[ChuckyBox]

This story indicates that the People's Republic of Richard Stallman is trying to prevent all DRM from touching Linux. TiVo is mentioned specifically. I wonder if Hollywood will go to the mat over this?

Meanwhile, I don't see this affecting TiVo very much -- at least not in the near future.

 

[jsmeeker]

that's some alliteration.

 

[ChuckyBox]

that's some alliteration.

If only this were the Lucent Community...

 

[ZeoTiVo]

so is the Macrovision "code" in the GPL code or in the proprietary part that is licensed from TiVo in the EULA ? I have little depth of knowledge in the open soruce licenses but it seems like the GPL writers are setting restrictions on those that use the code that should not be set.


now on the flip side I have wondered if DRM pushers would start looking at the open source code like MythTV and start gunning for them so I can see this is a defensive posture on the part of the GPL writers

 

[davezatz]

So let's say one day TiVo is required to comply with a newer version of the GPL which limits how they manipulate data... Instead of being strong-armed into opening everything up (no DRM) and ceasing metric collection, they'll dump Linux. Then they'll create a closed, proprietary system that can't be hacked, that doesn't support third party network adapters, etc. And we'll be worse off.

 

[wangmaster]

a couple of things to think about:
1) current software isn't going to magically be re-licensed to gpl v3.
2) linux still has to adopt gpl v3 (no reason why they won't stay at gpl v2)

If you can't comply with gpl v3, well, take existing gpl v2 licensed stuff and fork it yourself. That's the beauty of most open source licenses. Sure you have to maintain it yourself at that level, but hey, you're already borrowing alot of stuff for "free".

 

[rainwater]

This issue has nothing to do with TiVo. TiVo does not distribute it's software under the GPL license so it wouldn't even matter. The article concerns a new GPL proposal that would limit DRM for software that uses this license. Just because TiVo uses the Linux OS doesn't mean the software TiVo writes on top of that has to be GPL compatible (obviously TiVo isn't going to distribute its source code so it would never choose the GPL).

The article is using shock and awe calling the GPL a Linux license. That is just ridiculous.

 

[HDTiVo]

Who needs Linux when there is OCAP?

 

[wangmaster]

some of the sorftware TiVO uses is indeed GPL'ed. TiVO uses linux, as well as various tools that are standard for most linux distributions. Depending on what kinds of modifications TiVO makes to the GPL'ed code this may or may not affect TiVO.

TiVO does modify the kernel. This will limit what they can and can't do with DRM restrictions at this level of code. I haven't read the GtPL v3 draft closely yet though.

 

[ZeoTiVo]

The article is using shock and awe calling the GPL a Linux license. That is just ridiculous.

I think they also threw TiVo into the article for shock and awe value. Cnet has devolved to whre they are typically half right/half wrong in a lot of articles like this. They should stick to hardware reviews and focus on making those better.

 

[allan]

I think some GPL software specifies "GPL V2 or later" and will go to V3, but the Linux kernel, IIRC, doesn't say "or later" because Linus Torvalds wasn't going to gamble on what the next version would be. Unlike Stallman, Linus is a pragmatist, not an ideologe (sic).

 

[mportuesi]

I think some GPL software specifies "GPL V2 or later" and will go to V3, but the Linux kernel, IIRC, doesn't say "or later" because Linus Torvalds wasn't going to gamble on what the next version would be. Unlike Stallman, Linus is a pragmatist, not an ideologe (sic).

Correct. Linux is strictly at GPL v2; it does not specify "or later". For them to migrate to GPL v3 would require permission from all the contributors to the Linux kernel (a list that runs into the hundreds at least).

Even if that were to happen, TiVo could still use/maintain any current versions of Linux still under the GPL v2 license.

Please stop the hysteria.

 

[ChuckyBox]

I think some GPL software specifies "GPL V2 or later" and will go to V3

Can you change software license terms retroactively? Or anticipatorily?

 

[ChuckyBox]

Please stop the hysteria.

This is a valid request almost all of the time, in almost all situations. Someone should print up bumper stickers.

 

[NoCleverUsername]

On Monday, the Free Software Foundation published a draft of the GPL version 3, which is expected to be completed in about a year. The draft states that GPL software cannot use "digital restrictions" on copyright material unless users can control them.

The planned anti-DRM changes to the GPL are significant because the entertainment industry regularly uses Linux-powered computers in the production process, notably for special effects and animation. In general, movie studios support DRM technology to prevent piracy.

Okay, so Dreamworks Animation happens to use Linux. (Using them as an example because I know this for a fact.) Where exactly in the process of making the original movie are they putting in DRM? Isn't that something that's not even added until the DVD authoring process, long after the theatrical release, which may or may not even use GPL software?

Is there even any professional grade GPL-based DVD authoring packages out there in the first place?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the FSF. But if the article accurately reflects what the new license is all about, I have to wonder whether it will amount to anything more than a symbolic gesture.

 

[rainwater]

I think the whole point is unless you are compiling the DRM into the kernel, this is really not a big deal to anyone. Even if you were, Linux isn't licensed under the GPL v3 and it will not apply. It would not affect software that runs on Linux either unless that software itself is using GPL v3. And since GPL v3 doesn't exist yet anyway, there's no way that TiVo is using any software that would be affected.

 

[Stormspace]

I think what this is aimed at is those people that are taking GPLed software and adding a DRM layer into it so that existing law prevents the code from being disclosed. If I take a GPLed program and modify it so that the files it creates can't be copied by law you can't alter the code that does that. Basically by doing this the DRM provider creates a fork that dies and none of the benefits from that effort are realized by the rest of the community at best. At worst, some judge may rule that the DMCA takes precedence over the GPL and say that any GPL code with DRM is now proprietary. That's a stretch for sure, but I think its something that the new version is trying to address.

 

[dswallow]

TiVo can always move to Windows Media Center Edition.

 

[HDTiVo]

TiVo can always move to Windows Media Center Edition.

Not a total joke. Interop with ViiV/MCE is their future.

 

[Malibyte]

TiVo can always move to Windows Media Center Edition.

Ewww.

This would be the kiss of death for those of us that wish to improve our machines (read "any sort of hacking whatsoever"). Let's hope this doesn't happen.

I believe, as said above, that the Linux kernel won't fall under this mandate. Some of the GNU tools might, but the way I read it, one can use the compiler to write whatever they want.

I have to admit that I agree with at least some of the FSF's positions. The DMCA is a bad law. The "fair-use" provisions of previous precedents are slowly being eroded (remember when you could make as many copies of any CD you bought, as long as they were for your own personal use (i.e., to listen to in the car as well as at home)? Look at this latest fiasco with the Sony CD spyware/virus.

Richard Stallman can be a bit too black-and-white at times, though, which is why he and Linus aren't best buds.

Bob