This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tivoization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't understand why people let "Tivoization" slip through. After all, secret and/or private cryptographic keys must be interpreted as "source code" according to the legal definition given in the GPL V2.
My understanding is that what made tivoization different from GPL violations was that TiVo did not actually violate the terms of the GPL. To make this distinction clear, I added a statement that tivoization was lawful. Another contributor edited my statement to say tivoization may not be legal.
I believe my original statement was correct and I would like to restore it. Richard Stallman has stated that one of the differences between GPL v.2 and GPL v.3 is that GPL v.3 will prevent tivoization. That is one of the reasons he advocates moving Linux to GPL v.3. If tivoization were an unlawful violation of GPL v.2, then there would be no need to use GPL v.3 to prevent it. GPL v.2 would be sufficient.
Here are some quotes from Stallman in a Forbes interview ( http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/21/linux-stallman-gnu_cx_dl_0321stallman1.html):
Are there other ways in which movie companies today use GPL-licensed programs that will become a violation under GPLv3?
I don't know that the movie companies, as such, do this. However, there are certainly such cases involving movies. They are in systems that the public uses to watch movies and TV, such as the TiVo.
What effect will GPLv3 have on TiVo?
It will stop products like the TiVo from using any GPLv3-covered software
If Linus Torvalds decides not to adopt GPLv3 but all those other parts of GNU/Linux do adopt GPLv3, what happens?
This would not cause anything spectacular to happen. GNU/Linux already contains programs with many different free software licenses. If, five years from now, some programs remain under GPLv2, that won't cause any serious problem for free software users. It will be inconvenient for those who want to copy code from those programs into programs covered by GPLv3 and vice versa, but that's all. The reason I hope Torvalds will decide to adopt GPLv3 is to make Linux resistant to "tivoization."
Are there credible references claiming that tivoization is unlawful under GPL v.2? If so, we should cite those sources. Otherwise, the current wording strikes me as weasel wording.
Perhaps a compromise would be to say "...complies with the literal text of the GNU General Public License...". -- Seitz 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed the explanation of tivoization from saying it applies to Free Software to saying it applies to GPL v.2 software. I did so for these reasons:
This has now been changed back to saying "tivoization" can apply to any "Free Software". Since there are "Free Software" licenses which intentionally allow proprietry modifications, I think this statement is overly broad.
I do recognize that it is theoretically possible this problem could apply to other Free Software licenses. It appears the term that distinguishes Free Software licenses that try to prevent propriety modifications from ones that intentionally allow them is "copyleft". So I will be editing this statement to say that tivoization applies to "copyleft" licensed software. -- Seitz 05:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I am bothered by the addition of this statement to the section describing Torvalds's statements regarding tivoization:
"However, no draft of GPLv3 prohibits using private digital signatures as a security tool."
This statement is unattributed and advocates that one side of a controversy is correct (Torvalds obviously disagreed). If there is evidence that Torvalds is mistaken, then it should be cited.
I am also bothered by the new framing of Torvalds's position:
"In explaining his opposition to the GPLv3's attempts to protect freedom from tivoisation,..."
This statement bothers me because
I think the combination of these two statements convey a negative tone towards Torvalds's position and threaten the neutral point-of-view that Wikipedia articles are supposed to maintain. I would prefer if these statements were edited to avoid advocacy and simply report the arguments made by both sides. Let the reader decide who is correct. -- Seitz 05:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the emphasis given to Torvalds position since it is practically moot anyhow. The copyright of the kernel is widely held by many different groups. The kernel did not include the rider GPL 2 and later so even if there was the desire to change to the GPL 3 it would require the practically impossible task of contacting all the contributors. -- Horkana ( talk) 18:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, a paragraph was added positing the theory that GPL v.2 may already require private key disclosure. It states that GPL-Violations.org has won court cases supporting this. I checked gpl-violations.org and could not find any statement saying that a court case held that GPL v.2 required disclosing private keys. We should either find a citation or remove the claim. -- Seitz 04:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
All someone has to do is create a TiVo clone with hardware that doesn't have DRM, and uses the same source code as the original TiVo. It would sell like hotcakes among Free Software advocates! -- Munchkinguy 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure adding "...is a term that describes..." adds anything. Every entry could be described as "...a term that describes...". Aside from a technical distinction along the lines of The Treachery Of Images, it seems to say the same thing. -- Seitz 05:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of the information here is now outdated, e.g., the GPLv3 draft 3 now allows for some devices to have unmodifiable hardware but classifies others (like a tivo) as a user device or a consumer device. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.112.116.206 ( talk) 10:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
The article's title is "Tivoization" but some of the RMS transcripts spell it as "Tivo-isation", and even on the Wikipedia article, some are called "Tivoisation". Is there a way to decide on one or should all three be used? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.112.116.206 ( talk) 04:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
The title is a neologism, and we're supposed to avoid them. Perhaps the article should be renamed to "Embedded software and the GPL v3" or since it's only relevant to software licensing, merge it into GPL, or split GPL into articles for each version, while maintaining summaries of what was changed in each version. 69.12.143.197 16:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"Unlike most GPL software, the kernel does not automatically adopt new versions of the license.[14]"
The linked LWN article does not say anything about "most GPL software", nor can I find any reference (in some brief searching) to suggest that most GPL software uses the "or any later version" language. Is it even true?
I'm not even sure what "most" means here -- lines of code, programs, developers, functionality? Only software still in use, or only software still maintained, or everything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.72.2 ( talk) 01:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Currently the article is more concerned with discussing drafts of the GPLv3 and how Linux relates to all this, instead of discussing the actual text of the GPLv3 that prohibits tivoisation. I would suggest that we at least list the parts of the GPLv3 below, and try to explain them.
“ | Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users. | ” |
— The GPLv3 preamble |
“ | "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM). The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network. Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying. |
” |
— Extract from Section 6. of GPLv3: Conveying Non-Source Forms. |
Hritcu ( talk) 10:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC) (Updated Hritcu ( talk) 11:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC))
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tivoization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't understand why people let "Tivoization" slip through. After all, secret and/or private cryptographic keys must be interpreted as "source code" according to the legal definition given in the GPL V2.
My understanding is that what made tivoization different from GPL violations was that TiVo did not actually violate the terms of the GPL. To make this distinction clear, I added a statement that tivoization was lawful. Another contributor edited my statement to say tivoization may not be legal.
I believe my original statement was correct and I would like to restore it. Richard Stallman has stated that one of the differences between GPL v.2 and GPL v.3 is that GPL v.3 will prevent tivoization. That is one of the reasons he advocates moving Linux to GPL v.3. If tivoization were an unlawful violation of GPL v.2, then there would be no need to use GPL v.3 to prevent it. GPL v.2 would be sufficient.
Here are some quotes from Stallman in a Forbes interview ( http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/21/linux-stallman-gnu_cx_dl_0321stallman1.html):
Are there other ways in which movie companies today use GPL-licensed programs that will become a violation under GPLv3?
I don't know that the movie companies, as such, do this. However, there are certainly such cases involving movies. They are in systems that the public uses to watch movies and TV, such as the TiVo.
What effect will GPLv3 have on TiVo?
It will stop products like the TiVo from using any GPLv3-covered software
If Linus Torvalds decides not to adopt GPLv3 but all those other parts of GNU/Linux do adopt GPLv3, what happens?
This would not cause anything spectacular to happen. GNU/Linux already contains programs with many different free software licenses. If, five years from now, some programs remain under GPLv2, that won't cause any serious problem for free software users. It will be inconvenient for those who want to copy code from those programs into programs covered by GPLv3 and vice versa, but that's all. The reason I hope Torvalds will decide to adopt GPLv3 is to make Linux resistant to "tivoization."
Are there credible references claiming that tivoization is unlawful under GPL v.2? If so, we should cite those sources. Otherwise, the current wording strikes me as weasel wording.
Perhaps a compromise would be to say "...complies with the literal text of the GNU General Public License...". -- Seitz 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed the explanation of tivoization from saying it applies to Free Software to saying it applies to GPL v.2 software. I did so for these reasons:
This has now been changed back to saying "tivoization" can apply to any "Free Software". Since there are "Free Software" licenses which intentionally allow proprietry modifications, I think this statement is overly broad.
I do recognize that it is theoretically possible this problem could apply to other Free Software licenses. It appears the term that distinguishes Free Software licenses that try to prevent propriety modifications from ones that intentionally allow them is "copyleft". So I will be editing this statement to say that tivoization applies to "copyleft" licensed software. -- Seitz 05:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I am bothered by the addition of this statement to the section describing Torvalds's statements regarding tivoization:
"However, no draft of GPLv3 prohibits using private digital signatures as a security tool."
This statement is unattributed and advocates that one side of a controversy is correct (Torvalds obviously disagreed). If there is evidence that Torvalds is mistaken, then it should be cited.
I am also bothered by the new framing of Torvalds's position:
"In explaining his opposition to the GPLv3's attempts to protect freedom from tivoisation,..."
This statement bothers me because
I think the combination of these two statements convey a negative tone towards Torvalds's position and threaten the neutral point-of-view that Wikipedia articles are supposed to maintain. I would prefer if these statements were edited to avoid advocacy and simply report the arguments made by both sides. Let the reader decide who is correct. -- Seitz 05:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the emphasis given to Torvalds position since it is practically moot anyhow. The copyright of the kernel is widely held by many different groups. The kernel did not include the rider GPL 2 and later so even if there was the desire to change to the GPL 3 it would require the practically impossible task of contacting all the contributors. -- Horkana ( talk) 18:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, a paragraph was added positing the theory that GPL v.2 may already require private key disclosure. It states that GPL-Violations.org has won court cases supporting this. I checked gpl-violations.org and could not find any statement saying that a court case held that GPL v.2 required disclosing private keys. We should either find a citation or remove the claim. -- Seitz 04:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
All someone has to do is create a TiVo clone with hardware that doesn't have DRM, and uses the same source code as the original TiVo. It would sell like hotcakes among Free Software advocates! -- Munchkinguy 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure adding "...is a term that describes..." adds anything. Every entry could be described as "...a term that describes...". Aside from a technical distinction along the lines of The Treachery Of Images, it seems to say the same thing. -- Seitz 05:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of the information here is now outdated, e.g., the GPLv3 draft 3 now allows for some devices to have unmodifiable hardware but classifies others (like a tivo) as a user device or a consumer device. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.112.116.206 ( talk) 10:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
The article's title is "Tivoization" but some of the RMS transcripts spell it as "Tivo-isation", and even on the Wikipedia article, some are called "Tivoisation". Is there a way to decide on one or should all three be used? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.112.116.206 ( talk) 04:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
The title is a neologism, and we're supposed to avoid them. Perhaps the article should be renamed to "Embedded software and the GPL v3" or since it's only relevant to software licensing, merge it into GPL, or split GPL into articles for each version, while maintaining summaries of what was changed in each version. 69.12.143.197 16:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"Unlike most GPL software, the kernel does not automatically adopt new versions of the license.[14]"
The linked LWN article does not say anything about "most GPL software", nor can I find any reference (in some brief searching) to suggest that most GPL software uses the "or any later version" language. Is it even true?
I'm not even sure what "most" means here -- lines of code, programs, developers, functionality? Only software still in use, or only software still maintained, or everything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.72.2 ( talk) 01:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Currently the article is more concerned with discussing drafts of the GPLv3 and how Linux relates to all this, instead of discussing the actual text of the GPLv3 that prohibits tivoisation. I would suggest that we at least list the parts of the GPLv3 below, and try to explain them.
“ | Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users. | ” |
— The GPLv3 preamble |
“ | "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM). The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network. Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying. |
” |
— Extract from Section 6. of GPLv3: Conveying Non-Source Forms. |
Hritcu ( talk) 10:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC) (Updated Hritcu ( talk) 11:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC))