv3 licensed software at ALL."
Really? You honestly can't see how a license that makes demands completely unrelated to software might get thrown out in court? The FSF demanding that companies release encryption keys for hardware simply because you installed GPLv3 software on it is ridiculous, and those lines in the license are probably invalid, they are overreaching and unnecessary.
I fully realize the license is invalid and you have no right to use software released under it if certain lines are found to be unenforceable. But you know what will happen? People are going to avoid GPLv3 software, these license provisions, even if no test case ever emerges, will probably never affect TiVo or anyone else, because GPLv2 versions of the software will be around forever.
Whatever, I've said what i wanted to say and you just don't like it. Tivo hasn't done anything wrong, they haven't violated the license, and they are never going to be affected by the FSFs political maneuvering.
First: "No, Linus does not. He has a firm grasp of what HIS goals are. Not what the FSF's goals are."
Goals aren't relevant here, what is relevant is the license, and i do believe Linus understands GPLv2 very well.
"What part of loophole and intent to do you fail to understand?"
You may say that V2 has a loophole in it, but I don't believe that. Read my last paragraph to see why.
I'm also not making shit up, you said "If you don't like the terms of the GPL, DON"T USE GNU CODE. Simple as that." I think you're speaking hypothetically about future situations, because *I* was talking about TiVo, and i fully believe they haven't violated the terms of the software they use, its all GPLv2. So as a result, i don't believe they should have to quit using that software.
You also said "Why you do think Tivo or anyone else is entitled to violate the terms of the GPL? Because the source code is there? You think that means its in the public domain?""
I never said TiVo or anyone else should be allowed to violate the terms of the GPLv2, and I never said anything about public domain either. I said they AREN'T violating the license, and you are implying otherwise with all this "DEVELOP YOUR OWN CODE AND STOP USING GNU IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TERMS" talk. Thats why i asked you to show me where they had violated the license because you seemed to be implying they had.
I'm just going to clarify my point and end this, because I'm arguing about TiVo and their lack of a license violation and you're talking about hypothetical situations and demanding people not use the code if they don't like the terms. We aren't arguing about the same thing anymore. I will specify the version of the GPL I'm talking about.
The locks TiVo places to prevent running modifications to GPLv2 software are in the hardware. The firmware on the TiVo (which is not GPL'd) refuses to run any version of Linux other than what it came with. As Linus correctly pointed out, this isn't a violation of the GPLv2 even in spirit or intent, because the GPLv2 doesn't apply to the hardware in any way. Simply running GPLv2 software on a device doesn't suddenly extend the freedoms of the GPLv2 to the hardware itself, because the hardware itself is not GPL'd. Even in TiVos case you still have the software code, they haven't closed it, they aren't keeping it from anyone. You still have every one of the core freedoms the GPLv2 guarantees. The right to run whatever you want on hardware that happened to come with GPL software installed is not one of those freedoms guaranteed by the GPL, even in spirit or intent.
I don't like what TiVo did, I don't think anyone can argue that they want to be locked out of their own devices. I would love to be able to screw with my TiVo, but I can't and I fully understand why. I'm not going to imply they violated the license even in spirit just because i don't like what they did.
Yes v3 might say that you have a right to any keys necessary to alter running software, but TiVo isn't using v3 software, and in any case i suspect these lines in v3 will be thrown out in court because they extend far beyond the realm of software.
I also question the claim that no one foresaw this problem when v2 was written. According to a wikipedia article posted by another commenter, in 1984 Ataris 7800 machine required game roms to be signed or the machine refused to allow use of a special graphics chip. This is a close situation to TiVo but TiVos locks are absolute. Note that the GPLv2 came out in 1991, a number of years after Atari did this, so this is not a new problem.
The thing is, stuff like satellite television HAS to be encrypted, and they protect that system quite actively. So if TiVo wants to make a box with that satellite system integrated, they have to protect it or there won't be a box at all.
That isn't the same sort of "we sold you this song but you can't do what you want with it". Granted content owners are pushing much further than "you paid for service so we let you use the content", i realize they are dictating terms of use, but at the basic level satellite HAS to be DRM'd to prevent service theft.
Thats why i believe TiVo is being so protective, and why i don't have as much of a problem with what they did. I don't like it, but i understand.
"I don't think anyone, at the time, suspected that we would ever get hardware such that the source code alone was not enough to ensure freedom to tinker.:
You CAN still tinker with the software, you just can't run modified copies of that software on the hardware, and the hardware isn't covered by the GPL, so it doesn't really apply.
Look, I pointed out a number of situations where there are more important things to consider, and you ignored them.
"If you don't the terms of the GPL, DON"T USE GNU CODE. Simple as that. Why you do think Tivo or anyone else is entitled to violate the terms of the GPL? Because the source code is there? You think that means its in the public domain?"
I have yet to see any valid claim that TiVo violated the license on the code they use, show me otherwise. You can't, and i know you can't because if they had violated the license they would have been sued already.
"At least now you know your interpretation of the GPL is completely false and you have no reason to repeat that error again."
This isn't my interpretation, that's what the fucking license says, you just don't like it. This is why TiVo hasn't been sued, they haven't violated the license IN ANY WAY. Instead the FSF chose to abuse the new V3 license to prevent TiVo from doing something even Linus himself doesn't care about.
I will quote him here for you:
"The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF says that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*. So the whole "to protect these rights, we take away other rights" argument hinges on the false premise that the new language in GPLv3 is somehow needed. It's not. You still had the right to distribute the software (and modify it), even if the *hardware* is limited to only one version."
-Linus Torvalds, Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Linux Kernel Mailing List
Now, Linus just said exactly what i said before, and he has a VERY firm understanding of the issues involved.
At this point, i seriously think you don't understand whats going on here. You seem to think because they use GPL code in full compliance with the license, they are somehow obligated to meet any number of other random demands that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LICENSE.
I don't care about RMS printer. I do understand why he started the GNU project, yes, but this is 2008 and there are other considerations. As a comparison the RMS printer thing is a poor one, TiVo doesn't need driver support and works perfectly fine out of the box, its a finished usable device people don't need to program or otherwise screw with to make it work with their TV.
"I am flat out arguing that I have the right to screw with anything I own."
Well then, if this is the most important consideration here, then TiVo will die because most users will refuse to buy one of their devices. Of course, most users don't care, which then shines some light on the real issue here. A tiny minority of users want their freedom to alter anything and everything, to the exclusion of all other considerations.
Without the ability to lock their platform TiVo probably never would have been able to release boxes that work directly with things like DirecTV and CableCARD. Those are not anti-consumer technologies the evil content owners want thrust upon the world, they prevent service theft. You can't possibly argue that you should be allowed to easily circumvent service theft protections simply because you like to tinker or because they used GPL software. And you really can't say they should HELP you do so, that's insane.
Linux has had a large chunk of the server market for a very long time. It's used in all kinds of embedded devices other than Nokia. And it makes a decent desktop OS."
My point is, Linux is just now breaking into this market, there are some niche devices using it, motorola does and some other Nokia phones do, but up to this point it has been a minority compared to symbian, WinCE, and now the ARM branch of OS X. Having the largest phone manufacturer in the world pushing Linux hard (hell they OWN TrollTech now), means it is a serious platform now for mainstream phones, the ones everyone has in their pockets and doesn't even realize the OS they run. Those phones, not $700 internet tablets or open source project phones like openmoko.
Thats the legitimacy im talking about, when random phones are running Linux and no one seems surprised about it, and end users don't even know, because its so widespread.
"However, DRM changes the game such that you may well have the source and be able to do nothing with it -- not even because of a technical limitation, but because Tivo doesn't want you hacking on your own hardware."
I think that's the subject of this article actually. If Nokia builds proprietary DRM apps in userspace it doesn't affect GPL software at all, there is no issue whatsoever, and the GPL source they use and release can be used elsewhere regardless of the DRM.
Tivo locks their platform, at least the DirecTivo and the new TivoHD, because they are obligated to protect the hardware and other software in the system that is in charge of decrypting service broadcasts. This isn't a "screw over your users" restriction, this is a "protect our service against theft" issue, they can't allow people to hack around in the system and unlock protected services.
Now, the rules do in fact keep changing, when TiVo started using that GPL code there was no such "freedom to tinker" provision in the license, so the FSF specifically changed the new V3 license to allow for it. Thats changing the rules, and TiVo is quite likely to ignore V3 software because they have very valid reasons to lock their platform, especially the DirecTivo.
I can't imagine there is anything else they would want to screw with in the GPL parts of their software stack, other than perhaps preventing modification of the kernel, something the kernel license doesn't prohibit at all, and linus himself has no problem with this sort of locking.
1. you are free to take the source TiVo releases and use it for whatever you want.
2. you can give it to anyone you want as per the GPLs terms.
3. you can modify the source and still use it for whatever you want.
4. you can give away the source you just modified in step 3:D
Nowhere in that list does it say "modify in place". You can't possibly twist the definitions given there to include "i can do whatever I want with the hardware you sold me simply because you put Linux on it".
The GPL says you can change the software to suit your needs, for example Apple modifying CUPS to suit their own operating system, or Sun modifying GRUB to boot their own kernel, or indeed anyone taking TiVos modified GPL source and using those improvements elsewhere. They can't lock the code away after improving it, and they haven't done that. They release all source they are required to release, the rest of the software running on a TiVo machine you never had a right to use elsewhere or modify in the first place.
The GPL, and the code released under it that TiVo uses, doesn't dictate what you can or can't run on specific hardware. You are never going to convince me that TiVo should be required to let you run whatever you want on their hardware, and heres why. Take the DirecTivo for instance, this isn't just a MIPS or PPC box, it has DirecTV specific hardware in it including encryption keys, smartcard hardware and other systems designed to protect satellite broadcasts, something DirecTV goes to great lengths to protect and I assume TiVo is also obligated to protect as well. So taken as a whole, TiVo can't allow people to screw with parts of the system that may interfere with things you have no right to screw with, including the parts of the system that protect satellite broadcasts.
Somehow this situation with software licensing went from being one of protecting source code and keeping it available for others to use, into a political situation with the FSF attempting to dictate terms that have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting source code. You can't possibly argue that you should be allowed to screw with anything GPL software comes into contact with.
You make perfect sense there I just don't believe you.
Code signing doesn't require what you describe, you can sign code that has already been compiled and a system can check that signature before running it.
What TiVo did to protect their systems was cause the firmware to measure the initrd and the initrd i believe measures the kernel, as far as i remember.
It's probably worth noting that Linus doesn't see any problem with what Tivo did, and in reality the core goal of the GPL is to make sure anyone who IMPROVES GPL software releases that code for use by others, especially for other uses.
So in that respect, everything TiVo has done to improve the software, even the kernel, has in fact been released as source. Nowhere in the GPLv2 does it say anything about being able to modify software in place, which is why they moved the goalpost with GPLv3 and abused the license to achieve things the original license had nothing to do with.
Huh? How does the GPLv3 even apply at all to separate code? I fail to see how simply running software alongside GPLv3 code suddenly causes the GPLv3 to apply to the entire platform or any other code running on it. If Nokia builds interfaces and media applications in userspace using their own code the GPLv3 has nothing to do with it.
Furthermore, the kernel is GPLv2, so V3 is never going to apply to anything they do to the kernel anyway.
Like i said, they are going to avoid linux if the license issues become ridiculous, and FSF seems to want to push that direction even when companies comply in full.
What makes you think Nokia doesn't contribute back to Linux? You think the only value to be had comes from code being contributed back? Simply having the largest handset manufacturer in the world using Linux gives the platform legitimacy it otherwise DOES NOT HAVE. And in any case i question your implication that Nokia doesn't contribute anything to Linux.
As far as i can tell Nokia IS playing by the rules, the problem is the rules keep fucking changing.
Actually I've come to see the value of DRM, as long as you consider it to be very weak protection it works fine, granted its unnecessary in most cases but there are a few valid uses for it, like digital rentals.
Of course there are companies who want DRM to be a hard lock, unbreakable even if it screws over users in the process by breaking all sorts of other things.
If your library is LGPL and you link to it dynamically you don't have to release as GPL any app making use of that library.
And, putting software on a device and giving it to users IS distributing it, if they mix GPL code into a proprietary DRM app or something, they must either stop using the GPL code or GPL their own app, simply saying "we just put it on the device" will get them sued.
Exactly, if Nokia wants to build proprietary applications on top of even a GPLv3 software stack they can do so and comply with all the licenses involved.
In fact, they can even use LGPL system libraries and dynamically link them in to a DRM app of some kind.
Of course the FSF hates that, and actively encourages people to license libraries under GPL itself, because they like to move the goalpost for developers and users a lot.
It may end up that building proprietary apps on a GNU/Linux platform means completely avoiding even the standard system libraries, if your app isn't GPL you can't use GPL system libraries at that point.
You should really spread the "signed binary" love around more, Apple is doing exactly that NOW on the iPhone, and lots of people think they want to do it on OS X as well at some point to stay ahead of any possible malware problems.
I don't think Nokia is taking the wrong position here, they have to satisfy a number of different interests, and as long as they comply with the license terms of the software they use I don't see a problem.
The alternative is to choose a different OS to build on, and with some exceptions most open source advocates don't want to see that happen, because it would be bad for the platform if companies stop using it.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between what Apple does and what MS does with service packs.
Service packs are rollups of security and bugfixes and that's it. XP SP2 was an exception because they screwed the development process of Longhorn so bad they had to release SOMETHING in the mean time, especially to fix all the huge flaws of the original XP and SP1. It was free yes, but in reality SP2 was a significant update not just a service pack.
Apple on the other hand actually introduces significant new features when they rev the version of OS X, and they do in fact charge quite a bit for them, and release them more often making it more expensive to maintain, but its worth it in my opinion.
This is actually the first Mac I've had, prior to that i've been using MS stuff since DOS 5. So while its funny to paint people as fanatics drinking the kool-aid, the reality is quite different.
Yea...
It's funny to pull out the kool-aid line I know, but for what i get from Apple its worth the price to me, especially compared to XP or to a lesser extent Vista.
No i agree, in particular the EeePC situation shows why they are hesitant to end XPs support. They have nothing to put in that market at the moment, even WinCE isn't up to the task without some significant work, and XP embedded isn't intended for such a device, if only because their license appears to restrict its use to single purpose machines like slot machines and ATMs.
Yea but, whats the point?
If things can be accomplished with COMPLETELY open and free (as in freedom) frameworks and languages, why choose Flash?
When you say teen pussy, is that in dog years?
"Linux has support for hardware, protocols, filesystems and technologies LONG before Windows does."
You mean reverse engineering stuff that isn't supported by the manufacturer? That doesn't usually work out so well.
But for open spec stuff i agree, it gets implemented quick in Linux.
At least Apple actually gives users SOMETHING for that extra money.
They have a history of supporting older OS for a long time, this isn't the first situation where they've done this, though with XP it does seem longer than usual.
Windows 2000 (end of 1999) is still supported for security updates and will be until July 13, 2010.
Windows NT 4 (from 1996) was supported with security updates until December 31, 2004.
Satellite has to be encrypted because they broadcast everything all the time, over an entire country. If they don't encrypt it, people can receive it without paying, its a compromise. They need to just quit broadcasting everything at the same time, just like cable needs to quit using the entire coax line. IP transmission on demand is the future.
If they quit doing that, this sort of DRM likely wouldn't be necessary, and at that case i agree, the DRM is anti-consumer and completely ridiculous.
We do diverge here a bit, i value having the source for certain things simply because i can make use of it elsewhere, and i can see what its doing. I'm not as concerned about modifying software in place, though i realize other people value this greatly.
Fuck RMS, he is irrelevant to this discussion. RMS "own words" are meaningless if you want to debate license issues, he can't arbitrarily reinterpret the license by speaking in public.
All that matters is what the license ACTUALLY SAYS, and both of us spelled out exactly what it says about keeping software free. I'm not even sure where you got the idea that i interpreted the GPL wrong, clearly i haven't.
"YOU MADE A CLAIM AS TO WHAT THE CORE GOAL OF THE GPL WAS. I REFUTED IT YOU REFUSE TO BELIEVE RMS'S OWN WORDS."
You didn't refute anything, you repeated what i said in more detail by spelling out those 4 freedoms:
"in reality the core goal of the GPL is to make sure anyone who IMPROVES GPL software releases that code for use by others, especially for other uses.
Bzzzzt.
1. the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
2. the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors,
3. the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, and
4. the freedom to share the changes you make."
Yea, you spelled out exactly what i said. Nowhere in that list does it say anything about hardware or freedom to tinker.
"Laugh. So you think that a license that grants developers MORE freedom to distribute the code that what copyright does is going to get knocked down and the result will be what? Default copyright restrictions is what, which means tivoization wannabe users won't be able to use GPLv3 licensed software at ALL."
Really? You honestly can't see how a license that makes demands completely unrelated to software might get thrown out in court? The FSF demanding that companies release encryption keys for hardware simply because you installed GPLv3 software on it is ridiculous, and those lines in the license are probably invalid, they are overreaching and unnecessary.
I fully realize the license is invalid and you have no right to use software released under it if certain lines are found to be unenforceable. But you know what will happen? People are going to avoid GPLv3 software, these license provisions, even if no test case ever emerges, will probably never affect TiVo or anyone else, because GPLv2 versions of the software will be around forever.
Whatever, I've said what i wanted to say and you just don't like it. Tivo hasn't done anything wrong, they haven't violated the license, and they are never going to be affected by the FSFs political maneuvering.
First: "No, Linus does not. He has a firm grasp of what HIS goals are. Not what the FSF's goals are."
Goals aren't relevant here, what is relevant is the license, and i do believe Linus understands GPLv2 very well.
"What part of loophole and intent to do you fail to understand?"
You may say that V2 has a loophole in it, but I don't believe that. Read my last paragraph to see why.
I'm also not making shit up, you said "If you don't like the terms of the GPL, DON"T USE GNU CODE. Simple as that." I think you're speaking hypothetically about future situations, because *I* was talking about TiVo, and i fully believe they haven't violated the terms of the software they use, its all GPLv2. So as a result, i don't believe they should have to quit using that software.
You also said "Why you do think Tivo or anyone else is entitled to violate the terms of the GPL? Because the source code is there? You think that means its in the public domain?""
I never said TiVo or anyone else should be allowed to violate the terms of the GPLv2, and I never said anything about public domain either. I said they AREN'T violating the license, and you are implying otherwise with all this "DEVELOP YOUR OWN CODE AND STOP USING GNU IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TERMS" talk. Thats why i asked you to show me where they had violated the license because you seemed to be implying they had.
I'm just going to clarify my point and end this, because I'm arguing about TiVo and their lack of a license violation and you're talking about hypothetical situations and demanding people not use the code if they don't like the terms. We aren't arguing about the same thing anymore. I will specify the version of the GPL I'm talking about.
The locks TiVo places to prevent running modifications to GPLv2 software are in the hardware. The firmware on the TiVo (which is not GPL'd) refuses to run any version of Linux other than what it came with. As Linus correctly pointed out, this isn't a violation of the GPLv2 even in spirit or intent, because the GPLv2 doesn't apply to the hardware in any way. Simply running GPLv2 software on a device doesn't suddenly extend the freedoms of the GPLv2 to the hardware itself, because the hardware itself is not GPL'd. Even in TiVos case you still have the software code, they haven't closed it, they aren't keeping it from anyone. You still have every one of the core freedoms the GPLv2 guarantees. The right to run whatever you want on hardware that happened to come with GPL software installed is not one of those freedoms guaranteed by the GPL, even in spirit or intent.
I don't like what TiVo did, I don't think anyone can argue that they want to be locked out of their own devices. I would love to be able to screw with my TiVo, but I can't and I fully understand why. I'm not going to imply they violated the license even in spirit just because i don't like what they did.
Yes v3 might say that you have a right to any keys necessary to alter running software, but TiVo isn't using v3 software, and in any case i suspect these lines in v3 will be thrown out in court because they extend far beyond the realm of software.
I also question the claim that no one foresaw this problem when v2 was written. According to a wikipedia article posted by another commenter, in 1984 Ataris 7800 machine required game roms to be signed or the machine refused to allow use of a special graphics chip. This is a close situation to TiVo but TiVos locks are absolute. Note that the GPLv2 came out in 1991, a number of years after Atari did this, so this is not a new problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_7800#Lockout_features
The thing is, stuff like satellite television HAS to be encrypted, and they protect that system quite actively. So if TiVo wants to make a box with that satellite system integrated, they have to protect it or there won't be a box at all.
That isn't the same sort of "we sold you this song but you can't do what you want with it". Granted content owners are pushing much further than "you paid for service so we let you use the content", i realize they are dictating terms of use, but at the basic level satellite HAS to be DRM'd to prevent service theft.
Thats why i believe TiVo is being so protective, and why i don't have as much of a problem with what they did. I don't like it, but i understand.
"I don't think anyone, at the time, suspected that we would ever get hardware such that the source code alone was not enough to ensure freedom to tinker.:
You CAN still tinker with the software, you just can't run modified copies of that software on the hardware, and the hardware isn't covered by the GPL, so it doesn't really apply.
"No, there are no other considerations."
Look, I pointed out a number of situations where there are more important things to consider, and you ignored them.
"If you don't the terms of the GPL, DON"T USE GNU CODE. Simple as that. Why you do think Tivo or anyone else is entitled to violate the terms of the GPL? Because the source code is there? You think that means its in the public domain?"
I have yet to see any valid claim that TiVo violated the license on the code they use, show me otherwise. You can't, and i know you can't because if they had violated the license they would have been sued already.
"At least now you know your interpretation of the GPL is completely false and you have no reason to repeat that error again."
This isn't my interpretation, that's what the fucking license says, you just don't like it. This is why TiVo hasn't been sued, they haven't violated the license IN ANY WAY. Instead the FSF chose to abuse the new V3 license to prevent TiVo from doing something even Linus himself doesn't care about.
I will quote him here for you:
"The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF says that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*. So the whole "to protect these rights, we take away other rights" argument hinges on the false premise that the new language in GPLv3 is somehow needed. It's not. You still had the right to distribute the software (and modify it), even if the *hardware* is limited to only one version."
-Linus Torvalds, Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Linux Kernel Mailing List
Now, Linus just said exactly what i said before, and he has a VERY firm understanding of the issues involved.
At this point, i seriously think you don't understand whats going on here. You seem to think because they use GPL code in full compliance with the license, they are somehow obligated to meet any number of other random demands that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LICENSE.
I don't care about RMS printer. I do understand why he started the GNU project, yes, but this is 2008 and there are other considerations. As a comparison the RMS printer thing is a poor one, TiVo doesn't need driver support and works perfectly fine out of the box, its a finished usable device people don't need to program or otherwise screw with to make it work with their TV.
"I am flat out arguing that I have the right to screw with anything I own."
Well then, if this is the most important consideration here, then TiVo will die because most users will refuse to buy one of their devices. Of course, most users don't care, which then shines some light on the real issue here. A tiny minority of users want their freedom to alter anything and everything, to the exclusion of all other considerations.
Without the ability to lock their platform TiVo probably never would have been able to release boxes that work directly with things like DirecTV and CableCARD. Those are not anti-consumer technologies the evil content owners want thrust upon the world, they prevent service theft. You can't possibly argue that you should be allowed to easily circumvent service theft protections simply because you like to tinker or because they used GPL software. And you really can't say they should HELP you do so, that's insane.
"Huh?
Linux has had a large chunk of the server market for a very long time. It's used in all kinds of embedded devices other than Nokia. And it makes a decent desktop OS."
My point is, Linux is just now breaking into this market, there are some niche devices using it, motorola does and some other Nokia phones do, but up to this point it has been a minority compared to symbian, WinCE, and now the ARM branch of OS X. Having the largest phone manufacturer in the world pushing Linux hard (hell they OWN TrollTech now), means it is a serious platform now for mainstream phones, the ones everyone has in their pockets and doesn't even realize the OS they run. Those phones, not $700 internet tablets or open source project phones like openmoko.
Thats the legitimacy im talking about, when random phones are running Linux and no one seems surprised about it, and end users don't even know, because its so widespread.
"However, DRM changes the game such that you may well have the source and be able to do nothing with it -- not even because of a technical limitation, but because Tivo doesn't want you hacking on your own hardware."
I think that's the subject of this article actually. If Nokia builds proprietary DRM apps in userspace it doesn't affect GPL software at all, there is no issue whatsoever, and the GPL source they use and release can be used elsewhere regardless of the DRM.
Tivo locks their platform, at least the DirecTivo and the new TivoHD, because they are obligated to protect the hardware and other software in the system that is in charge of decrypting service broadcasts. This isn't a "screw over your users" restriction, this is a "protect our service against theft" issue, they can't allow people to hack around in the system and unlock protected services.
Now, the rules do in fact keep changing, when TiVo started using that GPL code there was no such "freedom to tinker" provision in the license, so the FSF specifically changed the new V3 license to allow for it. Thats changing the rules, and TiVo is quite likely to ignore V3 software because they have very valid reasons to lock their platform, especially the DirecTivo.
I can't imagine there is anything else they would want to screw with in the GPL parts of their software stack, other than perhaps preventing modification of the kernel, something the kernel license doesn't prohibit at all, and linus himself has no problem with this sort of locking.
1. you are free to take the source TiVo releases and use it for whatever you want.
:D
2. you can give it to anyone you want as per the GPLs terms.
3. you can modify the source and still use it for whatever you want.
4. you can give away the source you just modified in step 3
Nowhere in that list does it say "modify in place". You can't possibly twist the definitions given there to include "i can do whatever I want with the hardware you sold me simply because you put Linux on it".
The GPL says you can change the software to suit your needs, for example Apple modifying CUPS to suit their own operating system, or Sun modifying GRUB to boot their own kernel, or indeed anyone taking TiVos modified GPL source and using those improvements elsewhere. They can't lock the code away after improving it, and they haven't done that. They release all source they are required to release, the rest of the software running on a TiVo machine you never had a right to use elsewhere or modify in the first place.
The GPL, and the code released under it that TiVo uses, doesn't dictate what you can or can't run on specific hardware. You are never going to convince me that TiVo should be required to let you run whatever you want on their hardware, and heres why. Take the DirecTivo for instance, this isn't just a MIPS or PPC box, it has DirecTV specific hardware in it including encryption keys, smartcard hardware and other systems designed to protect satellite broadcasts, something DirecTV goes to great lengths to protect and I assume TiVo is also obligated to protect as well. So taken as a whole, TiVo can't allow people to screw with parts of the system that may interfere with things you have no right to screw with, including the parts of the system that protect satellite broadcasts.
Somehow this situation with software licensing went from being one of protecting source code and keeping it available for others to use, into a political situation with the FSF attempting to dictate terms that have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting source code. You can't possibly argue that you should be allowed to screw with anything GPL software comes into contact with.
You make perfect sense there I just don't believe you.
Code signing doesn't require what you describe, you can sign code that has already been compiled and a system can check that signature before running it.
What TiVo did to protect their systems was cause the firmware to measure the initrd and the initrd i believe measures the kernel, as far as i remember.
It's probably worth noting that Linus doesn't see any problem with what Tivo did, and in reality the core goal of the GPL is to make sure anyone who IMPROVES GPL software releases that code for use by others, especially for other uses.
So in that respect, everything TiVo has done to improve the software, even the kernel, has in fact been released as source. Nowhere in the GPLv2 does it say anything about being able to modify software in place, which is why they moved the goalpost with GPLv3 and abused the license to achieve things the original license had nothing to do with.
Huh? How does the GPLv3 even apply at all to separate code? I fail to see how simply running software alongside GPLv3 code suddenly causes the GPLv3 to apply to the entire platform or any other code running on it. If Nokia builds interfaces and media applications in userspace using their own code the GPLv3 has nothing to do with it.
Furthermore, the kernel is GPLv2, so V3 is never going to apply to anything they do to the kernel anyway.
Like i said, they are going to avoid linux if the license issues become ridiculous, and FSF seems to want to push that direction even when companies comply in full.
What makes you think Nokia doesn't contribute back to Linux? You think the only value to be had comes from code being contributed back? Simply having the largest handset manufacturer in the world using Linux gives the platform legitimacy it otherwise DOES NOT HAVE. And in any case i question your implication that Nokia doesn't contribute anything to Linux.
As far as i can tell Nokia IS playing by the rules, the problem is the rules keep fucking changing.
I like Googhoo, but only on an empty stomach.
Actually I've come to see the value of DRM, as long as you consider it to be very weak protection it works fine, granted its unnecessary in most cases but there are a few valid uses for it, like digital rentals.
Of course there are companies who want DRM to be a hard lock, unbreakable even if it screws over users in the process by breaking all sorts of other things.
Yea, but thats not enough for some people. TiVo didn't actually violate the GPL license either and they got attacked quite a bit.
Granted they made the hardware measure the boot process before allowing it to boot, but the core problem is the same.
People aren't going to be happy about a company using Linux on one hand, while locking the platform in some way.
Freedom to tinker will show its head here sooner or later.
If your library is LGPL and you link to it dynamically you don't have to release as GPL any app making use of that library.
And, putting software on a device and giving it to users IS distributing it, if they mix GPL code into a proprietary DRM app or something, they must either stop using the GPL code or GPL their own app, simply saying "we just put it on the device" will get them sued.
Exactly, if Nokia wants to build proprietary applications on top of even a GPLv3 software stack they can do so and comply with all the licenses involved.
In fact, they can even use LGPL system libraries and dynamically link them in to a DRM app of some kind.
Of course the FSF hates that, and actively encourages people to license libraries under GPL itself, because they like to move the goalpost for developers and users a lot.
It may end up that building proprietary apps on a GNU/Linux platform means completely avoiding even the standard system libraries, if your app isn't GPL you can't use GPL system libraries at that point.
You should really spread the "signed binary" love around more, Apple is doing exactly that NOW on the iPhone, and lots of people think they want to do it on OS X as well at some point to stay ahead of any possible malware problems.
I don't think Nokia is taking the wrong position here, they have to satisfy a number of different interests, and as long as they comply with the license terms of the software they use I don't see a problem.
The alternative is to choose a different OS to build on, and with some exceptions most open source advocates don't want to see that happen, because it would be bad for the platform if companies stop using it.