very good article
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick2 Oct 23, 2006 8:17 PM EDT |
Linus is uncharacteristically thoughtful and actually speaks to the issues, instead of ranting. All of the people interviewed contribute useful comments. I have no opinion on GPL3- I leave that to wiser heads. There are a lot of bad feelings towards Stallman and the FSF: "...and that the FSF might even just stop using the name "GNU/Linux", finally admitting that Linux never was a GNU project in the first place." "...there is no abstract entity even that is properly called "GNU/Linux". It's a bit of spin-doctoring by the FSF to try and link themselves to Linux. Normally its just one of those things they do and people sigh about, but when you look at the licensing debate the distinction is vital." "they are now trying to tell another group (us) what we should do to our code.... As the FSF has no contribution in the Linux kernel, and has nothing to do with it in general, we kernel developers are now a bit upset that someone else is trying to tell us that something we explicitly stated was acceptable use of our code, is suddenly bad and wrong." "I'm sure that a large majority of the people who actually write this code haven't made their opinions felt to the FSF. Yet the FSF presumes to speak for them, and proposes to use their work as ammunition in the FSF's campaigns." "The big one though for the kernel is not a legal matter or even a specifically GPLv3 matter. Many people contributed to the kernel under a set of understood terms. Not only would all those people have to agree to a change in those terms but those terms changing would prevent some of the existing users from continuing to use it in the manner they do now." A must-read for anyone as befuddled as I over the whole deal. |
| jimf Oct 23, 2006 8:33 PM EDT |
> A must-read for anyone as befuddled as I over the whole deal. You too huh? The one reason I do tend to listen to Linus is that he is the only one in the crowd who doesn't treat Linux (or obviously the GPL) as the holy grail. |
| incinerator Oct 24, 2006 12:40 AM EDT |
Aye, that is must-read indeed. Quite a few kernel developers actually oppose tivoisation. However, only Dave Miller explicitly states his opinion in that regard. The others seem to ignore that matter as it wouldn't exist. But that's the point, the tivoisation "problem" does exist. I'm quite surprised that Linus and the others show a significant lack of interest about the political implications of their work. When a technology like Linux becomes as popular as it is today, it becomes important politically, as well. In that regard, it seems, many kernel developers still seem to be living in the past and simply ignore the issue. I don't mind if Linus et al. don't want to join the FSF bandwaggon, but not caring about the political aspects of the Linux kernel at all seems a wee bit immature to me. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2006 3:54 AM EDT |
tc et al - 1. Uncharacteristically thoughtful? Bull. Linus most certainly can rant and cut with the best of them. He has, however, very eloquently expressed his both his appreciation for and of GPLV2 and the reasons for his rejection of GPLV3 as currently drafted. 2. Unaware of the political implications? Utterly absurd statement. Of course Linus is aware of the political implications of what he's doing. Big clue number He's spoken out repeatedly and he's polled the kernel developers. I'm not sure that he's actually used the word "tivoization", but he certainly has addressed the issue of DRM and a license that places restrictions on the use of hardware. Just because he doesn't use the bumper-sticker version doesn't mean he hasn't addressed the issue. Far from being politically unaware, Linus has expressed the old "hammer and nail" line - just because you have a license doesn't make it the appropriate tool for the job you are trying to do. If one were to be honest, one could easily accuse Stallman and the FSF as being unaware of the political implications of their actions. I don't know how many political activities you've been part of, but, after a while, you will discover that politics tends to divide itself in a very messy way. It's the old "Politics make strange bedfellow" thing. People who fight tooth and nail over the right to life might chat over coffee while organizing activities to protect the environment, feed the homeless, whatever. It is the way much good gets done. At the same time, there are always factions and groups who are simply too cool for school. No compromises, not sitting with the "enemy", no progress and no achievements. Politics is the art of getting people to do things and that means understanding what is important to them. Disconnect from that and you may chant slogans, write papers, claim to be a political activist, chide others, etc, but you are not remotely politically aware. I suspect (don't know the man) that Stallman has become so enamored of the issue that he's forgotten the politics. |
| incinerator Oct 24, 2006 6:02 AM EDT |
Well, I differ in that assessment. RMS and FSF have always been after the big picture, many people seem to forget that. On the other hand, all what kernel developers want is to simply hack away and be left alone with politics. Linus may be in favour of tivoisation or me may oppose it. However, he must make up his mind whether he can afford to alienate a significant number of contributors or not. I would not contribute code to a kernel I know a company like tivo can take away and make non-free. If I would be willing to do that, I could just as easily contribute to any of the BSDs around. Many kernel developers oppose tivoisation and expect Linus to do something about it. The new GPLv3 wouldan easy way out for him. Additionaly, he must be reading forbes and dan lyons, otherwise Linus et al. wouldn't have this paranoid opinions about RMS and FSF trying to "take over". That's Linus's problem. He seems to be unable to distinguish between a mainly political agenda and software projects related to it. FSF has an interest to make sure Free Software stays free, they surely don't have an interest in taking over software projects like the Linux kernel, that would be contradictory to their own beliefs. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 24, 2006 6:45 AM EDT |
The one thing I am always missing in these "Linux and GPLv3" discussions is the total impracticality -- if not impossibility -- of the kernel to go GPLv3 even if Linus wanted to. The kernel does not require assigning your copyrights to a governing entity as e.g. MySQL AB or Mozilla do. Everyone keeps their copyright. Several big kernel contributers have already stated never to agree on a GPLv3 version of their code. That means their code would have to be removed from a GPLv3 kernel. Other (especially older) contributions may be hard to track down and would have to be removed simply because no permission could be obtained. The question for Linux and the kernel hackers is not "Is GPLv3 better and should we move" but "Is GPLv3 so much better that it warrants months of hard work, a rewriting significant parts of the kernel and a loss of several big contributers". Looking at if from that angle makes me agree with Linus: "Not worth the trouble - we can fight DRM in easier ways". |
| incinerator Oct 24, 2006 7:35 AM EDT |
sander: I agree. It will probably be impossible to ever change the license of the Linux kernel to GPLv3 or a later version. However, I think that there's a real danger there. If more and more companies, particularly in the embedded computing sector, decide to jump onto the tivo bandwaggon then the Linux kernel might effectively become non-free. Linus is probably right saying that re-licensing the kernel to GPLv3 is not worth the trouble, but then I don't see him actively opposing tivoisation, either? Has Linus himself ever taken action against people and companies that have violated his copyright on the Linux kernel? What does he actually do to fight tivoisation? On the contrary, it seems he doesn't even mind things like DRM, TCP, and tivoisation to happen. Short-sighted non-political hacker attitude, just the same as the guys at MIT who managed to get Unix and their freedom stolen away from them by AT&T for mere money. |
| jdixon Oct 24, 2006 7:37 AM EDT |
> Several big kernel contributers have already stated never to agree on a GPLv3 version of their code. Which is fine, but what if serveral other contributers say "we're GPLv3 only". Where does that leave the kernel then? It may not be as simple as leaving everything GPLv2. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2006 7:58 AM EDT |
>Which is fine, but what if serveral other contributers say "we're GPLv3 only". No such animal, even if they say they are. For one thing, as of yet, there is no GPLV3, only a proposed draft. For another, anybody contributing code to Linux must contribute it under a license that will permit distribution under GPLv2 because that is what Linux is licensed under. If, going forward, contributors no longer wish to work on Linux, that is their privilege. I'm sure the Hurd folks would be happy to have them. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 24, 2006 8:19 AM EDT |
Incinerator, then don't buy a Tivo. Tivo, on the other hand, could easily simply make their policy that if you do mess with the software, they will no longer support it. Which, if I may ascribe to others their motivations, is the logical reason for their putting in the hash check in the first place. Stallman in the interview states that companies like Tivo can maintain "technical compliance" while violating the spirit of the GPL. But can it? Why not prosecute for violating the GPL? After all, the software, after being fiddled with by the customer, won't run. However, it's Tivo's box. The box has nothing what so ever to do with the GPL, so extending the GPL to cover the box is, in my very humble opinion, hostile to hardware vendors. Shall I prosecute IBM because my x86 compiled kernel won't run on their PowerPC systems? It's not like there aren't a dozen embedded operating systems to choose from. Rather than making twisted, confusing language to try to cover every contingency, RMS could focus on making sure that people know when "violations of the spirit" happen, and thereby show the offending producers, through moral suasion and boycott (if it comes to that), that there are more rational ways to deal with perceived problems than locking people out of "their" hardware. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 24, 2006 8:39 AM EDT |
Quoting:Has Linus himself ever taken action against people and companies that have violated his copyright on the Linux kernel? Him and what warchest? Legal battles cost money. Tivo may already violate the GPLv2 but nobody knows for sure untill a lawsuit is filed and fought out. Linus has no interest in doing that. He hasn't opposed Tivo but he hasn't given them carte blanche either. He's got his hands on the code and if there are other issues, someone else should look into it and fight it out. It's a bit the same as the situation with the nVidia binary drivers. It may be legal. It may not. Linus doesn't care about the legal battles as long as he can continue to make the world's greatest kernel. I see that attibude pop un anytime there's a controversy over Linux. As for DRMed Linux taking over the embedded market: I don't think so. Take a look at the manufacturer's point of view. Why would you DRM the software in your device? Tivo has a sort-of plausible reason in protecting HD media and ripping (they don't want to end up on the wrong side of a lawsuit by Big Media). There's little to no such incetive for other embedded devices. After all, the code is still free. It's only the hardware that is not. If company X creates a DRM'ed Linux router then people can still take the code and flash their Linksys boxes with whatever improvements were made :-) They key is competition. As soon as the first non-DRM'ed Linux DVR appears, people will be able to take all of Tivo's code and make the competition better. DRM'ing embedded Linux only works as long as there's no open hardware alternative to use the still free software on. |
| jimf Oct 24, 2006 9:04 AM EDT |
Yep dino, you got it. GPLv3 and the HURD, a match made in..... Oh well :) |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 24, 2006 9:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:As soon as the first non-DRM'ed Linux DVR appears, people will be able to take all of Tivo's code and make the competition better. DRM'ing embedded Linux only works as long as there's no open hardware alternative to use the still free software on. Which is why I like MythTV on commodity PC hardware. To be honest, I haven't put the box together yet myself, much as I want to, because I don't have the money to spend. But when I do it won't be an "appliance" like a Tivo, and neither would I expect an "appliance" to work for me just like commodity hardware. I don't believe that using the Tivo example is a good thing to justify the agonies that have occurred because of the GPLv3, _specifically_ because the GPLv2 and Tivo were never tested in court. It's clear that RMS thinks the GPLv2, even with "voilated in spirit", wouldn't prevail. I still prefer persuasion to bludgeon. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2006 9:52 AM EDT |
Sander - I would bet if these things were actual violations a war chest could be found. There are many interested parties, not just Linus and not just the FSF. And, let's not forget umpteen public interest law groups, law schools, etc. One little nugget for you: Federal law has a few surprises in IP law, one of which is several "loser pays" scenarios. In other words, if you lose, you may be required to pay the winner's legal fees. If a good enough case could be made, somebody could be interested in pursuing it, if only for the potential to generate fees. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 24, 2006 12:18 PM EDT |
Quoting:I would bet if these things were actual violations a war chest could be found. Which is why Harald Welte of gpl-violations.org is a multi-milionaire now ;-) There will only be a warchest if the case is big enough, the violation very clear and the target awash with cash. Quoting:There are many interested parties, not just Linus and not just the FSF. And, let's not forget umpteen public interest law groups, law schools, etc. They can't sue unless they hold copyrights. FSF doesn't hold the copyrights to the Linux kernel. Quoting:if you lose, you may be required to pay the winner's legal fees. You still need the warchest to fund the lawyers while the battle is fought out in the courts. You only get your money back afterwards - if at all. It's a rarely used piece of legislature in the US. Europe uses it more but even here you can't count on getting your fees back. @Bob: Maybe it's about time that companies start to make parts that allow you to build your own applience-like hardware. Mini-ATX, PC-on-a-chip and gumsticks are a step in the right direction. Wat we need now are a few standardized cases to hold the bits (generic DVD/DVR case - mini-ATX, generic router case, etcetera) and a standardized remote control and we could build our own appliences :-) |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2006 1:00 PM EDT |
sander -- Those organizations don't have to hold copyrights. What has to happen is that they get together with a copyright holder. There is no law against helping somebody out, or representing somebody because you a) are willing to work pro-bono (PIRG groups, law schools, etc) or b)can smell fees. |
| jdixon Oct 24, 2006 2:49 PM EDT |
> For another, anybody contributing code to Linux must contribute it under a license that will permit distribution under GPLv2 because that is what Linux is licensed under. The GPLv2 or any later version clause would do that. Remember that there is still some disagreement as to whether that's still the case or not where the kernel is concerned. I think the FSF needs to simply make the DRM provision one of it's optional clauses, and work out a way for GPL icenses which use it and those who don't to be compatible. If they do that, the problem goes away. Now, that may not be easy, or even possible, but that's what they should be aiming for. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2006 6:08 PM EDT |
>The GPLv2 or any later Sure, but that would rule out any "GPLV3 only" demands. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 24, 2006 11:13 PM EDT |
> The GPLv2 or any later version clause would do that. I think kernel contributions are still GPLv2 only - just like the kernel itself. |
| incinerator Oct 25, 2006 12:08 AM EDT |
"However, it's Tivo's box." As soon as I buy it, it becomes MY box, MY property. Just the same when I buy a new car. Would you pay good money to own a car that stopped working as soon as you changed the tyres? |
| jdixon Oct 25, 2006 2:53 AM EDT |
> I think kernel contributions are still GPLv2 only - just like the kernel itself. Linus says they are, but some weren't originally, and some of the contributors were apparently never asked about the change. Whether Linus had the right to make the change is debatable. |
| jdixon Oct 25, 2006 3:03 AM EDT |
> Would you pay good money to own a car that stopped working as soon as you changed the tyres? More like the following: This car comes with a custom set of tires designed to provide a far smoother ride than that of any other car. Changing tires is allowed, but doing so will remove this feature. That's a rough equivilant to the custom services Tivo offers. They probably have a right to deny those services to those who modify the box. |
| incinerator Oct 25, 2006 3:29 AM EDT |
"Changing tires is allowed, but doing so will remove this feature"
No, following the tivo analogy, changing the tyres will stop. the. car. If you modify any part of the tivo software, and be it the smallest one-line change, the tivo stops working. Whether the tivo has some unique special feature or not is irrelevant. |
| dinotrac Oct 25, 2006 3:36 AM EDT |
incinerator - What if you replace the bios? |
| dcparris Oct 25, 2006 7:53 AM EDT |
So what, exactly, are they trying to prevent in the first place? I mean, if I were to try to modify my cable service on my end to get more channels than I've paid for, Time-Warner ain't gonna be none to happy about that. If that's what Tivo is trying to prevent, their mechanism might be understandable. If the box is leased, it's their box, not mine, and I don't have the same rights as if I own it. If all they're doing is preventing me from improving the recording features or something, then I don't understand at all, and they won't get my business. This where I am a bit concerned for our community. Do we even understand what the hell we're arguing about? |
| dinotrac Oct 25, 2006 7:58 AM EDT |
dc - You ask a great question. An explanation would be something, at least. For example, if it were something like, "Our lawyers warned us that we were in serious dangers of getting our butts sued into oblivion if we didn't do something to make sure that our product was used in the intended manner and not as a tool for piracy" or some such thing, at least I could understand. As it is, I wonder if it isn't more like ("Well gee, if you guys can replace the OS, how can we control features that we'd like to make available but only at an extra cost?" |
| dcparris Oct 25, 2006 8:32 AM EDT |
I am now in contact with Tivo, via their PR guy, Jeff Weir. I'll come back when I have more to go on. I take it as an omen that he has referred me in the interim to Daniel Lyons' articles at Forbes. However, there was one link I found that has an interesting-looking interview with Torvalds on Tivo. I'm still researching this, though, and would like to present something a bit more balanced than what Lyons had to say recently. Is he related to Titch? |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 25, 2006 11:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:Would you pay good money to own a car that stopped working as soon as you changed the tyres? No. And that is exactly my point. If you are told, up front, that changing the tires will stop the car from working, and you do so anyway, where is the room to complain? I am looking forward greatly to the Tivo answer, DC. Bravo for your diving into the question. |
| jdixon Oct 25, 2006 12:04 PM EDT |
> So what, exactly, are they trying to prevent in the first place? I believe that has changed over time, and I'm not sure what the current status is. I think in the beginning they were simply trying to prevent unauthorized duplication of the recorded programs (to prevent law suits, as noted above). Then I believe they added blocking access to their paid services for modified systems. It may be that now they're trying to prevent any modifications at all. Hopefully Tivo will be able to answer your questions and let us know what they currently do and do not allow. I agree that if they want to control access to their services, that's their right, but the box belongs to you, and you should be able to modify it. |
| dcparris Oct 25, 2006 1:10 PM EDT |
> Bravo for your diving into the question. It has taken me a while to give it the attention it deserves, but then I have a lot on my plate. But I'm just watching, and it seems like so many really don't grasp what the bottom line is. That makes it impossible to debate an issue - well at least with any reasonable outcome. My brother and I would argue with a fencepost. That's fine, but we still need to understand the issues we're arguing about. Daniel Lyons is too busy mischaracterizing Stallman and drawing attention away from the real issues to provide us any reasonable clues. Torvalds has given some clues, but I want to go over his comments a little more as well. And, as always, it is best to go straight to the source. Which journalist has presented any information at all based on Tivo's position? We keep hearing from RMS and Torvalds, Torvalds and the kernel hackers, Torvalds and Joe Blow on the street who can't even afford a Tivo to begin with. jdixon: I agree wholeheartedly with you. You might be surprised what Linus said about that. Stay tuned! |
| jimf Oct 25, 2006 1:59 PM EDT |
> Joe Blow on the street who can't even afford a Tivo to begin with. Well, I can Identify with that one ;-) I started this whole thing with a pretty open mind, but the more I hear, the more I believe that Torvalds and the kernel hackers are the only one's presenting any factual reality. Sorry Don, but it's getting harder and harder for me to separate any 'potential' value in GPLv3 from the absolutest spin by RMS and the FSF. |
| dcparris Oct 25, 2006 4:27 PM EDT |
What bothers me is that some of the kernel hackers keep sniping at Stallman. If it's not about him, then quit sniping at him. They don't go as far as Lyons, to be sure. You should really read that Lyons piece about the Acolytes. Lyons was pure mean - and ignored a few well-known facts. Nick Petreley had some interesting comments, but even he somehow wound up getting sidetracked with people calling into question his statements about the hardware. Maybe he was making a point, but either he didn't do a good job, or he missed what people like jdixon have said. There may be valid reasons why Tivo did what they did. That is what I want to find out. Even then, there is usually more than one way to skin a cat. |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 25, 2006 4:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:There may be valid reasons why Tivo did what they did. That is what I want to find out. Even then, there is usually more than one way to skin a cat. Exactly, There are reasons and there is more than one way to find out. I wish you luck, Seriously. I hope you get the answers to the questions that for some reason have not been asked yet. |
| jimf Oct 25, 2006 4:55 PM EDT |
All this crap about Tivo. It would appear that Tivo is selling (well actually renting) you a tiered service. As such, I'm not even sure you have the right to mod their box, and, most of this 'I can do what I want with my equipment' line is garbage anyway. I'd be willing to bet that even if could make them not use GPLv3 licensed software, they'll just move the encoding to hardware. Or Ignore it all and release under GPLv2, or just ignore the Linux community altogether. What the heck do Tivo users expect when they sign up for an obviously limited service? If you don't agree with the terms of service, then just don't use it. The Tivo 'issue' amounts to FSF FUD... |
| dcparris Oct 25, 2006 5:19 PM EDT |
I would say the Tivo issue is, in the eyes of the FSF - or at least RMS - The Xerox Strikes Back! It not FUD; it's a nightmare. Anyway, we'll see. |
| tuxchick2 Oct 25, 2006 5:33 PM EDT |
I wouldn't call it FUD at all, but a genuine concern, which we've all addressed before- if the hardware is locked, what good is free software? I too am tired of the sniping at RMS and the FSF. It's childish. Some rather obvious points: -if it's a rented box, oh well, too bad for you. It's not yours. -if you own it, that gives you more rights Out of several hundred kernel devs, we're only hearing from a very small number- the usual ones. How representative are they? What about other devs who write non-kernel GPL software? More and more this looks like a continuation of an old grudge match. I do believe we can all agree on one thing: Dan Lyons is a forked-tongue poopyhead. |
| dinotrac Oct 25, 2006 5:38 PM EDT |
>Dan Lyons is a forked-tongue poopyhead. Or, as the late Lloyd Bentson might have said, "Sir, I knew John Kennedy, and you are a forked-tongue poopyhead." |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 25, 2006 5:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:The Tivo 'issue' amounts to FSF FUD... At least half of it is which is why I hope Don gets his way, so to speak. ;-) |
| helios Oct 26, 2006 2:34 AM EDT |
"...is a forked-tongue poopyhead." Prepare to be blatantly plagerized. h |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 27, 2006 5:13 PM EDT |
Indeed, once you buy the box it's yours. This is why I believe the true motivation of Tivo to "secure" the system was to absolve themselves as much as possible of responsibility for piracy, and to defend their subscription payed services from being accessed by hacked systems. Which suggests to me that the real answer is to hack the ROM, since it is YOUR ROM after all, you bought it, just like people hack the ROM of Linksys routers to run commodity Linux. What I meant is, "it's their box" to build as they see fit. And it is your money to spend as you see fit. A fair trade. |
| jdixon Oct 27, 2006 6:12 PM EDT |
> Which suggests to me that the real answer is to hack the ROM... That called a modchip in modern parlance (at least with respect to the gaming consoles), and the hardware companies are doing their very best to have it outlawed. I don't know to what extent they've succeeded, but googling modchip lawsuit might prove instructive. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!