[snips]
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:13:36 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> It is a way of ensuring that despite you having full access to the code,
>> as required, you do not have control of the device.
>
> I know that.
Okay, looked like there might have been some confusion there, wasn't sure.
> But that is not the point. They *do* obey the GPL2.
Sure. I suspect, though, that the real issue is one over the letter of it
versus the spirit of it. Yes, you have the code, yes you can hack it to
your heart's content, but no, you can't actually use it (can't mod your
Tivo) which may be technically within the limits of the GPL but is, IMO,
contrary to the spirit and intent of it.
> And if you want full
> control of a device like that, you don't go the Tivo route in the first
> place. You do a MythTV or similar setup in linux by yourself and get a
> highly configurable system. Just not the "plug it in, works" type of
> Tivo
Indeed. Go open, or go away. :)
> And yes, I can understand them. They want to make sure that they don't
> get inundated with help calls from users who just successfully mangled
> their Tivo (the same way DFS gets his linux systems to crash all the
> time: being completely inept).
> It is very difficult to honour warranties and keep customers happy if
> you also allow those very customers, no matter how incompetent, to alter
> the system
Perhaps, but one might also note that first, it's likely to be the sort of
users who don't call tech support in the first place who actually fiddle
with the boxes, and second, it's not exactly impossible to filter out the
dross - display a numeric fingerprint used by an automated voice system to
validate the installed software version, say. It'd take a particularly
perverse user to generate a wrong - but valid - fingerprint.
|
|
