I started out with laser disc, and a manufacturing flaw in those discs would cause them to degrade over time (months to years). The manufacturers would replace the discs if this happened, as it was a flaw. It's called laser rot, and comes from an oxidation of the relfective layer.
Now some group tries to implement the concept as a feature. DVD uses a different plastic than laser disc, so classic laser rot can not happen to them, but it's the same basic idea.
Remember that DIVIX comes from a group of copyright laywers. It was funded largley by Circuit City. It failed because they tried to build a product the public didn't request. DIVIX got some content providers on board, and had to pay them advance royalties to do it.
If I get this right, it means that a company (or group or individual) to build in houe stuff without distributing it. Really it's not much of a big deal. It they want to update the software, they need to incorporate those changes themselves.
Actually, this could help a company use it. Perhaps they want to code in something that shows something they don't wish to let out into the public. This may include intellectual property, or access to proprietary hardware.
In that case, the company would be allowed to maintain the code themselves.
If the GPL forced them to release this proprietary code to the community, then they would have no choice but to go to a non-GPL provider. Thus, this GPL "loophole" allows the company to use GPL code to their own benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
I started out with laser disc, and a manufacturing flaw in those discs would cause them to degrade over time (months to years). The manufacturers would replace the discs if this happened, as it was a flaw. It's called laser rot, and comes from an oxidation of the relfective layer.
Now some group tries to implement the concept as a feature. DVD uses a different plastic than laser disc, so classic laser rot can not happen to them, but it's the same basic idea.
Remember that DIVIX comes from a group of copyright laywers. It was funded largley by Circuit City. It failed because they tried to build a product the public didn't request. DIVIX got some content providers on board, and had to pay them advance royalties to do it.
Oh, well, let's hope this dies too.
If I get this right, it means that a company (or group or individual) to build in houe stuff without distributing it. Really it's not much of a big deal. It they want to update the software, they need to incorporate those changes themselves.
Actually, this could help a company use it. Perhaps they want to code in something that shows something they don't wish to let out into the public. This may include intellectual property, or access to proprietary hardware.
In that case, the company would be allowed to maintain the code themselves.
If the GPL forced them to release this proprietary code to the community, then they would have no choice but to go to a non-GPL provider. Thus, this GPL "loophole" allows the company to use GPL code to their own benefit.
Just a thought.