# Latest Linux License Limits TiVo



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

This story indicates that the People's Republic of Richard Stallman is trying to prevent all DRM from touching Linux. TiVo is mentioned specifically. I wonder if Hollywood will go to the mat over this?

Meanwhile, I don't see this affecting TiVo very much -- at least not in the near future.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

that's some alliteration.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

jsmeeker said:


> that's some alliteration.


If only this were the Lucent Community...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

so is the Macrovision "code" in the GPL code or in the proprietary part that is licensed from TiVo in the EULA ? I have little depth of knowledge in the open soruce licenses but it seems like the GPL writers are setting restrictions on those that use the code that should not be set.


now on the flip side I have wondered if DRM pushers would start looking at the open source code like MythTV and start gunning for them so I can see this is a defensive posture on the part of the GPL writers


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

So let's say one day TiVo is required to comply with a newer version of the GPL which limits how they manipulate data... Instead of being strong-armed into opening everything up (no DRM) and ceasing metric collection, they'll dump Linux. Then they'll create a closed, proprietary system that can't be hacked, that doesn't support third party network adapters, etc. And we'll be worse off.


----------



## wangmaster (Mar 22, 2004)

a couple of things to think about:
1) current software isn't going to magically be re-licensed to gpl v3.
2) linux still has to adopt gpl v3 (no reason why they won't stay at gpl v2)

If you can't comply with gpl v3, well, take existing gpl v2 licensed stuff and fork it yourself. That's the beauty of most open source licenses. Sure you have to maintain it yourself at that level, but hey, you're already borrowing alot of stuff for "free".


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

This issue has nothing to do with TiVo. TiVo does not distribute it's software under the GPL license so it wouldn't even matter. The article concerns a new GPL proposal that would limit DRM for software that uses this license. Just because TiVo uses the Linux OS doesn't mean the software TiVo writes on top of that has to be GPL compatible (obviously TiVo isn't going to distribute its source code so it would never choose the GPL).

The article is using shock and awe calling the GPL a Linux license. That is just ridiculous.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Who needs Linux when there is OCAP?


----------



## wangmaster (Mar 22, 2004)

some of the sorftware TiVO uses is indeed GPL'ed. TiVO uses linux, as well as various tools that are standard for most linux distributions. Depending on what kinds of modifications TiVO makes to the GPL'ed code this may or may not affect TiVO.

TiVO does modify the kernel. This will limit what they can and can't do with DRM restrictions at this level of code. I haven't read the GtPL v3 draft closely yet though.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

rainwater said:


> The article is using shock and awe calling the GPL a Linux license. That is just ridiculous.


I think they also threw TiVo into the article for shock and awe value. Cnet has devolved to whre they are typically half right/half wrong in a lot of articles like this. They should stick to hardware reviews and focus on making those better.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

I think some GPL software specifies "GPL V2 or later" and will go to V3, but the Linux kernel, IIRC, doesn't say "or later" because Linus Torvalds wasn't going to gamble on what the next version would be. Unlike Stallman, Linus is a pragmatist, not an ideologe (sic).


----------



## mportuesi (Nov 11, 2002)

allan said:


> I think some GPL software specifies "GPL V2 or later" and will go to V3, but the Linux kernel, IIRC, doesn't say "or later" because Linus Torvalds wasn't going to gamble on what the next version would be. Unlike Stallman, Linus is a pragmatist, not an ideologe (sic).


Correct. Linux is strictly at GPL v2; it does not specify "or later". For them to migrate to GPL v3 would require permission from all the contributors to the Linux kernel (a list that runs into the hundreds at least).

Even if that were to happen, TiVo could still use/maintain any current versions of Linux still under the GPL v2 license.

Please stop the hysteria.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

allan said:


> I think some GPL software specifies "GPL V2 or later" and will go to V3


Can you change software license terms retroactively? Or anticipatorily?


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

mportuesi said:


> Please stop the hysteria.


This is a valid request almost all of the time, in almost all situations. Someone should print up bumper stickers.


----------



## NoCleverUsername (Jan 29, 2005)

> On Monday, the Free Software Foundation published a draft of the GPL version 3, which is expected to be completed in about a year. The draft states that *GPL software cannot use "digital restrictions" on copyright material unless users can control them.*





> The planned anti-DRM changes to the GPL are significant because *the entertainment industry regularly uses Linux-powered computers in the production process, notably for special effects and animation.* In general, movie studios support DRM technology to prevent piracy.




Okay, so Dreamworks Animation happens to use Linux. (Using them as an example because I know this for a fact.) Where exactly in the process of making the original movie are they putting in DRM? Isn't that something that's not even added until the DVD authoring process, long after the theatrical release, which may or may not even use GPL software?

Is there even any professional grade GPL-based DVD authoring packages out there in the first place?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the FSF. But if the article accurately reflects what the new license is all about, I have to wonder whether it will amount to anything more than a symbolic gesture.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

I think the whole point is unless you are compiling the DRM into the kernel, this is really not a big deal to anyone. Even if you were, Linux isn't licensed under the GPL v3 and it will not apply. It would not affect software that runs on Linux either unless that software itself is using GPL v3. And since GPL v3 doesn't exist yet anyway, there's no way that TiVo is using any software that would be affected.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

I think what this is aimed at is those people that are taking GPLed software and adding a DRM layer into it so that existing law prevents the code from being disclosed. If I take a GPLed program and modify it so that the files it creates can't be copied by law you can't alter the code that does that. Basically by doing this the DRM provider creates a fork that dies and none of the benefits from that effort are realized by the rest of the community at best. At worst, some judge may rule that the DMCA takes precedence over the GPL and say that any GPL code with DRM is now proprietary. That's a stretch for sure, but I think its something that the new version is trying to address.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

TiVo can always move to Windows Media Center Edition.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

dswallow said:


> TiVo can always move to Windows Media Center Edition.


Not a total joke. Interop with ViiV/MCE is their future.


----------



## Malibyte (Jun 12, 2005)

dswallow said:


> TiVo can always move to Windows Media Center Edition.


Ewww.

This would be the kiss of death for those of us that wish to improve our machines (read "any sort of hacking whatsoever"). Let's hope this doesn't happen.

I believe, as said above, that the Linux kernel won't fall under this mandate. Some of the GNU tools might, but the way I read it, one can use the compiler to write whatever they want.

I have to admit that I agree with at least some of the FSF's positions. The DMCA is a bad law. The "fair-use" provisions of previous precedents are slowly being eroded (remember when you could make as many copies of any CD you bought, as long as they were for your own personal use (i.e., to listen to in the car as well as at home)? Look at this latest fiasco with the Sony CD spyware/virus.

Richard Stallman can be a bit too black-and-white at times, though, which is why he and Linus aren't best buds.

Bob


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Malibyte said:


> Ewww.
> 
> This would be the kiss of death for those of us that wish to improve our machines (read "any sort of hacking whatsoever").


More likely it'd make hacking and adding new features far more accessible to the average person.


----------



## Malibyte (Jun 12, 2005)

dswallow said:


> More likely it'd make hacking and adding new features far more accessible to the average person.


How so? Sure, there are a lot of hacks available for Microsoft products, but they're all blatantly illegal, and one has to know exactly where to look for them. And if TiVo does go this route, I'm sure they'd be a lot more likely to revoke your subscription when they find out you've hacked your box.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Malibyte said:


> How so? Sure, there are a lot of hacks available for Microsoft products, but they're all blatantly illegal, and one has to know exactly where to look for them. And if TiVo does go this route, I'm sure they'd be a lot more likely to revoke your subscription when they find out you've hacked your box.


Considering some ridiculously high percentage of people run Windows, it's automatically a whole lot easier for them to run a program, write a program, alter a setting, copy some software, and even find help for programming issues than it ever will be for any other platform.

There's a lot of difficulties involved in hacking something where you have to work in a different environment than your familiar with. Look how many people are currently hacking their TiVo's who never considered it before just because a couple people put together a nice, complete, documented script that makes the entire process easy compared to what you had to go through before. Now make that whole process another order of magnitude simpler as well as multiply the number of people with the necessary tools and experience to experiment with writing modifications a hundred-fold or more.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> Interop with ViiV/MCE is their future.


What I mean when I say something like this is WinTel is establishing an environment for other products to plug into,like the electric company; most of the world is going to use/work with the WinTel system


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

dswallow said:


> More likely it'd make hacking and adding new features far more accessible to the average person.


Not likely - there is already a Windows-based DVR, from LG Electronics, and it is pretty much unhackable - nothing like TiVo.


----------



## Malibyte (Jun 12, 2005)

dswallow said:


> Considering some ridiculously high percentage of people run Windows, it's automatically a whole lot easier for them to run a program, write a program, alter a setting, copy some software, and even find help for programming issues than it ever will be for any other platform.


Point taken...there are a lot more Windows coders out there...but the number of people doing Linux/Unix projects is impressive and increasing (take a look at the number of projects at sourceforge.net).

However, my feelings about any possibility of a TiVo/Microsoft alliance (based on their known alliances with the software/entertainment-industry DRM radicals and their previous track record) are pretty well summed up by Han Solo:

"Kid, I've got a real bad feeling about this."


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

You can bet a Gigabuck that microsoft would Love to use this as the pretext they need to persuade Tivo to move over or at least make a vista edition. It could create huge problems among the Tivo engineers though- not just morale, but problems concerning not being able to go into the kernel to see what is going on and deal with it. So I really doubt they would be inclined to go this way unless they are heavily incented. Which... is not at all inconceivable.

Microsoft paying Tivo several million to do the port and even line up the engineers to do it would be an old move taken out of their playbook. This is exactly what they have been doing with games writers to promote their xbox platform. 

Ballmer is probably giddy about this- dancing around the office about the prospect of sweeping CE vendors into the Microsoft camp. In Tivo's case, he would spend the money just on the PR value (it's not even pocketchange to MS)- attempting to signal to CE vendors a sea change away from linux. He really wants to crush linux so bad, he will do anything. Tivo on top of embedded windows would be an excellent showcase for them- you could do a lot of stuff- like remoting Tivo UI to your laptop, (and later your handheld or phone) or vice versa. 

It would be riding the back of the tiger though. Microsoft does not have a great relationship with middleware vendors. Tivo needs to control the top level UI and that has always been anathema to Microsoft's way of thinking. What they want- even on low power cpus- is to make that MCE UI ubiquitous in the home.

In defense of Stallman- he is fighting the good fight. I think he sees the hardware guys like intel and broadcom building DRM functionality into hardware and seeing that linux could be used to enable that functionality for CE devices. He probably sees that as perverse as what cableco's did to Java in OCAP. Microsoft is definately doing that and he probably predicts as I do that Apple will do the same in order to line up content vendors. So that just leaves linux to hold the line.

I hope Rainwater is correct and this does not affect Tivo due to the way linux licensing works, but I think Stallman's intent is pretty clear. He wants to block CE vendors from using linux in combination with DRM schemes, because to allow it would be complicity with Hollywood's assault on Fair Use. 

I'm sure he likes Tivo and all, but I don't think it is an issue he can compromise on, even if compromise was in his vocabulary.

I'm with Han Solo....


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

More likely Linux would just fork off into two versions, with two groups making improvements and with two different licensing schemes.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

I don't understand the licensing constraints with linux- can a separate group do that?


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Like I said before, the author was just trying to make headlines and had no substance.

Linux will remain GPL v2 according to Linus.


----------



## mgar (Feb 14, 2005)

While I understand where Stallman is coming from, this is a mistake. The fact is, that DRM is a reality, and by taking a stand that it cannot exist in Linux could severely limit Linux in the home entertainment market.

It does seem like there is a simple work-around. It is permissible to distribute proprietary software that is separate from the Linux Kernel. If the DRM portion was a separate compiled application then it would not fall under the GPL license.

I seem to recall that a large portion of the TiVo software is not GPL'd, only the underlying operating system. This allows TiVo to use Linux, but not give away all of its software.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

mgar said:


> While I understand where Stallman is coming from, this is a mistake. The fact is, that DRM is a reality, and by taking a stand that it cannot exist in Linux could severely limit Linux in the home entertainment market.


Read my previous post. Linux is not going to be GPL v3, so talking about DRM in Linux is pointless.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dswallow said:


> More likely Linux would just fork off into two versions, with two groups making improvements and with two different licensing schemes.


I don't know. I would doubt that happening unless the group that picked up the maintenance was a purely commericial one. All of the free support from the linux community would concentrate on the GPL3 version. What's really difficult to predict is whether the linux kernel development would continue to support the v2 version since Torvalds doesn't publish the kernel under the GPL. At least if I'm remembering correctly.

At any rate continuing support with the same coverage would require an outlay of cash from those companies interested in maintaining the fork, since the mainstream linux community would have no interest outside of being paid for it to work on GPLv2 product.

Signs that a company isn't going to go to GPLv3 will be increases in price to cover future costs, so you can start looking at these companies and see whose raising prices to see who won't support it.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

To reiterate, Torvalds has stated that he will NOT move Linux to GPLv3 because he objects to the DRM clause - and because it'd be a royal pain to track down all the contributors and get them to agree to it anyway.

Whether or not applications move doesn't matter, the kernel isn't, and that's the meat of what TiVo uses.

And even if it DID happen, TiVo can could continue to use the GPLv2 version indefinitely, and unless some incompatibility arose, it wouldn't add any extra cost.

Alternatively there are FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc - far more likely alternatives for TiVo than Windows, since a port from Linux to BSD is much more direct.


----------



## ccooperev (Apr 24, 2001)

People! This ain't gonna happen. The revision of the GPL cannot retroactively apply to previously issued licenses. Linus Torvalds the creator of LINUX has stated that he has no intention of adopting the newer GPL for the LINUX kernel. It will stay at version 2.x for now. 

On the other hand, I have to give a few props to Mr. Stallman for at least attempting to deal with the menace that DRM is in limiting consumer choice.


----------



## Y-ASK (Aug 17, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> Signs that a company isn't going to go to GPLv3 will be increases in price to cover future costs, so you can start looking at these companies and see whose raising prices to see who won't support it.


Thought I would dig this old thread up since there's more news on GPLv3 and Tivo has increased it's pricing overall. Maybe Stormspace has something here. I don't think Tivo Inc. would move to a GPLv3 kernel but if they did it would be a good thing for programmers who want to change the way their Tivos work. There is a news article on Slashdot about the 5th annual GPLv3 conference in Tokyo and from the transcripts I've read they talk a lot about something called "Tivoisation". Can anyone explain what it is they are talking about? I know it's more than just DRM. I did not know that the linux community was not happen with the way Tivo is using the Linux kernel and how closed to modifications the box really is. Should be interesting to see what happens. Here's a couple of links if anyone is interested:

http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/11/27/1145230.shtml

http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-ciaran-transcript

Y-ASK

I just had to add this quote and I think I understand what the term "Tivoisation" means now:

"Nonetheless, we are going to fight against tivoisation and Treacherous Computing with all of our abilities. "

Tivo=Treacherous computing?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Y-ASK said:


> Thought I would dig this old thread up since there's more news on GPLv3 and Tivo has increased it's pricing overall. Maybe Stormspace has something here. I don't think Tivo Inc. would move to a GPLv3 kernel but if they did it would be a good thing for programmers who want to change the way their Tivos work. There is a news article on Slashdot about the 5th annual GPLv3 conference in Tokyo and from the transcripts I've read they talk a lot about something called "Tivoisation". Can anyone explain what it is they are talking about? I know it's more than just DRM. I did not know that the linux community was not happen with the way Tivo is using the Linux kernel and how closed to modifications the box really is. Should be interesting to see what happens. Here's a couple of links if anyone is interested:
> 
> http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/11/27/1145230.shtml
> 
> ...


I think I've read other places that there are some altuistic folks that think tivo using linux is evil. They see Tivo as sort of leeching- taking the code for the base but then putting their own stuff on top without giving back to the community. Seems some folks thing that anything built on linux should be completely open source....


----------



## ping (Oct 3, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

Stupid argument, though. Sure, the GPL says you can get the source code so you can produce modifications, but nothing there says TiVo should be forced to allow you to run that modified code on their proprietary hardware.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ping said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
> 
> Stupid argument, though. Sure, the GPL says you can get the source code so you can produce modifications, but nothing there says TiVo should be forced to allow you to run that modified code on their proprietary hardware.


A agree. At the time there was some question as to whether Torvalds would move the Kernel to GPLv3, but since that time he has stated that he will not. Applications may move to the new GPL, but for the present the Kernel is clear. If applications that are not part of the Kernel impact TiVo by moving to the new GPL then what I said will apply. However as long as Torvald's doesn't move from v2 TiVo won't have any problems.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I think I've read other places that there are some altuistic folks that think tivo using linux is evil. They see Tivo as sort of leeching- taking the code for the base but then putting their own stuff on top without giving back to the community. Seems some folks thing that anything built on linux should be completely open source....


But TiVo does give back to the community so that complaint isn't valid. If they are complaining that TiVo contains proprietary code and isn't completely open source in that you can't just run any software you want on the TiVo then that is something different entirely.

BTW the 8.1 source modifications need to be posted.


----------



## TiVoStephen (Jun 27, 2000)

morac, 8.1 is still being rolled out. Typically the lead time for packaging the source modifications and posting them on that page takes us about as much time as it does to roll out the software. It'll be posted shortly.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

TiVoStephen said:


> morac, 8.1 is still being rolled out. Typically the lead time for packaging the source modifications and posting them on that page takes us about as much time as it does to roll out the software. It'll be posted shortly.


Take your time. I wasn't complaining, just making an observation.


----------



## Y-ASK (Aug 17, 2001)

morac said:


> But TiVo does give back to the community so that complaint isn't valid.


I don't see where that link provides anything to the Linux community other than the source code for the kernel they use. Where are they giving anything back? Do they make donations to the cause either with money or software code?



morac said:


> If they are complaining that TiVo contains proprietary code and isn't completely open source in that you can't just run any software you want on the TiVo then that is something different entirely.


Which I think is what the rub is about. As I understand it, as a user, I cannot take the source code, modify it as I wish, and then run it on the hardware that this particular software is designed for. Something to do with the firmware check of the kernel which I think is the real complaint.

I understand this concept perfectly but I also understand why the Linux community would be upset about it. If they (Tivo Inc.) wanted to keep the system closed then they should have developed their own OS. Instead they went the cheap route by going open source. Tivo is getting a free ride but at the same time is circumventing the sprit of open source and the free software movement. Thus making this one of the reasons why Stallman wants to change the GPL terms.

Y-ASK


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Y-ASK said:


> If they (Tivo Inc.) wanted to keep the system closed then they should have developed their own OS.


Are you kidding me? The Linux OS specifically allows for this situations and lots of companies utilize Linux in their devices. The Linux GPL v2 license allows for this situation. TiVo complies fully with the license by providing any modifications they make to the kernel or any GPL'd tools they use. The idea that they should give away their source code (and their business) is not what Linux is about. However, you will hear differently from 12-year olds on the internet who think everything should be open source.


----------



## Y-ASK (Aug 17, 2001)

rainwater said:


> The Linux GPL v2 license allows for this situation. TiVo complies fully with the license by providing any modifications they make to the kernel or any GPL'd tools they use.


Never said that they weren't in compliance. But if the kernel moves to GPLv3 (which I think I've read that Linus has said "no" to that) and Tivo wants to take advantage of any of the new sofware code, they would have to change the way they do business. My feelings are that if I purchase and pay full price for a peice of hardware I should be able to do with it what I want. If a company wants to control said hardware then lease it and maintain control. Don't stick me with a boat anchor if decide not to subscribe to your business model... And if it cost more in order to get the functionalitiy then so be it.

Y-ASK


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Y-ASK said:


> Never said that they weren't in compliance. But if the kernel moves to GPLv3 (which I think I've read that Linus has said "no" to that) and Tivo wants to take advantage of any of the new sofware code, they would have to change the way they do business.


How do you know that? Does TiVo currently add DRM to the kernel directly? Otherwise, any proprietary code that handled DRM would not be affected.

Also, a GPL'd v3 Linux kernel will never happen as long as the DRM clause is still there. There are way to many core Linux developers who realize how bad this is.


----------



## Y-ASK (Aug 17, 2001)

rainwater said:


> How do you know that?


I don't. Everything written here is pure speculation, personal opinion, and for the most part pure BS because I'm trying to waste away the hours left before I go on vacation in two days... 

Y-ASK


----------



## ping (Oct 3, 2005)

Not that it matters, but GPLv3 (current draft, anyway) would make the private key they use to sign the kernel part of the "modified source" and would have to be provided.


----------



## psyton (Dec 28, 2002)

rainwater said:


> Are you kidding me? The Linux OS specifically allows for this situations and lots of companies utilize Linux in their devices. The Linux GPL v2 license allows for this situation. TiVo complies fully with the license by providing any modifications they make to the kernel or any GPL'd tools they use. The idea that they should give away their source code (and their business) is not what Linux is about. However, you will hear differently from 12-year olds on the internet who think everything should be open source.


No one is asking for the source to their apps. The problem is one cannot even take the kernel *Tivo* releases, rebuild it and run it on *their* box. This violates the spirit of GPL, make no mistake.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

psyton said:


> No one is asking for the source to their apps. The problem is one cannot even take the kernel *Tivo* releases, rebuild it and run it on *their* box. This violates the spirit of GPL, make no mistake.


What spirit is that? If it violates the spirit, then why are kernel developers spending so much time to get Linux on tiny devices knowing full well the same situation will apply. This "spirit" is some type of utopian society that doesn't really exist.


----------



## Y-ASK (Aug 17, 2001)

rainwater said:


> If it violates the spirit, then why are kernel developers spending so much time to get Linux on tiny devices knowing full well the same situation will apply.


Because they realized that there are loopholes in GPLv2 and they are exploiting them for their own profit just as Tivo Inc. has done. If I remember right it's not that there's some sort of DRM built into the Kernel but there is some sort of Kernel checking software in the firmware that checks the checksum of the kernel. If the kernel has been modified and you try to load it you'll get a checksum error and the hardware won't boot. At least I think that is how it works...

Y-ASK


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Y-ASK said:


> Because they realized that there are loopholes in GPLv2 and they are exploiting them for their own profit just as Tivo Inc. has done.


Again, I have no clue where you get this information. The reason the kernel isn't switching to the GPL v3 are exactly because of these "loopholes". Torvalds himself realizes the problems with v3 which is why it isn't being adopted. These so called "loopholes" encourage commercial use. But people are now trying to change the "spirit" of the GPL so that any commercial usage is frowned upon. Luckily the GPL v2 wasn't designed that way and this so called "spirit" can't become reality.


----------



## Y-ASK (Aug 17, 2001)

rainwater said:


> Again, I have no clue where you get this information. The reason the kernel isn't switching to the GPL v3 are exactly because of these "loopholes".


I think it's pretty obivious where the info. is coming from. All you have to do is spend some time in the under ground forum to understand how the Tivo works and then apply what is known about the GPLv2. Read some of the opinions about what the sprit of open source is and make your own conclusions. Just because you happen to disagree with what some people think the sprit is doesn't make the information provided wrong. If you don't like the word "loophole" insert what ever you like. And it's really not information, as I said before, it's pure speculation and opinion.

Y-ASK


----------



## ping (Oct 3, 2005)

Yes, opinion. And my opinion is that some are incorrectly trying to apply the GPL to the TiVo hardware. You're entitled to TiVo's modifications to the kernel and tools. You're entitled to compile that kernel and those tools. You're entitled to further modify them. And you're entitled to run that modified kernel and tools on any non-proprietary hardware of your choice. You're not entitled to run those modifications on TiVo's proprietary hardware or to run TiVo's closed application software on a modified platform.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

It's a very complex argument. I mean, who doesn't want free stuff? At the same time if someone builds a wiget they should be able to sell that for whatever the market will bear. The GPLv2 doesn't prevent someone from making a wiget with proprietary hardware. All it asks is for the source to be given back so others can use it. For me this gets complicated, since it's obvious that even though the source is open the ideas and concepts behind the source aren't open. Wishlists and Season passes come to mind as patented/copywritten items that although they are represented in code couldn't be reused anyway, or could they? You almost have to be a GPL lawyer to understand how TiVo uses the GPL and gets around some of the issues. At any rate it's obvious that I am not alone in my confusion since many other people feel TiVo is taking advantage of the GPL and it's spirit, but whether that is the case or not... 

I just know that there have been some good devices based on linux to come out in the past few years and that's good for everyone. At some point there will be a convergence as these devices come together and start talking to each other. It'll be like linux sneaked up on us and it certainly must give MS pause to think that these devices aren't running windows.


----------



## Y-ASK (Aug 17, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> I just know that there have been some good devices based on linux to come out in the past few years and that's good for everyone.


Here's a perfect example:
http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Sate...471050&pagename=Linksys/Common/VisitorWrapper

The Linksys NSLU2 can be used as Linksys intended it or it can be modified by the Linux community and used for whatever they wish to program on it. Here's a link on how to modify it:

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/nas/nas-how-to/how_to_nslu2_hack_pt1/

Linksys still makes money on each device they sell so why can't Tivo?

Y-ASK


----------



## Electricllama (May 9, 2002)

rainwater said:


> What spirit is that? If it violates the spirit, then why are kernel developers spending so much time to get Linux on tiny devices knowing full well the same situation will apply. This "spirit" is some type of utopian society that doesn't really exist.


Too many people here confusing GPLv2's relationship with Linux. GPLv2 is the license under which the Linux Kernel is distributed. Other than that, there is no relationship. The kernel developers and Linus Torvalds had no influence whatsoever in the creation of the license. Most of the kernel developer's don't care that strongly about the license to spend a lot of time contemplating the nuances of it's spirit (in fact, I'm sure many own TiVo's).

The GPLv2 existed long prior to the Linux Kernel and was written primarily by Richard Stallman. The "spirit" exists in the utopian society that he attempted to create when he wrote GPLv2. He is attempting to further his utopia under GPLv3. There's no need to argue the spirit of GPLv2 because the sprit is pretty much whatever Richard Stallman says it was.


----------



## Y-ASK (Aug 17, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> It's a very complex argument.


Well the more I read the more educated I become. It is a very complex issue and I can see both sides of the argument. I'm sure Tivo is working within the GPLv2 framework and maybe what they and other companies are doing is not really a bad thing. It's just not necessarily the way some GPLv3 supporters would want things to be.

Y-ASK


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

What needs to happen is everybody needs to be free to eliminate Macrovision encoding from their hardware/software if they don't want it.

Right now I think TiVo is stuck with using it in order to record programs and we are limited in how we can use TiVo because of that.

People that sell recorded copies of programs should be fined, every consumer shouldn't be locked out of fair use in a vain attempt to keep people from using DVRs to make disks they can sell.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

ChuckyBox said:


> Can you change software license terms retroactively? Or anticipatorily?


I was just wondering that myself, so I went and looked at the GPL, I can't see that the licence can be changed retroactively against your will. To me it reads that if the GPL changes and the licence says "and future versions" you can accept the one you originally got, or the new one.

It also says the spirit of the licence shouldn't change, this sounds like it changing the spirit of the licence.


GPL said:


> 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
> 
> Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Whether "Tivoization" violates the "spirit of the GPL" doesn't really matter. It doesn't violate the spirit of what the creater of the Linux kernel intended. Stallman's opinion is irrelevant to the Linux kernel. 

Linus Torvalds has no problem with "Tivoization". Period. If GPL v2 didn't contain the "loopholes" some are complaining about Torvalds probably would have chosen a different license.


----------



## JohnBrowning (Jul 15, 2004)

Richard Stallman is a communist.


----------



## ping (Oct 3, 2005)

JohnBrowning said:


> Richard Stallman is a communist.


LOL :up:


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

JohnBrowning said:


> Richard Stallman is a communist.


I'm not sure that isn't correct.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

nrc said:


> Whether "Tivoization" violates the "spirit of the GPL" doesn't really matter. It doesn't violate the spirit of what the creater of the Linux kernel intended.


If that's a response to my post, I was saying Stallman is trying to change the spirit of the licence, which is contrary to the licence.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

JohnBrowning said:


> Richard Stallman is a communist.


And also has no idea about TiVo obviously. He's never seen the 600 threads about privavcy which are immediatly met with "if you don't like it, opt out". He doesn't even bother to do enough research to find you can opt out of the behaviour he's finding objectionable.


----------



## ping (Oct 3, 2005)

btwyx said:


> And also has no idea about TiVo obviously. He's never seen the 600 threads about privavcy which are immediatly met with "if you don't like it, opt out". He doesn't even bother to do enough research to find you can opt out of the behaviour he's finding objectionable.


No, you can't. The behavior he finds objectionable--what he calls TiVoisation--is that you can't boot a modified Linux kernel on the later boxes (because you can't generate the signature that would make the BIOS load it).


----------



## Deacon West (Apr 16, 2006)

MighTiVo said:


> What needs to happen is everybody needs to be free to eliminate Macrovision encoding from their hardware/software if they don't want it.
> 
> Right now I think TiVo is stuck with using it in order to record programs and we are limited in how we can use TiVo because of that.
> 
> People that sell recorded copies of programs should be fined, every consumer shouldn't be locked out of fair use in a vain attempt to keep people from using DVRs to make disks they can sell.


Well Said.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

JohnBrowning said:


> Richard Stallman is a communist.


I don't think he would deny that. He's probably got it printed on a T-shirt.

The problem with him is that he's an idealist on a quixotic crusade to prevent anything in software from being proprietary. He's driven a lot of people to other operating systems, like FreeBSD, whose licensing leans toward practicality and away from idealism, and he's probably going to fragment the Linux community and destroy the very thing he wants to save (or at least make his branch of it irrelevant).

I liked him better when he was just a crazy troll at MIT with no power except to write a lot of software.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Didn't we put this crap to bed 10 months ago, or is this new, uncovered crap?


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

ping said:


> The behavior he finds objectionable--what he calls TiVoisation--is that you can't boot a modified Linux kernel


I got the impression he was objecting to your viewing statistics being reported back to TiVo.


----------



## ping (Oct 3, 2005)

btwyx said:


> I got the impression he was objecting to your viewing statistics being reported back to TiVo.


He probably doesn't much like that, either, but his main crusade--one of the major points of GPLv3--is what he calls TiVoization.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

ping said:


> He probably doesn't much like that, either, but his main crusade--one of the major points of GPLv3--is what he calls TiVoization.


Considering how many new cell phones are moving to Linux, the idea that GPL v3 will take off is unlikely. Also, considering Linux developers are wanting Linux to be adopted by large corporations to use in small devices, I just don't see how they would ever agree to those restrictions.


----------



## ping (Oct 3, 2005)

rainwater said:


> Considering how many new cell phones are moving to Linux, the idea that GPL v3 will take off is unlikely. Also, considering Linux developers are wanting Linux to be adopted by large corporations to use in small devices, I just don't see how they would ever agree to those restrictions.


Speaking of cell phones, an interesting bit of trivia from wikipedia:


> Stallman maintains no permanent residence outside his office at MITs CSAIL Lab, describing himself as a squatter on campus. He owns neither an automobile, common in pedestrian-friendly Cambridge, nor a cell phone, having stated his refusal to own a device with proprietary software.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MighTiVo said:


> People that sell recorded copies of programs should be fined, every consumer shouldn't be locked out of fair use in a vain attempt to keep people from using DVRs to make disks they can sell.


problem is that is the same as saying People in New York City should not have to lock doors but instead rely on the Police to keep their things safe. It just ain't going to work that way. sure 90% of the people would respect private property and the Police could bring down the big time robbers who were obviously stealing but there would still be so much theft that could not be prevented simply by the police no mattr how much you beefed them up.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

nrc said:


> Whether "Tivoization" violates the "spirit of the GPL" doesn't really matter. It doesn't violate the spirit of what the creater of the Linux kernel intended. Stallman's opinion is irrelevant to the Linux kernel.
> 
> Linus Torvalds has no problem with "Tivoization". Period. If GPL v2 didn't contain the "loopholes" some are complaining about Torvalds probably would have chosen a different license.


And given that not just Linus, but most of the kernel developers, have said that they have problems with GPLv3, and that Stallman is on the wrong track, Linux is staying with GPLv2, and Tivoization can continue.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Y-ASK said:


> Linksys still makes money on each device they sell so why can't Tivo?
> 
> Y-ASK


There are two reasons I see that TiVo is in this "pickle"

1: TiVo's business model is they are a service based company, in that they expect ongoing fees from the users of the hardware they (co-)provide, and at that they provide the hardware at a (near) loss that needs to be recovered. Guide data and additional content aside, the revenues cover the costs of software development, in addition to coveriong the hardware losses.

2: TiVo needs to protect the content recorded on "their" DVRs to stay on the good sides of the content industry, so they can continually offer features such as MRV and TiVo To Go, and go so far as to have the Series 3, which surely would not get approved it it was completely open source, or even didn't have the PROM security.


----------

