5 ms·

Funny how he talks about TiVo well before the advent of GPLv3, but as a victim: > From the stance of a commercial vendor creating a commercial product, the ope

by kalenx 9y ago

Funny how he talks about TiVo well before the advent of GPLv3, but as a victim: > From the stance of a commercial vendor creating a commercial product, the open source world holds other barbs. For example, if components of your system link against libraries that fall under the GPL, you may be forced to release your own system -- or parts of it -- back to the community as open source software. In other words, building a proprietary solution on top of Linux may mean being required to expose the company jewels to the competition. Witness TiVo, who manufacture a time-shifting hardware/software solution for television consumers. Because TiVo is based on Linux, the company's modifications to the kernel are available for anyone to download -- any competitor can emerge at any time, packaging up and selling a variant of Tivo's hard work. One could almost forgive him to say something like that in 99, but the ones who are still repeating the exact same reasoning today should probably think twice...

erric 9y ago
To be fair, these articles are from 1999 - 2001.
Fnoord 9y ago
That's just an argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity, sob story). These modifications to the Linux kernel weren't even the core of the TiVo product, and the TiVo product was an end user solution consisting of hardware, software, and support (so a full stack, like an Apple TV or an Nvidia Shield). He's also ignoring the patent argument, and the fact that the Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2 or later (EDIT: I stand corrected; licensed under GPLv2. That doesn't change the point though). His argument wasn't rare back in those days though (we're talking about a time where Microsoft was still dominant and actively hampering the FOSS movement), and it was an argument for BSD license as well. The way companies have worked around GPLv2 and GPLv3 is Web 2.0/3.0: HTTP(S) and HTML/JS being proprietary software, though the source is readable, and the entire stack behind it (ie. akin to LAMP) which generates the data having the ability to be part of a closed source or proprietary ecosystem. They furthermore locked it down with things like paywalls, apps (instead of website or PWA which might give the users some power back). In such a world, how can us mere mortal users even verify things like GDPR? The FSF foresaw this, btw, and IIRC (at the very least free software advocates foresaw it) considered having the GPLv3 apply on protocols like HTTP(S). That didn't fly though, and resulted in obvious backfire as well because it went against the business model of many for profits...
- Squithrilve 9y ago
  > ...the fact that the Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2 or later. Actually Linux is licenced only under GPLv2: > The only one of any note that I'd like to point out directly is the clarification in the COPYING file, making it clear that it's only _that_ particular version of the GPL that is valid for the kernel. > ... > Why? There's been some discussions of a GPL v3 which would limit licensing to certain "well-behaved" parties, and I'm not sure I'd agree with such restrictions - and the GPL itself allows for "any version" so I wanted to make this part unambigious as far as my personal code is concerned. Source: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html
  - rkowalick 9y ago
    Here is an excellent video of Linus talking about why he specifically chose the GPLv2 and how he felt betrayed when the FSF released GPLv3: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU
hungerstrike 9y ago
What exactly would you be forgiving this person for? Making a logically sound argument?
- kalenx 9y ago
  No, he would be forgiven for feeding the troll 17 years later.
  - hungerstrike 9y ago
    I don't follow you at all. I wish someone would just come out and make a straightforward remark about this because I don't see what the fuss is about. Am I making a sin if I complain about the GPL or Tivo? I honestly don't get it. The quote basically says "don't use GPL stuff if you don't want to give away your work" which seems very simple and logical to me. Everybody knows this. What is so bad about saying it? EDIT: Oh, it was you who said it and you're being more obscure now than you were when you made the comment. Can you not explain what exactly is your beef?

by kalenx 9y ago

erric 9y ago

To be fair, these articles are from 1999 - 2001.

Fnoord 9y ago

That's just an argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity, sob story). These modifications to the Linux kernel weren't even the core of the TiVo product, and the TiVo product was an end user solution consisting of hardware, software, and support (so a full stack, like an Apple TV or an Nvidia Shield). He's also ignoring the patent argument, and the fact that the Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2 or later (EDIT: I stand corrected; licensed under GPLv2. That doesn't change the point though). His argument wasn't rare back in those days though (we're talking about a time where Microsoft was still dominant and actively hampering the FOSS movement), and it was an argument for BSD license as well. The way companies have worked around GPLv2 and GPLv3 is Web 2.0/3.0: HTTP(S) and HTML/JS being proprietary software, though the source is readable, and the entire stack behind it (ie. akin to LAMP) which generates the data having the ability to be part of a closed source or proprietary ecosystem. They furthermore locked it down with things like paywalls, apps (instead of website or PWA which might give the users some power back). In such a world, how can us mere mortal users even verify things like GDPR? The FSF foresaw this, btw, and IIRC (at the very least free software advocates foresaw it) considered having the GPLv3 apply on protocols like HTTP(S). That didn't fly though, and resulted in obvious backfire as well because it went against the business model of many for profits...

Squithrilve 9y ago
> ...the fact that the Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2 or later. Actually Linux is licenced only under GPLv2: > The only one of any note that I'd like to point out directly is the clarification in the COPYING file, making it clear that it's only _that_ particular version of the GPL that is valid for the kernel. > ... > Why? There's been some discussions of a GPL v3 which would limit licensing to certain "well-behaved" parties, and I'm not sure I'd agree with such restrictions - and the GPL itself allows for "any version" so I wanted to make this part unambigious as far as my personal code is concerned. Source: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html
- rkowalick 9y ago
  Here is an excellent video of Linus talking about why he specifically chose the GPLv2 and how he felt betrayed when the FSF released GPLv3: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

hungerstrike 9y ago

What exactly would you be forgiving this person for? Making a logically sound argument?

kalenx 9y ago
No, he would be forgiven for feeding the troll 17 years later.
- hungerstrike 9y ago
  I don't follow you at all. I wish someone would just come out and make a straightforward remark about this because I don't see what the fuss is about. Am I making a sin if I complain about the GPL or Tivo? I honestly don't get it. The quote basically says "don't use GPL stuff if you don't want to give away your work" which seems very simple and logical to me. Everybody knows this. What is so bad about saying it? EDIT: Oh, it was you who said it and you're being more obscure now than you were when you made the comment. Can you not explain what exactly is your beef?