PDA

View Full Version : Legality of hard disk upgrades



brage
05-21-2003, 06:30 PM
This is a thread to discuss the legality of hard-disk upgrades brought up in the recent discussion about the knock-off turbonet cards... you can read the initial thred here:
http://www.dealdatabase.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24301&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

pweed and I were discussing the legality of hard drive upgrades... I am still curious about the subject so I am continuing the thread here.

Now on to the discussion,

I believe that the hard drive upgrades being sold online are not legal, as I believe TiVo holds the rights to the tivo specific software on the tivo systems. I also think that TiVo Inc has made a concious decision not to enact their rights against the retailers of the upgrade drives, but this still does not mean it is not an illegal violation of copyright laws.

pweed made the comment of
Well, "buddy" you are wrong... Have you read the GPL? If you have, read it again, and play close attention to the verbiage associated with 'derivative' and 'separate' works, as well as rights of distribution.

Well pweed, yes I have read the GPL, I have developed GPLed software in the past, and I have been a Linux user for the past 11 years! Just because an application runs on Linux doesn't mean it falls under the GPL. By that logic, because Oracle 9i runs on Linux, it must be GPL! I'll have to grab a copy of that and run my business on it.

Let me know what you all think ;)

-Jeff

PTVupgrade
05-21-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by brage
This is a thread to discuss the legality of hard-disk upgrades brought up in the recent discussion about the knock-off turbonet cards... you can read the initial thred here:
http://www.dealdatabase.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24301&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

pweed and I were discussing the legality of hard drive upgrades... I am still curious about the subject so I am continuing the thread here.

Now on to the discussion,

I believe that the hard drive upgrades being sold online are not legal, as I believe TiVo holds the rights to the tivo specific software on the tivo systems. I also think that TiVo Inc has made a concious decision not to enact their rights against the retailers of the upgrade drives, but this still does not mean it is not an illegal violation of copyright laws.

pweed made the comment of

Well pweed, yes I have read the GPL, I have developed GPLed software in the past, and I have been a Linux user for the past 11 years! Just because an application runs on Linux doesn't mean it falls under the GPL. By that logic, because Oracle 9i runs on Linux, it must be GPL! I'll have to grab a copy of that and run my business on it.

Let me know what you all think ;)

-Jeff

You should re-read the GPL.

I'm not suggesting that because the app runs on Linux that it is therefore subject to the GPL. Never implied that Oracle 9i is GPL because it runs on Linux. You've chosen a bad analogy because it is completely different than the discussion we are having.

But guess what? If Oracle chose to distribute their software on a CD with GPL software on it (eg Linux); then any licensee of the software would have binary distribution rights. That would be a more appropriate analogy to the TiVo situation than the one you are currently making.

brage
05-21-2003, 08:10 PM
But guess what? If Oracle chose to distribute their software on a CD with GPL software on it (eg Linux); then any licensee of the software would have binary distribution rights. That would be a more appropriate analogy to the TiVo situation than the one you are currently making.

Actually your statement here is completely incorrect. Just because a commercial application (read copyrighted) is distrubuted along with GPLed code (IE Linux kernel, GNU tools) does not mean that the distributor must offer all applications and code associated with it for free. If you say the TiVo code is GPLed then if that is the case where is the source for Tivo Central? An example of this is Redhat Advanced Server which includes commercial applications which are not GPLed.


-j

PTVupgrade
05-22-2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by brage
Actually your statement here is completely incorrect. Just because a commercial application (read copyrighted) is distrubuted along with GPLed code (IE Linux kernel, GNU tools) does not mean that the distributor must offer all applications and code associated with it for free. If you say the TiVo code is GPLed then if that is the case where is the source for Tivo Central? An example of this is Redhat Advanced Server which includes commercial applications which are not GPLed.


-j

This is just a jumble of points not related to the argument I've made. I've never said commercial applications and code should be made free; I've never said TiVo code is GPLed and they should reveal the source; and to reiterate, I've never said any code that runs on top of GPL'ed software is or should be subjected to the GPL.

I've simply said that distribution of the software is subject to the terms of the GPL and that we are not doing anything illegal.

Of course, you've already read this before making any of your arguments, but for those who haven't, here's an excerpt from the GPL:


2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.


Its point (c) that is pertinent here, and unless you are prepared to argue that the inclusion of TiVo's separate works on a single medium falls into the category of "mere aggregation" which it is clearly not, then you really have no argument. The GPL is painfully clear when it comes to the rights of licensees of GPL software. A company cannot include a separate and proprietary work onto the same medium as GPL software, then distribute it and then limit the licensees distribution rights at the same time.

Read it here: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html

captain_video
05-22-2003, 09:02 AM
The legality of hard disk upgrades would actually appear to be a moot point if Tivo has no plans on prosecuting the "offenders". Most of us here don't go the preloaded hard drive route and prefer to perform the upgrades ourselves. This discussion would be better served if it were taken to the Tivo Community Forum where a large number of participants would be targets for such a preloaded hard drive for performing their plug and pray upgrades.

brage
05-22-2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by captain_video
The legality of hard disk upgrades would actually appear to be a moot point if Tivo has no plans on prosecuting the "offenders". Most of us here don't go the preloaded hard drive route and prefer to perform the upgrades ourselves. This discussion would be better served if it were taken to the Tivo Community Forum where a large number of participants would be targets for such a preloaded hard drive for performing their plug and pray upgrades.

Exactly... I don't really care about it either way I was just curious about it reall because I still contend that in my interpretation of the GPL, a company can distribute their commercial apps along with GPL apps so long as they provide to anyone who requests it the source to the GPL apps directly used or modified. I believe the GPL only gives the licensee the right to redistribute the GPLed code and any direct modifications to the GPL code, but does not give the licensee the right to distribute the copyrighted applications of the licensor.

Also I feel that Tivo is being hurt by some of the resellers which from what I have seen are selling drive upgrades with the "lifetime" hack... (perhaps not lou, but the guys on e-bay do)

-j

PTVupgrade
05-22-2003, 09:55 AM
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

There's not much room for interpretation here.

rc3105
05-22-2003, 12:46 PM
apparently there is or you wouldn't need to debate it :rolleyes:

--
Riley

PTVupgrade
05-22-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by rc3105
apparently there is or you wouldn't need to debate it :rolleyes:

--
Riley

So far, there has been no debate. The counter-points to my argument have been:

1) tivo shouldn't have to release source
2) commercial software isn't gpl just because it runs on gpl software
3) commercial software providers shouldn't have to give their software away for free because they bundle it with gpl software

none of the points brage raises directly address the issue of whether a licensee of GPL software has the right to redistribute it, along with any other software included on the same medium.

You can't debate the negative of our claim to this right simply by changing the argument to something else.

I'm not saying that my interpretation of the quoted text from the GPL can't be debated, but so far, noone has countered that point.

Lou

raj2001
05-29-2003, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by pweed
I've never said commercial applications and code should be made free; I've never said TiVo code is GPLed and they should reveal the source; and to reiterate, I've never said any code that runs on top of GPL'ed software is or should be subjected to the GPL.

But weren't you telling me yesterday that your replacement drive upgrades were protected by the GNU GPL? I'm curious to hear how exactly this is so, since you've just contradicted yourself yet again.


I've simply said that [b]distribution of the software is subject to the terms of the GPL and that we are not doing anything illegal.

<snip Section 2 from the GNU GPL>

Its point (c) that is pertinent here, and unless you are prepared to argue that the inclusion of TiVo's separate works on a single medium falls into the category of "mere aggregation" which it is clearly not, then you really have no argument. The GPL is painfully clear when it comes to the rights of licensees of GPL software. A company cannot include a separate and proprietary work onto the same medium as GPL software, then distribute it and then limit the licensees distribution rights at the same time.

You conveniently left out Section 3, (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC3) which states that:

"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. "

PTVupgrade
05-29-2003, 09:46 AM
But weren't you telling me yesterday that your replacement drive upgrades were protected by the GNU GPL? I'm curious to hear how exactly this is so, since you've just contradicted yourself yet again.

No, and I have not contradicted myself, in fact, I've been very consistent in my argument; it is you that continue to shift your arguments, as you've done yet again.

What I said (how can you not see this, its in the thread you just responded to) is that "distribution of the software is subject to the terms of the GPL and that we are not doing anything illegal."

Do you get it? If not, read it again. That is what I said.

And the section I so conveniently quoted is the basis for that.

Now, if you can explain why the section you claim "I so conveniently left out" supports your argument that what we are doing is illegal, then please expand upon that in a mature and thoughtful way, and I might respond again.

raj2001
05-29-2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by pweed
No, and I have not contradicted myself, in fact, I've been very consistent in my argument; it is you that continue to shift your arguments, as you've done yet again.

What I said (how can you not see this, its in the thread you just responded to) is that "distribution of the software is subject to the terms of the GPL and that we are not doing anything illegal."

Do you get it? If not, read it again. That is what I said.

And the section I so conveniently quoted is the basis for that.

Now, if you can explain why the section you claim "I so conveniently left out" supports your argument that what we are doing is illegal, then please expand upon that in a mature and thoughtful way, and I might respond again.

Hey, if you want to talk about a "mature and thoughtful manner", why don't you tell everyone why you began to resort to personally attacking me yesterday? I'm here to discuss the issues, so this is where that point ends, with me at least.

Anyway, the argument isn't only about the legality of the hacks, but also about TiVo being required to release the source code as well. I'll try as best as I can to do it in a logical manner so that you and everyone else can at least try to understand. We're not talking about whether TiVo turns a blind eye or not. We're speaking strictly letter of law here.

You claim your copying and distributed of TiVo's software is protected under the GNU GPL, because section 2 of the GNU GPL automatically licenses derivative or bundled works under the GNU GPL, as shown below:

"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "

However, this where the gray area lies:

". If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. "

Therefore, the questions are as follows:

Is the TiVo software part of a whole, or just a separate program running in conjunction with the Linux kernel, which is licensed under the GNU GPL.

If indeed the TiVo software is part of a whole, and distributed as a whole, then section 3 says that as long as the author distributes the work, the source code must accompany it or be readily available. You claimed earlier that the source code does not have to be distributed, only the binary code.

This is where you are wrong.

As long as Section 2 of the GNU GPL applies, so does section 3. Let me put it another way. The GNU GPL, as written (and this is its intent) does not allow someone to distribute executable only code that is licensed under the GNU GPL without revealing the source. Therefore something has to give. Either TiVo's software retains its proprietary license, minus the GPL'ed components, and you are not authorized to copy it, or they are required to distribute the source code along with the object code.

SO tell me, which is it?

Furthermore, Section 7 is as follows:

"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. "

This is where it makes TiVo's software patents null and void, if indeed you are correct and all of TiVo's software is GPL'ed.

PTVupgrade
05-29-2003, 11:59 AM
My only claim is that we have the legal right to distribute the software, as specifically indicated by the GPL. TiVo's separate works are distributed as part of the whole, which is inclusive of the modified work, which is licensed by the GPL; to be more specific, we are not claiming that TiVo's separate works are released under the GPL - but because they are bundled as part of the whole with a GPL product, the licensee has the right to redistribute the program and the included works.

This is clearly spelled out in the GPL. Which as you pointed out in an earlier thread, you've read many more times than myself; of course, that was not personal, right? Please.

If you have a bone to pick with TiVo about whether they should be including or sharing the source of their separate works, because you think the GPL says they should, then by all means, go do that. Perhaps that IS your argument. But that is NOT the argument that you started.

You accused me of being a thief on the AVSforum; and you did it in a cocky and arrogant manner. You also personally attacked JAFA, who has fairly competed with his products, yet you openly supported the actions of a thief against him.

You did not read the information or consider the facts before you started aggressively pointing fingers, and promoting yourself as some greatly experienced veteran of the industry. I'd suggest you not go down the mine-is-bigger-than-yours route or you will lose.

So please, stop your whining about 'personal attacks' and just suck it up, and calm down.

Take a look at what you originally stated, and if you are still convinced what we are doing is illegal, than either stand your ground and agree to disagree, or revise your position. Its really that simple.

raj2001
05-29-2003, 12:19 PM
Your points noted (minus personal attacks.)

I'm merely seeking answers, and I don't intend to defame you. It seems as though you have a bit of an ego problem, and view me and my arguments as a threat to you and your little business. All I can say to that is thanks. You just made me feel a whole lot bigger than you.

I merely asked the question because jafa is claiming theft of intellectual property, which he has not secured or even applied for a patent for, while you freely use TiVo's intellectual property without their express written permission. Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Anyone who builds a turbonet is not a thief, since the design has remained unpatented for over a year now, and is now in the public domain. As I have explained many times over, it cannot be protected by copyright. Copyrighting PCB artwork is weak at best, and microcode contained in the ethernet controller was not developed by jafa. He has neither denied nor confirmed this, so my position remains the same.

Anyway, back on topic I'd like you to explain how a Linux vendor like RedHat or SuSE distributes commercial products with certain versions of their Linux distributions, and can still retain proprietary licenses for the proprietary products. They are not obligated to release the object or source code, even though they release it as a bundled product or distribution.

My reasoning is that if it can apply to them, then it can apply to TiVo, too. If this is true, since you don't have a license to distribute TiVo's software, what you are doing is violating copyright. I don't care if TiVo turns a blind eye to it. I am just interested in the letter of the law.

PTVupgrade
05-29-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by raj2001

Anyway, back on topic I'd like you to explain how a Linux vendor like RedHat or SuSE distributes commercial products with certain versions of their Linux distributions, and can still retain proprietary licenses for the proprietary products. They are not obligated to release the object or source code, even though they release it as a bundled product or distribution.

My reasoning is that if it can apply to them, then it can apply to TiVo, too. If this is true, since you don't have a license to distribute TiVo's software, what you are doing is violating copyright. I don't care if TiVo turns a blind eye to it. I am just interested in the letter of the law.

Then you should read the GPL once again; redistribution is allowed. The same thing applies to the RedHat and SuSE distributions, if in fact, the original work is released under the GPL.

raj2001
05-29-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by pweed
Then you should read the GPL once again; redistribution is allowed. The same thing applies to the RedHat and SuSE distributions, if in fact, the original work is released under the GPL.

Redistribution of TiVo's modifications to existing free software, yes. They already do this (http://www.tivo.com/linux/index.html). Their proprietary software which they designed from scratch, no.

The GNU GPL says:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

I am absolutely positive that there are software components in TiVo's DVR's that were not derived from any GPL'ed software. These can be "reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves" therefore "this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."

Therefore, TiVo is selling you a computer with software on it. Some are GPL'ed components, others are proprietary and closed source. You're allowed to copy the GPL'ed components. TiVo even lets you download them freely from their website. (http://www.tivo.com/linux/index.html) You're not, however, allowed to distribute their proprietary software, because they can be considered as separate works, and as such are not covered under the GNU GPL.

Therefore anyone distributing an image of an entire TiVo DVR is indeed in violation of TiVo's copyright.

PTVupgrade
05-29-2003, 04:32 PM
This is the verbiage from the GPL:

----

"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "

----

So your point is no longer valid.

Want to try another angle, perhaps?

raj2001
05-29-2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by pweed
Want to try another angle, perhaps?

I'll bold the relevant sections which you conveniently twist to suit your own purpose:


"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

TiVo's proprietary software isn't based on any GPL'ed components. In other words, TiVo's proprietary programs (myworld etc) are not based on any code which is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL. If you read correctly, the above provision only deals with derivative works, i.e. "sections of that work which are
derived (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=derived) from the Program".


Furthermore:

"But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."

Again, the proprietary components of the TiVo software distribution are not based on any code that is licensed under the GNU GPL. For that to have happened, TiVo would have had to have used GPL'ed code in its proprietary programs. Therefore they are not covered under the terms of the GNU GPL, and TiVo retains its right to a proprietary license of the software itself.

Examples to support my case:

TiVo does not have to distribute the source code of its proprietary software programs under the GNU GPL. Section 3 of the GNU GPL specifically states that all works licensed under it shall have the source code available to all in machine readable format.

Several Linux vendors including Red Hat, Inc. and SuSE GMbH do not freely distribute their proprietary, non derived software components bundled with their Linux distributions, yet they are in full compliance with the GNU GPL. They do, however, distribute everything that is GPL'ed or derived from GPL'ed work.

PTVupgrade
05-29-2003, 05:59 PM
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean I've twisted it. I will no longer respond to any of your comments or jabs in this thread.

Of course, you will interpret this to mean you are right. So you just keep thinking that, and see how far that gets you in life.

raj2001
05-29-2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by pweed
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean I've twisted it. I will no longer respond to any of your comments or jabs in this thread.

Of course, you will interpret this to mean you are right. So you just keep thinking that, and see how far that gets you in life.

Firstly, you are no authority to tell me how far I will get in my life. I for one did not build my successful life and career by illegally using someone else's intellectual property.

Secondly, I will gladly take your admission of defeat.

To further clarify, this whole issue could have been summed up as the difference between "based on", "derived from" and "aggregated with".

TiVo's proprietary software is neither based on nor derived from any GPL components. Therefore their software is not subject to Section 2 and by extension, Section 3 of the GNU GPL. This therefore means that anyone copying TiVo's proprietary software verbatim is in violation of their copyright. This is not my interpretation. This is fact and this is the law.

Incidentally, this does not mean that all disk upgrades are in violation of copyright. Only ones where TiVo's software is distributed without its express permission, like "ready to install replacement drives" not manufactured, programmed or authorized by TiVo, Inc.

cwingert
05-30-2003, 06:10 PM
Wow, yet another flame-fest cool.

IMHO, Hard Disk upgrades are legal (from a GPL perspective) provided that you don't modify the version of software that is on the TiVo. This version of TiVo software is last software distributed to the subscribers TiVo during the subscription. You, may be violating the TiVo TOS, however, this is different than software license.

raj2001
05-30-2003, 08:21 PM
cwingert,

I personally believe that drive upgrades are okay. What I don't think is legal (strictly letter of law here) is distributing "ready to install" drives containing an entire distribution of TiVo's software.

The TiVo service agreement thing is interesting though. They are, after all, selling you a service, and not just a computer with software. The GPL wouldn't apply to that service.

BTW, I received my "X Factor" today. It looks very professionally manufactured. The solder joints looked like they were machine soldered (although they could have been hand soldered too). The connector to the TiVo motherboard was a high quality Amphenol connector. It's a very well manufactured product. I've just tested it on my Sony SAT-T60 and it's making the daily calls fine. Later I'm going to see if I can install tyserver so I can do some extracting :)

The only drawback is that now I have to install a switch in my living room entertainment center to reduce the cable countgoing through the wall. I already have my PS2 and audiotron on my home LAN. Now my TiVo sits there and I didn't want to connect them via 802.11 wi-fi. Oh well...

rc3105
05-30-2003, 08:46 PM
I agree with raj2001 in that the linux os is the "modified whole" that the gpl applies to, and that tivoapp & the mfs partitions / data therein is a distinct original work with it's own licencing legalities.

seems like that should be obvious

the line between the two is a bit blurry but what isn't these days? it's reminescent of many many moons ago when owning a macintosh was basically seen as a licence to use the mac os. (and running the latest os meant getting a new comp or horribly slow performance) I'd guess tivo doesn't seem to care because myworld is pretty useless w/o a tivo & the mods that cost them revenue wouldn't be impacted by preventing distribution of legitimate images on preconfigured drives.

I have to wonder though what rights tivo has forfeit by not enforcing them in this instance.

--
Riley

PTVupgrade
05-30-2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by rc3105
I agree with raj2001 in that the linux os is the "modified whole" that the gpl applies to, and that tivoapp & the mfs partitions / data therein is a distinct original work with it's own licencing legalities.

seems like that should be obvious

the line between the two is a bit blurry but what isn't these days? it's reminescent of many many moons ago when owning a macintosh was basically seen as a licence to use the mac os. (and running the latest os meant getting a new comp or horribly slow performance) I'd guess tivo doesn't seem to care because myworld is pretty useless w/o a tivo & the mods that cost them revenue wouldn't be impacted by preventing distribution of legitimate images on preconfigured drives.

I have to wonder though what rights tivo has forfeit by not enforcing them in this instance.

--
Riley

But its the distribution of that modified work along with separate works that is the issue here. The GPL is specific in stating that in that case, the licensee receives the rights to distribution as specified in the GPL.

Seems fairly obvious to me, as well as our lawyers.

Not sure why the distribution-issue continues to get ignored...

Will
05-30-2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by captain_video
The legality of hard disk upgrades would actually appear to be a moot point if Tivo has no plans on prosecuting the "offenders".

The legality of [insert activity] would actually appear to be a moot point if [insert name of jurisdiction or plaintiff] has no plans on prosecuting the "offenders." Doesn't make it right, does it?

We are a nation of criminals. Shame on us. Or, perhaps, there are some laws on the books that should not be? An estimated 100% of daily drivers in this country violate traffic laws at least once a year, I've read. Not 50%, 75% or even 99%, but 100% (including driving too slowly, BTW, which snagged several of those last few %).

Though most of the newer laws in question have been purchased by commercail interests able to afford the bribes, the fertile field for such nonsense has long been plowed by "blue laws" and fine-based tax collecting. Not one our more glorious traditions.

rc3105
05-30-2003, 09:21 PM
so distributing original works with gpl works automatically makes the original non-derivitave work subject to the gpl source distribution clause as well?

that's just plain dumb

sounds like you need to get some competent lawyers

and people wonder why the courts are clogged...

--
Riley

PTVupgrade
05-30-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by rc3105
so distributing original works with gpl works automatically makes the original non-derivitave work subject to the gpl source distribution clause as well?

that's just plain dumb

sounds like you need to get some competent lawyers

and people wonder why the courts are clogged...

--
Riley

grrr... never said that. and around we go again.

Once again, here is the excerpt, VERBATIM, from the GPL:

"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."

The last sentence is the operative one. I really don't want to get into whether or not when they say 'the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License' that they mean that every aspect of the GPL applies. But as for the distribution, specifically its pretty clear.

Additionally, if you do some reading up on the GPL, you will find that this clause was specifically put into place because the FSF did not want people to start bundling proprietary code with GPL software, and limited the distribution of it as a result.

Again, I make no claim as to whether the separate works are actualy subject to the GPL; but from a distribution standpoint, its clear to the professionals who have reviewed it.

rc3105
05-30-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by pweed
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole."

the MODIFIED WORK in this case is the underlying os.

the "modified work as a whole" does NOT necesarily refer to the entire tivo system just because they're both on the same disk.

edit: following your logic pre-loading & distributing microsoft office under rh/wine would make office subject to the gpl.


--
Riley

PTVupgrade
05-30-2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by rc3105
the MODIFIED WORK in this case is the underlying os.

the "modified work as a whole" does NOT necesarily refer to the entire tivo system just because they're both on the same disk.

edit: following your logic pre-loading & distributing microsoft office under rh/wine would make office subject to the gpl.


--
Riley

I agree, the modified work is the underlying OS. But the sentence goes on to discuss the distribution of seperate works along with it. And you cannot bring a proprietary piece of software under the GPL by 'merely aggregating' - so the argument would really be, "are TiVo's separate works the subject of 'mere aggregation'

I would say 'no.' Having done quite a bit of research on what is defined by 'mere aggregation' I would say that the sections, which would qualify as separate works if distributed separately (like MS office in your example) are not defined by 'mere aggregation' - they are integrated at much lower levels, and are intricately intertwined as a system.

PTVupgrade
05-30-2003, 10:16 PM
And if you read the dialog here, which discusses the GPL and LGPL in a few different contexts, you will see that there is differentation between 'distribution rights' and 'falling under the GPL' meaning distributing ALL source code.

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/1997-09/msg00560.html

Of course, this person (Colin Peters) could be wrong.

There is only one thing that is clear; its not as black and white as some of the idealists here seem to think. If it were, TiVo's legal counsel would have had an issue with this over two years ago when I looked him in the eye and explained the business model. The TiVo folks are not dumb, nor are their lawyers. Anyone in IP knows that if you don't vigorously defend your rights, you can lose them; they most definitely would have raised an issue if their interpretations were different.

In any case, the philophy of the GPL is very much oriented toward retaining the freedom of distribution of software; that doesn't mean that companies can't make money licensing and supporting it, which is exactly what TiVo does.

raj2001
05-30-2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by pweed
I agree, the modified work is the underlying OS. But the sentence goes on to discuss the distribution of seperate works along with it. And you cannot bring a proprietary piece of software under the GPL by 'merely aggregating' - so the argument would really be, "are TiVo's separate works the subject of 'mere aggregation'

I would say 'no.' Having done quite a bit of research on what is defined by 'mere aggregation' I would say that the sections, which would qualify as separate works if distributed separately (like MS office in your example) are not defined by 'mere aggregation' - they are integrated at much lower levels, and are intricately intertwined as a system.

Then if that's the case, I want the entire verbatim source code of the TiVo from TiVo, not just the already GPL'ed code that they modified :)

raj2001
05-30-2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by rc3105
I agree with raj2001 in that the linux os is the "modified whole" that the gpl applies to, and that tivoapp & the mfs partitions / data therein is a distinct original work with it's own licencing legalities.

seems like that should be obvious

Exactly.

TiVo is selling you a computer (hardware), upon which they have installed an operating system (Linux) and an application (The TiVo software). They are three separate and distinct components. They're just sold together as one package.

rc3105
05-30-2003, 10:39 PM
so at least we agree on 2 points:

there's a slippery slope with rh/wine/office on one end and rh/apache on the other

there IS a line to be drawn somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum


tivo has spoken on where they percieve the line to be by releasing source for the low level drivers to the extent that the tivo will boot & function as a computer w/o using tivoapp, you can even insert/extract video from the mfs partitions. (I've messed with this quite a bit as well as built many kernel variations from the source provided)

so in tivo's view gpl ends & original proprietary work begins in the controlling app & drivers for the hardware that does capture/playback under the direction of tivoapp on sa's and includes the boot299.btl file on dtivos.


you argue that tivo's proprietary work should be covered by the gpl because it's "intricatly entwined". that would clearly be false in the case of an aftermarket pvr capture card that was similiarly integrated into the os (even if the pvr sw installer produced the entanglement)


so your view boils down to:

tivo should be required to

distribute tivoapp & drivers on seperate media
move the capture/playback circuitry to a removable card
require the end user to install them

just to maintain their rights to the sw they developed?

--
Riley

raj2001
05-30-2003, 10:44 PM
Although this doesn't really prove any legal argument, the TiVo hack faq (http://tivo.samba.org/index.cgi?req=show&file=faq02.014.htp) does say:

"2.14. Where can I download a virgin backup image on the Internet?

Nowhere! This would violate TiVo's copyrights"

PTVupgrade
05-30-2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by rc3105
so at least we agree on 2 points:

there's a slippery slope with rh/wine/office on one end and rh/apache on the other

there IS a line to be drawn somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum


tivo has spoken on where they percieve the line to be by releasing source for the low level drivers to the extent that the tivo will boot & function as a computer w/o using tivoapp, you can even insert/extract video from the mfs partitions. (I've messed with this quite a bit as well as built many kernel variations from the source provided)

so in tivo's view gpl ends & original proprietary work begins in the controlling app & drivers for the hardware that does capture/playback under the direction of tivoapp on sa's and includes the boot299.btl file on dtivos.


you argue that tivo's proprietary work should be covered by the gpl because it's "intricatly entwined". that would clearly be false in the case of an aftermarket pvr capture card that was similiarly integrated into the os (even if the pvr sw installer produced the entanglement)


so your view boils down to:

tivo should be required to

distribute tivoapp & drivers on seperate media
move the capture/playback circuitry to a removable card
require the end user to install them

just to maintain their rights to the sw they developed?

--
Riley


My view is that redistribution of the entire TiVo volume is permissable under the GPL.

TiVo does not have to reveal their source, as their separate works are not released under the GPL. Because they are distributed on the same volume as GPL software, and because it is not a case of 'mere aggregation' the media is subject to the distribution terms of the GPL. Why is it not mere aggregation? Because the separate work cannot function without the modified work.

The GPL work which they have modified, remains under the GPL; TiVo must disclose the source, which they of course, have.

If TiVo wanted to limit ability of a licensee to redistribute their separate works, they would need to distribute them separately form the GPL works (modified or unmodified). Of course, this would serve no purpose to them for two reasons - their separate works require a license to function, anyway. And it would represent an entirely different architecture - they would have to issue software updates separately from the GPL stuff, etc. Since, in reality, the software essentially has no value to them without a valid subscription, it doesn't make economic sense for them to have worried about it.

Had TiVo foreseen the sprouting of an industry such as the upgrade business, they may have implemented things differently. Its unlikely, as their revenue model probably would have ended up as it does today (primarily subscriptions). However, control is an issue, and there is a risk to them should we or someone else introduce a 'change' in the distribution that disrupted their revenue stream and/or relationship with their customers.

Now, if Raj ever completes his basement project, the DVR that will run the TiVo software, without violating any of TiVo's patents, perhaps while using his illegally manufactured and obtained TurboNet clone card at the same time, it may raise some eyebrows at TiVo, and they will change their next generation architecture to be a bit more closed, and the software a bit more controlled.

The interesting thing about the entire topic here is that the discussion is approximately 3 years too late -- that is how long we have been doing this, and I find it surprising that folks would even be thinking this was illegal at this point.

rc3105
05-31-2003, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by pweed
My view is that redistribution of the entire TiVo volume is permissable under the GPL.

TiVo does not have to reveal their source, as their separate works are not released under the GPL. Because they are distributed on the same volume as GPL software, and because it is not a case of 'mere aggregation' the media is subject to the distribution terms of the GPL. Why is it not mere aggregation? Because the separate work cannot function without the modified work.

The GPL work which they have modified, remains under the GPL; TiVo must disclose the source, which they of course, have.

If TiVo wanted to limit ability of a licensee to redistribute their separate works, they would need to distribute them separately form the GPL works (modified or unmodified). Of course, this would serve no purpose to them for two reasons - their separate works require a license to function, anyway. And it would represent an entirely different architecture - they would have to issue software updates separately from the GPL stuff, etc. Since, in reality, the software essentially has no value to them without a valid subscription, it doesn't make economic sense for them to have worried about it.




just because their seperate work doesn't function without the gpl components DOES NOT nor should it give anyone else permission to distribute said work.

it IS seperate work, it's copywritten & patented, folks that buy a tivo have a right to use it but not necesarily redistribute it. (the gpl components sure, but not tivo's IP.) I would argue fair use includes the right to make a personal backup but not to give your neighbor that bought hardware preloaded with 2.0 a copy of your old 1.3 backup.



Originally posted by pweed
Now, if Raj ever completes his basement project, the DVR that will run the TiVo software, without violating any of TiVo's patents, perhaps while using his illegally manufactured and obtained TurboNet clone card at the same time, it may raise some eyebrows at TiVo, and they will change their next generation architecture to be a bit more closed, and the software a bit more controlled.



a completely seperate business that profits from redistributing someone else's IP without a licence is at best guilty of sleazy business practices. in this instance it's pretty obvious that it's also criminal.

you complain about someone using hardware built from a copy of a design that's passed into the public domain, but insist it's proper to profit from redistributing IP you have NO rights to...

you can't have your cake & eat it too. either you can't see the inconsistancy in your own arguement or you conveniently ignore it & hope no one else will see it. I wouldn't want any business dealings with anyone with that type of two-faced attitude and I suspect anyone that didn't sleep through ethics 101 would agree.

--
Riley

PTVupgrade
05-31-2003, 09:40 AM
Well it appears to be very black and white to you too. However, GPL is clearly does indicate that distribution rights are passed along to the licensee.

This is counter-intuitive when compared to traditional copyright practices, as is the entire copyleft movement and much of GPL, however, this is what acceptance of the GPL means - you can't limit the distribution GPL work by blending it with a propietary one.

Its really quite sad to see so many arguments based upon sentiment, and not analysis or experience. Truly, the only argument against redistribution is in the realm of 'mere aggregation' and whether TiVo's architecture fits that example. Continuing to ignore the fundamental basis of the GPL and its wording and passing judgement based upon your own personal values really doesn't have any bearing here. Its unfortunately that many do not understand what it really means - with so many comparisons to copyright example its clear folks don't.

Interestingly, this is why many corporations do not play with the GPL; its too permissive for those who wish to retain control.

And to call my actions unethical is just ridiculous. Especially when we've enjoyed a positive relationship with TiVo since our inception.

raj2001
05-31-2003, 01:44 PM
The biggest clue that pweed knows nothing about the GNU GPL is the fact that he doesn't acknowledge source code must be distributed freely if object code is subject to the GPL. You can argue this all you like, but this is the entire philosophy upon which the GNU GPL and the FSF were created.

Free software isn't about free beer or free for all. It's about free speech.

You said:


TiVo does not have to reveal their source, as their separate works are not released under the GPL.

Which part of section 3 of the GNU GPL don't you understand?

Here it clearly says that:

"You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
"

Subsection (c) does not apply because TiVo is clearly a commercial distribution.

raj2001
05-31-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by rc3105
a completely seperate business that profits from redistributing someone else's IP without a licence is at best guilty of sleazy business practices. in this instance it's pretty obvious that it's also criminal.

you complain about someone using hardware built from a copy of a design that's passed into the public domain, but insist it's proper to profit from redistributing IP you have NO rights to...

you can't have your cake & eat it too. either you can't see the inconsistancy in your own arguement or you conveniently ignore it & hope no one else will see it. I wouldn't want any business dealings with anyone with that type of two-faced attitude and I suspect anyone that didn't sleep through ethics 101 would agree.


I could not have said it better myself.

raj2001
05-31-2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by pweed
Now, if Raj ever completes his basement project, the DVR that will run the TiVo software, without violating any of TiVo's patents, perhaps while using his illegally manufactured and obtained TurboNet clone card at the same time, it may raise some eyebrows at TiVo, and they will change their next generation architecture to be a bit more closed, and the software a bit more controlled.

Firstly, my X Factor DVR ethernet card is by no means illegal. You can argue this all you like, but the fact remains that there was never any patent filed for it, and a device or invention cannot be protected under US Copyright law. So whoever invented the DVR ethernet card that jafa decides to call Turbonet, and pvrextreme decides to call X Factor is SOL.

Secondly, TiVo has already made their Series2 architecture to be a bit more closed. I thought you already knew that. Series 2 TiVo's have the new flash rom that basically hinders hacking, at least more so than on a Series 1. Echostar has taken a similar approach, and their new DISH PVR 721 (which also uses the Linux kernel) has a hard drive that is tied to the serial number. Therefore hard drive upgrades are difficult, next to impossible without heavy hacking.

rc3105
05-31-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by pweed
And to call my actions unethical is just ridiculous. Especially when we've enjoyed a positive relationship with TiVo since our inception.

so go get a limited distribution licence. don't try to justify your actions by saying "well they haven't said anything so it must be ok" or "they must (whatever)... to maintain their rights"

if tivo's serperate work WAS subject to the gpl they would need to provide source. since it's not, IT'S NOT, so the gpl has no bearing on those components. the gpl does not give you any distribution rights

"because it's tightly intertwined" does not give you any distribution rights

"because it doesn't do anything without the gpl components" does not give you any distribution rights

"but they like us!" does not give you any distribution rights


they spent some $ developing it all & you're directly benifiting from their investment without explicit permission. that's it in a nutshell.

--
Riley

PTVupgrade
05-31-2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by rc3105
so go get a limited distribution licence. don't try to justify your actions by saying "well they haven't said anything so it must be ok" or "they must (whatever)... to maintain their rights"

if tivo's serperate work WAS subject to the gpl they would need to provide source. since it's not, IT'S NOT, so the gpl has no bearing on those components. the gpl does not give you any distribution rights



"because it's tightly intertwined" does not give you any distribution rights

"because it doesn't do anything without the gpl components" does not give you any distribution rights

"but they like us!" does not give you any distribution rights


they spent some $ developing it all & you're directly benifiting from their investment without explicit permission. that's it in a nutshell.

--
Riley


We have the right to distribute it because they've distributed their works on the same medium as GPL software. That is the only reason we have the right. And I've clearly stated it in practically every communication I've made here.

Just because you don't like the fact that we are doing it, and have been doing it, doesn't make you right about this.

In short, except for cwingert, none of you really know what you are talking about.

rc3105
05-31-2003, 06:51 PM
you allready conceeded that preloaded rh/wine/office would not make office subject to the gpl or provide any distribution rights.

so now the only excuse you have left is "we know better"

guess it was inevitible


--
Riley


*never argue with an *****, they drag you down to their level & bludgeon you with experience ;)

PTVupgrade
05-31-2003, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by rc3105
you allready conceeded that preloaded rh/wine/office would not make office subject to the gpl or provide any distribution rights.

so now the only excuse you have left is "we know better"

guess it was inevitible


--
Riley


*never argue with an *****, they drag you down to their level & bludgeon you with experience ;)


That would fit into the category of "mere aggregation" if that is what you are trying to say.

raj2001
05-31-2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by pweed
That would fit into the category of "mere aggregation" if that is what you are trying to say.

So what makes the TiVo software different in this regard then?

raj2001
05-31-2003, 07:54 PM
Pweed, just for the record, I have no problem with you profiting from selling products containing TiVo's IP. I just don't like the pot calling the kettle black, and on AVS TC, with the issue with the X Factor DVR ethernet adapter, you did just that.

Tracer
05-31-2003, 08:57 PM
It is so nice to find a place that attorneys and copyright/patent experts hang out. Crazy us just finished spending $400 per hour for legal help, could have got it here for free!

PTVupgrade
05-31-2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by raj2001
So what makes the TiVo software different in this regard then?

The TiVo software components are not "merely aggregated" - they are not easily separable from the modified work on the distribution. The TiVo unit itself will not operate without them, and the applications utilize and are dependent upon libraries which are linked to the kernel.

The "mere aggregation" term in the GPL refers to scenarios such as taking the OS and bundling it with something else, but not for programs that have interdependencies, inter-process communication, shared address spaces, etc. The case of TiVo's implementation is not one of 'mere aggregation' - there are separate works involved, however they really are combined in a way that would be difficult to argue that they have been merely aggregated (the fact that the box won't even function without them is probably enough to warrant that).

With that said, if you guys want to get all righteous about your beliefs and that what we've been doing is illegal, I would do some more research on what 'mere aggregation' means, and read some of the Stallman interviews I've linked to earlier in the thread, and put together an argument along those lines.

rc3105
05-31-2003, 09:16 PM
define easy

if you don't know the basic bash commands sure it's a pain

if you compile your own kernels it's a piece of cake

and the tivo works quite nicely w/o the pvr sw components. it's kinda lame by current specs but beats anything you could buy uptil about '94

--
Riley

cwingert
05-31-2003, 09:42 PM
I *think* pweed is participating in this discussion of free will.

Further, having worked with staff patent attorneys at work, I am fully aware that they can accomplish nothing without engineers.



Originally posted by Tracer
It is so nice to find a place that attorneys and copyright/patent experts hang out. Crazy us just finished spending $400 per hour for legal help, could have got it here for free!

raj2001
06-01-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by pweed
The TiVo software components are not "merely aggregated" - they are not easily separable from the modified work on the distribution. The TiVo unit itself will not operate without them, and the applications utilize and are dependent upon libraries which are linked to the kernel.

Oh boy, where shall I start. This is fundamentally wrong on so many levels.

First of all, the TiVo hardware will operate without the proprietary TiVo components contained in the TiVo software distribution. Sure, I may not be able to record shows, but I can pull up a BASH prompt, run apache (TiVoweb), run a ftp server and compile and run any number of software compiled to run on Linux for PowerPC.

Secondly, if you're even implying that the "work as a whole" includes TiVo hardware as well as software, that could not be more wrong. The GNU GPL is a licenseUnder US copyright law, hardware (devices, ideas, inventions) are not covered under copyright. (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp) We went over this whole argument when jafa was claiming that copied Turbonet boards violated his copyright. The GNU GPL applies only to software contained on a medium (TiVo's hard disk) and not the entire hardware product which happens to have said software loaded on it.


The "mere aggregation" term in the GPL refers to scenarios such as taking the OS and bundling it with something else, but not for programs that have interdependencies, inter-process communication, shared address spaces, etc. The case of TiVo's implementation is not one of 'mere aggregation' - there are separate works involved, however they really are combined in a way that would be difficult to argue that they have been merely aggregated (the fact that the box won't even function without them is probably enough to warrant that).

You're implying, therefore, that any program which is designed to run under Linux will be subject to the GNU GPL. After all, they cannot function without making system calls to the kernel. THis could not be further from the truth. Linus Torvalds himself said that proprietary software distributed along with Linux was NOT subject to the GPL. Redhat, SuSE and other companies release software that is proprietary and is not subject to the GPL. Yet it's bundled with their GPL'ed Linux distributions.


With that said, if you guys want to get all righteous about your beliefs and that what we've been doing is illegal, I would do some more research on what 'mere aggregation' means, and read some of the Stallman interviews I've linked to earlier in the thread, and put together an argument along those lines.

Oh please, if Richard Stallman had his way, right down to all Microsoft software would be GPL'ed. Stallman's fantasies (don't get me wrong, I think he's done tons for the free software community) simply do not reflect reality. Besides, his idea of freedom is freedom of the source code, which clearly you do not believe the TiVo software is.

PTVupgrade
06-01-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by raj2001
Oh boy, where shall I start. This is fundamentally wrong on so many levels.

First of all, the TiVo hardware will operate without the proprietary TiVo components contained in the TiVo software distribution. Sure, I may not be able to record shows, but I can pull up a BASH prompt, run apache (TiVoweb), run a ftp server and compile and run any number of software compiled to run on Linux for PowerPC.

Secondly, if you're even implying that the "work as a whole" includes TiVo hardware as well as software, that could not be more wrong. The GNU GPL is a licenseUnder US copyright law, hardware (devices, ideas, inventions) are not covered under copyright. (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp) We went over this whole argument when jafa was claiming that copied Turbonet boards violated his copyright. The GNU GPL applies only to software contained on a medium (TiVo's hard disk) and not the entire hardware product which happens to have said software loaded on it.

[b]

You're implying, therefore, that any program which is designed to run under Linux will be subject to the GNU GPL. After all, they cannot function without making system calls to the kernel. THis could not be further from the truth. Linus Torvalds himself said that proprietary software distributed along with Linux was NOT subject to the GPL. Redhat, SuSE and other companies release software that is proprietary and is not subject to the GPL. Yet it's bundled with their GPL'ed Linux distributions.

[b]

Oh please, if Richard Stallman had his way, right down to all Microsoft software would be GPL'ed. Stallman's fantasies (don't get me wrong, I think he's done tons for the free software community) simply do not reflect reality. Besides, his idea of freedom is freedom of the source code, which clearly you do not believe the TiVo software is.

I've not implied either of the two aforementioned things; so once again, Raj, you are arguing with yourself.

And while I won't disagree completely with the third statement you've made, the fact is that the GPL does reflect his beliefs, and we are operating within its boundaries here.

The fact is that the separate works TiVo has created are not merely aggregated, and because they are distributed on the same medium as GPL software, we have distribution rights, too.

Stop talking out of your ass Raj, and do some reading on the topic of mere aggregation. You are not going to be able to argue this one, just by sitting on your duff and throwing potshots.

I'm done with this thread. Its a time-waster.

raj2001
06-01-2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by pweed
The fact is that the separate works TiVo has created are not merely aggregated, and because they are distributed on the same medium as GPL software, we have distribution rights, too.


Then why does TiVo say (go to the setup screen, and do a system status) that their work is copyrighted and unauthorized distribution is illegal (I can't remember the exact verbage. TiVo sits far from my PC)?

blahman
06-02-2003, 05:34 PM
pweed, you are wrong. Let's put this another way. You buy a PC, you have it installed such that Linux is installed, and then on a Linux partition VirtualPC is installed with Windows XP and Microsoft Office XP on that. Does that mean you get M$ Windows & M$ Office for free? Does that mean you get the right to distribute M$ Windows & M$ Office for free? NO and NO. Does that mean you get the right to distribute for free the HD image containing these 2 works or a modified version of the HD image? Again, NO and NO. The reason being is that they are complete and separate works even though you bought a whole PC with them and some GPL software. You are however still free to redistribute Linux, and any changes you make to that Linux install that you feel like distributing.

Get a clue when it comes to the letter of the law you are breaking the law. Ask any attorney.

Now do I think you help some people, yes. Me I do it myself, but heck someone must be buying your upgrades.

However, always remember you are living by the grace of Tivo Inc. I'd be putting cash away for the day they do sue you.

brage
07-24-2003, 12:01 PM
Looks like I won... yay ;)

-jeff

PTVupgrade
07-24-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by brage
Looks like I won... yay ;)

-jeff

Well, you haven't. Just because you don't understand the GPL, doesn't mean you've won your argument.'

And to expand on that, for those of you who still don't get it; the last point made by blahman is not relevant; he is describing mere aggregation, which is in fact discussed as part of the GPL. The example he uses is not related to redistribution of GPL software, so it is not relavent.

brage
07-24-2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by pweed
Well, you haven't. Just because you don't understand the GPL, doesn't mean you've won your argument.'

And to expand on that, for those of you who still don't get it; the last point made by blahman is not relevant; he is describing mere aggregation, which is in fact discussed as part of the GPL. The example he uses is not related to redistribution of GPL software, so it is not relavent.

wow you still don't have a clue ;) funny.

-jeff

PTVupgrade
07-24-2003, 02:30 PM
If you want to get personal about it, I'll point out that it is you who don't have a clue. And unfortunately, its not funny. Its unfortunate that ignorant an malicious people like yourself are willing to represent a shoddy opinion as one of truth, instead of doing the research and constructing a logical argument.

Good bye!

brage
07-24-2003, 02:55 PM
pweed,

You are wrong, face it. You and anyone else distributing drives with tivo software (hacked or not) on them are breaking the law. If you want to prove yourself, get me the source to all of the proprietary tivo apps and show me that the code is GPLed.

-jeff

AVD
07-25-2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by brage
pweed,

You are wrong, face it. You and anyone else distributing drives with tivo software (hacked or not) on them are breaking the law. If you want to prove yourself, get me the source to all of the proprietary tivo apps and show me that the code is GPLed.

-jeff

Isn't TiVo the ultimate dongle? As a owner of the Tivo, I am authorized to use the software, no matter what medium it is on. If I am using a copy of the software that isn't provided by TiVo, but is otherwise identical, everything is O.K.

If I repair the modem on my tivo, is it illegal? If I put a faster modem on the TiVo than the original, is it illegal?

If I build my own computer, and put a copy of TiVo software on it, is it illegal? If I modify TiVo code and get free service is it legal?

GPL won't save you from stealing service.

brage
07-25-2003, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by AVD
Isn't TiVo the ultimate dongle? As a owner of the Tivo, I am authorized to use the software, no matter what medium it is on. If I am using a copy of the software that isn't provided by TiVo, but is otherwise identical, everything is O.K.

If I repair the modem on my tivo, is it illegal? If I put a faster modem on the TiVo than the original, is it illegal?

If I build my own computer, and put a copy of TiVo software on it, is it illegal? If I modify TiVo code and get free service is it legal?

GPL won't save you from stealing service.

I'm not saying that you can not upgrade your tivo yourself. I am just saying that it is not legal to distribute or sell the tivo software ...