Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ chrisv on Wednesday 23 January 2008 14:59 : \____
>>
>>> Thufir wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:56:26 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It looks as though WP will
>>>>> go v3 some time in the future, but I had to argue with Tivo apologists,
>>>>> who in turn seemed like they simply didn't like the GNU philosophy _in
>>>>> general_, just as Stallman used to warn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To me, what Tivo did is an ok compromise. Their product, as envisioned,
>>>>cannot be entirely FOSS. they need some sort of business model.
>>>>
>>>>They're still distributing Linux.
>>>>
>>>>Hypothetical: I doubt that even the GPLv3 would really stop the
>>>>*problem*, tivoization, which it's meant to fix. Why couldn't Tivo
>>>>simply come up with a close source app to sit on top of Linux? Would
>>>>that not work?
>>>
>>> I also see nothing wrong with the Tivo situation.
>>
>> I've never realised why they didn't negotiate this before finalising. I'm just
>> surprised people focus on just this one aspect (among others) of the new
>> licence. I haven't much against Tivo either, but if it's going to become very
>> widespread, it would be nice to stop is early on (before it becomes the norm,
>> which is unlikely anyway).
>>
>
> Tivo have, as far as I can see, quite deliberately used GPLed code in
> such a way that the "freedoms" of the GPL cannot be met. They didn't
> need to do it this way, rather, they chose too. Furthermore, they've
> had ample time to change their approach, and have specifically chosen
> not to change it.
>
> They've exploited an unintentional loophole, and merged that
> exploitation into their business model, but worse, when it was pointed
> out to them, they did *nothing* about it.
>
> It's not just them, of course, there are loads of companies doing
> this.
Which should tell the bearded fruit loops something about the read
world.
|
|
