A little "stealing" isn't bad,... But lock-outs aren't
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| JaseP Sep 27, 2010 12:56 PM EDT |
A little "stealing" isn't bad, if it is in the form of releasing a tuned distribution for a particular knd of hardware with a platform for applications, etc... Like Android, or Maemo/Moblin/Meego. But lock-outs aren't good. Particularly nasty players in the arena are ones like Tivo, Archos (worse than Tivo in my opinion), and to an extent TomTom (as well as some of the other GPS manufacturers). Those releasing a "locked" Linux based OS on a consumer oriented product are particularly bad because many consumers want the device for the purpose of hacking it into something differnt that they may want, other than the original device. For instance, Archos has traditionally locked its OS in hardware (like Tivo), preventing the user from adding their own functionality or re-purposing the device. Their 604WiFi, for example, had all the makings of a media-centric PDA. But Archos determined that they wanted to limit its function to a glorified MP3 player. The device also could have had the ability to be a home control and media streaming device... But again, the device could not be used for that purpose because network connectivity was limited, and it had a poor closed source web browser, to boot,... To some extent, if they are doing this to prevent violation of licenses they have with codec vendors and the like,... I can somewhat understand it. The makers of the Parrot AR Drone limit the use of their control API that runs atop an embeded Linux to gaming uses. This is most likely to reduce their liability exposure for users turning it into a "Peeping Tom" device or to prevent it from being classified as a reconnaissance UAV, requiring military pilots licenses in some countries. Others have licensed codecs and wish to prevent being sued for license violations,... I disagree with the ability to patent codecs (which are nothing more than algorithms),... but fine. I understand CYA reasoning. But to lock out the ability to re-purpose the device with a replacement OS, while using Open Source, is in my opinion, sleazy. They are essentially delivering a platform for them to sell more products, but doing so under the illusion that it is a versatile computing device. The iPod/iPad devices are the prime example. Other vendors are selling hardware with a particular function running an open source OS, but allow the device and the OS to be freely Modified. The best example is the Neuros OSD, a video transcoding device that runs an embeded Linux OS. The OS was encouraged to be hacked, and the device was too... And to this day, the Neuros OSD is the last resort when you need to convert analogue video or audio into digital format, and it just won't work anywhere else. Great device,... & a company that understands Open Source. But for the big Mainframe devices the author is refering to,... I don't necessarily follow with the analogy due to the economies of scale. I seriously doubt that those high end platforms are locked like a Tivo, preventing running other apps on them concurrently with their particular software product... Selling the software only with the hardware is then just a marketing decision, a way to make more money. As long as the user can modify the OS as needed, but still being limited to running THAT OS on THAT hardware in order to get the software they were purchasing,... I see nothing different from doing that as opposed to say, the Neuros OSD devices... I wouldn't make the decision to purchase such a platform if I were a CIO,... because I believe less vendor-controled options always exist. But I understand the company wanting to sell hardware/software solutions as their only distribution method. |
| azerthoth Sep 27, 2010 7:14 PM EDT |
Sorry, meet the requirements of the GPL, anything beyond that is gravy. As linus has said, it's all about the code. |
| JaseP Sep 28, 2010 9:50 AM EDT |
There's more to straightforward consumer dealings than the GPL... There's fair trade practices (or the inverse; Unfair Trade Practices). That is; if you develop, advertise and tout your new product as using Open Source (with all the freedom that goes along with it), but you lock the code in hardware, you are engaging in deceptive trade practices. It's not a GPL issue, for sure,... but it is a consumer protection issue. And some vendors have been ordered by Courts not to lock out other software from devices they are involved in (M$ & Intel as the most notable examples). |
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!