| 1 |
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 06:48:38 pm Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 18 Jul 2007, at 18:40, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 4 |
> [C]ould |
| 5 |
> ANYBODY claim to be surprised by say Tivo? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Yes they can, since the move to DRM/TPM/etc. devices was unannounced and a |
| 8 |
change from previous generations of the hardware. There's also the fact that |
| 9 |
the code the TiVo runs *must have a signature as one of it parts* and like |
| 10 |
any GPLv2 derivative, distributors (like TiVo) must provide the full and |
| 11 |
complete source ("preferred form for modification") of all the parts, which |
| 12 |
they have not. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This "signature requirement" is implicit in the GPLv2 and explicit in the |
| 15 |
GPLv3. So was the patent license stuff. The GPLv3 is just a stronger, more |
| 16 |
well-specified GPLv2. If you don't like the GPLv3, you probably didn't |
| 17 |
*really* like the GPLv2 and might be more interested in licensing anything |
| 18 |
you contribute under something like MIT/X11/BSD. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Those licenses allow others to take your code, cripple it, and sell it to you |
| 21 |
(perhaps even on a device) for $100. Oh, and offer you an "upgrade" to (_the |
| 22 |
same device_ running) your original code (which still has a few bugs, you |
| 23 |
might want a support contract) for $10000. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Plus, people who are discussing 'ethical' problems with locked hardware |
| 26 |
> tend to forget, that there is enough hardware out there that a) needs an |
| 27 |
> update once in a while but b) has to be temper proof by the user! You might |
| 28 |
> want to read up about clinical equipment or FCC rules. Just for fun. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Actually, during the GPLv3 process, both these points (FCC and medical |
| 31 |
equipment) were brought up and experts were brought in. It was determined |
| 32 |
that there is no legal requirement to make such devices tamper-proof, if |
| 33 |
upgrades are allowed at all. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Equipment distributors are already protected from lawsuits (and the like) once |
| 36 |
a device is tampered with as long as they give the tamperer sufficient |
| 37 |
warning. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
There is no legal reason why devices must be upgradable by their distributor |
| 40 |
but not by their owner, including devices under the auspices of the FCC or |
| 41 |
medical devices. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> Some people need to realize that there is a fundamental difference between |
| 44 |
> code and hardware. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
The FSF knows there's a difference between code and hardware. However, there |
| 47 |
is no difference between code on a HD and code on an EEPROM. (It's all just |
| 48 |
readable and writable bits.) There's also no difference between code on a CD |
| 49 |
and code on a ROM chip. (It's all just reabable bits.) |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> And telling someone what he can do with HIS hardware is |
| 52 |
> just wrong. You don't like the terms of the hardware vendor? Fine. Don't |
| 53 |
> buy it. But buying it and than complaining is just lame. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
If they sell it to me it is no longer their hardware. It's MINE. That's why |
| 56 |
DRM shouldn't be allowed AT ALL, completely independent of the software |
| 57 |
distribution requirements (not hardware requirements) that the GPLv3 |
| 58 |
specifies. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
If TiVo was renting (really renting, not just "in name" like "$129 lets you |
| 61 |
rent the device for 99 years") the devices, I would probably be on the other |
| 62 |
side of this discussion. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. |
| 66 |
bss03@××××××××××.net ((_/)o o(\_)) |
| 67 |
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' |
| 68 |
http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ |
Archives