TiVo is not "using" the code, .... [LWN.net]

TiVo is not "using" the code, ....

Posted Sep 27, 2006 18:09 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270)
In reply to: TiVo is not "using" the code, .... by alexbk
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

You run it on some other device. It's the CODE that's free, not the device.

to post comments

There is no other device...

Posted Sep 27, 2006 18:21 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link] (4 responses)

TiVo's version of linux only runs on TiVo.
Everything good that TiVo's version of linux has it has only because it's
made to run on TiVo hardware. And you cannot hack and modify it, because
it WON'T RUN. It's useless once hacked or modified. On purpose.
So they took away any liberty from the original coders to hack and modify
it... with a simple technical measure (DRM) and a simple legislative
measure (DMCA).
And that is the point of this whole article: that GPLv2 was made to
protect freedoms # 0..3 and that GPLv2+DRM+DMCA nullify effectively
freedom #1 and that GPLv3 closes the legal loophole, without EVER being
contrary to anything represented by GPLv2.

There is no other device...

Posted Sep 27, 2006 19:49 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (3 responses)

Again, to me it's about the code, not the device. Freedom 1 only gives you the right to run the code if you have a suitable device. If you have bought a non-reflashable device, then you don't have a suitable device.

I abhor the DMCA, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion. The added restrictions in GPLv3 will do nothing whatever to fight the spread of DRM. The most they can hope for is to make some authors feel better at the expense of making some other authors feel worse.

Respectfully, your answer makes no sense.

Posted Sep 27, 2006 23:16 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link] (2 responses)

> Again, to me it's about the code, not the device. Freedom 1 only gives
> you the right to run the code if you have a suitable device.

Preliminarly: freedom 1 does not "give you the right". You wrote some
code, you have the right to run it wherever you want. You licensed your
code under the GPL (that was made the way it is in order to preserve in
YOUR code [and derivatives] the freedoms 0 .. 3), so the other guy (like
TiVo) only has the right to modify it (eg adapting it to their hardware)
and redistribute it (in their HD or flash) if they follow the rules and
further protect the freedoms 0 .. 3. Now, not even Linus disagrees that
protecting those freedoms is the reason why he GPLd Linux (albeit he can
word it more pragmatically as in "not allowing proprietary vendors to run
with his product"... which is ironically what he's doing when he allows
TiVo to run with linux)

In the merit, the text of freedom 1 as in
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html

:: " The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. "

It's explicit that access to source code is a precondition to this, but
access to the (one and only) machine where the (object) code will run is
also a (implicit) precondition to "study how the program works, and adapt
it to your needs." Yes, when someone GPLv2 a program, he is trying to make
sure that any derivative works can be freely studied [BOLD] AND ADAPTED TO
ITS NEEDS [/BOLD]. Unless that someone GPLs said program without knowing
exactly what one's doing, which is a possibility -- but no excuse.

Respectfully, your answer makes no sense.

Posted Sep 28, 2006 14:55 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (1 responses)

I respectfully disagree. To me, freedom 1 is about the program, not about any particular device. I take it on its face: the freedom to run the program, for any purpose. It does not say "the freedom to run the program as part of a particular device."

To me [YMMV], there's a lot of satisfaction in knowing my code is in a particular device, even if I can't change it. That satisfaction is, for me, part of the trade for my effort in creating the code.

Sure, I would prefer a modifiable device, but if that's not an option, I'd rather have a non-modifiable device with my code in it than a non-modifiable device with somebody else's. For some kinds of devices, modifiable is simply not an option.

Respectfully, your answer makes no sense.

Posted Sep 28, 2006 15:21 UTC (Thu) by alexbk (subscriber, #37839) [Link]

So you'd be satisfied even if your own code would be used to lessen the freedom of coding that you enjoy? I can't agree with that. If you have and use a freedom, you should also protect it.

TiVo is not "using" the code, ....

Posted Sep 27, 2006 18:26 UTC (Wed) by alexbk (subscriber, #37839) [Link] (3 responses)

You're willing to give a hardware manufacturer the right to use, modify and distribute your code on their hardware. But you're ok if they don't give you the same right. Why do you think that is fair?

TiVo is not "using" the code, ....

Posted Sep 27, 2006 19:34 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (2 responses)

Why wouldn't I? If I cared about modifying the device, I'd buy a device I could modify. Again, to me, it's about the code, not about the device. The fact that they use my code in a device that I can't modify is no more insulting than that they use it in other devices that I simply have no interest in owning.

If you care about modifiable devices, buy modifiable devices.

To my mind, they have complied with the essential fairness requirement by providing their code.

TiVo is not "using" the code, ....

Posted Sep 27, 2006 19:43 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

I should add that I was speaking rhetorically. I do not have any code in Linux. I do not believe my opinion would change if I did.

TiVo is not "using" the code, ....

Posted Sep 27, 2006 20:46 UTC (Wed) by alexbk (subscriber, #37839) [Link]

If I care about modifiable devices, I don't allow my code to be used in locked-down ones, aiding
their spread in the market. If they become dominant, freedom of code will have no meaning any
longer. Explain why we shouldn't worry about this scenario or why requiring the keys will not help
prevent it. Or at least why well-being of those who don't care is more important than that of those
who do.