Whether you like it or not, TiVo stayed within the license. If the GPL had never permitted what Linux does, all that would have happened is that TiVo would have used BSD instead and nobody would have gained anything.
The “whether you like it or not” is quite apropos here. If Tivo had used code licensed under the BSD license, and locked it up the way they did, that would have been fine, because it’s entirely within the letter and spirit of that license.
The fact is that what Tivo did is not within the spirit of the GPL, even if they stayed within the letter of the terms. That’s exactly why the GPLv3 makes it more explicit that what Tivo did isn’t permitted by the copyright holder.
the thing with tivoization is that you cannot modify and then use the modified code. All Tivo would have to do is make whatever “calls home” closed source if they were so worried about that and just allow people to modify the GPL code and use that modified code. That’s all the GPL3 is trying to accomplish.
I came across a choice Linus quote concerning this I felt the need to share:
“But the FSF seems to want to change the model, and the GPLv3 drafts have not been about developing code in the open, they’ve been about what you can do with that code. To go back to the science example, it’s like saying that not only should the science be peer-reviewed and open, but you also add the requirement that you cannot use it to build a bomb.”
I fully support RMS with the GPLv3. Tivo are free to make a product which is totally locked down however to do so they have to write the software themselves. When software is licensed under the GPL it means the developer is saying they want their software to be used in any way the user wishes. Tivo spat in the developers faces when they locked Tivo down.
I am surprised by your love of the original Tivo. I understand people loving it because of what it allowed them to do (record from the guide, pause and so on) but IMO the interface was horrible. Easy to use for us geeks, but way too complicated for Joe Consumer.
I’ll give only one example. When you want to record a series every week that’s called a “season pass”. How about calling it what it is instead of being cute? Bad GUI…
As for Media Center, if you think that is great, you need to get out more :-). Sadly, there aren’t many good alternatives yet.
Oh, and thanks for not requiring my email…one of the more inane posting requirements…gee, I bet no one every thought of entering a phony address :-).
HP sells a Media Center PC with an ATI video capture card that takes cable cards to record digital cable programs. It is dual tuner (and takes two cable cards). Record two shows at once. There you go, Mr. Jeff. Still no VOD with cable cards but it beats being restricted to the analog cable selection. BTW, what will cable do with the bandwidth once the analog feeds are dropped (which is not FCC mandated, the FCC digital transition only targets broadcasters, not cable or dish)? Faster downloads, please?
“Well, ya know, they’d have to write their own OS and software, and stop using (for free) what other people have sweated over.”
The GNU is supposed to be about freedom, but in reality, it is only around to push the political agenda of Richard Stallman. If it truly was a “free” license, Tivo would be able to use it with no restrictions.
When you think about it, the code is already free. Tivo could make additions, not give out any of the source and the original source would still be free. But this isn’t good enough. Richard Stallman and the FSF would like nothing more than to destroy the software industry by making it impossible for a legitimate company to make a profit. This is why I support the bsd license.
It will scare any business thinking about using GPL code to run the other way (and the movement needs business support…except in communist countries/dictatorships that pass laws forcing government organizations to use open source).
@Justin: “Products like Tivo can’t compete with a fast internet connection.”
Actually, I think they complement a fast connection. All of those Bittorrented shows you mentioned can be nicely transcoded and dropped on the TiVO for easy viewing.
One thing we mustn’t forget is that there are plenty of substitutes for Linux, and other FOSS but what companies don’t want to do is pay licenses so they get the free versions.
Also, I believe BSD distributions typically have licenses that place no such obligations on the users.
“I also wonder how a company like Tivo could make money if users could simply recompile the Tivo software to stop phoning home and billing them.”
This we know to be true: people are lazy.
If you give them a product that is a joy to use out of the box, and then they have two choices:
Do nothing and pay a small fee
Pop the hood and hack the device to remove the fee-paying requirement
… 99.99% of all users will choose Door #1.
We geeks hack our devices all the time. But normal people do not. They view the work required to do so as tedious at best and downright scary at worst (“what if I break it???”).
If a statistically significant number of people are hacking your device, then you’ve either made it not enough of a joy to use out of the box, or you’ve set the monthly fee too high.
The “support cost” argument is a load of BS. Just about every manufacturer in the world will refuse to honour any warranties or support agreements if the product has been tinkered with in any way. Many companies won’t even cooperate if you’re using the product out of the box, but in a slightly non-standard configuration (Your modem is connected to a router? Sorry, can’t help you!). There’s nothing in the GPL that forbids those policies.
If anything, the ability for some people to hack a Tivo would lower their overall support costs, because (a) the hackers would no longer be entitled to any support, and (b) you’d have a community of experts who could (grudgingly) help some of the other users, thereby eliminating yet another support call.
I’m no FOSS fan, but I have to agree with their community on this one. There are a myriad of closed-source and non-“free” open-source embedded kernels that Tivo could have paid chump change for. And if the box really is a loss-leader, then what’s the difference if Tivo has to cough up another $5 or $10 per unit? There’s no defense for what they did; they used GPLed software as a pure cost-cutting measure, then used an obscure loophole to sabotage the GPL terms for the purpose of enforcing their own licensing. Yuck.
Whether you like it or not, TiVo stayed within the license. If the GPL had never permitted what Linux does, all that would have happened is that TiVo would have used BSD instead and nobody would have gained anything. It’s not TiVo’s fault that they followed the license rather than “the intended spirit” (which is whatever RMS wakes up and thinks that day)
On top of that, we now have two incompatible widely-used licenses where we previously only had one. The FSF have shot themselves in the foot by preventing their own “share and share-alike” philosophy from actually happening over a relatively minor problem with the license.