TiVo Says It Could Suffer Under GPLv3 710
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."
Nice working with you Tivo (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Just a kernel doesn't do much for you (Score:4, Interesting)
Who doing whom a favor? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well, duh! (Score:3, Interesting)
Therefore, poor TiVo can bitch and moan that Stallman & Co. are out to get them.
Which is what they're doing.
Surprise, surprise.
Proprietary forks not bad for end users ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Well, duh! (Score:3, Interesting)
That's fine (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
But what about what Perens wrote? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:5, Interesting)
If they used BSD then they could.
Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Proprietary forks not bad for end users ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:4, Interesting)
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:
Re:The Real World! (Score:3, Interesting)
Only their changes, not the open code, are prop... (Score:3, Interesting)
You subscribe to a fallacy, open code remains open. Only their changes, not the open code, are proprietary.
Re:No one sees the irony? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:Could be good news for BSD projects (Score:3, Interesting)
Tivo's attitude is entirely compatible with BSD license's intent, but it isn't compatible with the GPL's intent to allow the tivo unit's user to fix bugs like DRM (yes, DRM is definitely a bug in the eyes of the user, and remember it is the user's interests the GPL protects).
The FSF will be pleased (Score:2, Interesting)
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?