A lengthy debate that began with a suggestion to dual license the Linux kernel under the GPLv2 and the GPLv3 continues on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Throughout the ongoing thread Linux creator Linus Torvalds has spoken out on the GPLv2, the upcoming GPLv3, the BSD license, Tivo, the Free Software Foundation, and much more. During the discussion, he was asked we he chose the GPLv2 over the BSD license when he's obviously not a big fan of the FSF.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Purely on the basis of right vs. wrong and ignoring the degree of harm, I don't see how Tivoization is any different.
It's not even a degree, but rather a type. Physical harm is in a competely different league from whatever type of harm tivozation supposedly caused. To ignore it is to ignore the key difference.
OK, I agree that "everyone" was happy in the way you describe it. However, ignoring the FSF, i.e., ignoring the "four freedoms", in this case resulted in something worse: harming those freedoms.
How can you harm those four freedoms when those four freedoms speak strictly of software freedom, which tivo does not restrict?
Thus, anyone who values these freedoms will condemn Tivoization.
Until they change the wording of the freedoms to extend beyond software, I don't agree.
Member since:2006-08-26
It's not even a degree, but rather a type. Physical harm is in a competely different league from whatever type of harm tivozation supposedly caused. To ignore it is to ignore the key difference.
While I agree that type matters and that I should have mentioned it, there's nothing decisive about physical harm. E.g., if I had to choose between being slapped, resulting in the harm of a cut on my face or being banned from speaking out at the local college campus, I would accept my slapping. E.g., verbal abuse is often far worse than physical, and the physical is often not decisive at all. Degree and type can simply be weighed together somehow to get some answer--courts do it every day.
How can you harm those four freedoms when those four freedoms speak strictly of software freedom, which tivo does not restrict?
Tivo restricts "freedom 1": The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. The way the GPL license has always supposed to work is as a copyleft, in particular, that once you distribute a covered work, you must comply with the GPL's terms and distribute all rights which you have been granted by the GPL. However, because of Tivo's technological workaround of the language of the GPL2, only Tivo can modify and adapt the software on its device. Since you cannot meaningfully exercise this freedom on the device that Tivo distributes to you, you simply do not have the same right that Tivo was granted. Thus, Tivo restricts for others the freedom 1 that it was granted.
Until they change the wording of the freedoms to extend beyond software, I don't agree.
I would be shocked if the wording ever went beyond software. If you agree that Tivo restricts freedom 1, then you will have to admit that Tivoization is bad for those who value the software freedoms in question.
Member since:
2006-08-26
Hard to compare those. Cigarettes are addicting and have lots of health effects.
It's easy to define that as immoral objectively, as it causes clearly defined harm.
But not so easy for it to have been defined when it should have been and after an enormous amount of unforeseen harm, so many years ago. Purely on the basis of right vs. wrong and ignoring the degree of harm, I don't see how Tivoization is any different. We can both agree that society never ceases to become more dependent on software, that risks to democracy get trickier in this context, and that it is unsurprising that issues of control and freedom in this context will naturally come up and evolve over time. How can Tivoization escape these concerns?
The FSF is largely irrelevent to Tivo. The license is what is relevant.
OK, I agree that "everyone" was happy in the way you describe it. However, ignoring the FSF, i.e., ignoring the "four freedoms", in this case resulted in something worse: harming those freedoms. Now, I understand that everyone is free to boycott Tivo. However, that's not the point. The point is what so many have pointed out: that it is not merely an example but a precedent of using GPLed software while harming the freedom that the GPL is supposed to protect. Thus, anyone who values these freedoms will condemn Tivoization. Inevitably, Tivo itself will get flak over it. Just as the FSF faces risks that it will, say, goof up its licenses, Tivo faces risks that it has relied upon for too long an unsustainable business model.
Edited 2007-06-18 17:29