Talk:Tivoization

message: 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.
: I think it is the TIVO hardware that enforces the key.  The TIVO hardware platform will only run code signed by TIVO.
:: If so, how can GPLv3 solve that? Does it specify that free software can only be run on "free hardware"? --LA2 08:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GPLv3 only places conditions on on combinations of software and hardware.  The general concept is that when you give someone GPL'd software, you tell them, among other things, that they are free to adapt the software to their needs.  If you give them the software in a way that requires something, such as a certain digital fingerpint, inorder to actually make use of that freedom, then you have implicitly promised to give the person that digital fingerprint (or whatever).  The specific context here is that GPLv3 says explicitly that if you give someone hardware with GPLv3'd software, and if modified versions of the software will not run on that hardware without a certain digital key, then you must provide that key. Gronky 10:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: First, whether it was good or bad is up for debate.  The GPL people say it was bad, but BSD people would be fine with it.  Addressing your question, if keys are stored in separate files, the GPL wouldn't cover files opened later.  What about headers?  The GNU/Linux people have argued that headers aren't really source code; if they were, SCO would have had a better case.  That, and the other posters are right; it might very well be at a different level.  69.12.143.197 04:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How has this been allowed to happen?

message: 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:
*Free Software may allow code to become non-free.  For example, the FSF says the modified BSD license and X11 license are Free Software licenses, but they both intentionally allow changes to be kept proprietary.  
*I have only seen the term "tivoization" applied to GPL v.2 licensed software.
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)
thread_title:  GPL vs. Free Software vs. Copyleft 

message: 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
* Torvalds does not refer to GPLv.3, he just refers to some theoretical modified version of the GPL  
* The phrasing "...opposition to...attempts to protect freedom..." uses rather loaded language and seems like a critique of Torvalds's position, not just a reporting of Torvalds's position.
* There have been reports that later GPL v.3 drafts had language changes to address the concerns raised by Torvalds.  That seems to argue that Torvalds was at least making a reasonable argument that earlier drafts might be reasonably interpreted to prevent digital signatures for security purposes.
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)
thread_title:  Torvalds and NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: This claim is incorrect, I'll see if it's still in the article and will remove it if it is. Gronky 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for GPL v.2 requiring private keys 

message: 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)
thread_title:  It's Easy to Fix! 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Gronky 05:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...is a term... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GPL draft 3 

message: 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)
replies: text: It looks to me like the first external link  is what should be used as a reliable source; it's an article about the word and the concept, titled same, from a reliable source (in my opinion).  If there's one or two more such, then this neologism can pass the notability test and it's OK.  The WP:NEO doesn't say you can't have articles on neologisms, just not until they are notable as evidenced by multiple independent secondary sources about them.  One might argue that this source is not independent; I'm not sure who coined the term, but that might be an issue here.  Anyway, these are the kinds of points we should address here. Dicklyon 02:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree with the well-expressed argument of User:Dicklyon. WP:NEO shouldn't prevent WP from using a neologism as the title of an article about the phenomenon named by the neologism. OTOH, the page's lead needs improvement for the idly curious passers-by. DCDuring 01:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't an article about the neologism itself, but about the concept. In principle, it could be renamed to something more generic if someone comes up with a good title ("hardware restrictions on modification of free software"?). But if there's no agreement on a better title, I think Tivoization is good enough. --Itub 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The fact that it's a neologism is only an issue if there's a better non-neologism name for the topic, which I think there's not. Dicklyon 23:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the title is fine.  To discuss this topic, the IT press used this term and no other, so I don't see how it would make any sense to try to talk about this topic without using it's name. --Gronky (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: "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)
thread_title:  Most GPL software? 

message: 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.
Hritcu (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about discussing the text of the GPLv3 that prohibits tivoisation?