On 17 Jul 2007, at 18:38, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
TiVo ... did not allow modified, and therefore potentially
Compromised, devices connect to their network.
This does not sound like theft of code, it sounds like sound network
protocol. If you wish to maintain a secure environment that is stable
for thousands of users, and has a lot of money riding on it, you do
not allow compromised devices to connect.
I'm not familiar with Tivo's "network" - I'd had the impression that
a Tivo merely dialled into their servers & obtained a TV schedule.
However, this is not the point.
The point is that Tivo SOLD people hardware which was locked in such
a way that it made restrictions upon the purchasers' use of that
hardware. I presume that - although the GPL requires Tivo to inform
purchasers of their rights to a copy of the source code - this
retriction was not advertised at the point-of-sale.
There are lots of valid uses for a low-power computer with a TV-tuner
card, a hard-drive and a good TV-compatible video-output aside from
"hacking" Tivo's network.
If you want to build a secure network I think it's behoven upon you
to bear the cost of that. I just find it the idea objectionable that
you should be able to take source code that other people have written
- that other people have released publicly with the intent that it
should benefit all - and use that in a way detrimental to the
majority of users.
To bear the cost of a "secure environment" feel free to rent out the
equipment. Require a minimum 12-month contract, if you wish, but do
not "sell" the customer equipment which locks them into your service,
equipment which they "own" but which is worthless scrap should they
choose to cancel their subscription with you. That, IMO, is
misleading and whilst vendors may be entitled to sell equipment which
is locked to their service, I feel they ought to have the good grace
to write their own damn code if they're going to do so. Nintendo do
this quite successfully with their PS3 & Xbox360 consoles, and do not
rely on the open-source community to give them a free ride.
In the Land Of The Free consumers might not need any "protection"
from entering into any contract that they wish, but over here in
Europe we consider this sort of behaviour as petty any anti-competitive.
The TiVo thing was completely within the word and spirit of the GPL.
It is sad that many zealots seem to interpret the texts otherwise.
Whilst it may have been within the _word_ of the GPL your remarks do
not explain why the GPL has been specifically rewritten to exclude
this behaviour. How do you reconcile this fact with your remarks that
the Tivo thing is within the _sprit_ of the GPL?
Stroller.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
