Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> GPLv3 draft 3 arrives, adds "anti-Tivo-ization"
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| In a sop to TiVo-style vendors, the scope of these requirements has
>| also been narrowed: "This draft introduces the concept of a 'User
>| Product,' which includes devices that are sold for personal, family,
>| or household use. Distributors are only required to provide
>| installation information when they convey object code in a User
>| Product."
>|
>| At the same time they release the User Product with the object
>| code on it, however, they must provide the source code to the
>| world on a public network server. This code can be hosted on
>| different servers from the object code, the actual running
>| program code, provided that the source is made available
>| simultaneously with the object code.
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS5484789593.html
>
The value of open, public, debate can be seen here. It's taken some
time, but it does appear that wordings which are acceptable are being
determined. To everyone who wonders why it takes the ITU a long time,
sometimes, to agree controversial standards, well, this is why!
The TiVoisation debate is a significant one, though, as it still appears
to me that the TiVo people were trying to, at the very least, creep
round the edges of the intention of the GPL. The same approach would
surely have been used for DRM, too, so with a bit of luck, GPLv3 will
make DRM at the kernel level a much less likely issue.
Come to that, will Vista be remembered as the OS which DRM killed?
Even, the first product which DRM killed? Um - maybe not - DAT was
killed by DRM.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
