Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Jun 2007 22:17 UTC, submitted by prymitive
Permalink for comment 248256
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.




Member since:
2006-09-16
He clarified that. The *design* of the hardware belongs to TiVo, and is not under the GPL. Some of the software included with the product is under the GPL, some is under other licenses.
The fact that GPL software is included does not put the other software or the design of the hardware under the GPL. RMS may want all software to be under the GPL, but copyright law doesn't work that way. It is perfectly legal to include (aggregate) GPL and non-GPL software on the same system.
If you buy a TiVo, you own it. You can get the source for the kernel. You can modify the kernel. Run that kernel on your own hardware design, or hack your TiVo so that it will run unsigned code. But TiVo is NOT obligated to provide you with the source for the hardware design, or the other code, or anything else.
I don't own a TiVo, because I dislike closed hardware. That's why I use MythTV. But Linus is right when he points out that RMS is trying to extend a software license to cover hardware. That's not right, and it's likely to create problems.
GPLv3 uses a software license to impose conditions on the hardware that the software runs on. Sony used a rootkit to impose conditions on computers that audio CDs were played on. In both cases, the copyright for one element is being abused to control the behavior of systems which are NOT under that copyright. The copyright on the music on a CD should not have ANY effect on the system it is played on, and the copyright on a program should not have ANY effect on hardware it runs on.