OC please steal

  • Vuraniute@thelemmy.clubEnglish
    902·
    5 months ago

    Not only TiVO, IIRC Tecno (the phone company) is in violation of the GPL-2.0 too by not providing device trees.

    • f00f/eris@startrek.websiteOPEnglish
      762·
      5 months ago

      Tons of companies are shipping Linux without giving users access to the source code, it’s just that only one has the term “Tivoization” named after it.

        • rbits@lemm.ee
          101·
          5 months ago

          Huh, Linux uses GPLv2? Does anyone have any info about why?

          Edit: Found a video https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU. Makes sense. Complete freedom to use and modify the software means freedom to use the software in a proprietary device with DRM, as long as you still give the changes to the public.

      • julianwgs@discuss.tchncs.de
        29·
        5 months ago

        Thats false! There is already a link to the wikipedia article, but here is the relevant quote: „but uses hardware restrictions or digital rights management (DRM) to prevent users from running modified versions of the software on that hardware.“

        It is not a violation of the GPL 2, the license of the Linux kernel, but only the GPL 3 which was basically created for this case. Linus Torvalds is a big defender of the GPL 2 and said that Tivo provided good patches for the hardware they used.

    • CaptainBasculin@lemmy.ml
      13·
      5 months ago

      Speaking of violators, North Korea is in violation of GPL 2.0 since they didn’t provide me the source code of the kernel when I asked for them for it.

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        2·
        5 months ago

        Did you get a kernel binary from them? If not, I don’t think they’re bound to you by GPL.

  • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
    81·
    5 months ago

    I love one of the clauses of gplv3 where if a user does not follow the gpl you may deny them their ability to use it forever.

    Would be funny to strike Nintendo with that. Or any other company that likes suing people work.

  • cmgvd3lw@discuss.tchncs.de
    59·
    5 months ago

    I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don’t have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my penguin go now, that’ll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don’t, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.

  • Funbreaker@lemmy.zip
    341·
    5 months ago

    I clicked on this because I thought it was gonna be a spoopy jumpscare anti-piracy screen but I was pleasantly surprised.

    There are a disturbing amount of little kids posting homemade anti-piracy screens for things that are free.

    • f00f/eris@startrek.websiteOPEnglish
      121·
      5 months ago

      I came across a bunch of those recently, which is how I came up with the idea for this, as a parody :)

      Internet horror is disappointingly un-creative. I have no idea why the weakest works (sonic.exe, anti-piracy, kill screens) always end up becoming huge trends, or why so few people try to put a significant twist on said trends.

      • renzev@lemmy.world
        3·
        5 months ago

        I think it has to do with the age of the target audience? I remember being absolutely terrified and morbidly fascinated by sonic.exe and similar when I was in middle school. What might seem weak/shallow/uncreative to an adult might actually be extremely interesting to someone younger.

        • Funbreaker@lemmy.zipEnglish
          4·
          5 months ago

          whatever.EXE doesn’t make my eyes roll as hard as anti-piracy screens because the former at least is working with the premise that the thing has been corrupted by demons and thus isn’t supposed to be realistic. Anti-piracy screens often want you to suspend your disbelief that Nickelodeon, Babyfirst TV or anything else aimed toward kids or even free and publicly available like PBS would jumpscare kids with pictures of their mascots bleeding from the eyes because piracy bad.

  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlEnglish
    161·
    5 months ago

    What a confused image.

    1. TiVo complied with the GPLv2 and distributed source code for their modifications to Linux. What they did not do was distribute the cryptographic keys which would allow TiVo customers to run modified versions it on their TiVo devices. This is what motivated the so-called anti-tivoization clause in GPLv3 (the “Installation Information” part of Section 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.).
    2. Linux remains GPLv2, so, everyone today still has the right to do the same thing TiVo did (shipping it in a product with a locked bootloader).
    3. Distributing Linux (or any GPLv2 software) with a threat of violence against recipients who exercise some of the rights granted by the license, as is depicted in this post, would be a violation section 6 of GPLv2 (“You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein.”).
    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      53·
      5 months ago

      Promising to “find someone” is not a threat much less a restriction of rights. Maybe OP is compiling a list of locked-down devices to avoid, that’s perfectly in their rights, and it’s also in their rights to inform people of such an endeavour.

      • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
        2·
        5 months ago

        You may be joking, in which case: Fair game.

        If not… come on. In what world do you write “(…) I’ll find you. Mark my words.” In that kind of context without being (at least humorously) threatening?

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          3·
          5 months ago

          Counsel concedes that the statement may have been humorously threatening. That, however, does not affect the issue of said action not constituting any form of tort that could be reasonably considered a restriction of rights opposing counsel’s client may hold.

      • f00f/eris@startrek.websiteOPEnglish
        81·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, it’s fake, and as other commenters have pointed out, it’s also inaccurate to how the GPLv2 works. It was not meant to convince anyone.