> > Any number of ways. For example, you probably don't connect the
Even when I get web pages from your web server?
In other words, the GPLv3 *compels* a critical authorization decision to
follow the physical possession of the device. Do you see that, as far as the
GPLv2 is concerned, this is from outer space?
Which is totally alien to everything in the GPLv2, word and spirit. It never
required any authorization decisions be made any particular way, nor even
hinted that authorization decisions were within its scope.
In fact, there were many discussions where it was made clear that GPLv2
specifically allowed you to make the authorization decisions any way you
want, because it permitted anyone else to remove them. For GPLv3,
apparently, that anyone can remove them is not good enough.
What does the spirit of the GPLv2 say about who is authorized to modify the
software on some particular piece of hardware? This is not per the spirit of
the GPL, it's totally alien to the spirit of the GPL. It has always been
explicitly clear (I can dig up the old discussions if needed) the the GPL
stayed totally away from authorization. Otherwise, you could argue that the
fact that a non-root user can't install a modified kernel "violates the
spirit of the GPL".
Those kinds of things are totally alien to the GPL, which was about getting
the source code and being able to modify it and use it on any hardware for
which you were authorized to do so.
That's a question on which I would likely agree with you, but it has *ZERO*
to do with the GPL. The GPL was never, until GPLv3, about who gets to make
authorization decisions.
You are taking my claim out of contect. I am distinguishing legal obstacles
from *authorization* obstacles, not technical obstacles. Tivoization is
about authorization even though that authorization is enforced by technical
means.
But that's not a freedom, that's an authorization right that belongs to
someone. Someone gets to choose what software runs on what hardware.
You are. In the case of TiVo, the hardware (specifically the right to decide
what software runs on that hardware) is someone else's. That is part of the
bundle of rights that owning a piece of hardware includes. That is a right
you simply do not have with TiVo.
With respect to control over what software runs on it, your TiVo is someone
else's.
How so?
Exactly. The GPL is about rights that apply to *all* hardware, not some one
specific piece. That's a massive change in the spirit of the GPL. (Special
rights to one piece of hardware.)
Which is a massive departure from the previous GPL spirit which was about
being able to use the software on *ANY* hardware you controlled, not some
special pieces more than others.
That's a nonsensical comparison. You can run it on any hardware for which
you have the right to say what software runs.
Because that is not a right the vendor chooses to give to the user. You may
dislike this decision, but it's not irrational. There are any number of
reasons you might want a device to be "trusted".
The GPL does not claim any control over those patents. If it included
mandatory licensing of them, then you would have a point.
The TiVo loader does not include any GPL'ed code. The TiVo signing keys do
not contain any GPL'ed code. If you are not claiming the GPLv3 exerts any
control over the loader or the keys, then what is left to assure the user
can replace the software on his TiVo?
DS
-
