| |||||||||||||
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1Posted Jul 28, 2006 5:30 UTC (Fri) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022)In reply to: GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1 by moxfyre Parent article: GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Not applicable to my statement. Reread. TiVo didn't *write* that code. They merely took advantage of a loophole whereby external technological protections applied around the covered work can restrict the freedoms available to the user of an otherwise free GPL work. They didn't relicense it; they put it into a container and applied restrictions to the container. Which loophole is being closed here.
If TiVo were to write their own code, do you think that they would GPL it, and then apply DRM to it? Honestly?
(Log in to post comments)
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1 Posted Jul 28, 2006 12:08 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] They could if they wanted to.
Actually I don't see why not, not at all.
Just because they release the software under the GPLv3 on one hand doesn't mean that the binaries they ship on their device have to be under GPLv3. They own the copyrights and they can do anything they want with it.
The entire point of the GPL is that the wishes the developers and the "four freedoms" of the end users are protected. Obviously you don't agree with this point of view.
Even if the kernel shipped under the GPLv3 there is NOTHING STOPPING TiVo from shipping programs running on it that impliment DRM, besides the fact that DRM is not only technically unsound, but fairly unethical. (and no I don't think that attempting to protect artist's copyrights are wrong, that's not core to the issue of why DRM sucks)
The clauses in GPLv3 are "anti-DRM lite". It's very narrow in what sort of things that it effects.
Anyways this is just mostly a clarification. It's not realy making a huge big difference in this way between GPLv2 vs GPLv3. It's mearly making something that was implicit explicit. The only real dispute is that the wording needs to be good enough to avoid any unintended consiquences.
Tivo's actions aren't surely legal Posted Jul 28, 2006 13:34 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] It's worth keeping in mind that Tivo's acts are not clearly legal. They might be ok in court, or they might not.
Law is not black and white. "Licensor's intent", and the "spirit" of the licence are two things which judges take into account in copyright cases. Tivo appears to violate both of these, so there is ground to say they violate the licence.
I know a European who develops GPL'd software and who told me that he has already enforced the GPL to stop a company that was doing something similar to what Tivo is doing.
v3 makes a more solid legal foundation for lawyers defending free software developers to stand on.
|
|||||||||||||