<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/13/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Chambers</b> <<a href="mailto:bod@bod.org">bod@bod.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><span class="q">
<blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us">Now, I'm all for
the switch to GPLv3 only for dnsmasq. The only argument I've seen here
against it is a rather specious "My company has forbidden use of GPLv3 in our
codebase" with strong implication "because we intend to
TIVOize".</div></blockquote></span><span>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">The companies concerned (e.g. TiVo
and others) are trying to build cool innovative products without having
to turn over their firstborn to Microsoft. The second problem is that
the coole<span>r</span> products require the
co-operation of one or more<span> other</span><span>
(</span>unenlightened<span>)</span> industry, be it
broadcasters, cellular carriers, or <span>the
like</span>. They have some pretty stiff requirements of device manufacturers
that are not negotiable. You either play by their rules, or not at
all.</font></div></span></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">Carriers are extremely protective of their infrastructure,
and are extremely sensitive to any 'modification' of a
device's behavior that might disturb the smooth running of that
infrastucture. They see any 'user modification' of devices using their
infrastructure as a potential source of network disruption at worst, and
inefficient consumption of a scarse resource at best. That's the thinking that
drives every major carrier to insist on doing their own 4-6 month
certification cycles on products that have already been through certification
for compliance with the cellular technology standards.</font></span></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">Content owners are the worst (the major Hollywood studios in particular).
It may show as DRM-infested consumer devices, but believe me, those of us
building the devices hate the stuff as much as you do. Perhaps more, we have to
waste effort implementing the stuff as well and suffer the end result. Companies
like Direct TV don't have a business if they can't get content that users want
to watch. The content owners attach a whole string of obnoxious constraints to
it, including 'protection' requirements to 'prevent piracy'. Broadcasters are
concerned about theft of service and not falling foul of the nasty agreements
they have to accept to get desirable content in the first place. Without that,
you end up with products like Akimbo (no disrespect to the Akimbo guys, I feel
their pain...)</font></span></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">It's
regrettable that TiVo has been characterised as the bad guy in all this. They're
in a position of wanting to do the right thing, but not having the option,
because of constraints dictated by the broadcasters (in no small part being
dictated by the content owners in turn).</font></span></div></blockquote><div><br>I'd like to agree with you, but I'm confused how TiVo is bound by these dictates, but the several fully open-source DVRs aren't. There's still something missing from this puzzle.
<br><br>Perhaps it isn't "not having the option", but giving up substantial co-marketing funds, which their management may consider to be equivalent.<br><br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">I must
admit it's a little painful for those of us trying to champion the open source
cause from within the consumer electronics industry to be portrayed as the
villain. The true villains are the same people who tried to outlaw the VCR,
thought DiVX players were a pretty neat idea, and think charging $1 a minute for
a cellphone call across the atlantic is reasonable when a landline call costs 5c
a minute or less.</font></span></div></blockquote><div><br>No doubt there's a lot of villainy going on there, but generally competition has handled those problems reasonably well. The risk was that government would start outlawing legal uses, just as the DMCA has done.
<br><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">Another aspect not everyone may be aware of is that it's not uncommon for
companies (at least the one's I'm familiar with) to ask their employees to
make contributions back to the community under their own name, and not
attributed to the company. Simply because they don't want to telegraph their
plans to others. In other cases, a larger company may fund work done by Monta
Vista, Wind River, and similar companies to be contributed back to the
community. It's a double-edged sword - you don't tip your hand, but your company
doesn't get credit in the community for its contributions
either.</font></span></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><span>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">I
really don't want to participate a flame war. I read and generally
understand other people's perspectives, and respect that they have a right to
see things differently. I'd appreciate if the same courtesy were extended to me,
but hey, I've no right or privilege to request or expect
that.</font></span></div></span></span></div></blockquote><div><br><br>I respect the right of each company to make business decisions, within the confines of ethical behavior, that are profitable for them. If that means locking down the device, that's ok. But Simon has chosen to give his work in exchange for guarantees that end-users will be allowed to customize any product based on his work, and trying to take advantage of someone's hard work without paying them would simply be theft.
<br><br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><span><span><div><font><font><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000ff">
<font size="2">I mean no
disrespect to you, Richard. I'm just trying to explain the tricky balancing act
that goes on, which might not be so obvious from outside. The perspective you
and others have offered is no less valid<span>. </span></font></font></font></font></font></div></span></span></div></blockquote><div><br>You haven't said anything that I find disrespectful. I also understand that corporate management has a balancing act. That doesn't excuse them from acting ethically, however. Simon had to balance the benefits of GPL vs whatever other price he could have set on something as useful as dnsmasq, and even though his balancing act isn't commercialized, it cannot be allowed to be simply brushed aside.
<br></div></div><br>