On Wednesday 18 July 2007 06:48:38 pm Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > On Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote: > > On 18 Jul 2007, at 18:40, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > [C]ould > ANYBODY claim to be surprised by say Tivo?
Yes they can, since the move to DRM/TPM/etc. devices was unannounced and a
change from previous generations of the hardware. There's also the fact that
the code the TiVo runs *must have a signature as one of it parts* and like
any GPLv2 derivative, distributors (like TiVo) must provide the full and
complete source ("preferred form for modification") of all the parts, which
they have not.
This "signature requirement" is implicit in the GPLv2 and explicit in the
GPLv3. So was the patent license stuff. The GPLv3 is just a stronger, more
well-specified GPLv2. If you don't like the GPLv3, you probably didn't
*really* like the GPLv2 and might be more interested in licensing anything
you contribute under something like MIT/X11/BSD.
Those licenses allow others to take your code, cripple it, and sell it to you
(perhaps even on a device) for $100. Oh, and offer you an "upgrade" to (_the
same device_ running) your original code (which still has a few bugs, you
might want a support contract) for $10000.
> Plus, people who are discussing 'ethical' problems with locked hardware
> tend to forget, that there is enough hardware out there that a) needs an
> update once in a while but b) has to be temper proof by the user! You might
> want to read up about clinical equipment or FCC rules. Just for fun.
Actually, during the GPLv3 process, both these points (FCC and medical
equipment) were brought up and experts were brought in. It was determined
that there is no legal requirement to make such devices tamper-proof, if
upgrades are allowed at all.
Equipment distributors are already protected from lawsuits (and the like) once
a device is tampered with as long as they give the tamperer sufficient
warning.
There is no legal reason why devices must be upgradable by their distributor
but not by their owner, including devices under the auspices of the FCC or
medical devices.
> Some people need to realize that there is a fundamental difference between
> code and hardware.
The FSF knows there's a difference between code and hardware. However, there
is no difference between code on a HD and code on an EEPROM. (It's all just
readable and writable bits.) There's also no difference between code on a CD
and code on a ROM chip. (It's all just reabable bits.)
> And telling someone what he can do with HIS hardware is
> just wrong. You don't like the terms of the hardware vendor? Fine. Don't
> buy it. But buying it and than complaining is just lame.
If they sell it to me it is no longer their hardware. It's MINE. That's why
DRM shouldn't be allowed AT ALL, completely independent of the software
distribution requirements (not hardware requirements) that the GPLv3
specifies.
If TiVo was renting (really renting, not just "in name" like "$129 lets you
rent the device for 99 years") the devices, I would probably be on the other
side of this discussion.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
