Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

TiVo Says It Could Suffer Under GPLv3

Posted by kdawson on Sun Jun 03, 2007 01:52 AM
from the no-prevention-of-hacking dept.
Media Television GNU is Not Unix Linux Business
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Linux: Microsoft Gets Novell Docs Before OSS Community 77 comments
flydpnkrtn sends in an InformationWeek article arising out of Novell's SEC filing yesterday, asking: "Is this just more Novell-bashing material? Or is this no big deal? And of course this type of thing runs contrary to the 'spirit of the GPL'..." "Under its controversial alliance with Novell, Microsoft is entitled to receive key technical documentation from the Linux distributor even if that documentation is not generally available to open source software developers, according to a Novell document."
[+] GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3 567 comments
chessweb writes "Here is a rather enlightening article by Richard Stallman on the reasons for moving to GPLv3 that puts the previous TiVo post into the right context." From the article: "One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called 'appliances') contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software... The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs. It doesn't forbid DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add them."
[+] Retailers Leak New TiVo HD Specs and Price 163 comments
Brent writes "Retailers goofed and posted most of the specs of the forthcoming TiVo Series 3 Lite, which Ars says may be called 'TiVo HD' at launch. A comparison with the standard Series 3 shows that for a savings of $300, you only lose the OLED screen (do you need a screen on your TiVo?), the glowing remote (which you can pickup for $50 anyway), THX certification (worthless) and 90GB of storage. Looks like it may be a TiVo hacker's dream."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

TiVo Says It Could Suffer Under GPLv3 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Huh? (Score:4, Informative)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Sunday June 03 2007, @01:55AM (#19368863) Journal
    Whatever happens with everything else, I thought Linus said Linux wouldn't be distributed under GPLv3

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

      by LocalH (28506) on Sunday June 03 2007, @02:00AM (#19368893) Homepage
      Notice they specifically said "GNU/Linux".

    • Just a kernel doesn't do much for you (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Rix (54095) on Sunday June 03 2007, @02:02AM (#19368903)
      Even if Linux doesn't go GPL3, presumably they're using a lot of GNU userspace stuff, like glibc.

      • Re:Just a kernel doesn't do much for you (Score:5, Informative)

        by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Sunday June 03 2007, @04:03AM (#19369397) Homepage

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

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

        • Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:5, Insightful)

          by A beautiful mind (821714) on Sunday June 03 2007, @02:25AM (#19368999)
          By this logic a dictatorship is the only free system, because it includes the freedom to take away yours. And the system lives with that "freedom".

          • Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ricree (969643) on Sunday June 03 2007, @02:29AM (#19369027)
            Agreed. GPL may be more restrictive than the BSD license, but it certainly is more conducive to creating a community of free software.

          • Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:4, Insightful)

            by 91degrees (207121) on Sunday June 03 2007, @03:00AM (#19369173) Journal
            Anarchy is the only free system, but most freedom lovers aren't all that keen on that as a concept. The GPL is free in most respects except that you are not free to make in non-free. Some people see this as a price worth paying.

          • Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:4, Interesting)

            by WgT2 (591074) on Sunday June 03 2007, @06:58AM (#19370151) Journal

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

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

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

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

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

              • Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Guido del Confuso (80037) on Sunday June 03 2007, @05:12AM (#19369685)
                OK, I'll bite. Exactly how does the BSD license allow you to take away someone else's freedom? That's like saying that performing a Shakespeare play somehow prevents other people from performing it. The people who put on the specific performance may say what can and can't be done with a specific performance (e.g. whether it can be recorded, the recording distributed, etc.), which is the way it always has been. Anyone else can still go back to the original and create a new performance. The BSD license is essentially the same thing as having works in the public domain (except that you are required to credit the author). The point of the public domain is that works are free for all comers to use as they wish. This has been the case as long as copyright has existed. Saying that you can somehow take away somebody else's freedom by using works in the public domain, or under the BSD license, is pure doublespeak.

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

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

                "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." To that I would add, "Restrictions are Rights."
                • If you RTFA then you will find out that TiVo is worried because under GPLv3 they cannot take away your freedoms.
                  If they used BSD then they could.
                    • Guido, your argument was very good. You had me questioning my own preference for the GPL over BSD license. (My preference in that direction is not very strong, and there are situations where I prefer the BSD license.) But cheater512's argument was stronger (and nice and succinct, as you pointed out). I don't understand why you had to cut him down.

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

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

                    • Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:5, Insightful)

                      by Guido del Confuso (80037) on Sunday June 03 2007, @07:27AM (#19370295)
                      I "cut him down" because my whole point was that Tivo cannot take away your freedoms. They may not give you any new freedoms, but they can't take away anything you already have. You may ask, what about your right to hack your Tivo? I'd respond, what about their right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked? They are equivalent freedoms. You may not like their rights, and may in fact prefer to deprive them of those rights. And that's fine, but don't say you're promoting freedom. You're forcing Tivo to do something they didn't want to do in order to be granted a license to use your software. Force is antithetical to freedom. The "why" doesn't really matter.

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

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

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

                    • Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:5, Insightful)

                      by Waffle Iron (339739) on Sunday June 03 2007, @08:03AM (#19370515)

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

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

                    • Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:5, Insightful)

                      by Waffle Iron (339739) on Sunday June 03 2007, @08:50AM (#19370799)

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

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

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

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

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

                      You just want to play pretend hacker with your toys.

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

                    • Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:5, Insightful)

                      by Waffle Iron (339739) on Sunday June 03 2007, @10:21AM (#19371449)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  • Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:5, Insightful)

                    by Guido del Confuso (80037) on Sunday June 03 2007, @07:42AM (#19370381)
                    Let me give you an example. Say you have three available software licenses for source code.

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

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

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

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

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

                    • Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:5, Insightful)

                      by Antimatter3009 (886953) on Sunday June 03 2007, @08:57AM (#19370857)
                      The best way I've ever seen the GPL vs. BSD debate put was something like this: GPL makes software free, BSD makes people free. BSD allows people to do much more with the code, meaning they have more freedom. However, GPL forces that code and any changes you make to be free as well, taking away some choice from the people, but ensuring the software itself and all variations will remain free. It seems like this argument is centering around the definition of free and what it applies to. Really, there are two different applications of the word.

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

        • This may finally be the motivation the BSD world needs to replace GNU software, like the C library and compilers, with truly free alternatives.
          The problem with "truly free software" is that companies/people are free to make it non-free. While that would be great for companies like Tivo, it is bad for end users, since they do NOT get the freedom to further enhance the proprietary fork of the code.

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

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

            Proprietary forks are rarely bad for end users in general. The vast majority have no interest in enhancing the code, or getting someone to enhance it for them. However end users in general benefit from the proprietary code forking off of open code. Compare Apple's Mac OS X to Microsoft's Windows. Consider Microsoft's use of the TCP/IP stack. GPL 3 type tactics merely encourage companies to reinvent the wheel, to indulge in not-invented-here tendencies. Such tactics also deter investors and make it that much more difficult from startups to form or succeed. It squeezes the middle between the hobbyists at one end and the big companies at the other. I'd argue that end users benefit when there is a healthy and vibrant startup community.

            • Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Znork (31774) on Sunday June 03 2007, @04:28AM (#19369499)
              "GPL 3 type tactics merely encourage companies to reinvent the wheel,"

              You mean, encourage companies _who do not want to share back_ to reinvent the wheel.

              When they are free to proprietarize the open code, then _everyone else_ has to reinvent the wheel. Take a look at the vast horde of failed or utterly changed BSD based proprietary unixes over the last two decades.

              Copylefts minimize the duplication of effort by ensuring that all effort cooperatively survives and evolves; allowing proprietary offshoots merely raises the baseline off which the duplication and NIH syndrome starts.

              "It squeezes the middle between the hobbyists at one end and the big companies at the other."

              Again, the last two decades indicate otherwise. I see few small to midsize BSD companies these days; the main winners seem to be the large companies. Which fits well when you have a joint baseline; the large companies can throw more resources on building above the baseline than the small, and as they dont have to give back, the smaller ones will have a hard time competing in the next round.

            • Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Kjella (173770) on Sunday June 03 2007, @05:15AM (#19369691) Homepage
              Proprietary forks are rarely bad for end users in general. The vast majority have no interest in enhancing the code, or getting someone to enhance it for them. However end users in general benefit from the proprietary code forking off of open code. Compare Apple's Mac OS X to Microsoft's Windows. Consider Microsoft's use of the TCP/IP stack. GPL 3 type tactics merely encourage companies to reinvent the wheel, to indulge in not-invented-here tendencies.

              Of course standing on the shoulders of giants helps. However, over time you'd wish that these giants get taller so that the gap between what open source can deliver and the user expects gets smaller. How much has OS X done to promote the BSD desktop? Preciously little. Companies don't want the proprietary layer to get thinner, they want it to get thicker so that any competitors must reimplement more to compete. Either through fair means by building a better mouse trap, or dirty "embrace-extend-extinguish" tactics. Open source is used only because a proprietary kernel wouldn't give Apple any advantage big enough to justify the cost. You're missing the fact that every company is in the "force other companies to reinvent the wheel" mode.

              Such tactics also deter investors and make it that much more difficult from startups to form or succeed. It squeezes the middle between the hobbyists at one end and the big companies at the other. I'd argue that end users benefit when there is a healthy and vibrant startup community.

              Yes, it's really hard to make a startup when there's a bunch of GPL zealots that'll immidiately create an OSS clone. But, what would you like to do about that? Make GPL verboten? If anything this proves that the GPL creates a more efficient marketplace where you can either create value faster or get out. And you're ignoring that if proprietary software had their way, it wouldn't be "take open source and add our little value add code on top" it would be "take open source, reinvent whole proprietary layer, then add our little value add code on top".
            • Huh? No, nobody benefits much from proprietary forks except the companies making them.

              Who has benefited from the BSD code usage in OS X? Well, Apple and... pretty much nobody else. I haven't benefited from Microsoft's use of the BSD licensed TCP stack, only Microsoft has.

              Now compare one GPLd project I'm familiar with: Second Life.

              I and other developers benefited from the released source because now I can add my improvements and fix bugs, which can find their way to their official client.

              Linden Labs has benefited because people worked on and improved parts that were less critical to LL at the time, so they wouldn't have had them for a long time. There was a LL developer on the mailing list (forget who), who said something along the lines of "I was going to do work on that, but turns out somebody already done it!". The result for LL is that the client gets developed faster than it would be otherwise. It also improves things a lot in the more boring and obscure parts of the codebase. A LL developer probably won't see much interest in overhauling the chat log system, but a contributor who isn't skilled enough to work on the renderer might.

              The general userbase also benefited: Bugs are getting fixed faster. Knowledgeable users now can give informed replies to technical questions. Inside SL, there seems to be an emerging industry where companies pay developers to make modifications to the viewer. Developers can code new features requested by users who can't. For instance, I've coded a few hacks (not very elegant still, but they do the job) that work around some limitations in SL.

              Now THAT is a vibrant community. The usage of BSD code by MS and Apple isn't, it's simply freeloading. Obviously people writing BSD licensed code are in their own right to allow it, but it doesn't really benefit anybody but those who are taking it.

            • Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ... (Score:5, Interesting)

              by babbling (952366) on Sunday June 03 2007, @06:50AM (#19370115)
              This is why you should pick a license appropriate for your software. Richard Stallman has actually endorsed the use of BSD-like licenses for Ogg Vorbis libraries since it is in the interests of the community to have such code in use as widely as possible.

          • Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:5, Interesting)

            by evanbd (210358) on Sunday June 03 2007, @03:22AM (#19369253)

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

  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Protonk (599901) on Sunday June 03 2007, @01:57AM (#19368869) Homepage
    Gpl3 is divisive, but correct in this case. Companies like Tivo benefit from the OSS model of tinker/hack/remake and still restrict users in doing the same. The same privileges that are extended to end users with the source code should be established with the freedom to tinker.

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

    • Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Brotherred (1015243) on Sunday June 03 2007, @03:58AM (#19369379)

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

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

    • That's fine (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday June 03 2007, @04:11AM (#19369425)
      However then don't get mad if companies do as you suggest and stop using Linux. Linux is getting widely used in embedded type devices because it is good quality for that and doesn't cost anything. Thus it is a good starting point. The condition of having to release source code changes is minor enough that companies are ok with it. However it isn't the only game in town. There's plenty of commercial solutions like vxWorks, QNX and even Windows (there's a special embedded version of XP you can get). While many companies would rather not pay the money, if the Linux license becomes too restrictive, they'll do it.

      Make no mistake, that's what they are talking about with the GPL is a more restrictive license. The idea behind it may be to encourage more free development but the license itself is more restrictive.

      This isn't necessarily a good thing as you have to have a balance if you want to be large and get good stuff back. If you license is too open, like a BSD license, everyone may use your stuff, but you'll never see any of it back and thus it doesn't do you any good in terms of having more contributed. However if you license is too restrictive you can find yourself in a situation where people don't use your stuff at all. Even if you license is designed to ensure that everyone has access to all the changes, that doesn't do any good if no changes are made.

      One of the reasons that Linux enjoys the success it does is that I think the GPLv2 does a great job of striking a balance. You still have to give your code out, but there aren't really any restrictions of what you can do with it. I am worried that if a more restrictive license starts to take over, you'll see companies moving away from Linux.

      Maybe you are ok with that, and if so that's fine, but recognise that if you decide to play hardball and say "We are going to make you do this or you can't use our stuff," that people may say "Ok fine, we won't." If that happens, you aren't really in a position to bitch about it.

      • Re:That's fine (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Crayon Kid (700279) on Sunday June 03 2007, @06:49AM (#19370105)
        [..] if the Linux license becomes too restrictive [..]

        "Too restrictive"? What the hell are you on? GPL v3 simply makes explicit some things that GPL v2 already mentioned implicitly. It's an attempt to stop assholes from exploiting several loopholes in v2. The rest of the thing keeps the same spirit as v2, and it's not more restrictive than it. Well, now, if you feel that v2 was restrictive as well, tough on you.
      • We'd like some companies to stop using Free Software: the companies that can't comply with the license in both letter and spirit, and insist on engineering loopholes - be they in hardware (Tivo) or in law (Novell-Microsoft). Those companies work to de-motivate the developers of the software that they are using, who contributed their software on a share-and-share-alike basis and expect that to be respected. We would do better without them.

        Bruce

  • And so what (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zebai (979227) on Sunday June 03 2007, @01:58AM (#19368875)
    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.

  • Just use older code? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mrbill1234 (715607) on Sunday June 03 2007, @02:00AM (#19368887)
    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?

  • Solution to tivo's dilemma (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2007, @02:01AM (#19368895)
    "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!

  • About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wasabii (693236) on Sunday June 03 2007, @02:01AM (#19368897)
    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.

  • Cry me a river. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MadTinfoilHatter (940931) on Sunday June 03 2007, @02:04AM (#19368917)

    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.

  • Well, duh! (Score:5, Informative)

    by jpetts (208163) on Sunday June 03 2007, @02:07AM (#19368927)
    TiVo operates on a business model that GPL3 is **expressly** designed to eliminate.

    See this essay [fsf.org] by RMS and search for "tivoization".

    Nothing in the least bit surprising here...

  • Boo hoo! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Eric Smith (4379) * <eric@DALIbrouhaha.com minus painter> on Sunday June 03 2007, @02:18AM (#19368971) Homepage Journal
    They've gotten a free ride for a long time, and not contributed anything back, and now they might not get to use some of the free stuff that comes out in the future.

    It must really suck to be them.

  • If they don't like it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by unlametheweak (1102159) on Sunday June 03 2007, @02:22AM (#19368987)
    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.

  • GNU has always made its motives clear (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dircha (893383) on Sunday June 03 2007, @02:29AM (#19369035)
    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.

  • But what about what Perens wrote? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rjforster (2130) on Sunday June 03 2007, @05:06AM (#19369655) Journal
    Bruce Perens wrote this back in March.
    http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9312220011.html [linux-watch.com]
    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?

  • Leeches (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flyingfsck (986395) on Sunday June 03 2007, @06:48AM (#19370101)
    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...

    • Re:The Real World! (Score:4, Informative)

      by siddesu (698447) on Sunday June 03 2007, @03:31AM (#19369285)
      "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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.