Building a free future in embedded devices

Posted Oct 19, 2006 22:06 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

> Huh? With Tivoization, the end user still has access to all the source
> code. With the proprietary fork the original source code is gone for
> good. How can you possibly view these two scenarios as equally bad?

Whether or not I consider both situations as "proprietary forks" has no
relevance to how individually bad I think either one is. So when you say
how could I possibly view these two scenarios as equally bad, your answer
is -- I don't.

> Also, why are you so worried about Rockbox's survival? Rockbox is
> healthier now than it ever has been.

Yes, I'm glad to see that. But I worry about issues like tivoization. And
I think I'm not alone in that worry either - a number of kernel developers
I spoke to on LKML feel the same way; their disagreement that remains with
me is what to do about it.

> It will be around for a very long time, whether the FSF decides to
> release the GPLv3 with the controversial DRM clauses or not.

I hope you're right. That said, no one has told me yet why the GPLv3's DRM
clauses would in any way harm Rockbox. If that's true, and no one can
answer me, then the changes at minimum would do nothing and at best might
improve the landscape, in which case I don't see any sensible reason in
not at least trying to improve the landscape.

The argument that seems to be brought up about the Linux kernel as it
relates to the DRM clauses is a paranoia that the DRM clauses would cause
hardware manufacturers to say "Nope, not going to use Linux, because this
DRM clause is in my way."

In other words, manufacturers that would be put off by the anti-DRM clause
would only be put off by it precisely because they wanted to Tivoize the
code. Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.

Tivoizing Linux may not be seen as a huge problem by everyone, because hey
- there's still tons of computers to run the modified source code Tivo
releases.

Tivoizing Rockbox could mean death, because there is a scarcity of devices
on which it might run in the first place.

(Addressing a larger audience:) And this is what I think is _really_
important here. People need to stop with this "FSF trying to take our
freedoms away" crap, because the only people that will be affected by the
anti-Tivoization primitives are people that want to Tivoize the code. So
if we're going to debate those provisions, can we stick to talking about
whether or not manufacturers should be allowed by the license to Tivoize?

> Unless the GPLv3 irrevocably divides the rockbox community of
> course. ;-)

I see differences of opinions but no such divided communities. Why must we
always agree about everything in order to survive?

:)