# HR20 seems to be running Linux...possible GPL violations?



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

This post seems to confirm that the HR20 is running some linux variant:
DealDatabase Post

If it is indeed running linux, which it very likely is, where are the kernel sources?
Why are there no copies of the GPL included with the HR20, or any sort of mention of the GPL that the GPL requires.

Earl, maybe you can confirm if the HR20 is running linux from your contacts?


----------



## bigviking (Sep 20, 2006)

mateom199 said:


> This post seems to confirm that the HR20 is running some linux variant:
> DealDatabase Post
> 
> If it is indeed running linux, which it very likely is, where are the kernel sources?
> ...


GPL only requires source code for sources files that are modified. It's possible that the HR20 is basically running a stock kernel, with some new (built from scratch) kernel modules. If this is the case, I believe they haven't violated the GPL terms. But, my understanding is that they are still required to have copyright notices, and disclaimers of warranty.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

See this thread.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=75839&highlight=GPL+linux

No need to bring this one up again...


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> See this thread.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=75839&highlight=GPL+linux
> 
> No need to bring this one up again...


Well, actually, there is good reason to bring it up. That thread never resulted in any definitive answers except for that fact that Earl believes the source will never see the light of day.

It still doesn't answer the question of whether or not DTV is *required* to release any source, or even acknowledge using GPL'd code. That thread only established that most people a) think it will never be released and b) its ok, because DirecTV needs to protect itself.


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

mateom199 said:


> Well, actually, there is good reason to bring it up. That thread never resulted in any definitive answers except for that fact that Earl believes the source will never see the light of day.
> 
> It still doesn't answer the question of whether or not DTV is *required* to release any source, or even acknowledge using GPL'd code. That thread only established that most people a) think it will never be released and b) its ok, because DirecTV needs to protect itself.


That's not the only thread hereabouts on the subject. GPL requires that, upon request, you provide a free distribution of the open source content of your works. This amounts to maintaining an archive of the package distribution and providing it upon request to users, for a nominal charge only. If public archives are still available, you can _suggest_ going to the original source you got it from, but it's on you to give things out upon request.

But no work product of your own need be given out. Nothing requires that. Use of gcc built code distributed for public use directs that binaries cannot be stripped (a form of post-build compression, so to speak, and an option when you build). You can charge for your own code. You can charge a reasonable and nominal sum for the distribution. You can not exploit the open distribution. You can keep your own source private, patent it, charge for it, and get cat-called at slashdot for doing that - but what's yours is yours.

As we used to quote RMS in the old days, it's free as in speech, not free as in beer.

I only know these things for a certain fact because my company distributes a single open source component with our commercial software, have done so for a decade+ and because I personally handled licensing issues with that and have personally corresponded with Richard Stallman so as to ensure my company's compliance, and later to discuss other issues associated with open source licensing.

*But, unless something has drastically changed, and I **think** not, distribution of the unit without a GPL Copyright(left) notice is - how shall I put it? - a reprehensible no-no.*

I am patiently waiting for news that D* will be correcting this oversight in the next revision of their HR20 manual. That is the issue.

hth


----------



## CousCous (Sep 17, 2006)

That's true. My Panasonic tv uses Linux and they had to make a special place for the GPL in the menu screen. All GPL'd software _must_ come with a copy of the license agreement.


----------



## mtnagel (Sep 18, 2006)

CousCous said:


> That's true. My Panasonic tv uses Linux and they had to make a special place for the GPL in the menu screen. All GPL'd software _must_ come with a copy of the license agreement.


Wow. What could a tv need Linux for?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

There are other companies that provide Linux for the Broadcom Processors in the HR20. It is possible that DirecTV simply licenses that product rather than doing kernel work themselves.

http://www.windriver.com/linux/technology.html

Don't know if DirecTV goes through these guys or not. I'm not sure whose requirement it would be for the GPL license statement in that case. Certainly, no source code would be necessary, though.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

brott said:


> There are other companies that provide Linux for the Broadcom Processors in the HR20. It is possible that DirecTV simply licenses that product rather than doing kernel work themselves.
> 
> http://www.windriver.com/linux/technology.html
> 
> Don't know if DirecTV goes through these guys or not. I'm not sure whose requirement it would be for the GPL license statement in that case. Certainly, no source code would be necessary, though.


*Any* release of the linux kernel requires a copy of the GPL license, and at least an offer to produce the source upon request. Not doing so is a violation of the GPL. This does not mean that any type of proprietary DirecTV code must be released, only the linux kernel sources, modified or "stock."


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

Do you really think D* has not already looked at what needed to be done legally to use the linux 2.4.29-uclibc-brcm?

Not likely!

The kernel is most likely handed to them as is.


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

brott said:


> There are other companies that provide Linux for the Broadcom Processors in the HR20. It is possible that DirecTV simply licenses that product rather than doing kernel work themselves.
> 
> http://www.windriver.com/linux/technology.html
> 
> Don't know if DirecTV goes through these guys or not. I'm not sure whose requirement it would be for the GPL license statement in that case. Certainly, no source code would be necessary, though.


Look at this way - if I have an application that runs on GNU/Linux, links GNU libraries - ie, basically everyone's code - I have to provide a copy of the GPL.

Suppose, however, that I somehow managed to get past that and my application is truly on its own, it simply runs on GNU/Linux and I distribute my package only - I don't have to provide a copy of the GPL. (It would be wise of me to provide a system requirements page for pre-install, identifying what distributions my package works with - RedHat, Ubuntu, etc. It would be great from the FSF's point of view if I were to say GNU/Linux when referring to those distributions . (And, if you want to get into a flame war, ask the Linux kernel guys about this - they think it's just Linux as if the FSF were lucky to have them; I stopped talking to them years ago over this very subject.))

Now, suppose I re-distribute GNU/Linux along with my application. I need to provide a copy of the GPL.

Now, suppose I only use the Linux kernel - no GNU components whatsoever - and I re-distribute that only along with my majickal software requiring no GNU components to work. *Ta da!* The one case where the GPL is not required.

Except.... how is networking performed with a Linux kernel if not by GNU components(netwib, libsocketcpp)? How are files being managed between an esata drive and a Linux kernel if not by GNU components (fileutils at least)? And if the answer to that is that BSD-based components were used, great! Uh... Where's the BSD copyright notice?

Conceptually, it's possible that they somehow built a combination of: rolled their own, purchased rolled-their-own, and public domain (which GNU and BSD are not, btw). (Yes, I'm imagining them re-inventing *nix based libraries at high cost right now. :nono: ) *It's entirely possible, in which case, this subject is closed.

However....*

We're dealing with a company that wants to squeal like a stuck pig if the idea of removing their holy content digitally off of an HR20 comes up. Their first foray into media sharing is a beta based on Viiv, itself chock full of DRM (digital rights management). D* would be mistaken if they were to think that they could take this approach while stepping on the rights of others as if they were not being watched.

Very mistaken.

(EDIT - But no source code from D*. It's free as in speech, not free as in beer, when it comes to open software. If you modify open software, you only need provide the original open sources. You want source? Start at www.fsf.org, www.linuxhq.com, www.bsd.org, www.sourceforge.net - knock yourself out.)


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Since I think software and computers are just about as exciting as my toaster, I'm not really up on the world of computing.

So forgive me for asking, why does this matter?

EDIT: I guess this was answered in the post just before mine, so thank you!


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

mateom199 said:


> *Any* release of the linux kernel requires a copy of the GPL license, and at least an offer to produce the source upon request. Not doing so is a violation of the GPL. This does not mean that any type of proprietary DirecTV code must be released, only the linux kernel sources, modified or "stock."


If that's true, something changed in the years since I gave up talking to the kernel kids. Takes away the one out I gave in my previous post for not including the GPL. Looking into that today.....


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

> Now, suppose I only use the Linux kernel - no GNU components whatsoever - and I re-distribute that only along with my majickal software requiring no GNU components to work. Ta da! The one case where the GPL is not required.


macEarl seems to know a lot more about the issue than I, but I believe even just the linux kernel, without any GNU code, still requires a copy of the GPL. The linux kernel is also GPL'd, so I don't see why it would not be required....


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

Spanky_Partain said:


> Do you really think D* has not already looked at what needed to be done legally to use the linux 2.4.29-uclibc-brcm?
> 
> Not likely!
> 
> The kernel is most likely handed to them as is.


Maybe it happened - this one slipped by and was not given proper legal review at all. We acquired a company that did that (clowns!) and had to correct after the fact.

Or maybe, their lawyers made a mistake.

Let's look at uclibc. At the opening paragraph of their website it says:

"To use uClibc, you need to have a toolchain. A toolchain consists of GNU binutils..."

So, let's just skip over what's required for GNU binutils and go to http://uclibc.org/FAQ.html#licensing where they identify they use the Lesser GPL, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt.

Refer to paragraph 4, binary distribution and it's dependency on paragraphs 1 and 2 - requiring that you keep intact all notices of the License.

A vendor gave it to D*? OK, no problem, the vendor had to pass the license and its terms to them. D* gave it to us? OK, no problem, they have to pass the license and its terms to us.

They have not done so. It's my opinion that they are aware of this.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

macEarl said:


> (EDIT - But no source code from D*. It's free as in speech, not free as in beer, when it comes to open software. If you modify open software, you only need provide the original open sources. You want source? Start at www.fsf.org, www.linuxhq.com, www.bsd.org, www.sourceforge.net - knock yourself out.)


From the FSF GPL FAQ 



> Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
> The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
> 
> *But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. *
> ...


and



> Can I release a modified version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?
> *No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software--which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users.*


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

mateom199 said:


> macEarl seems to know a lot more about the issue than I, but I believe even just the linux kernel, without any GNU code, still requires a copy of the GPL. The linux kernel is also GPL'd, so I don't see why it would not be required....


I appreciate you squaring me away on this. I'll look into that (our posts crossed in time, see above), but you're prolly right. In any case, uclibc is a smoking gun.

That's just my opinion.

Probably, it's all an oversight. Nothing would make me happier than a letter of apology to the FSF, a copy of that letter to all current HR20 owners, by mail and by email for those that don't seem to get D* mail anymore, along with a statement of the copyright per the license itself, and a statement referring to either the new user's guide or the new addendum that will be put into every HR20 box from now on containing the copyright per the license, regardless of new or refurbished.

That is all that I want. It won't take their HR20 development staff any time at all. It'll give their lawyers and customer outreach staff something useful and good to do.

The initial point of view is to assume a mistake, not stupidity, not malfeasance.


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

mateom199 said:


> From the FSF GPL FAQ


Who is to say if they modified any protected binaries? They need not have modified the kernel itself. It's modular. There are ways to add things without modifying the kernel itself or modifying supporting code.

But are they distributing binaries openly? That might be argued against as they have an embedded system. But even if they do fall under that clause, the food chain is: End-user has GPL notice making him/her aware that open source was used in the product; end-user requests open source; vendor passes it up to appropriate contracting vendor or handles it themselves; vendor responds to the user as follows: 1) We will gladly provide you the source code on media type X (CD or DVD rom or other reasonable media - free download is in no way required), 2) we are allowed under the terms of the license to charge reasonably for the distribution only (media cost, labor cost to xfer source to media, labor cost to ensure end-user is getting the source, postage), and 3) the cost to you $XXX *(prolly under a hundred or under fifty bucks is ok)*. On the other hand, the acceptable alternative is for the vendor to say that they certify that they are using distro X or revision X of something, and would the user like to download it for free from the sponsoring organization? (See my links, above, and by the way, the first time that happens, the sponsoring organization would gladly accept a voluntary donation from that vendor for the server bandwidth additions.)

That's how that all works. Before broadband, vendor archiving mattered a lot - today, prolly less so.

To your original point - they modified source, so they must provide it. OK. But where do we believe that they did that or necessarily had to do it? Think Oracle. Think Wolfram. They can run on GNU/Linux till the hurd  of cows comes home, and they are not going to give you proprietary source. And even if D* or its supplier modified the kernel, you will get zero of the code using that modification, even if you swim upstream far enough to get the kernel.

It's free as in speech, not free as in beer.

But embedded system or not, if they're handing GPL'd or LGPL'd code - and it seems that they are - copyright notices should be respected. It's the law.

(PS - This all simply elaborates on bigviking's response.)


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

OK

So maybe if you lay out the $700+ money to buy and actually own your HR20,for that extra money you will get a link to the 2.4 kernel that is being used and a piece of paper that you have to sign saying you received the GPL license.

Otherwise, this is leased. It is their equipment. There is NO reason why they have to give you anything like this for the use of the HR20.

I have a GPL released program. It is shell script. The license for it is inside the program. Our lawyers said, "Good enough!". These lawyers deal with this type of stuff all the time. Believe me, D* is NOT going to open themselves up to a possible lawsuit over something so simple to take care of.

If you noticed in my last post, the kernel mentioned has *brcm* in it. This is most likely a Broadcom kernel. D* may have license agreements that say anything and D* probably is not responsible to supply what is being discussed in this thread.

All of the real stuff that would matter to this Forum is not in the kernel. The kernel is only the heart of the system and user space. The real work running the HR20 are the arms, legs, head, etc. I think you get my point here.

With that said, I bid you good afternoon!


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

mtnagel said:


> Wow. What could a tv need Linux for?


There's a school of thought that says anything with a CPU needs Linux. Were it not for BSD, Mach or GNU, they'd be right.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

I largely agree with you here.

As far as source code goes, in no way am I calling for, or even suggesting that any of D*'s own code be released. Just the kernel sources that to me, under the GPL, should be released. As you mention, even if D* said "Hey, we use this distro, you can download it at X website" that would satisfy me. Really, the whole source code question has more to do with enforcing the GPL, and less with actually getting my hands on any type of useful code. Clearly the HR20 kernel, modified or not, will not contain any code that most people would deem "useful."

If you look at Tivo, ( tivo linux page ) they have always released the kernel sources or any other GPL'd code they use on their boxes. Do these sources contain any proprietary Tivo code? Nope. But they are abiding by the GPL, which is important.

Source or not, D* needs to at include a copy of the GPL...


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

Spanky_Partain said:


> I have a GPL released program. It is shell script. The license for it is inside the program. Our lawyers said, "Good enough!". These lawyers deal with this type of stuff all the time.


Your script is already in human-readable form. Your lawyers were right.



> Believe me, D* is NOT going to open themselves up to a possible lawsuit over something so simple to take care of.


Correct. The FSF isn't about suing people, it's about ensuring rights are protected, and credit where credit is due. A lawsuit in this case would be a last resort after failure to comply once notified - and all that would be asked for, generally, is compliance with the copyright and license.

The general case isn't malfeasance - it's misunderstanding. Lawyers sometimes get things wrong.



> With that said, I bid you good afternoon!


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> OK
> 
> So maybe if you lay out the $700+ money to buy and actually own your HR20,for that extra money you will get a link to the 2.4 kernel that is being used and a piece of paper that you have to sign saying you received the GPL license.
> 
> ...


Again, I am no expert in this. I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't been around Linux/GPL for too long.

However, the situation you describe seems to go against the very essence of the GPL. I don't believe the GPL was built with such a large loophole as to allow someone to not abide by the GPL, by licensing the code from a third party. What your saying is D* is not responsible, because they licensed the code from a 3rd party. I believe your inferring this 3rd party is responsible for abiding by the GPL, not D*. D* cannot license GPL'd code from a 3rd party, and not divulge who, what, or where this 3rd party is. It is my understanding that no mater how many hoops, ladders, and levels of licensing and what not, if the end user is using GPL'd code, the end user must be informed of such.

It probably comes down to, that in order for D* to legally license any GPL'd code from a 3rd party, as people seem to be suggesting, D* itself must either refer its customers to the 3rd party for all GPL related inquiries, or take on the responsibility themselves. They cannot create a GPL blackhole.

Again, I'm not an expert.


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

mateom199 said:


> If you look at Tivo ...
> 
> Source or not, D* needs to at include a copy of the GPL...


My DTivo user guides had it.

Either Spanky_Partain is right - the entire Tivo to D* handoff was handled so smoothly, and every i was dotted, and even better lawyers fixed the problem because the Tivo lawyers had it wrong all along - or we are, and this error needs rectification.

Soon.

And I want to go on record as never suggesting that perhaps the Tivo guys helped the D* guys look at the GPL in such a way as to unprovably allow or encourage a series of events whereby D* would become open to attack at a later time, because basically all issues are black and white.


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

Spanky_Partain said:


> OK
> 
> So maybe if you lay out the $700+ money to buy and actually own your HR20,for that extra money you will get a link to the 2.4 kernel that is being used and a piece of paper that you have to sign saying you received the GPL license.
> 
> Otherwise, this is leased. It is their equipment. There is NO reason why they have to give you anything like this for the use of the HR20.


That is an interesting point of view.

And if I take 5.99*24+299, I don't add up to $700+ so I'm not the owner at the end of my two-year commitment. Notwithstanding that it was represented to me that I was buying and not leasing at $299, you are suggesting that if I had bought the unit, I'd get other documentation besides that that comes in the box for leased equipment.

You may be right and we've all missed the crux of the issue. My arguing with you is based on this - even you say maybe you will receive the piece of paper. That's an odd defense of a company from someone distributing GPL'd shell scripts - but, we're all different people.

So, there are two entirely different packaging and distribution control processes for leased vs. purchased HR20s? Weak. Very weak.

Odd, the GPL goes to use, not acquistion method. D* is providing the leased unit, so no copyright laws apply to the leased use? Odd that they credit the Double-D trademark on their pdf of the "technical spec" of the HR20.

Weak.

I have a simpler theory. The D* lawyers - if they were involved in this issue at all, which I still doubt - are used to Windows. My experience with the typical lawyer looking over the GPL is, "publish this - take no chances." I've seen umpteen GPL copies - with instructions not required in the GPL but from the GPL pages - distributed because the lawyers wanted to take no chances.

Per your theory, the D* lawyers advised D* that having two different processes in place for HR20 placement in the home, one with and one without the GPL, was a low-risk approach to the copyright issue, and those lawyers themselves are comfortable that they aren't open to having created the potential for a wrongdoing by D* or for upstream action against them by D* should an error occur in this mystical two-process system. And they did that after reading the GPL itself, a herculean legal document if ever there was one.

My company sure isn't as big and deep-pocketed as D*. I'm kinda glad I can only afford the lawyers that don't think as in the scenario above.

But it is possible that it works that way at D* because their lawyers are expensive and not stoopid. And if there's ever a problem - just one - with an HR20 not conforming to this hypothetical two-process system of distribution, then after many consultations and legal fees, the lawyers might hyptothetically stumble upon a brilliant legal idea to solve the hypothetical problem - act at all times with legal conservatism and always distribute the GPL copyright.

And they won't come to that unless and until all the hypotheticals fall into place even though it occured to someone to show those very same lawyers a copy of a DTivo user manual.

Uh... of course, those same lawyers did see a DTivo user manual when setting up their legal stuff for the HR20, right? They did think to look in a user's guide appendix for a critical document that might impact D* legally, because they knew that was a good place to look for legal notices - right?

Weak.

PS - In every lawsuit, there's a losing lawyer or team of lawyers. Even excellent - the very best - lawyers are human. Human mistakes happen.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

macEarl, it sounds like you are probably right on this issue. If that is the case, a simple fix would be to have a web page made available with said documentation or a help menu on the HR20.

I know the TiVo does release information, but do they actually include the GPL with the box? What about 2nd hand transfers ... that, too would be a violation if the GPL text was not included.

Seems to me, though, that the people that really care about it (legal or otherwise) can actually find the GPL text easily enough. If the only thing missing is the text, then this argument is more on principle than necessity, IMHO.

It's a good analysis.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

brott said:


> macEarl, it sounds like you are probably right on this issue. If that is the case, a simple fix would be to have a web page made available with said documentation or a help menu on the HR20.
> 
> I know the TiVo does release information, but do they actually include the GPL with the box? What about 2nd hand transfers ... that, too would be a violation if the GPL text was not included.
> 
> ...


Its also about giving credit where it's due. Thousands and thousands of hours have been devoted to GNU/Linux by countless individuals. They did not have to release any of their work, but they did and did so under a relatively flexible license. Their hard work is available for anyone to see, use, modify, and even profit commercially from: all they ask in return is acknowledgment, and contribution to the community in certain instances.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

I just skimmed through the posts above, but I didn't see the answer to this: Do you have to provide a copy of the GPL if you only lease something containing LInux and NOT sell it?


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

macEarl,

Wow!

I had a whole page written up and I decided I would just drop this.

Good theory!


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

brott said:


> macEarl, it sounds like you are probably right on this issue. If that is the case, a simple fix would be to have a web page made available with said documentation or a help menu on the HR20.


Web page for compliance would be UNusual and up to a negotiation with the FSF.

I do not advocate a help menu. That would be an invasive software change, and I'm not for that. If D* was invasive by not respecting the terms of the license and publishing it, then counter-invasion is no answer - my opinion.

Put it in the box where it belongs, send out a message to HR20 users grandfathered by the mistake - once they get the message-from-D* feature really working. 

There are plenty of ways to fix this - big spending or disruption is not required.



> I know the TiVo does release information, but do they actually include the GPL with the box? What about 2nd hand transfers ... that, too would be a violation if the GPL text was not included.


DIRECTV HD DVR User's Guide for my old 10-250, Appendix B, page 165 through 170 - GNU General Public License. It even includes the legal conservatism I mentioned, giving the example text of Ty **** from Yoyodyne, Inc. They took no chances. I was skeptical of moving up to Tivo as a happy D* customer - but my first Hughes SD DTivo had the same thing - it literally hooked me on Tivo as coming from the good guys. The 10-250 continued the tradition (er, legal necessities).

So, yes, it's in the box. And yes, you screw up if you sell your DTivo without either the manual or a GPL notice.



> Seems to me, though, that the people that really care about it (legal or otherwise) can actually find the GPL text easily enough. If the only thing missing is the text, then this argument is more on principle than necessity, IMHO.
> 
> It's a good analysis.


I'm fairly new here as a poster Doug - beginning of the year. Ordered the HR20 very early on, got it in September or maybe early October (I really have to look that up for my street cred, I guess  ). Look at one of my earliest know-it-all posts - I credited the HR20 as being Windows-based. Not that anyone flamed me or anything, but I did get out some aloe, my asbestos underoos, and a red-shamed face when I thanked everyone for correcting me. It was the early days of the HR20 and I thought CSRs were gods who knew all and took care of me, like before. I found no GPL in the box. I had about 4 hours of uptime for the first 3 1/2 days (until a CSR walked me through a reformat, even back then). I asked if this was a Windows-based box, because my DTivos were GNU/Linux. I was told yes, nothing in common at all with DTivo, Windows' based. I asked the CSR if she knew what the GPL was - she responded, you bet, we all know what the GNU GPL is - pretty good handshake on that info, I thought. We laughed and I felt a lot more comfy reformatting a Windows machine new out of the box. Sorry to be a *nix snob/fanboi, but there it is - at least I admit it. 

So nowhere in that exchange - as mateom99 and I are pointing out - did a lot of people who put in free work to make the HR20 commercially/technically possible get any credit, and that's all they wanted. Not by name, not by company, but by the clearinghouse that we share from.

I assert that the HR20 is a great value for the money and an advanced product. I also assert that it wouldn't be so if it were based on non-open-source - a lot of foundation-level stuff comes free no charge to the subcontractors->D*->you and me.

Where does necessity begin and matter-of-principle end? If we could trust everyone's principles, would there be any copyright law in existence to question?

I insist on painting this rose as red. "D* was not unprinicipled, they made a mistake." Must I prove that their mistake - left uncorrected - could encourage the unprinicipled or are there not sufficient precedents on that account?

A large corporation is profiting from open software having no cost of investment for that portion of their profit. It was provided under copyright. Only Spanky_Partain has an arugment against the copyright terms as the unit is only leased - to which I don't agree.

For me, copyrights are like 186,000 miles/second - not just a good idea, it's the law.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

leww37334 said:


> I just skimmed through the posts above, but I didn't see the answer to this: Do you have to provide a copy of the GPL if you only lease something containing LInux and NOT sell it?


The GPL applies to distribution, not ownership. Because leasing is still a form a distribution, the GPL should still apply.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

leww37334 said:


> I just skimmed through the posts above, but I didn't see the answer to this: Do you have to provide a copy of the GPL if you only lease something containing LInux and NOT sell it?


My understanding is anytime you distribute something containing Linux you must abide by the GPL's terms. Distribute, to me, would clearly include lease.


----------



## Drewg5 (Dec 15, 2006)

If I'm not mistaken, D* had some remote remark in the paper work that cane with the HR20 about going to there website for more info on the system software, I do recall going to the link listed, and there was the GPL notice.. Its been some time sense I looked.. Humm wheres that book.... Well on page 61 section G. of the owners manual:

Certain additional terms and information for the Software and certain third party software (including the text of licenses applicable to any free, open source and other similar software that may be included in the Software) may be found in the DIRECTV Customer Agreement, the DIRECTV website located at www.directv.com, and the GNU website located at www.gnu.org

I hope this helps in your quest for the truth.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Drewg5 said:


> If I'm not mistaken, D* had some remote remark in the paper work that cane with the HR20 about going to there website for more info on the system software, I do recall going to the link listed, and there was the GPL notice.. Its been some time sense I looked.. Humm wheres that book.... Well on page 61 section G. of the owners manual:
> 
> Certain additional terms and information for the Software and certain third party software (including the text of licenses applicable to any free, open source and other similar software that may be included in the Software) may be found in the DIRECTV Customer Agreement, the DIRECTV website located at www.directv.com, and the GNU website located at www.gnu.org
> 
> I hope this helps in your quest for the truth.


I don't have the manual handy right now, but I'll have to check mine later. At least we know its in some manuals (perhaps all).

Two things - I could not find any GPL info on Directv.com, and I'm still pretty sure the GPL license requires a copy of the license, not just an obscure blurb about a website and "additional terms and information."

Again, from the FSF FAQ:


> Why does the GPL require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?
> Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are.
> 
> It might be tempting to include a URL that refers to the license, instead of the license itself. But you cannot be sure that the URL will still be valid, five years or ten years from now. Twenty years from now, URLs as we know them today may no longer exist.
> ...


----------



## Drewg5 (Dec 15, 2006)

mateom199 said:


> I don't have the manual handy right now, but I'll have to check mine later. At least we know its in some manuals (perhaps all).
> 
> Two things - I could not find any GPL info on Directv.com, and I'm still pretty sure the GPL license requires a copy of the license, not just an obscure blurb about a website and "additional terms and information."
> 
> Again, from the SF FAQ:


I think the gnu link in there covers the GPL stuff but I could be wrong...nevermind....

Well I just spent like 20 min on there sight and nothing....If they are in the wrong then I would bet they know about it.


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

Drewg5 said:


> If I'm not mistaken, D* had some remote remark in the paper work that cane with the HR20 about going to there website for more info on the system software, I do recall going to the link listed, and there was the GPL notice.. Its been some time sense I looked.. Humm wheres that book.... Well on page 61 section G. of the owners manual:
> 
> Certain additional terms and information for the Software and certain third party software (including the text of licenses applicable to any free, open source and other similar software that may be included in the Software) may be found in the DIRECTV Customer Agreement, the DIRECTV website located at www.directv.com, and the GNU website located at www.gnu.org
> 
> I hope this helps in your quest for the truth.


*THANK YOU!* Yes, I did miss that despite several searches in the user's guide for the printed text of the GPL, the norm as it has always been. But before launching into any of my posts on this subject, I checked the D* site. Today, before your post, I did think to check the Customer Agreement, http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P400042 and *nowhere do they mention the GPL in any form.*

However, it's not at all sufficient, see: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyMustIInclude and allow me to quote the relevant section:

_"Why does the GPL require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?

Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are.

It might be tempting to include a URL that refers to the license, instead of the license itself. But you cannot be sure that the URL will still be valid, five years or ten years from now. Twenty years from now, URLs as we know them today may no longer exist.

The only way to make sure that people who have copies of the program will continue to be able to see the license, despite all the changes that will happen in the network, is to include a copy of the license in the program."_​
*Case closed - they acknowledged the need to satisfy the GPL, per your info, but have not done so.*

(PS - mateom99 and I really are different people - even if we post the same quotes at the same time -  )


----------



## Drewg5 (Dec 15, 2006)

macEarl said:


> *THANK YOU!*
> *Case closed - they acknowledged the need to satisfy the GPL, per your info, but have not done so.*
> 
> (PS - mateom99 and I really are different people - even if we post the same quotes at the same time -  )


It is easy to miss, they placed it in tiney print at the bottom of the page almost as a side note... I dont know why I recalled seeing it in the first place, the link isnt there like I thought though... Something tells me that part is burryed someware else...


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

Drewg5 said:


> It is easy to miss, they placed it in tiney print at the bottom of the page almost as a side note... I dont know why I recalled seeing it in the first place, the link isnt there like I thought though... Something tells me that part is burryed someware else...


Exactly why links are not liked by the GPL. Again, _thanks!_


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

OK, so who's going to spill the beans to RMS?


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

bobnielsen said:


> OK, so who's going to spill the beans to RMS?


Step one is contact D*, point out the non-compliance and request compliance and a handshake of same.

I've done that.

Obviously, I'm wired to follow this closure. No need to rattle him at the moment.


----------



## Drewg5 (Dec 15, 2006)

Well other than the notice in the user manual that came with my HR20 there is no other mention anywhere. My HR20 is from 10/28/06 build date, I may very well have been thinking of paperwork that came with my TiVo or some vague reference D* once upon a time had it on there sight. Considering I have had my TiVo for 5 years now I don't think it was from that.

From what I have been able to peace together, if in fact the HR20 is running linux than yes it needs the GPL, and that would over ride almost the entire Terms And Conditions For Use Of Software ("TERMS") pages 60 and 61. in my book.. It appears there is a newer revision online... Time to find the pages on it...


----------



## Drewg5 (Dec 15, 2006)

http://www.directv.com/see/pdf/060508HR20UserGuidev1_0b.pdf

Pages 69 and 70 have the same "Terms And Conditions For Use Of Software ("Terms")" that are in my book. There are references to 'free' and 'open source' in section B. page 69 (60 my book) License Restrictions, and page 70 (61) section G. Additional Information.

My take on this is D* did not do there homework in full. I know how proactive people can be of the GPL, and it must be protected.


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

macEarl said:


> Step one is contact D*, point out the non-compliance and request compliance and a handshake of same.
> 
> I've done that.
> 
> Obviously, I'm wired to follow this closure. No need to rattle him at the moment.


D* general counsel believes that because the GPL hasn't changed since 1991, it's ok to reference a website - despite the fact that that's not ok, and that he's not referencing the right website even if it were.

IOW, the attempt to summarily dismiss me has been made. :nono:

I've requested direct consultation on the matter and will keep you all posted.


----------



## jimb726 (Jan 9, 2007)

macEarl said:


> D* general counsel believes that because the GPL hasn't changed since 1991, it's ok to reference a website - despite the fact that that's not ok, and that he's not referencing the right website even if it were.
> 
> IOW, the attempt to summarily dismiss me has been made. :nono:
> 
> I've requested direct consultation on the matter and will keep you all posted.


O k, I have read this entire thread. I know nothing about Linux and the issues here other than whats been posted, I gues as an uneducated reader my question is, "Why is this an issue to you guys?" I mean no disrespect, I am just trying to understand why this is an issue? Or what is accomplished by making them admit they are wrong, other than getting them to admit they are wrong? Like I said, I am not trying to start a fight I just want to understand why this is an issue.

Thanks,
Jim


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

From what I can tell, DirecTV simply needs to include the written text of the GPL in the instruction manual (or as a printed addendum). It's not clear whether or not DirecTV has modified a stock Linux kernel (from whatever source) or not, but let's assume that they haven't made any modifications. As a matter of recognition for all of the hours that Open Source Programmers have made, the GPL license should be included. It all boils down to Copyright law, nothing more, nothing less.

It's the same laws that govern what can actually be shown on DirecTV - Copyright law actually makes is so that you can watch your Locals via the Satellite, for example. DirecTV should have plenty of lawyers that know this stuff, so based on macEarl's comments I'm actually surprised that DirecTV didn't do this right the first time.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

jimb726 said:


> O k, I have read this entire thread. I know nothing about Linux and the issues here other than whats been posted, I gues as an uneducated reader my question is, "Why is this an issue to you guys?" I mean no disrespect, I am just trying to understand why this is an issue? Or what is accomplished by making them admit they are wrong, other than getting them to admit they are wrong? Like I said, I am not trying to start a fight I just want to understand why this is an issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jim


If you had read the entire thread, you may have noticed  this post and this post, to just reference a few.

It's about forcing D* to stop essentially ripping off other's work as there own, and honor the license they agreed to and accepted when they first downloaded the GPL'd code they are using.

In another sense, it's about preventing big companies like D* from thinking they are above the law.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

mateom199 said:


> If you had read the entire thread, you may have noticed  this post and this post, to just reference a few.
> 
> It's about forcing D* to stop essentially ripping off other's work as there own, and honor the license they agreed to and accepted when they first downloaded the GPL'd code they are using.
> 
> In another sense, it's about preventing big companies like D* from thinking they are above the law.


I understand the need for GPL text... and understand it's merit.

But to say they are "ripping off" other's work... 
My company is going to switching their systems over to an Oracle system, that is going to run on a Linux based server.

Do we need to put a big sign up in our stores, telling everyone that we are running Linux as our OS system for our central database? I mean if we don't... they won't get the "credit" they deserve...

Anyway... The thread has been forwarded on, and it is being reviewed...
If changes to the way the "GPL" is references are needed to be made... they will be.

But is what the level of compalints about the HR20 have gotten to? ....
If so... that is a good thing...


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

"Ripping off" is a harsh way to describe it, I admit it. But when it comes down to it, D* could easily remedy the problem, but according to macEarl, they are on a high horse and won't do it. So when it becomes an active refusal of compliance, I think the term "ripping off" can be justified.

As far as your HR20 complaints comment goes, I'll come clean and admit that one of (not the only, nor strongest) motives in getting D* to comply with the GPL was based off of my frustration - nay, disgust - of D* and their shoddy HR20 and their refusal to even replace my box with another. If they're gonna stick it to me, I'd like to stick it right back as best I can. Maybe this whole issue was fueled by people's distate with the current situation with D*?

Side note: To those that have a working, reliable HR20 - thank your lucky stars, and have some sympathy for the rest of us. It may seem like alot of whining and *****in, but some of us truly do have unusable lemons - lemons D* won't even replace upon calls to customer service. And they say I'm an "A List" customer....


----------



## hr20manray (Dec 18, 2006)

mateom199 said:


> "Ripping off" is a harsh way to describe it, I admit it. But when it comes down to it, D* could easily remedy the problem, but according to macEarl, they are on a high horse and won't do it. So when it becomes an active refusal of compliance, I think the term "ripping off" can be justified.
> 
> As far as your HR20 complaints comment goes, I'll come clean and admit that one of (not the only, nor strongest) motives in getting D* to comply with the GPL was based off of my frustration - nay, disgust - of D* and their shoddy HR20 and their refusal to even replace my box with another. If they're gonna stick it to me, I'd like to stick it right back as best I can. Maybe this whole issue was fueled by people's distate with the current situation with D*?
> 
> Side note: To those that have a working, reliable HR20 - thank your lucky stars, and have some sympathy for the rest of us. It may seem like alot of whining and *****in, but some of us truly do have unusable lemons - lemons D* won't even replace upon calls to customer service. And they say I'm an "A List" customer....


Hang in there. You can try, if you havent' already, to email customer service at DirecTV and advise them of your issues. Login to your account, if you have an online account, and find the "contact us". I have used it and found them to be helpful and quite straightforward. At times, I should say.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But is [that] the level of compalints about the HR20 have gotten to? ....
> If so... that is a good thing...


Earl, there are still a few biggie's out there if you Dig Little Bit, but I see nitpicking becoming more prevalent in our future.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

hr20manray said:


> Hang in there. You can try, if you havent' already, to email customer service at DirecTV and advise them of your issues. Login to your account, if you have an online account, and find the "contact us". I have used it and found them to be helpful and quite straightforward. At times, I should say.


Funny you should mention DirecTV.com. I signed up long ago, with an old ATT Broadband account (@attbi.com) before Comcast bought them. I cannot remember my password for the life of me, and I cannot have it reset as my email address they have on file no longer exists.

I've called customer support twice to have my email address updated, so I could change my password. Both times customer service was friendly, quick, and apparently knew what to do. Both times, however, it did not work. The email address I gave to both CSR's to attach to my account is not found in their system when I try to login/reset password/etc.

D* just keeps racking up points in my book...:grin:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

mateom199 said:


> "Ripping off" is a harsh way to describe it, I admit it. But when it comes down to it, D* could easily remedy the problem, but according to macEarl, they are on a high horse and won't do it. So when it becomes an active refusal of compliance, I think the term "ripping off" can be justified.


Not knowing who exactly macEarl is talking to...

There is talking to "people"
Then there is talking to the "right people"

All I can tell you, is that at least "one" of the right people has been informed of this thread, and it has been sent to the "collective" group of right people to verify and make sure they have things noted the way they should be.


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

For the record, I don't think D* is trying to rip anybody off.

(And no one said that I said that, I just want to be very clear - thanks.)

The issues, jimb726, are as follows - and mateom199, please read #2:

1. It's just the right thing to do. I think D* is honest and dropped the ball a little. Left unchecked, it _might - possibly - maybe - hypothetically_ encourage the dishonest to think no one cares about the GPL. It has happened before. But in any case, it's a matter of principle, it's a matter of justice, but it's just the right thing to do.

2. Given that people - including me for my reasons - were noticing this, I wanted this loophole closed before some very unhappy soul decided to use it as a political football or for legal blackmail. *The GNU GPL is a shield to protect developers, it is not a sword for the righteous.* The developers of the licensed works have cause for direct action against Directv; users with rights under the GPL who may have been deprived of those rights by inaction *may* have cause for action against Directv. Users who already know their rights are whistling dixie with respect to any actions.

3. It closes the issue for people with axes to grind and whom mistakenly think they can use this issue the *nix guys are talking about to gain access to D* source code. Some have gone down this path with good intention, others with intention I might question, but frankly, I want awareness raised on GPL and GNU and the FSF in other forums. I do not want it be a scapegoat. I want to stop any word of mouth that the GNU GPL gives anyone any rights to someone else's (D* in this case) intellectual property - it does not.

Finally, I want to apologize to all if my writing skills have led to confusion - I am not a professional writer. But I am used to lawyers. A big part of their job is to filter the organization from quacks, cranks and the unwashed. So I meant no evil when I said I was summarily dismissed. You don't get the general counsel of a company D*'s size to hold the phone, stop the presses, alert the media, and go to DefCon Infinity because some macEarl has complained that something legal is wrong. My expectation was that anyone following the process I'm trying to politely engage with them would know that an initial summary dismissal is simply due course in the real world.

I want to save D* money from attacks. The present GPL treatment *may* leave them open to attacks. Successful attacks on D* lead to successful raising of our rates.

Developers who protect their codes with the GPL, LGPL and BSD licenses aren't interested in getting rich attacking D* - they are interested in people enjoying great software - under the protection of their rights.

This issue kept raising its head. I want to be the one to kill - to everyone's benefit. I admit to some ego in that - but in my defense, the people whom I seek to protect are those who would not know that I had a hand in it - just me. If someone else had carried the banner, I'd have been equally as proud of them. That's what's in it for me.

I hope this helps, and Earl, if you're reading this, please forward this part of thread as well. It should go nicely as backup to my snail-mail to their general counsel.

I don't want to cost D* money unnecessarily and I am especially interested in not allowing for it to develop into anything in the neighborhood of punitive - I'm against that.

For all I know, one line of my code is already in that box. For all I know, it isn't. For all I know, others here fit this profile.

It's just the right thing to respect the terms of the GPL. D* knows that. They think they tried correctly - I do not.


----------



## arkenhill (Jan 24, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I understand the need for GPL text... and understand it's merit.
> 
> But to say they are "ripping off" other's work...
> My company is going to switching their systems over to an Oracle system, that is going to run on a Linux based server.
> ...


Earl, It's not about credit, it's about copyright. The GPL is a list of the terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification of GPL licensed software. If you distribute GPL software, you have to follow the GPL. The only difference between extracting a show from a DVR and burning it to disc and distributing GPL software without a copy of the GPL is that you already know how you violated the GPL as the terms and conditions are spelled out in advance. On the other hand, when extracting a show from a DVR the copyright owner can now basically come up with whatever relief he can get the courts to approve.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

macEarl said:


> 2. Given that people - including me for my reasons - were noticing this, I wanted this loophole closed before some very unhappy soul decided to use it as a political football or for legal blackmail. The GNU GPL is a shield to protect developers, it is not a sword for the righteous. The developers of the licensed works have cause for direct action against Directv; users with rights under the GPL who may have been deprived of those rights by inaction may have cause for action against Directv. Users who already know their rights are whistling dixie with respect to any actions.


I totally agree and undersand. I want to reiterate that, while I may have been a little devilishly happy at pointing out D*'s misteps, I by no means intended for any serious action against D*. Maybe just a little admittance that they were wrong - a little slice of humble pie. In fact, I have no legal right to even try to enforce any actions. The GPL protects the ones who release the GPL'd code. I have had no part in any of the code, therefore I have no right to take any legal action against D*, nor would I if I could. My original and most driving intentions still remain the same - like you said, its the right thing to do.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

macEarl said:


> For the record, I don't think D* is trying to rip anybody off.
> 
> (And no one said that I said that, I just want to be very clear - thanks.)
> 
> ...


macEarl,

Doing good work, helping a good cause, in the right way, with the skills that have been given, is and should be a boost to one's ego. You done good. And this whole post is well said.

Thank you,
Tom


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> My company is going to switching their systems over to an Oracle system, that is going to run on a Linux based server.
> 
> Do we need to put a big sign up in our stores, telling everyone that we are running Linux as our OS system for our central database? I mean if we don't... they won't get the "credit" they deserve...


Earl, to answer your question, of course not. The GPL has to do with distribution.

If, however, your company decided that it wanted to switch business direction, and start selling linux/oracle servers preconfigured to customers. Then yes, you would have to include a copy of the GPL with every distribution of your product. Now, its probably a moot point because all Linux distros come with a copy of the GPL - you probably wouldn't have to worry about it yourself. But if you decided to remove all references to the GPL, and still distribute your product, then there would be a problem.

And whoever first purchased / set up this oracle server surely recieved a copy of the GPL.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

arkenhill said:


> Earl, It's not about credit, it's about copyright. The GPL is a list of the terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification of GPL licensed software. If you distribute GPL software, you have to follow the GPL. The only difference between extracting a show from a DVR and burning it to disc and distributing GPL software without a copy of the GPL is that you already know how you violated the GPL as the terms and conditions are spelled out in advance. On the other hand, when extracting a show from a DVR the copyright owner can now basically come up with whatever relief he can get the courts to approve.


I understand that... I am software developer and do have an appriciation for the GPL model and what it is there for.

Not saying anything different.

My reply that you quoted was in direct reference to the "ripped off" ... thats it.

Not saying how DirecTV is handling it is correct or incorrect.
All I am saying is that that the necessary and correct people have been made aware of the thread, and they will make sure that everything is done that has to be.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> All I am saying is that that the necessary and correct people have been made aware of the thread, and they will make sure that everything is done that has to be.


Sounds to me like HR20 owners/lessees may eventually receive a printed "addendum" to add to the HR20 user manual, and/or a new page wil be added in a future update to the INFO screen or to the Settings menu with the GNU license ....


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

Has anyone else received their copy of the GPL via snail mail from D*?

Mine arrived today. It was hand-addressed, so I'm checking....


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Not I, but I expect mine will be a mass mailing.


----------



## DocTauri (Oct 30, 2006)

macEarl, I'd be curious to hear what your letter said...

Doc


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

DocTauri said:


> macEarl, I'd be curious to hear what your letter said...
> 
> Doc


Not sure if you mean coming or going, so here's what I have.

I attached an email exchange on the issue, and sent this up the chain:

Please note that per the attached email printout, references to web sites for the GNU GPL are not acceptable treatment of GNU GPL distribution, per the Free Software Foundation. Furthermore, even if I am somehow in error on this point, the web references in question have problems:

1.	The GPL is not mentioned at all in the Customer Agreement on directv.com
2.	The GPL is not found directly at www.gnu.org
a.	User would have to look for it
b.	User is not told to look for the GPL and therefore, may not know how to find his rights online with respect to this matter​3.	At least one of the HR20 software components, uClibc, is not a GPL'd component, it is an LGPL'd component

I'm sure that you are concerned with Directv's adherence to licensed software. Would you be so kind as to inform me as to how you or your office intends to resolve this issue?​
The envelope I received contained only the GPL itself. I'm ok with that if I can ascertain that it's part of a larger mailing - I don't expect time/money spent talking to me, per se, just so we can all rest that the matter's addressed.

hth!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

macEarl,

As lead Wise One on this topic, is it your impression that on the "info and test" screen where they list the D* copyrights and logos, that the Linux copyright should also be listed? (Not often I scroll down that far, but noticed it last nite.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## DocTauri (Oct 30, 2006)

But no reference to where to obtained the GPL'd source huh.


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

tibber said:


> macEarl,
> 
> As lead Wise One on this topic, is it your impression that on the "info and test" screen where they list the D* copyrights and logos, that the Linux copyright should also be listed? (Not often I scroll down that far, but noticed it last nite.)
> 
> ...


Tom,

It's never my place to say they "should" solve the problem in one particular way on this subject. That leads to - in my mind - unreasonableness by limiting their options.

However, if they were to put it there, then that would satisfy the requirement - it would be located with their own notice (therefore, located with notices) and would be in user-readable form. However, the nit-pickery of the GPL wording would dictate full text be presented - and that's a heavy burden for the info and test screen. IOW, that impacts a software delivery when others have more grave issues (from a different point of view) than this issue. *IF* that approach were to be considered, and *IF* I were managing the devel team, I'd consider a separate tab for all copyrights, legal notices, etc. Something the user could skip over or access as desired, and allocated away from mission-effective data - by that I mean, notice that the info includes things about your particular HR20 (network status, etc.) and is therefore accessing dynamic info. Copyrights could be allocated to static info only and therefore have much lower (re: no) risk associated with a side-effect defect of impacting software that reads dynamic info and then allow as much text as legal agrees is required.

Also, that approach requires sufficent h/w-f/w-disk resource to allow it - and I have no idea what's available in what allocation - another expression of the reason why "shoulds" are to be avoided. If it's the easiest and cheapest way, or close enough, then D* could put it on its list of "could be solved this way." The "how" of it has to remain their call, within the constraints of the license requirements, organizational costs, logistics, etc., properly and without question at D*'s discretion.

hth,
macEarl


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

macEarl said:


> Tom,
> 
> It's never my place to say they "should" solve the problem in one particular way on this subject. That leads to - in my mind - unreasonableness by limiting their options.
> 
> ...


Yes, it does help. I wasn't sure of the GPL nit-pickery. I knew putting the whole of the GPL would be inappropriate, but didn't know if it required or suggested other postings of just a copyright notice beyond the whole text in other forms.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

DocTauri said:


> But no reference to where to obtained the GPL'd source huh.


That's not really a problem. They provided me with text of the GPL. Upon reading it, I discover (if not by list then by reasonable inference) that some GPL source was used and that I may access that open source. Under paragraph 3b I find that I must be given written offer to this effect that I can obtain the source code in question (which the publishing of the full license text itself self-satisfies) - by implication, I have received the notice.

Now, if I want the source code, I know I'm in within my rights to ask what sources are open and available to me. I don't get to ask anything impinging on their IP - I don't ask how or why they use - but they use it, and if I want to access what they use for any reason - I have been presented documentation from them detailing my right to inquire, their responsibility to respond, and an expectation that I will bear real-world duplication costs so both sides are not taking advantage of the other.

That's a big step one and basically closes the issue. If anyone later is denied access to the source after requesting same, then that would be a different issue. Expect organizational snafus for a round or two, if that were to eventualize, but that's it. But denial or fogging - after I have a legal reassurance that it's recognized a priori to not be done - well, D* (and any other organization) just won't do that. It's legal suicide and insanity.

N.B., D* knows that they have a responsibility under the GPL and LGPL - this issue is about the satisfying the "linchpin" requirement, so to speak.

hth,
macEarl


----------



## DocTauri (Oct 30, 2006)

So has anyone actually requested the gpl'd code then? If not, any idea how one would go about doing it?


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

DocTauri said:


> So has anyone actually requested the gpl'd code then? If not, any idea how one would go about doing it?


I haven't and won't and would recommend that this not be attempted until the smoke has cleared on this. They have their hands full ensuring this part; I advocate patience at this time.

However, this thread has made you aware that you have GPL and LGPL protected rights if you were not somehow already otherwise aware of that.

In the meantime of D*'s review and (hopefully) revision of the actual GPL distribution, if you would like to post which components you're interesting in, ask away - myself and others would surely be happy to guide you to cost-free ways to access those sources - IOW, without incurring third-party duplicating costs.

If you need the actual list of components involved, you can only get that from D*. Do you require immediate access to that list or can you wait briefly until D* has this part sorted out? If you can't wait, you're within in your rights to enquire - I'd recommend email to customer support so your request can forwarded to the proper specialist. If you can wait, I imagine it would result in a higher satisfaction level for all, including you.

So - tell us your specific issue; I don't wish to insult you by guessing.


----------



## DocTauri (Oct 30, 2006)

I'm sure that my interest is the same as any other who would ask, curiosity. And like them, I'd be interested in all components.

As for waiting, sure I can, but what would be considered reasonable? I personally believe that they've been well aware of this issue from the beginning. Knowing that they could never deny the GPL requirements, but certainly willing to forestall them as long as possible.

Doc


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

DocTauri said:


> I'm sure that my interest is the same as any other who would ask, curiosity. And like them, I'd be interested in all components.
> 
> As for waiting, sure I can, but what would be considered reasonable? I personally believe that they've been well aware of this issue from the beginning. Knowing that they could never deny the GPL requirements, but certainly willing to forestall them as long as possible.
> 
> Doc


If you want to try, I suggest email, per my above post. How did you ascertain that they were well aware of this issue from the beginning? (The issue being, proper distribution of the GPL itself, as to which their legal dept thought they were in compliance.)

So, yes, according to their legal department, they thought they were in compliance from the beginning. The manual pointed to gnu.org, from the beginning.

Your opinion, or belief, if I understand you correctly, seems to be one of intentional wrongdoing on D*'s part.

I have no knowledge of that, I make no such allegations myself, have tried to discourage it wherever possible. If you have evidence to the contrary, you should share it; otherwise, I suggest goodwill and cautious treading.

I allege only that a mistake may have been made and may be in the process of being corrected.

In the meantime, this will satisfy some readers' curiousity, I'm sure....

From http://www.gnu.org/software:

"To look for free software packages, both GNU and non-GNU, please see the Free Software Directory: a categorized, searchable database of free software."

That link will ultimately take you to: http://directory.fsf.org/

PS to Tom - 3rd grandchild deciding to arrive today or tomorrow; announced today that 4th is on the way ....


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

macEarl,

Well said.

Tom


----------



## Bizarroterl (Oct 20, 2006)

I fear that the GPL received via mail is a one recipient letter. I suspect it is another "summarily dismiss" event. Hopefully time will prove me wrong.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Bizarroterl said:


> I fear that the GPL received via mail is a one recipient letter. I suspect it is another "summarily dismiss" event. Hopefully time will prove me wrong.


Well, just because macEarl was sent the text as a one-off doesn't mean that DirecTV is NOT correcting the problem. I'm sure there are impediments to sending out mass mailers at DirecTV regardless of the content.


----------



## hr20manray (Dec 18, 2006)

macEarl said:


> I haven't and won't and would recommend that this not be attempted until the smoke has cleared on this. They have their hands full ensuring this part; I advocate patience at this time.
> 
> However, this thread has made you aware that you have GPL and LGPL protected rights if you were not somehow already otherwise aware of that.
> 
> ...


macEarl,

Thank you very much for taking the time and great effort in, not only researching this issue, but also taking the lead in attempting to bring it to a rightful, fair-minded conclusion. Software developers and programmers working in the GPL arena, by their very nature, are not driven by monetary compensation; and for some I'm sure that is baffling. I am certain they appreciate your hardwork and integrity.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

tibber said:


> Yes, it does help. I wasn't sure of the GPL nit-pickery. I knew putting the whole of the GPL would be inappropriate, but didn't know if it required or suggested other postings of just a copyright notice beyond the whole text in other forms.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom


My HDVR2 has the GPL in an appendix of the manual. It's deactivated, but I don't recall seing anything in the info screens, nor do I think it is required.

Do any current Directv models other than the HR20 use the Linux kernel?


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

bobnielsen said:


> My HDVR2 has the GPL in an appendix of the manual. It's deactivated, but I don't recall seing anything in the info screens, nor do I think it is required.
> 
> Do any current Directv models other than the HR20 use the Linux kernel?


Probably the R15.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

macEarl said:


> PS to Tom - 3rd grandchild deciding to arrive today or tomorrow; announced today that 4th is on the way ....


Congratulations!


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

mateom199 said:


> Congratulations!


Thanks! It's a boy!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

macEarl said:


> Thanks! It's a boy!


Woohoo! and congrats. May all your children, grandchildren, and someday Great-grandchildren be constant sources of joy and happiness for you.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

macEarl said:


> PS to Tom - 3rd grandchild deciding to arrive today or tomorrow; announced today that 4th is on the way ....


My third will be here in June... 

I know we have had a thread in the past along this same topic and the responsibility. I personally dropped the discussion due to ignorance of what the actual accrual of the code was that D* is using. Still not clear as to what responsibility leased equipment has to supply such things.

I would guess the Linux kernel or parts of have been and are in use by cell phones, possibly refrigerators, washers/dryers that communicate and anything else that has a processor and requires some type of code to run the device.

As I said in earlier post(s), my GPL is embedded in the program. When the product is installed, the very first thing is the GPL license and "Agree" must be typed in or the product un-installs. The program is copyrighted to protect it, but I do not use any GPL code, I only GPL my code.

It would not surprise me that D* does use a kernel that has been stripped down. That would be common practice to get rid of sections that just are not needed to accomplish the task of the HR20. Hence the desire to use open source rather than loading up more stuff and decreasing the efficiency of a product.

Why don't we see more of the GPL license being distributed via other manufactures of this nature or do we and just not realize it?
Even if open source code is obtained, what would anyone do with it?
How would anyone even compile and reload any part of it into an HR20?
Are the tools to load the firmware/kernel only accessable via thier tools?
Any module/diagnostics that is needed to do any one of these tasks can be a closed binary and may not fall into the open source community.

Nice work!

Edit
Congratulations Grandpa!


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> My third will be here in June...
> 
> I know we have had a thread in the past along this same topic and the responsibility. I personally dropped the discussion due to ignorance of what the actual accrual of the code was that D* is using. Still not clear as to what responsibility leased equipment has to supply such things.


The GPL makes no distinction on the method of distribution. Leasing *should* still be distribution, although I'm sure an expensive legal team could make a good case of it...


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Not to beat a dead horse, but has anyone received a GPL notice in the mail besides
macEarl? Just wondering, as I have not.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Nope, no GPL here. Perhaps they are using the "ask and ye shall receive" method - not saying it's right, just saying.


----------



## Bizarroterl (Oct 20, 2006)

Not yet. It appears I may be right, macEarl's letter was a "send them something to shut them up" move.


----------



## boylan (Jul 19, 2007)

At the risk of awakening a long-sleeping thread, has there been any developments on the GPL front? Has anyone else received the license? Has anyone requested the source?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Welcome to the forums, boylan! :welcome_s

I am not aware of any particular updates to this issue.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Open Sores Man (Oct 7, 2007)

mateom199 said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but has anyone received a GPL notice in the mail besides
> macEarl? Just wondering, as I have not.


Another 6 months have passed, and still no source code (or even a written offer for source code) has appeared.

It's time to take the struggle to LKML and busybox.org, folks. DTV has NO RIGHT to redistribute the community's work without respecting the terms of the GPL. This is no different from selling bootleg DVDs of commercial software.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Open Sores Man said:


> Another 6 months have passed, and still no source code (or even a written offer for source code) has appeared.
> 
> It's time to take the struggle to LKML and busybox.org, folks. DTV has NO RIGHT to redistribute the community's work without respecting the terms of the GPL. This is no different from selling bootleg DVDs of commercial software.


Agreed, although I'd say its more like not including a bibliography with a research paper  Whatever its like, its still wrong.


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

I think leasing negates any of this discussion, as mentioned above.

Rental or leasing of equipment that may contain GPL code wouldn't be considered distribution (I would think). Just like renting an hotel room with a GPL-containing TV doesn't require them to give you a copy of the software that runs the TV...


----------



## boylan (Jul 19, 2007)

IIRC, no one actually asked for the GPL'd code itself, did they? I was under the impression that one person asked for a copy of the GPL itself, but not the code. I just got an HR20-100 two weeks ago (leased) and if no one has asked for the code, I will.

Of course, if someone with better standing (an owned HR20) wants to do it, I'll gladly let them do so, since it might move things along faster.

I just want to make sure that before we start screaming at DTV, they've actually denied a request, as opposed to them doing nothing and no request having been made.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Redlinetire said:


> I think leasing negates any of this discussion, as mentioned above.
> 
> Rental or leasing of equipment that may contain GPL code wouldn't be considered distribution (I would think). Just like renting an hotel room with a GPL-containing TV doesn't require them to give you a copy of the software that runs the TV...


Yes, it would! Almost all software is licensed and not sold and that is very much considered distribution.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Yes, it would! Almost all software is licensed and not sold and that is very much considered distribution.


Yes, but it is distribution of their equipement/software under a lease agreement, unless you layed $700.00+ dollars for your HR20!


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Yes, it would! Almost all software is licensed and not sold and that is very much considered distribution.


Software _licensing_ is indeed distribution.

But when you lease equipment from D* , you aren't granted a license for any code.

Except for the access card, IIRC.

EDIT: Spanky you beat me to it!


----------



## NorfolkBruh (Jun 9, 2007)

I've been following this thread for a while now and ahem... I have TWO HR20-700's: one leased and one I spent WAY too much money for (since they are both crap when it comes to recording correctly 100% of the time) and I didn't get a licensing agreement with either of them.

No mass mailing, not included in the box, didn't notice anything on the D* website, nothing on the info screen. Now I'm not interested in any of the code and quite frankly, as a public health person, it's not something I am even interested in. I WOULD be interested in knowing if any other OWNER has received a copy.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> Yes, but it is distribution of their equipement/software under a lease agreement, unless you layed $700.00+ dollars for your HR20!


The GPL applies in all situations of distribution.
Your argument (I think) is that leasing is not distribution.

If its not a form of distribution, how did it get to my house?

Even if the lease agreement has some sort of stipulation that tries to get around the GPL, its still a violation of the GPL.

And finally, as you mention, some people actually own their HR20's - clear cut distribution. Where's their copy of the GPL?


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

Open Sores Man said:


> Another 6 months have passed, and still no source code (or even a written offer for source code) has appeared.
> 
> It's time to take the struggle to LKML and busybox.org, folks. DTV has NO RIGHT to redistribute the community's work without respecting the terms of the GPL. This is no different from selling bootleg DVDs of commercial software.





mateom199 said:


> The GPL applies in all situations of distribution.
> Your argument (I think) is that leasing is not distribution.
> 
> If its not a form of distribution, how did it get to my house?
> ...


Look, I am in no way trying to defend the argument. If you click on my name and go to my home page you will see I certainly do support GPL license agreements. I have software under that agreement that is distriguted to a lot of companies. When you install this program of mine, it print the GPL right out to the screen and then you MUST put agree in to the GPL or it remove itself. No this was not done on the HR20 so does this make it an illegal copy of a Linux kernel?

Call D* and ask them about this and post what the response and action is. The forum certainly is a good place to put your questions, but the source is Directv.

Here is some information you may need before you call. You may want to find out some information on this kernel, cause this is what is in the HR20...

SERVER: Linux/2.4.29-uclibc-brcm, UPnP/1.0 DIORETV VIIV devices /1.0 DLANDOC/1.00 INTEL_NMPR/2.1
Here is one link you get if you search for 2.4.9-ulic-brcm, this is interesting....
http://lists.simplecenter.org/pipermail/commits/2007-February/001049.html

I am looking forward to what the results are.

I don't really care so don't wait on me to call. Be sure and call your Cell phone company as well. They are probably running Linux on it as well. Has anyone checked your home alarm system yet, hum, better start a list. Might have a bunch of suppliers that need to send you a GPL licnese. Oh yea, your iPod....


----------



## TommydCat (Aug 20, 2006)

Someone a ways back was asking WHY would anyone want to see the source? I'll try to abstract it a bit in an explanation.

The whole idea of open source is contributions from the community breath life into the projects. They have given for your benefit and want to see you give back in the same manner. The GPL license is one of the ways to protect these projects from harm by those with malicious or ill-informed intents.

If you take from their coding efforts to provide something useful, they wish to see what you did with their code. Their code as in copyrighted code. Their code as in you were given a specific license which sets terms and conditions of your use of their code.

If you make *any* changes to the licensed code you are using, these changes must be disclosed in the form of source code made available to those receiving distribution and possibly other users of your product. (The definition of "changes" is fairly loose to include modifying their code directly, in some cases linking to their libraries or just using a well-defined API -- examples but the specifics are best debated in forums far, far away from here).

Maybe you fixed a bug. Maybe you added a neat feature. In either case, you are required to contribute these changes back to the community. Perhaps the maintainer of the GPL'd code you are using might want to incorporate some of your changes to better the "official" code for everyone.

This only applies to what you "changed" in the GPL'd code. As long as your own "secret sauce" doesn't entangle with the GPL'd code, you're golden in the IP department. Just because you use Linux as the OS for your golden goose program to run in doesn't mean you have to give up the code to your program, but it does mean you must follow your license agreement with respect to Linux -- supplying the GPL terms for that part of the product.

You are allowed to take as long as you give back and do what's right. They're not asking for much, only that you recognize and possibly contribute back to the gajillions or hours and lines of code they slaved over that you get to use as part of your own product. If you improved that code, it's only fair that others get a chance to benefit from your improvements as well.

If you don't, you are in violation of your license and lose the right to use the code (in this specific case would be that every copy of the GPL'd code that has been distributed is in violation of copyright and is legally actionable. (The definition of "distributed" is very clear in the Copyright Act of 1976 - you won't find a qualified legal opinion of what this means on this forum).

All that is being asked is that D* just do what's right, and the world is a much happier place. Profiting off the work of others without meeting the responsibilities for doing so is baaaad, mmmkay?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Redlinetire said:


> Software _licensing_ is indeed distribution.
> 
> But when you lease equipment from D* , you aren't granted a license for any code.
> 
> ...


No software license? What's the text under section 7 then?

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P400042

It's a distribution.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

TommydCat

DirecTV is in complete compliance with the GPL code.
If anyone is interested in the code that is covered by the GPL licensing... you can requested it from the manufacturers of the systems and the different chipsets. 

DirecTV has made sure that they are all in compliance and will resond to your requests to those vendors/manufactures for the code that is covered by the GPL.

DirecTV doesn't make modifications to the code segments that are covered by GPL, so they have nothing to provide you.


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

Ken S said:


> No software license? What's the text under section 7 then?
> 
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P400042
> 
> It's a distribution.


Indeed it is then....

I was just feeding the GPL trolls anyway. :lol:

Guess it worked. 

That's why I got out of the software biz. Well, actually 'cause my job was shipped to India...but that's another story...


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> DirecTV doesn't make modifications to the code segments that are covered by GPL, so they have nothing to provide you.


My Linux distribution is Fedora. Fedora doesn't make modifications to the vast majority of the packages it distributes, but, since it distributes them, it is still required to make the source code available. Why is DirecTV differently situated, as we say in the law biz?


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> Look, I am in no way trying to defend the argument. If you click on my name and go to my home page you will see I certainly do support GPL license agreements. I have software under that agreement that is distriguted to a lot of companies. When you install this program of mine, it print the GPL right out to the screen and then you MUST put agree in to the GPL or it remove itself. No this was not done on the HR20 so does this make it an illegal copy of a Linux kernel?
> 
> Call D* and ask them about this and post what the response and action is. The forum certainly is a good place to put your questions, but the source is Directv.
> 
> ...


I get it, I get it. Your standpoint boils down to "everyone does it-who cares." That is not a valid excuse. Who cares? Probably not too many people, and judging by the pro D* responses in this forum, very very few people in this forum. But that doesn't matter. I care. I'm sure people who contributed to the code that D* is using cares.

And no, the ipod doesn't run linux (unless you hack it to).


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

TommydCat said:


> Someone a ways back was asking WHY would anyone want to see the source? I'll try to abstract it a bit in an explanation.
> 
> The whole idea of open source is contributions from the community breath life into the projects. They have given for your benefit and want to see you give back in the same manner. The GPL license is one of the ways to protect these projects from harm by those with malicious or ill-informed intents.
> 
> ...


Excellent!


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> TommydCat
> 
> DirecTV is in complete compliance with the GPL code.
> If anyone is interested in the code that is covered by the GPL licensing... you can requested it from the manufacturers of the systems and the different chipsets.
> ...


The manufacturers are not responsible. The distributor is responsible. Is AMD responsible for supplying a copy of the GPL if I buy a Dell laptop loaded with Ubuntu? They created the chipset thats going to run linux....Nope, thats all Dell's responsibility.

Can't be in compliance if they don't include a copy of the GPL. Even if I called right now, and requested a copy, and they happily sent it along, thats STILL not in compliance. It must be included, not just available upon request. Yes, I know this may seem like complete nitpicking to lots of people, but the point is, they are not compliant until they are compliant, there is no middle ground. D* has no right to pick and choose how it will comply with the GPL - there are set rules, and D* so far has failed.

Look, nobody would have even know for sure if the HR20 ran linux unless someone had seen that network packet exposing it. Why is it so hard for D* to acknowledge the other's hard work that they are using, when the only thing that they ask in return is acknowledgment!


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

oakwcj said:


> My Linux distribution is Fedora. Fedora doesn't make modifications to the vast majority of the packages it distributes, but, since it distributes them, it is still required to make the source code available. Why is DirecTV differently situated, as we say in the law biz?


Fedora "doesn't" have to provide that to you if they don't want to...
But they may feel they have to, as they are offering LINUX directly to you.

DirecTV is offering you an an application that runs on top of Linux... they are not offering "linux" to you.

So yes... they are different.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

mateom199 said:


> The manufacturers are not responsible. The distributor is responsible. Is AMD responsible for supplying a copy of the GPL if I buy a Dell laptop loaded with Ubuntu? They created the chipset thats going to run linux....Nope, thats all Dell's responsibility.
> 
> Can't be in compliance if they don't include a copy of the GPL. Even if I called right now, and requested a copy, and they happily sent it along, thats STILL not in compliance. It must be included, not just available upon request. Yes, I know this may seem like complete nitpicking to lots of people, but the point is, they are not compliant until they are compliant, there is no middle ground. D* has no right to pick and choose how it will comply with the GPL - there are set rules, and D* so far has failed.
> 
> Look, nobody would have even know for sure if the HR20 ran linux unless someone had seen that network packet exposing it. Why is it so hard for D* to acknowledge the other's hard work that they are using, when the only thing that they ask in return is acknowledgment!


They have all the right in the world to "pick" how to comply with the GPL.
So long as it is in complience with the GPL... which it is.

They have had multiple lawyers, and technical experts... and hired people to make sure they are in compliance with the GPL and keep their vendor's in compliance as well.

If you can find the exact clause in the GPL licensing, that DirecTV is under...
I'll forward it along to them for a response.

All I know is that they looked at it when the R15 was released (two years ago), and found that they were in compliance.

They made sure they were still in compliance when the HR20 was released...

And they looked again, when this thread was re-oppened.
And I know they have done again since then.

So give me the clause in the GPL licensing agreement that they are under, that is in violation... and I will forward it on for their review... again.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

For a moment, lets take the HDVR2 as an important example. DIRECTV distributed the HDVR2, made the GPL available via the manual, and pointed everyone to the Tivo sites for source code.

So with the HR20 family, DIRECTV is taking a similar stance and pointing us to the manufacturers for the Linux sources used by the DIRECV equipment.

I did notice the change in that the GPL is not reproduced in the manual this time around nor are the applicable manufacturers identified. While I don't know if the GPL change is a violation, I do suspect that there is a hole in DIRECTV's logic, at least as relates to the spirit of the GPL, whereby they distribute equipment assuming the manufacturers will cover DIRECTV but without DIRECTV identifying which manufacturers those are.

If I make a widget, including a daughter board made by either of 2 companies, with CPUs made by another 2 companies, with middleware I wrote to run upon Fedora as supplied by the 4 involved companies (and required by me to make my middleware work, btw), I can see some important disclosures being required.
1) the daughter board manufacturers could require me to disclose their presence, tho in practice, that requirement is negotiated away as part of the sale
2) similarly the CPU and other hardware could have requirements for disclosure and similarly negotiated away. Unless I wanted to participate in something like the "Intel Inside" campaigns with my widget.
3) the 3rd party software for things like turning on or off displays in my widget might also be negotiated as "hidden", tho very commonly a copyright page can be found where all the copyright holders are listed.
4) but the GPL, AFAIK, has no such provision. So if I distributed such a widget, I might be able to negotiate with Redhat to hide that parts are the Fedora distribution, I can't negotiate to hide that it is in fact a Linux distribution with copyrights and requirements therein. So seems like the copyrights disclosures must include the various GPL copyright holders as well as mine.

All that said, I have not followed the GPL into all of the nuances. I reserve the right to be somewhat wrong. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Fedora "doesn't" have to provide that to you if they don't want to...
> But they may feel they have to, as they are offering LINUX directly to you.
> 
> DirecTV is offering you an an application that runs on top of Linux... they are not offering "linux" to you.
> ...


Earl, Fedora DOES have to release the source in order to comply with the GPL.

How is DirecTV not offering Linux to me? Its installed on the HR20, which is installed in my living room.

Is coke JUST offering me a soft drink, they aren't offering me any sugar?

IF D* wanted to just release the HR20 with its own proprietary application, and let the user install Linux to RUN that application, then they would be in the clear.

If you release, to the public, in any shape way or form, any GPL'd code, you MUST abide by the GPL. How does D*'s "application" run? With linux. Thus, their application relies on and uses GPL'd code.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

The Free Software Foundation has a good summary page for identifying and reporting potential violations of the GPL:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violation.html

I have no idea who the copyright holder(s) is/are for the software that DirecTV is distributing with the HR20. Only the copyright holder has standing to pursue a complaint. Has anyone been able to identify the copyright holder or to answer the other questions posed by the FSF?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

mateom199 said:


> Earl, Fedora DOES have to release the source in order to comply with the GPL.
> 
> How is DirecTV not offering Linux to me? Its installed on the HR20, which is installed in my living room.
> 
> ...


Do you have access to the Linux segments of the system? On the DirecTV receiver? Yes or no?

Again... provide me with the exact segment of the GPL that you think they are in violation of... and I will forward it on.....

I have no problem with forwarding it on ... again... 
To have it clarrified... again...

I do still contend that your example of Fedora and DirecTV, are extremely different in this case.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So give me the clause in the GPL licensing agreement that they are under, that is in violation... and I will forward it on for their review... again.


Ok, lets break it down. This is all from the GPL v2



> 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
> source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
> conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
> copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
> ...


Note that the bold statement above refers to the program as a whole, not just
the source code. D* is required to give the recipient, me, a copy of the GPL
along with the "program." (program being linux kernel in this instance)



> 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:
> ...


EDIT: This section only applies if D* modified the linux kernel - we don't even know if they modified 
any portion of the linux kernel, so it may or may not apply.
Section c does not apply, as it seems to clearly fit into the exception at the end of the clause.
The important part is section b. Here, it clearly states that D* must license their
linux kernel code under the GPL. *Even if they didn't modify anything, it still
must be distributed under the GPL (keyword here: "in whole")* And since it must be licensed under the GPL, it falls under section 1, which means I be getting a copy of this license.



> 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:
> 
> ...


Here, section c does not apply, as this is a case of commercial distribution.

Sections a and b are clear cut. I have not received the source code, nor have I received a written offer to provide the source.

D* flunks.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

I'll forward it on...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I'm no lawyer, but I can see the vagueness in the use of the word "distribute" in the GPL.

The "software" for DIRECTV is presumably an application that runs on Linux which is self contained in a piece of DIRECTV hardware. DIRECTV can probably successfully argue that the "system" (program centers, satellites, STBs, etc.) is fully under the control of DIRECTV and is never actually distributed despite the fact that the hardware lives in your home. As a result, DIRECTV would have the right to get the GPL but there would be no such requirement to pass it along to folks that happen to have their STB.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm no lawyer, but I can see the vagueness in the use of the word "distribute" in the GPL.
> 
> The "software" for DIRECTV is presumably an application that runs on Linux which is self contained in a piece of DIRECTV hardware. DIRECTV can probably successfully argue that the "system" (program centers, satellites, STBs, etc.) is fully under the control of DIRECTV and is never actually distributed despite the fact that the hardware lives in your home. As a result, DIRECTV would have the right to get the GPL but there would be no such requirement to pass it along to folks that happen to have their STB.


You're right, thats probably a stance they would take.

There are problems with that stance though. If D* is really totally in charge of/responsible for the STB's, whats the protection plan for? I should not pay to replace my broken STB if I don't actually "have" it, just as I wouldn't pay to repair a broken satellite. In this situation, they may want it both ways, but they can't have it both ways. D* can't say I own it when its broken, but I don't own it when its working.

A business/corporation/entity is free to modify a GPL'd program, and use it internally without ever releasing the changes/sources. However, as soon as its released to the public, it must follow the GPL license requirements. It would be a stretch for D* to claim that its customers are not the public. Unless they want to put me on their payroll, I'm a member of the public, and any release to the public kicks the license in.

Finally, it comes down to the simple definition of the word:



> dis·tri·bu·tion /ˌdɪstrəˈbyuʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-truh-byoo-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> -noun
> 1.	an act or instance of distributing.
> 2.	the state or manner of being distributed.
> ...


Even if they claim I never bought the item (it was "leased"), it was marketed, and I have proof of the 19.95 shipping and handling I paid to have it transported to my house.


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

Is the OS EEPROM (Flash) encrypted on the HR20?


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

SERVER: Linux/2.4.29-uclibc-brcm, UPnP/1.0 DIORETV VIIV devices /1.0 DLNADOC/1.00 INTEL_NMPR/2.1

It really looks to me like you will need to contact Broadcom for the kernel. The "brcm" in the kernel version looks to imply Broadcom's stock symbol.

Tommydcat,
Thank you for your well thought out post.

Perhaps I can share some more information pertaining to version 3 of GPL as we are undergoing it's review and how it will affect our software we provide and what is provided by our OEM's. Most of our discussion is considered confidential, but I have picked out some slides presented Friday and asked if I could share them on a public forum.

Funny how there is a specific part called "Tivolization" and a hook in there for that in particular...


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm no lawyer, but I can see the vagueness in the use of the word "distribute" in the GPL.
> 
> The "software" for DIRECTV is presumably an application that runs on Linux which is self contained in a piece of DIRECTV hardware. DIRECTV can probably successfully argue that the "system" (program centers, satellites, STBs, etc.) is fully under the control of DIRECTV and is never actually distributed despite the fact that the hardware lives in your home. As a result, DIRECTV would have the right to get the GPL but there would be no such requirement to pass it along to folks that happen to have their STB.


Doug,

Then what software are they licensing to their customers?

They have distributed the software it doesn't matter if it's a lease or a sale. Their own user agreement states there is a license to use the software. That would also indicate they are not in complete control of it if others have the right to use it.

What they must do under the GPL is one thing...but to say that the sale or lease of the HR20 to customers isn't a distribution of the software on that machine just isn't correct.

They can argue whatever they want. But to say they would probably be successful in winning that argument is wrong.


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> SERVER: Linux/2.4.29-uclibc-brcm, UPnP/1.0 DIORETV VIIV devices /1.0 DLNADOC/1.00 INTEL_NMPR/2.1


Where did you get that info from?


----------



## cruxer (Nov 11, 2006)

mateom199 said:


> Ok, lets break it down. This is all from the GPL v2
> 
> ....
> The important part is section b. Here, it clearly states that D* must license their
> ...


It seems pretty clear to me that source code must be made available for any GPL or GPL-derived code. In other words, if they've modified the OS so that it runs on their hardware, then the source code for the new OS must be made available because it's just modified GPL code. So it seems to me that any Linux distribution needs to have the source available. The spirit of this rule is unmistakable. You can't benefit from work of the GPL and not contribute back to the community.

The application stack that actually makes the HR20 work as a DVR is a totally different issue. Unless D* included GPL code in their application stack they would be under no obligation to release this code. They would have been incredibly stupid to have included any GPL code in their application stack for this very reason. They would want to keep that code proprietary. Lots of ISVs offer application stacks that run on Linux and may even distribute appliances containing Linux and their application stack (think firewalls, as one example). They are under no obligation (and typically don't) release the code for their internally developed, proprietary application stack. _*Any requirement to do so would be legally dubious and would seriously diminish the commercial viability of Linux as an application platform.*_

I'm a huge proponent of open source, but there has to be a way to monetize this software too. This is a great discussion, but we really should understand the license and what the requirements before we make too many requests to the vendors who choose to adopt it. If they determine that they need to have an army of lawyers to defend themselves against these types of claims every 6 months, this will tend to reinforce M$'s contention that open source can't be trusted and closed ($$$$) systems are preferable from a legal standpoint.

My $.02, and caveat: I'm not a lawyer so I could be totally wrong. 

-c


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Doug,
> 
> Then what software are they licensing to their customers?
> 
> ...


If it's a "closed system" has DIRECTV actually even licensed their software to you, let alone the Linux kernel it runs on? Truth is, all DIRECTV really does is distribute television content into your home. If DIRECTV could successfully argue that the software was never distributed, then any discussion of the GPL is moot.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

mateom199 said:


> There are problems with that stance though. If D* is really totally in charge of/responsible for the STB's, whats the protection plan for? I should not pay to replace my broken STB if I don't actually "have" it, just as I wouldn't pay to repair a broken satellite. In this situation, they may want it both ways, but they can't have it both ways. D* can't say I own it when its broken, but I don't own it when its working.


Ah, but the protection plan is for the hardware, not the software .. different discussion.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> If it's a "closed system" has DIRECTV actually even licensed their software to you, let alone the Linux kernel it runs on? Truth is, all DIRECTV really does is distribute television content into your home. If DIRECTV could successfully argue that the software was never distributed, then any discussion of the GPL is moot.


Doug,

Please read the DirecTV agreement I linked it earlier in the thread. They are licensing the software to end users. Truth is, among other things, they distribute hardware and software through lease and license.

If they could successfully argue that a month only has 15 days in it they could double their revenues too.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> SERVER: Linux/2.4.29-uclibc-brcm, UPnP/1.0 DIORETV VIIV devices /1.0 DLNADOC/1.00 INTEL_NMPR/2.1
> 
> It really looks to me like you will need to contact Broadcom for the kernel. The "brcm" in the kernel version looks to imply Broadcom's stock symbol.
> 
> ...


Here's a discussion of "Tivoization":

http://gplv3.fsf.org/pipermail/info-gplv3/2006-March/000004.html

Also see:

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/gplv3-lockdown/view?searchterm=tivo

and:

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/gplv3-fda/view?searchterm=tivo


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Ah, but the protection plan is for the hardware, not the software .. different discussion.


True, but how can I have the hardware but not the software?

Or, another way to put it is, how can they claim that the software isn't being distributed to me, but the hardware is, when the software is running on the hardware? And its not some sort of dumb terminal, connecting to a D* mainframe that is running the code. The code is physically sitting on my harddrive (or EPROM, or whatever) and is executing on the hardware sitting in my room. Seems like a weak argument.


----------



## Open Sores Man (Oct 7, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> If DIRECTV could successfully argue that the software was never distributed


The software in question was copied onto a flash chip and shipped into a customer's living room. Probably a few hundred thousand times over, by now.

If that doesn't count as "distribution," I don't know what does.

If DIRECTV had based their product on an illegal copy of Windows CE instead of an illegal copy of Linux, do you think for a second that Bill Gates wouldn't shred them to pieces in court?

BTW: here is the GPLv2 and here is the FAQ. I see that a number of posters in this thread have not read either document yet. Please take this opportunity to educate yourselves on the issues so that we can try to have a somewhat intelligent discussion. Thanks.


----------



## Open Sores Man (Oct 7, 2007)

Spanky_Partain said:


> SERVER: Linux/2.4.29-uclibc-brcm, UPnP/1.0 DIORETV VIIV devices /1.0 DLNADOC/1.00 INTEL_NMPR/2.1
> 
> It really looks to me like you will need to contact Broadcom for the kernel. The "brcm" in the kernel version looks to imply Broadcom's stock symbol.


Sorry, this is NOT an acceptable answer. The GPL explicitly puts this burden on commercial entities who redistribute covered works. There is NO expectation that end users will have to "play detective" to figure out where to get the code that they are owed.

Good corporate citizens publish contact information for the department that is in charge of GPL compliance, as part of the written offer. For instance, see this page.



> Perhaps I can share some more information pertaining to version 3 of GPL as we are undergoing it's review and how it will affect our software we provide and what is provided by our OEM's.


For those of you following along at home, the violation in question pertains to GPLv2 and LGPLv2. GPLv3/LGPLv3 are NEW licenses that address many of the ways people have abused GPLv2/LGPLv2 software (e.g. patents and code signing), but they have not yet been widely adopted.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

The link in Post 98 references simplecenter.org, which has both an open source and a commercially licensed media player/server application. The HR20 is mentioned in a thread on a simplecenter.com [they have both an .org and a .com domain] support forum. A response from one of the developers says that the HR20 is not a supported device, and gives no indication that the company is aware that DirecTV may be using some of their code:

http://www.simplecenter.com/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=1517&#1517


----------



## Open Sores Man (Oct 7, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> The link in Post 98 references simplecenter.org, which has both an open source and a commercially licensed media player/server application. The HR20 is mentioned in a thread on a simplecenter.com [they have both an .org and a .com domain] support forum. A response from one of the developers says that the HR20 is not a supported device, and gives no indication that the company is aware that DirecTV may be using some of their code:


"rfish" is an active developer on this project, so he would be able to explain why he checked in DIRECTV code. He might also be able to comment on other details of this device, but is probably under NDA if he knows anything useful.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Open Sores Man said:


> The software in question was copied onto a flash chip and shipped into a customer's living room. Probably a few hundred thousand times over, by now.
> 
> If that doesn't count as "distribution," I don't know what does.
> 
> ...


I'm just pointing out a different way to look at things. Clearly you are one of the people that disagree with my assertion. As for distribution, my argument is simply that DIRECTV's "walls" are on the video output of the receiver. The "closed system" starts on the other side of that video output in the box and continues all the way back to DIRECTV HQ, encompassing everything. If my assertion is correct, then there is nothing distributed and therefore no reason for the GPL to even be in play.

Clearly you think that because it is sitting in your living room, it has been distributed to you despite the fact that there is no way for you to access the kernel without violating your TOS with DIRECTV. This seems like a logical position for DIRECTV to take.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Open Sores Man said:


> "rfish" is an active developer on this project, so he would be able to explain why he checked in DIRECTV code. He might also be able to comment on other details of this device, but is probably under NDA if he knows anything useful.


We have no user here with the login "rfish"


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> We have no user here with the login "rfish"


Sorry... missed the reference that "rfish" was a user at the other forum..


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm just pointing out a different way to look at things. Clearly you are one of the people that disagree with my assertion. As for distribution, my argument is simply that DIRECTV's "walls" are on the video output of the receiver. The "closed system" starts on the other side of that video output in the box and continues all the way back to DIRECTV HQ, encompassing everything. If my assertion is correct, then there is nothing distributed and therefore no reason for the GPL to even be in play.
> 
> Clearly you think that because it is sitting in your living room, it has been distributed to you despite the fact that there is no way for you to access the kernel without violating your TOS with DIRECTV. This seems like a logical position for DIRECTV to take.


Doug,

The problem with your argument is it has no basis in law and DirecTV has already admitted by their own actions to making a distribution of software when they included a software license in the DVR section of their customer agreement.

I don't understand why you would continue to just ignore DirecTV's own documents when you make your argument.

I can't speak to whether DirecTV used GPL code or not. But without a doubt they are distributing hardware and software.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Doug,
> 
> The problem with your argument is it has no basis in law and DirecTV has already admitted by their own actions to making a distribution of software when they included a software license in the DVR section of their customer agreement.
> 
> I don't understand why you would continue to just ignore DirecTV's own documents when you make your argument.


Personally, I don't really care either way. It would be interesting to hear the real argument. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it has something to do with my assertion, though.

Cheers.


----------



## Open Sores Man II (Oct 8, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Personally, I don't really care either way. It would be interesting to hear the real argument.


The "real argument" is in this thread. It has been repeated several times over.

Many of the individuals here have relevant experience in the software industry and know what they are talking about.

Unfortunately, some of those who don't are willing to use the "ban" button to silence those who do.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Clearly you think that because it is sitting in your living room, it has been distributed to you despite the fact that there is no way for you to access the kernel without violating your TOS with DIRECTV. This seems like a logical position for DIRECTV to take.


Its interesting that you mention that theres no way to access the kernel without violating the TOS. In fact, there probably is no way to access the kernel without circumventing a security measure, aka, violating the DMCA. The GPL v3 is actually trying to address this problem, where corporations lock out GPL code from the end user.


----------



## NorfolkBruh (Jun 9, 2007)

mateom199 said:


> True, but how can I have the hardware but not the software?
> 
> Or, another way to put it is, how can they claim that the software isn't being distributed to me, but the hardware is, when the software is running on the hardware? And its not some sort of dumb terminal, connecting to a D* mainframe that is running the code. The code is physically sitting on my harddrive (or EPROM, or whatever) and is executing on the hardware sitting in my room. Seems like a weak argument.





Doug Brott said:


> Ah, but the protection plan is for the hardware, not the software .. different discussion.


*ACTUALLY the protection plan covers software AND hardware issues. I wish I could find my copy of the protection plan (yeah I'm one of those people who demanded a written copy of it way back when!)

If my unit stops working for any reason other then my violating the TOS I expect to be on the phone with D* and have another one delivered. It is, in fact, one of the best protection plans around and VERY few people who have it have complained about it (except the cost usually).

Just my two cents.*


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Open Sores Man II said:


> Unfortunately, some of those who don't are willing to use the "ban" button to silence those who do.


While we don't normally discuss bans in public, the readers of this thread should know that "Open Sores Man" was banned for not providing a valid email address in his registration.

:backtotop


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Open Sores Man said:


> "rfish" is an active developer on this project, so he would be able to explain why he checked in DIRECTV code. He might also be able to comment on other details of this device, but is probably under NDA if he knows anything useful.


How would I go about contacting Mr. Fish without registering for the forum? To do that, I'd need to download their software. I clicked on Mr. Fish's profile, but it does not give an email address or other means to contact him.


----------



## thumperr (Feb 10, 2006)

It would have been a much easier if the HR20 just used Microsoft Windows underneath, then no messy Linux arguments. 

I will offer that my HD-DVD player, came with a copy of the GPL. and When Toshiba sends a copy of updated firmware to me, it contains a reference to the GPL.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Personally, I don't really care either way. It would be interesting to hear the real argument. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it has something to do with my assertion, though.
> 
> Cheers.


Doug,

If DirecTV ever had to defend this type of thing in court you would probably see many different assertions for the defense. I hope they have stronger arguments than what you're suggesting for their sake.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Doug,
> 
> If DirecTV ever had to defend this type of thing in court you would probably see many different assertions for the defense. I hope they have stronger arguments than what you're suggesting for their sake.


:lol: fair enough :lol: .. I did say I'm not a lawyer .


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

AlbertZeroK said:


> Where did you get that info from?


http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=847079&postcount=8

It is the return information. So even when this was posted, today the UPnP device code has changed.


----------



## NorfolkBruh (Jun 9, 2007)

Spanky_Partain said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=847079&postcount=8
> 
> It is the return information. So even when this was posted, today the UPnP device code has changed.


Spanky, what does this mean?


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> SERVER: Linux/2.4.29-uclibc-brcm, UPnP/1.0 DIORETV VIIV devices /1.0 DLNADOC/1.00 INTEL_NMPR/2.1
> 
> It really looks to me like you will need to contact Broadcom for the kernel. The "brcm" in the kernel version looks to imply Broadcom's stock symbol.
> 
> ...





AlbertZeroK said:


> Where did you get that info from?





Spanky_Partain said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=847079&postcount=8
> 
> It is the return information. So even when this was posted, today the UPnP device code has changed.





NorfolkBruh said:


> Spanky, what does this mean?


So here is the history, hope that helps...

You can use the instructions in the link to get this information if your HR20 is networked.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

To the argument "We don't want Open Source to be a lawyer fest", I contend that the burden of GPL is very small: a copy of the license and access to the orginal sources. Only companies that try to skirt the edges might face the burden of lawyer costs.

To the point "All sources must be made available": not true. Wholly written additions to the kernel such as specific modules or device drivers that are not derived from the GPL Program but work with the GPL Program are not required to be released as source. Neither are applications that run upon the Program.

To the point "DIRECTV just provides video content": Also not true. Once they started branding and manufacturing receivers with their name, they became consumer electronics manufacturers as well as video content providers. All the issues for CE manufactures come to bear: support, legals, manufacturing, etc.

And the system is not closed. Individuals may own the hardware. (I own 3.)

Is the sofware distributed? As the point was made, the hardware doesn't do anything without it. 

You know, I bet the amount of money DIRECTV already spent on the R15 and subsequently on the HR20 GPL review is far greater than just putting a webpage up for the source, and a copy of the GPL embedded in the HR20 help pages... 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

You just can't imagine how do that mountain work to split the GPL source code from DTV parts for publish it. How much time it will require to review before it appoved to publish. Plus count there are more then one HR20 what run Linux. Money, money ...


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> To the argument "We don't want Open Source to be a lawyer fest", I contend that the burden of GPL is very small: a copy of the license and access to the orginal sources. Only companies that try to skirt the edges might face the burden of lawyer costs.
> 
> To the point "All sources must be made available": not true. Wholly written additions to the kernel such as specific modules or device drivers that are not derived from the GPL Program but work with the GPL Program are not required to be released as source. Neither are applications that run upon the Program.
> 
> ...


Exactly! They probably wasted way more time and money figuring out how to skirt, or how they can manipulate the GPL than if they had just (easily) complied!


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

P Smith said:


> You just can't imagine how do that mountain work to split the GPL source code from DTV parts for publish it. How much time it will require to review before it appoved to publish. Plus count there are more then one HR20 what run Linux. Money, money ...


If D* was stupid enough to include GPL'd code in their own application, I would not feel bad about the money or time spent.

That being said, I seriously doubt they were that stupid.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

P Smith, I disagree--if Earl's statement is true that no changes to GPL code have been made by DIRECTV (and I have plenty of reason to believe that statement.) It could be as simple as repackaging the distro they started with.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> And the system is not closed. Individuals may own the hardware. (I own 3.)


My point was more that the system is closed with respect to accessing the software directly .. You still can't do that under the TOS with DIRECTV even if you own the receivers.



Tom Robertson said:


> Is the sofware distributed? As the point was made, the hardware doesn't do anything without it.


True, but does MySpace really exist? DBSTalk.com? There is a virtual aura about this and where is the line actually drawn? Ken S pointed out the license agreement, etc. etc. Fair enough.



Tom Robertson said:


> You know, I bet the amount of money DIRECTV already spent on the R15 and subsequently on the HR20 GPL review is far greater than just putting a webpage up for the source, and a copy of the GPL embedded in the HR20 help pages...


On this I agree. Sometimes the simplest solution is the one staring you in the face. What harm is there in including the license and otherwise making some of this information available. I would think negligible, but I'm not the VP, just a customer.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

I don't see any reason why they cannot supply the kernel and even the kernel source.

That should not be any big deal and should be easy to grab and post. The version of the kernel in use has not changed since the first time we saw it at the end of last year.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

P Smith said:


> You just can't imagine how do that mountain work to split the GPL source code from DTV parts for publish it. How much time it will require to review before it appoved to publish. Plus count there are more then one HR20 what run Linux. Money, money ...


I guess the could avoid all that unnecessary work by writing their own operating system.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I know some of the GPL pitfalls from real life with the similar to 'bcm' part but from other huge Company.
But it works at the end and all partners happy (include Linux community and users). Same time I know how Broadcom is protective its own IP - *tough *is not that right qualifying word . Plus I know for sure, the system is not basic Linux and busybox but had proprietary modules/drivers/etc and customized.


----------



## TommydCat (Aug 20, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> TommydCat
> 
> DirecTV is in complete compliance with the GPL code.
> If anyone is interested in the code that is covered by the GPL licensing... you can requested it from the manufacturers of the systems and the different chipsets.
> ...


I didn't aim to interpret how, why or if the GPL is being violated; my intent was to explain why the open source community wants it to be honored and the spirit in which the license is offered. I tend to drift a bit when I get going on a rant 

I don't necessarily agree with the statements I guess you are channeling for D*, but that's not really the point of my posting, nor does it really matter since I am not a damaged party  I shall say no more...

My god this thread took off! :eek2:

I do wish the best for all involved, as this is an amazing coordinated symphony of different technologies being utilized to paint pretty pictures on my livingroom wall accompanied by amazing sound. :grin: :grin:


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

As I posted many moons ago, I do not think DIRECTV intends to violate the agreement, and from what I know of many key people, I am absolutely certain they wish to keep everything on the up and up. My participation in this thread was fully intended to help them consider other points of view; not to bash them in any way. They very much have my respect for honesty and for their strong desire to help the customer.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

This thread reminded me that my Panasonic plasma TV uses GPL'd software. The only way I knew this is from the setup menu. Under "About" is "License," which includes a reference to the GPL and this website:

http://www.am-linux.jp/dl/DTV05U/

It contains links to some fairly generic linux packages like glibc and autofs. This is probably all DirecTV would need to do to comply.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

E* complies ...
Source Code for DISH 322, DISH 411, DISH Player-DVR 522,
DISH Player-DVR 625, DISH Player-DVR 942, ViP211, and ViP622 DVR

More can be found (for the older receivers) using a site search.

Over at the DirecTV site:


> *There was no results matching:* "linux" in all site areas.


----------



## Gotchaa (Jan 25, 2006)

James Long said:


> E* complies ...
> Source Code for DISH 322, DISH 411, DISH Player-DVR 522,
> DISH Player-DVR 625, DISH Player-DVR 942, ViP211, and ViP622 DVR
> 
> ...


Good find, so who has asked D* for more details, or is this just a they are breaking the rules thread?


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Gotchaa said:


> Good find, so who has asked D* for more details, or is this just a they are breaking the rules thread?


When this thread was first started I called, and the CSR knew nothing. But, in my experience, CSR's usually can't answer anything if it isn't written down in front of them with a canned text reply attached.

Hopefully Earl gets a response from someone in the right position to provide an answer.


----------



## marksman (Dec 23, 2006)

Open Sores Man said:


> The software in question was copied onto a flash chip and shipped into a customer's living room. Probably a few hundred thousand times over, by now.
> 
> If that doesn't count as "distribution," I don't know what does.


It is an interesting stance they have taken but I can see their position. They are distributing the device. They have their OWN software running on it as well. That software is running Linux. They potentially feel they are distributing Linux to themselves. The end user is not directly using their software, so they might not feel the need to provide the license. THEIR software is using Linux, and they are more than happy to provide a GPL to themselves.

What direct access to use linux do any of us have in our HR20? Suffice it to say I don't know enough about all of this, but from what I have seen, the requirements are vague enough as to not make DirecTV wrong. So unless they change their stance for some reason, the only way to contest it would be a court battle, and I don't know that they would necessarily be found in breech of the current license.

You say "If that doesn't count as "distribution", I don't know what does" and to that I say exactly. That is the problem. Distribution is nowhere near specific enough. They should spell out exactly what this means. DirecTV clearly does not think they are distributing Linux to end-users for use. So people have different definitions of distribution. Some people think anything that changes hands consists of distribution.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

D* could error on the side of caution and provide a few bits of code (like E* and other companies in this thread have done). But what good would it do?

You can't use the snippets of code to build or change the receiver ... too much proprietary stuff missing. Nerds could complain that the 'glock1' library D* chose is not as powerful as the 'glock2.7' library and start a petition drive for better code but without the proprietary stuff how do you know that the "flaws" in 'glock1' are irrelevant? Worst case is that some way to compromise the receiver could be found and a virus could be written. Or someone could claim that and have D* spend resources proving them wrong instead of improving the receiver. While I agree with the GPL I can understand why a company would want to protect their product.

Is it a distribution? Probably not. But as other companies have shown, it is possible to show or share the GPL code that was used without compromising the product. What harm has it done E* to have those links active? I'm not sure it does anyone any good (other than acknowledge the source) but does it do harm? I think not.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

I am supporting the statement made by James Long as well.

Kernel source recognition is always a good thing and expeccted thing to do in the Linux world and that is what the GPL was designed to do. GPL is not there to force source code on binaries that are released that have propritary information, it is there to get recognition to ones who contributed and to get improvements to the open source community through contribution.

Today, we provide binaries on a product with an option to buy a license to turn it on under Linux. There is no source handed out for that! So just because it is Linux, don't believe that your get source and you can do everything for free. THAT IS NOT TRUE!


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> I am supporting the statement made by James Long as well.
> 
> Kernel source recognition is always a good thing and expeccted thing to do in the Linux world and that is what the GPL was designed to do. GPL is not there to force source code on binaries that are released that have propritary information, it is there to get recognition to ones who contributed and to get improvements to the open source community through contribution.
> 
> Today, we provide binaries on a product with an option to buy a license to turn it on under Linux. There is no source handed out for that! So just because it is Linux, don't believe that your get source and you can do everything for free. THAT IS NOT TRUE!


I'm pretty sure nobody here is advocating the release of D*'s proprietary software....


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

James Long said:


> D* could error on the side of caution and provide a few bits of code (like E* and other companies in this thread have done). But what good would it do?


Thats not the point. The usefulness of the code in question really has little to do with this argument. The point that myself and others are trying to make is that D*, by not releasing the GPL'd source, is violating copyright laws - because they are not in compliance with the GPL, their license to use the GPL'd software is effectively revoked, thus there is an infringement upon the copyright holder's rights.

How can they regain their license? Follow the (easy) steps of Tivo, Echostar, and others in providing the source and a copy of the GPL to each user.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

marksman said:


> It is an interesting stance they have taken but I can see their position. They are distributing the device. They have their OWN software running on it as well. That software is running Linux. They potentially feel they are distributing Linux to themselves. The end user is not directly using their software, so they might not feel the need to provide the license. THEIR software is using Linux, and they are more than happy to provide a GPL to themselves.
> 
> What direct access to use linux do any of us have in our HR20? Suffice it to say I don't know enough about all of this, but from what I have seen, the requirements are vague enough as to not make DirecTV wrong. So unless they change their stance for some reason, the only way to contest it would be a court battle, and I don't know that they would necessarily be found in breech of the current license.


I'm typing this in firefox, which is running inside Windows XP. How can firefox be running if I don't have Windows XP installed and running on my pc?
How can the HR20 UI/Scheduler/Stream Capture/Media Player/CID interface/On Demand(not to mention eSata, USB, network, etc) service run without Linux? It cant.

Their software is running ON TOP of Linux. Without Linux, their software is a bunch of 1's and 0's that does nothing. Just because D* locks me out of manipulating the OS, doesn't mean I'm not accessing Linux. In fact, I'm interacting and accessing linux anytime I watch tv with my HR20, pause, rewind, record, or change the channel.

And if I'm not directly using their software, how am I using the HR20 at all?

Just my 2 cents


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

marksman said:


> It is an interesting stance they have taken but I can see their position. They are distributing the device. They have their OWN software running on it as well. That software is running Linux. They potentially feel they are distributing Linux to themselves. The end user is not directly using their software, so they might not feel the need to provide the license. THEIR software is using Linux, and they are more than happy to provide a GPL to themselves.
> 
> What direct access to use linux do any of us have in our HR20? Suffice it to say I don't know enough about all of this, but from what I have seen, the requirements are vague enough as to not make DirecTV wrong. So unless they change their stance for some reason, the only way to contest it would be a court battle, and I don't know that they would necessarily be found in breech of the current license.
> 
> You say "If that doesn't count as "distribution", I don't know what does" and to that I say exactly. That is the problem. Distribution is nowhere near specific enough. They should spell out exactly what this means. DirecTV clearly does not think they are distributing Linux to end-users for use. So people have different definitions of distribution. Some people think anything that changes hands consists of distribution.


I am confused. Where do we see D* took this stance? From what I can see, this was mods' opinion. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see where D* stated this as their official position.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Dusty said:


> I am confused. Where do we see D* took this stance? From what I can see, this was mods' opinion. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see where D* stated this as their official position.


Agreed, it was my opinion and yes I happen to be a mod. However, please do not equate my opinion on this matter as speaking for either DIRECTV or DBSTalk.com.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

I dug my HR20 manual out from the bottom of a drawer and actually read the "Terms and Conditions for Use of Software" on page 60. There are two veiled references to open source software:

1. Under B. License Restrictions:

"The Software may include some components that are covered by "free software" licenses, open source licenses and other similar license use rights, which require such components to be used, modified and/or distributed only under the terms of such licenses. Any such components are subject only to the terms of such licenses, and not these Terms."

2. G. Additional Information:

"Certain additional terms and information for the Software and certain third party software (including the text of licenses applicable to any free, open source and other similar software that may be included in the Software) may be found in the DIRECTV Customer Agreement, the DIRECTV website located at www.directv.com, and the GNU website located at www.gnu.org."

This last bit is a clear [well not really clear, I guess] acknowledgment of a violation of the GPL, which requires that its full text be provided with the distributed software, and explicitly prohibits an attempt to meet this requirement by linking to a web site. If there is a way to get the source code from directv.com, I certainly haven't found it.

In stark contrast, the entire text of the GPL is set out in Appendix B of the DirecTV DVR User's Guide for my DirecTiVo. The following notice is on page 147:

LINUX SOURCE NOTICE

The DIRECTV DVR is powered by the Linux operating system. The machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code is available for the cost of distribution. Please visit www.tivo.com/linux for more information. To read the Linux software license, see Appendix B, "GNU General Public License" on page 155.

Obviously, DirecTV knew how to comply with the GPL a few years ago. Why have they decided to play these games with the HR20?


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Why is this thread 7 pages long? You guys want to watch tv or piss and moan about some *possible* GNU violation that may or may not exist? Or better yet, is this really some play to try and get a copy of the code so it can be hacked? What is truly the agenda here?


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> Why is this thread 7 pages long? You guys want to watch tv or piss and moan about some *possible* GNU violation that may or may not exist? Or better yet, is this really some play to try and get a copy of the code so it can be hacked? What is truly the agenda here?


Wow way to be a hypocrite.

"pissing and moaning" about us "pissing and moaning"

Without the hardwork of the OSS/GNU/Linux community, you wouldn't be watching TV with that HR20 of yours. We're just trying to give credit where its due, and get D* to do the same.

Next time, try reading the entire thread before replying. Nobody is using this as an agenda to steal or hack the code.

EDIT: And what's a GNU violation?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> Why is this thread 7 pages long? You guys want to watch tv or piss and moan about some *possible* GNU violation that may or may not exist? Or better yet, is this really some play to try and get a copy of the code so it can be hacked? What is truly the agenda here?


Heck, it could be argued that many folks here spend more time talking about watching TV than actually watching it .. Let's at least try to keep on topic .. If you don't want to read about it .. well, don't.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

I read all 7 pages thinking there would be some point to it all. My mistake. I'll leave you boys to it then.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Looks like the HR20 is also using SquashFS (http://squashfs.sourceforge.net/), which is also released under the GPL.


----------



## Gotchaa (Jan 25, 2006)

mateom199 said:


> When this thread was first started I called, and the CSR knew nothing. But, in my experience, CSR's usually can't answer anything if it isn't written down in front of them with a canned text reply attached.
> 
> Hopefully Earl gets a response from someone in the right position to provide an answer.


Is Earl actively trying to find the right person, or are we hoping he does?

Has anyone asked for the GPL modified source code or specifics from D* yet?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Gotchaa said:


> Is Earl actively trying to find the right person, or are we hoping he does?
> 
> Has anyone asked for the GPL modified source code or specifics from D* yet?


I contend there is no modified code, based on the reports. That doesn't imply that source for the GPL and unmodified but still distributed executables shouldn't be made available.

And there have been various requests (look early in the thread).

Earl doesn't have to look very far...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Tom I would contend that there are no modifications as well. It seems that the kernel is a build for the broadcom processor in use by the HR20. I'd say that there is a proprietary application running on top of Linux that is the interface that we see.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Tom I would contend that there are no modifications as well. It seems that the kernel is a build for the broadcom processor in use by the HR20. I'd say that there is a proprietary application running on top of Linux that is the interface that we see.


TaaDaa! I could not agree with this more! As I said in an earlier post, if you want the kernel/kernel source, you may need to contact Broadcom.



mateom199 said:


> Looks like the HR20 is also using SquashFS (http://squashfs.sourceforge.net/), which is also released under the GPL.


This link is not working for me!

So here is some of the stuff coming in Version 3 of GPL. This is an interpretation and is NOT to be considered a fact or used in any leagal argument. This is being supplied as MY statements and are NOT to be interpreted as coming from any other source. This is MY opinion!

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
−Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose. 
−Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. 
−Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. 
−Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Embedded Software in consumer products that are modifiable by the distributor, must be modifiable and reloadable by the consumer.
−Prevents "Tivoization"
−Requires consumer product manufactures to allow consumers to reflash their firmware; Provide flash image, flashing tools (if not otherwise available), and enough documentation to allow a competent developer to recreate and install a version of the image with modified GPLv3 software.


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

mateom199 said:


> Looks like the HR20 is also using SquashFS (http://squashfs.sourceforge.net/), which is also released under the GPL.


Based on what?
Document please....

The only hint that there's even _linux_ underneath is some packet sniffing.

My personal belief is they aren't running linux and they just spoofed the packet info to get all the GPL trolls in a huff.... :lol:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Gotchaa said:


> Is Earl actively trying to find the right person, or are we hoping he does?
> 
> Has anyone asked for the GPL modified source code or specifics from D* yet?


Actually to the first question:

I know the right people... and it has been sent to them.
Now will I get a direct response, or a different response then I have gotten in the past (and posted previously in the thread)...

We will see.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Redlinetire said:


> <...>*My personal belief is they aren't running linux* and they just spoofed the packet info to get all the GPL trolls in a huff.... :lol:


Based on WHAT ?

[Another troll here came here ]


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Based on WHAT ?
> 
> [Another troll here came here ]


The phrase "my personal belief" should be self explanatory. 

I was just pointing out the FUD that quickly spreads when GPL trolls sniff something in the air.

There's one claim, somewhere, somehow, that some packet sniffer found the HR20 is running linux.

And now all these trolls come out claiming the HR20 is running 'this or that' package, which of course they have no way of knowing.

I'm convinced that GPL trolls are all ex TV evangalists, their self-righteous hypocrisy is that strong... :lol:


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Based on WHAT ?
> 
> [Another troll here came here ]


P Smith,

Take a look at post #102 in this thread. He's already admitted that he is a troll. I wouldn't bother to take his posts seriously.


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

Ken S said:


> P Smith,
> 
> Take a look at post #102 in this thread. He's already admitted that he is a troll. I wouldn't bother to take his posts seriously.


:lol:


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

We shouldn't have to be playing these guessing games and DirecTV shouldn't be putting ambiguous language about open source software "that may be included in the Software" and information about which possibly included software "may be found in" various similarly vague places. Complying with the GPL isn't onerous and the requirements are very clear: provide the text of the GPL and information on how to obtain the source code. We aren't supposed to have to do detective work to find out what open source software has been distributed.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Ken S said:


> P Smith,
> 
> Take a look at post #102 in this thread. He's already admitted that he is a troll. I wouldn't bother to take his posts seriously.


Yes, you're right - my memory keep track valuable info posted, not the junk.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

As to getting this info, that could be done easily - the disk hold some logs in 2nd partition as it mentioned on other places.


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

P Smith said:


> As to getting this info, that could be done easily - the disk hold some logs in 2nd partition as it mentioned on other places.


Definition of FUD....

"it *could* be done easily"
"*some* logs on *some* 2nd partition"
"*mentioned* on other places"


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Yes, you're right - my memory keep track valuable info posted, not the junk.


Yes, but sometimes it's valuable to no where the junk is coming from.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> We shouldn't have to be playing these guessing games and DirecTV shouldn't be putting ambiguous language about open source software "that may be included in the Software" and information about which possibly included software "may be found in" various similarly vague places. Complying with the GPL isn't onerous and the requirements are very clear: provide the text of the GPL and information on how to obtain the source code. We aren't supposed to have to do detective work to find out what open source software has been distributed.


Agree. If you were a developer in the early nineties that participated in the volunteer groups across the world helping create Linux, you would know the entire spirit of the development was one of having an open source, smaller version of Unix that AT&T couldn't charge a small fortune for. (Like they did Unix). Now a multi-multi-million dollar corporation comes along 15 years later, runs their application on Linux, and all they have to do is recognize the people that put in that work voluntarily?

This issue is really not that complicated. D*, for whatever reason, has decided not to follow others' lead regarding the compliance with the GPL. What is complicated, is trying to understand the reasoning and mindset of some who have gone to such extremes defending an inanimate multimillion-billion dollar corporation..


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Redlinetire said:


> Definition of FUD....
> 
> "it *could* be done easily"
> "*some* logs on *some* 2nd partition"
> "*mentioned* on other places"


OK .. regardless of my or anyone else's position on the GPL, the HR20 is most certainly running Linux. The evidence is overwhelming despite the fact that, to my knowledge, no one has garnered shell access. It doesn't matter whether it's easy to obtain or not and without going into great physical detail, suffice it to say that Linux is the underlying OS.

Linux should be treated as a given in this case. To suggest otherwise is actually spreading FUD, IMHO.


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> OK .. regardless of my or anyone else's position on the GPL, the HR20 is most certainly running Linux. The evidence is overwhelming despite the fact that, to my knowledge, no one has garnered shell access. It doesn't matter whether it's easy to obtain or not and without going into great physical detail, suffice it to say that Linux is the underlying OS.
> 
> Linux should be treated as a given in this case. To suggest otherwise is actually spreading FUD, IMHO.


I was specifically referring to the claim that their running SquashFS.

And I believe in innocent until proven guilty, which even applies to corporations, despite what "jjohns" and other users would claim. They've tried and convicted them already, again typical of the GPL trolls.

A packet sniffer is not proof.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Redlinetire said:


> I was specifically referring to the claim that their running SquashFS.
> 
> And I believe in innocent until proven guilty, which even applies to corporations, despite what "jjohns" and other users would claim. They've tried and convicted them already, again typical of the GPL trolls.
> 
> A packet sniffer is not proof.


Oh, I get it - It's the old argument, "That's right, just stand there and believe your lying eyes!"


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

P Smith said:


> As to getting this info, that could be done easily - the disk hold some logs in 2nd partition as it mentioned on other places.





Redlinetire said:


> I was specifically referring to the claim that their running SquashFS.
> 
> And I believe in innocent until proven guilty, which even applies to corporations, despite what "jjohns" and other users would claim. They've tried and convicted them already, again typical of the GPL trolls.
> 
> A packet sniffer is not proof.


From the system log:
Jan 1 00:01:06 Directv kernel: Linux version 2.4.29-uclibc-brcm build version ([email protected]) (gcc version 3.3.6) #1 Thu Jul 27 19:23:33 PDT 2006

Jan 1 00:01:06 Directv kernel: Kernel command line: mtdparts=pace_dtv:896k(loader),1408k(kernel),-(rootfs) root=/dev/mtdblock2 *rootfstype=squashfs* bcmrac=0xd0 console=ttyS0,115200

....

Jan 1 00:01:06 Directv kernel: Squashfs 2.1-r2 (released 2004/12/15) (C) 2002-2004 Phillip Lougher

So yes, it seems as if they are using SquashFS.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

mateom199 said:


> From the kernel log:
> Jan 1 00:01:06 Directv kernel: Linux version 2.4.29-uclibc-brcm build version ([email protected]) (gcc version 3.3.6) #1 Thu Jul 27 19:23:33 PDT 2006
> 
> Jan 1 00:01:06 Directv kernel: Kernel command line: mtdparts=pace_dtv:896k(loader),1408k(kernel),-(rootfs) root=/dev/mtdblock2 *rootfstype=squashfs* bcmrac=0xd0 console=ttyS0,115200
> ...


I've sent Mr. Lougher an email with a link to this thread and a VERY brief summary of the issue. I'll let you know if he responds.


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

mateom199 said:


> So yes, it seems as if they are using SquashFS.


Touche, my GPL wielding friend.

But how does one hack to the kernal logs without violating your customer agreement?


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Redlinetire said:


> Touche, my GPL wielding friend.
> 
> But how does one hack to the kernal logs without violating your customer agreement?


Where in the agreement does it say I can't hook up an esata drive to my computer that was once hooked to my HR20?


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

mateom199 said:


> Where in the agreement does it say I can't hook up an esata drive to my computer that was once hooked to my HR20?


Well, if D* is that sloppy then they are dumber than I could have imagined...:eek2:


----------



## TommydCat (Aug 20, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Actually to the first question:
> 
> I know the right people... and it has been sent to them.
> Now will I get a direct response, or a different response then I have gotten in the past (and posted previously in the thread)...
> ...


:new_popco


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Guys, we are treading very closely to areas that can't be discussed at DBStalk.com, even if we are not actively talking about hacking the system. 

Yes, Linux is running on the HR20, yes, squashfs is used at some point.

And be very, very careful referring to people as trolls. That will also get one into hot water.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Gotchaa (Jan 25, 2006)

TommydCat said:


> :new_popco


any butter?


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

As a matter of fact, since this thread is covering different aspects of GPL, some might find the open source version of this link very interesting.

http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page


----------



## NorfolkBruh (Jun 9, 2007)

VERY interesting tread... it's only been 3 days but wondering if there has been any update?


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

marksman said:


> It is an interesting stance they have taken but I can see their position. They are distributing the device. They have their OWN software running on it as well. That software is running Linux. They potentially feel they are distributing Linux to themselves. The end user is not directly using their software, so they might not feel the need to provide the license. THEIR software is using Linux, and they are more than happy to provide a GPL to themselves.


the rub to that argument is that you can outright buy the HR20 device for $899 or something like that. So all it would take is for someone to own one and then that'd be potentially qualifying as distribution.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

So Earl, any news on your end?

Thanks.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Hmm....still no news. Disappointing.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

I am not sure what other news you are looking for...


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Actually to the first question:
> 
> I know the right people... and it has been sent to them.
> Now will I get a direct response, or a different response then I have gotten in the past (and posted previously in the thread)...
> ...


Did you ever receive a response?


----------



## macEarl (Jan 2, 2007)

mateom199 said:


> Did you ever receive a response?


Evidently not. And evidently, the improper linking to GNU sites continues. <sigh>

Sorry, gang, been out of the country for many, many months - looks like no progress here.


----------



## stogie5150 (Feb 21, 2006)

I have been wondering why, with all the folks that modified the TIVO, nobody has torn into an HR20 and looked around if it really is running Linux. I am sure that the cost of buying a HR20 outright isn't stopping them. 

Of course, my dream is for some genius to discover how, in fifteen minutes of looking around in the HR-20's code, to load up TIVO software in the HR20, enable REAL archiving to a DVD/DIVX format, enabling DLB, removing HDCP, all kinds of worthy things.....there has to be a reason...seriously some of these guys are borderline brilliant, at least to us lowly users....:lol: 

I know, I'm dreaming.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

macEarl said:


> Evidently not. And evidently, the improper linking to GNU sites continues. <sigh>
> 
> Sorry, gang, been out of the country for many, many months - looks like no progress here.


DirecTV has responded to me the same way every time.

Their lawyers have reviewed the appropriate documentation...
They have made sure all their vendors of the components, that are required to have the material available... are making it available upon request...

So what you see today... is what is available and what is being done.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

stogie5150 said:


> I have been wondering why, with all the folks that modified the TIVO, nobody has torn into an HR20 and looked around if it really is running Linux. I am sure that the cost of buying a HR20 outright isn't stopping them.
> 
> Of course, my dream is for some genius to discover how, in fifteen minutes of looking around in the HR-20's code, to load up TIVO software in the HR20, enable REAL archiving to a DVD/DIVX format, enabling DLB, removing HDCP, all kinds of worthy things.....there has to be a reason...seriously some of these guys are borderline brilliant, at least to us lowly users....:lol:
> 
> I know, I'm dreaming.


Well you can now purchase it for either $399 or $499... and even then, that wouldn't stop most of them.

Plus the OS is on a eprom chip and not on the drive. 
And is encrypted and protected for just a "casual" view
And must validate upon boot

Unlike the TiVo, where it was wide open.


----------



## stogie5150 (Feb 21, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Well you can now purchase it for either $399 or $499... and even then, that wouldn't stop most of them.
> 
> Plus the OS is on a eprom chip and not on the drive.
> And is encrypted and protected for just a "casual" view
> ...


They said HD disks could never be broken, they were.

They said the whole encryption method of two large North American satellite providers could never be broken. It was.

I think its just a matter of time before Americans get tired of this whole content control thing, and demand control of the content they BUY.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

stogie5150 said:


> They said HD disks could never be broken, they were.
> 
> They said the whole encryption method of two large North American satellite providers could never be broken. It was.
> 
> I think its just a matter of time before Americans get tired of this whole content control thing, and demand control of the content they BUY.


Well none of the content on the DirecTV system, classify as "BUY"

Oh... I am sure someone will be able to break the encryptions....

But last I checked the most current encryption for DirecTV hasn't been broken....

And there is a BIG difference between HD Disks and DirecTV.
With HD Disks, multiple hands (many different companies) had to get information on the encryption methods...

Were as the DirecTV chip (For their OS), is only controlled by them...


----------



## bpratt (Nov 24, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Well you can now purchase it for either $399 or $499... and even then, that wouldn't stop most of them.
> 
> Plus the OS is on a eprom chip and not on the drive.
> And is encrypted and protected for just a "casual" view
> ...


I don't know about all TiVos, but the HR10-250 was not wide open. The OS in the HR10 is on the drive but a routine that was on an eprom chip would verify the OS had not been changed at boot up. If it had been changed, a saved copy of the OS would overlay the boot version, and it would boot up again. 
The original hackers of the HR10 were changing the eprom code so it would not do the check. Eventually, someone discovered a way around changing the eprom.
My point is: If someone really wants to hack the HR2x boxes, they will.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bpratt said:


> I don't know about all TiVos, but the HR10-250 was not wide open. The OS in the HR10 is on the drive but a routine that was on an eprom chip would verify the OS had not been changed at boot up. If it had been changed, a saved copy of the OS would overlay the boot version, and it would boot up again.
> The original hackers of the HR10 were changing the eprom code so it would not do the check. Eventually, someone discovered a way around changing the eprom.
> My point is: If someone really wants to hack the HR2x boxes, they will.


That woudl be the R10 you are referring to.

The HR10-250 was as wide open as any of the previous models...

While I am sure there will probably be someone someday...

The question is at what cost, and what will they be able to do?

Big difference to replace a non-open software image on a chip, with something else...

Then getting a system to bypass an eprom chip (which is kinda "internet" easy now adays, with all the experienes out there with the gaming systems)


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Let's not turn this thread into talk of hacking the HR20 .. The biggest hack of all for the TiVos was for added disk space .. the HR20 does that natively via the eSATA port ..

And while this is an old topic .. let's still go :backtotop


----------



## bemenaker (Jan 6, 2008)

It would be nice to figure out how to keep the internal HDD on and an external, like my current cable box does. (one part I'll miss after Saturday's install).

Reading this thread, if Direct is using GPL code, they do, by law, have to offer the source to download. They can still put custom stuff in there, and keep private, if it is a standalone program. 

The FSF does actively sue companies to force GPL compliance, and to date, have not lost one of these cases.

FSF-Free Software Foundation


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

How does anyone know what the OS is ? 
I haven't read the whole thread - but the 1st post references a post that is showing the UPnP messages. Those are from the Intel UPnP stack - and that license states:



> 2. LICENSE GRANT
> 
> 2.1. Intel Software Source Code. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Intel hereby grants to Licensee under Intel's copyrights in the Intel Software as delivered a nonexclusive, nontransferable, nonsub-licensable (except as explicitly provided herein), worldwide, perpetual (subject to revocation for breach of this license grant or section 8 or any other material breach of this Agreement), *royalty free license to copy, modify and create derivative works of the source code of the Intel Software solely for the purposes of (1) Licensee's internal testing, debugging, validation, development, and maintenance purposes; and (2) developing Licensed Products. *


Also Intels UPnP stack can be compiled under any number of commercially available POSIX implementations.

Just curious how one would know what it is running - I would think Linux is too general purpose.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

Spanky_Partain said:


> Do you really think D* has not already looked at what needed to be done legally to use the linux 2.4.29-uclibc-brcm?
> 
> Not likely!
> 
> The kernel is most likely handed to them as is.


You mean like they apparently didnt realize DLB being wanted?


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

bhelton71 said:


> How does anyone know what the OS is ?
> I haven't read the whole thread - but the 1st post references a post that is showing the UPnP messages. Those are from the Intel UPnP stack - and that license states


Oh, its most certainly Linux. Read this:

Post 195


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> DirecTV has responded to me the same way every time.
> 
> Their lawyers have reviewed the appropriate documentation...
> They have made sure all their vendors of the components, that are required to have the material available... are making it available upon request...
> ...


Earl : How would someone make a request for the GPL sources?

http://www.linux.com/feature/55741


----------



## vurbano (May 15, 2004)

bpratt said:


> I don't know about all TiVos, but the HR10-250 was not wide open. The OS in the HR10 is on the drive but a routine that was on an eprom chip would verify the OS had not been changed at boot up. If it had been changed, a saved copy of the OS would overlay the boot version, and it would boot up again.
> The original hackers of the HR10 were changing the eprom code so it would not do the check. Eventually, someone discovered a way around changing the eprom.
> My point is: If someone really wants to hack the HR2x boxes, they will.


Mine has been wide open for years.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Yup, resurrecting an old thread.

Interesting read:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080813-court-violating-copyleft-copyright-infringement.html

A federal appeals court has ruled that violating a free software license (aka what Directv is doing with the GPL) is grounds for copyright infringement, as opposed to simply a breach of contract.

Still waiting for my copy of the GPL, as well as access to the GPL'd code....


----------



## boylan (Jul 19, 2007)

While DirecTV owes us all a copy of the GPL text, it would still take someone with standing, like the SquashFS people or Linus Torvalds, to legally force them to release the source. 

Unless, of course, DirecTV themselves realized that they were guilty of violating the terms of license for software they were using - and wishing to no longer expose themselves to a copyright infringement suit that it appears they would plainly lose - stepped up and stopped violating the license by distributing the source.

Am I correct?


----------



## BkwSoft (Oct 18, 2007)

DirecTV would only be in violation of the GPL if they were actually modifying the kernel code and then they would only be liable to disclose their changes to the kernel. Any additional software that they write that runs under the Linux kernel they have no legal obligation to disclose.

Do you have any proof that they have made any kernel changes? Or are they simply using the Linux kernel to run their software on?


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

boylan said:


> While DirecTV owes us all a copy of the GPL text, it would still take someone with standing, like the SquashFS people or Linus Torvalds, to legally force them to release the source.


Don't confuse the angry linux mob with 'logic' and 'reason'. It only makes them angrier.... :lol:


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

If there were anything to any of this, it would have surfaced in a meaningful way a *long* time ago, being the HR20-700 has been out nearly two years and it has been commonly known since day one that linux was at its base.

This thread is just fodder for people with too much time on their hands.

If anyone has anything substantial, and not just silly speculation and subsequent pronouncements, bring your proof if you are truthful.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

Just don't get the point of this thread still

I don't understand how DirecTV would be the contact when its Broadcoms chips using the LinuxMIPS distro - and I would hazard a guess Broadcoms lawyers would be all over it - considering they use the MIPS distro in a substantial number of their products.

Set-Top_Box_series


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

mateom199 said:


> Still waiting for my copy of the GPL, as well as access to the GPL'd code....


From whom did you request these ?
When was it done, and how (electronic or hard-copy written document)?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

boylan said:


> While DirecTV owes us all a copy of the GPL text, it would still take someone with standing, like the SquashFS people or Linus Torvalds, to legally force them to release the source.
> 
> Unless, of course, DirecTV themselves realized that they were guilty of violating the terms of license for software they were using - and wishing to no longer expose themselves to a copyright infringement suit that it appears they would plainly lose - stepped up and stopped violating the license by distributing the source.
> 
> Am I correct?


With the legions of lawyers DIRECTV undoubtedly has, I'd say that they've pretty much already put this argument to bed. As hasan noted, we'd have heard something long ago if there was any substance.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Not to mentiion that not all flavors of Linux are free, there are some that a licensed copy has to be purchased


----------



## boylan (Jul 19, 2007)

BkwSoft said:


> DirecTV would only be in violation of the GPL if they were actually modifying the kernel code and then they would only be liable to disclose their changes to the kernel. Any additional software that they write that runs under the Linux kernel they have no legal obligation to disclose.
> 
> Do you have any proof that they have made any kernel changes? Or are they simply using the Linux kernel to run their software on?


Not sure if you were referencing me, but my use of the word source was only referring to changes they have made to GPL'd code. I am not under the impression that use of Linux requires companies to release everything they've ever written.

For instance, with TiVo, they had to release the kernel source and some other stuff, but not any source for tivoapp, which was not affected by the GPL.

I have absolutely no idea what would be affected by the GPL in the HR2x series, but am curious to find out. I like knowing how things work.



wingrider01 said:


> Not to mention that not all flavors of Linux are free, there are some that a licensed copy has to be purchased


Well, any flavor of Linux that uses Linus's kernel or its derivatives can be sold, or have accompanying paid support, but they are also required to post the source for no charge on a network or deliver it physically at a price no more than reasonable cost (like the cost of CD and postage).

This means that companies like Red Hat can charge for Linux, but they have to provide the source of their work, which can be compiled by groups like those that run CentOS, which provides what is essentially Red Hat Linux for free.


----------



## boylan (Jul 19, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> With the legions of lawyers DIRECTV undoubtedly has, I'd say that they've pretty much already put this argument to bed. As hasan noted, we'd have heard something long ago if there was any substance.


Well, unless the DirecTV lawyers concluded that they have no liability and the liability is on NDS or some other party. Then, they don't have to care - although I'm unsure of the ownership status of NDS or even if they still make the HR2x or whatever.

But if DirecTV thinks the problem is not theirs, and the company whose problem it is doesn't care about violating it - then its very possible that there has been a violation that has persisted for years without anything coming of it.

I think the fact that this thread keeps dying is an indication that no one cares enough to pursue it - and that could be a greater reason as to why nothing has happened, rather than there is no substance to the argument. That, I guess, was my original point - which I apparently made poorly.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

All I know is that if I were DIRECTV (clearly I'm not), I would have checked, double checked, then triple checked this status .. common sense tells me that DIRECTV would do the same .. Your claims that there are a violation require assumptions on your part.

So, while the answer may in fact be obvious to you, I would still say that the answer is not so obvious.


----------



## boylan (Jul 19, 2007)

I don't mean to be getting into a small argument about parsing words - but I don't believe it is obvious that DirecTV is in violation of anything. I just believe it is possible that whomever has the responsibility for the code in the box (be it DirecTV, NDS, Broadcom, etc.) could be in violation.

I also believe that because nothing has happened so far does not make it obvious that there is no substance to the possibility of a GPL violation, rather it just makes it *likely* that there is no substance.

I just pointed out that if there was a violation, and DirecTV felt the liability was not theirs - that could also lead to our current situation, which is one of absolutely nothing happening.

And even if some of us became somehow assured that some violation was occurring (which would probably require access to the code - a true Catch-22), there was nothing we could do about it, because we do not own the copyright (or copyleft) on the software in question.

So, basically none of this matters unless someone finds a true violation (which is possible, but by no means definite or even likely - and is unlikely to be found even if it existed), and then gets someone with standing to sue or at least send a legal letter of some sort to whomever is responsible - which we can't even figure out.

As a result this issue will likely never be resolved in either fashion unless some crazy kid starts breaking into the prom chip or whatever holds the code - and I know for a fact it won't be me - or DirecTV comes out with a long explanation detailing what's going on (which is even less likely than the hacker kid, because there's no reason for them to open this can of worms, especially since it could open them to more liability).

So, I guess we'll do this dance again in 8-12 months. I look forward to it.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

From what little I have read in this thread, if they haven't modified the base code (just running their software on top) then they don't have to do anything..


----------



## boylan (Jul 19, 2007)

houskamp said:


> From what little I have read in this thread, if they haven't modified the base code (just running their software on top) then they don't have to do anything..


Correct, but we couldn't know they haven't modified anything without looking at the code or getting an opinion from DirecTV. That is the likely situation, but we can't know for sure.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

boylan said:


> Correct, but we couldn't know they haven't modified anything without looking at the code or getting an opinion from DirecTV. That is the likely situation, but we can't know for sure.


So they have to disclose what they don't have to disclose?

DISH has a GPL page which is very useless ... a few scraps of modified code and a comment about propriatary code. Plus a warning that you can't build a receiver code from what they have given you because of the missing pieces that they don't have to share.

Perhaps DirecTV should spend a webpage somewhere saying "we use unmodified GPL code and propriatary non-GPL code as part of our software" sharing no code. Do they have to?

Complaining certainly has not changed the situation.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> So they have to disclose what they don't have to disclose?
> 
> DISH has a GPL page which is very useless ... a few scraps of modified code and a comment about propriatary code. Plus a warning that you can't build a receiver code from what they have given you because of the missing pieces that they don't have to share.
> 
> ...


Could I have that as the front page splash? 

Well said


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

boylan said:


> Not sure if you were referencing me, but my use of the word source was only referring to changes they have made to GPL'd code. I am not under the impression that use of Linux requires companies to release everything they've ever written.
> 
> For instance, with TiVo, they had to release the kernel source and some other stuff, but not any source for tivoapp, which was not affected by the GPL.
> 
> ...


Funny don't see that option with my IBM servers


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

boylan said:


> Correct, but we couldn't know they haven't modified anything without looking at the code or getting an opinion from DirecTV. That is the likely situation, but we can't know for sure.


So since this thread has been reawakened - lets summarize for the next go round:

1) There is no indication that programmers at DirecTV have modified any GPL'd code 
2) Broadcom has disclosed their modifications, including modifications to gcc and networking and the list goes on
3) The FSF does pursue litigation vigorously and they are quite successful - so that in itself should cast doubt on any violation

Godspeed little thread - and until you are called upon again - a warm adieu.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

BkwSoft said:


> DirecTV would only be in violation of the GPL if they were actually modifying the kernel code and then they would only be liable to disclose their changes to the kernel. Any additional software that they write that runs under the Linux kernel they have no legal obligation to disclose.
> 
> Do you have any proof that they have made any kernel changes? Or are they simply using the Linux kernel to run their software on?


I'm not going to repeat what myself and others have outlined earlier in this thread, but the GPL requires a copy of the license, as well as a method to obtain the GPL'd source code, whenever GPL'd code is distributed. It does not matter whether any modifications were made - DirecTV is distributing GPL'd code, and as such is bound by the terms of the GPL.


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> With the legions of lawyers DIRECTV undoubtedly has, I'd say that they've pretty much already put this argument to bed. As hasan noted, we'd have heard something long ago if there was any substance.


Why do you think that? Isn't it possible that DirecTV is just acting...arrogant? Just like the countless posts in this thread saying "who cares, you couldn't do anything with the source", DTV may simply think they are above the law. Its not about the practicality of the compliance, its about the principle. I could care less about the source code. I'm simply concerned with corporate arrogance, and DirecTV's complete disrespect for the open source community's work (that they are clearly profiting off of).

Don't you think its interesting that Tivo AND Dish both included a copy of the GPL, as well as provided ALL source that was necessary to be in fulfillment of the GPL?


----------



## mateom199 (Sep 14, 2006)

boylan said:


> But if DirecTV thinks the problem is not theirs, and the company whose problem it is doesn't care about violating it - then its very possible that there has been a violation that has persisted for years without anything coming of it.
> 
> I think the fact that this thread keeps dying is an indication that no one cares enough to pursue it - and that could be a greater reason as to why nothing has happened, rather than there is no substance to the argument. That, I guess, was my original point - which I apparently made poorly.


boylan, I couldn't have said it any better. Thank you.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I wish I understood the passion that exists on the part of those who are upset at not receiving the GPL from DIRECTV. I wish I had this passion for anything else that others seem to have for a document ...


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> I wish I understood the passion that exists on the part of those who are upset at not receiving the GPL from DIRECTV. I wish I had this passion for anything else that others seem to have for a document ...


Well then why don't you design a product that uses Windows CE and not pay the fees, royalties and licenses that MS will nail you up down and around for? Or acknowledge the ownership?

It's quite simple; many electronic and computer devices use a system that involves many thousands of manhours of work. They use it for FREE. Now that's something D* HD users know; the word FREE. All the coders ask is an acknowledgement of its use and the fact the code is available. That seems a small price. Oh there is no price!

Imagine if D* had to pay for Windows embedded; how much would your bill go up? Or imagine if D* had to design the basic OS?

TIVO, Dlink, etc. all reference the base code and routines.

I'm amazed at the willingness to use stuff for free and not tell anyone. Really sad and pathetic.


----------



## boylan (Jul 19, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> I wish I understood the passion that exists on the part of those who are upset at not receiving the GPL from DIRECTV. I wish I had this passion for anything else that others seem to have for a document ...


Personally, as a sometime developer I have been helped immensely by the GPL - because it made further developments possible. We're discussing this on a board that is a Linux server running Apache, PHP and presumably MySQL.

This is not because they are free as in beer, which, for instance, vBulletin is not. This is because over the past 15 some-odd years developers have contributed massive amounts of time refining these things because they knew that others would not be exclusively profiting off of their efforts, but rather they would be providing a service that they themselves have benefited from in the past. Paying it forward, of sorts.

Because not only are they giving away their own work, they are doing so in the knowledge that anyone who uses their work to create a further work will be required to give it away as well. And when it is all done, the result will be something greater than anything any one of them could have done themselves - all because of the guarantees that open source licensing makes.

While I have done nothing to contribute to Linux (other than helping some on Linux boards and the like), my business uses LAMP to create websites and I am able to make a living offering my services using open source tools. This is only possible because of the work of others, and I am deeply in debt to them - and as such, I am willing to fight for them if their wishes and the terms under which they donated their work are being ignored.

That mouthful being said - I still have no idea if that is happening here - and likely will not know at any time in the near future. So, it's merely idle speculation - but isn't that what almost all of the threads in the Cutting Edge forum and predictions about what channels are going to be added all about?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Bushwacr said:


> I'm amazed at the willingness to use stuff for free and not tell anyone. Really sad and pathetic.


But they tell anyone who cares to read the user guide that they use open source software:



> G. Additional Information
> Certain additional terms and information for the Software and certain third party software (including the text of licenses applicable to any free, open source and other similar software that may be included in the Software) may be found in the DIRECTV Customer Agreement, the DIRECTV website located at www.directv.com, and the GNU website located at www.gnu.org.


I'm just still not understanding the passion this raises in follks because they aren't sending the actual GPL to you ... why lose sleep over it or gnash teeth at it?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

boylan said:


> Personally, as a sometime developer I have been helped immensely by the GPL - because it made further developments possible. We're discussing this on a board that is a Linux server running Apache, PHP and presumably MySQL.
> 
> This is not because they are free as in beer, which, for instance, vBulletin is not. This is because over the past 15 some-odd years developers have contributed massive amounts of time refining these things because they knew that others would not be exclusively profiting off of their efforts, but rather they would be providing a service that they themselves have benefited from in the past. Paying it forward, of sorts.


And I understand this perspective as well, but still fail to see how or why people would rail about it with such fervor ... that's just me I guess. :shrug:


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Drew2k said:


> And I understand this perspective as well, but still fail to see how or why people would rail about it with such fervor ... that's just me I guess. :shrug:


I find it irritating that D* provides only a casual and oblique reference to the work of so many expert programmers who contributed their efforts to the public good, while D* is just in it for the money. The least they could do is provide a courteous acknowledgment of the great debt they owe. I'm sure that D*'s army of lawyers has made sure they can get away with saying no more than they do. Is that all that counts with you?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

BkwSoft said:


> DirecTV would only be in violation of the GPL if they were actually modifying the kernel code and then they would only be liable to disclose their changes to the kernel. Any additional software that they write that runs under the Linux kernel they have no legal obligation to disclose.
> 
> Do you have any proof that they have made any kernel changes? Or are they simply using the Linux kernel to run their software on?


It was posted at other sites:
from system log of HR20-600, check who modified the kernel (bold)

```
kernel: Linux version 2.4.29-uclibc-brcm build version  ([B][U][email protected][/U][/B]) (gcc version 3.3.6) #1 Tue May 8 20:45:09 PDT 2007
kernel: Using Pace TLB configuration
kernel: Using Pace GPIO reboot code
kernel: Determined physical RAM map:
kernel:  memory: 10000000 @ 00000000 (usable)
kernel: User-defined physical RAM map:
kernel:  memory: 03000000 @ 00000000 (usable)
kernel:  memory: 05000000 @ 03000000 (usable)
kernel:  memory: 08000000 @ 08000000 (usable)
kernel: On node 0 totalpages: 65536
kernel: zone(0): 65536 pages.
kernel: zone(1): 0 pages.
kernel: zone(2): 0 pages.
kernel: Kernel command line: mtdparts=pace_dtv:[email protected](loader),[email protected](kernel),[email protected](rootfs),[email protected](reserved) root=/dev/mtdblock2 rootfstype=squashfs console=/dev/null
kernel: Enable the cache parity protection for MIPS 5KC CPUs.
kernel: timer irq 65 end 62
kernel: Using 148.501 MHz high precision timer.
kernel: Calibrating delay loop... brcm timer int
kernel: 296.55 BogoMIPS
kernel: Memory: 174452k/262144k available (2229k kernel code, 87692k reserved, 152k data, 100k init, 0k highmem)
kernel: Dentry cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 6, 262144 bytes)
kernel: Inode cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 5, 131072 bytes)
kernel: Mount cache hash table entries: 512 (order: 0, 4096 bytes)
kernel: Buffer cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 4, 65536 bytes)
kernel: Page-cache hash table entries: 65536 (order: 6, 262144 bytes)
kernel: bcmrac: RAC mode=0xd0, floor=0x00000000, ceiling=0x0fffffff
kernel: Checking for 'wait' instruction...  available.
kernel: POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX
kernel: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ dev=242, vendor=1166, did=2421166
kernel: Setting up SATA controller, VD Rev=00000520, pll_war=0, sata2_war=0, sata2_on=1
kernel: SATA: Primary Bus Master Status Register offset = b0520000 + 00000300 = b0520300
kernel: SATA: before init Primary Bus Master Status reg = 0x00000000.
kernel: SATA: after init Primary Bus Master Status reg = 0x00000020.
kernel: SATA: Secondary Bus Master Status Register offset = b0520000 + 00000300 = b0520300
kernel: SATA: before init Secondary Bus Master Status reg = 0x00000000.
kernel: SATA: after init Secondary Bus Master Status reg = 0x00000060.
kernel: Linux NET4.0 for Linux 2.4
kernel: Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039
kernel: Initializing RT netlink socket
kernel: Starting kswapd
kernel: JFFS2 version 2.1. (C) 2001 Red Hat, Inc., designed by Axis Communications AB.
kernel: Squashfs 2.1-r2 (released 2004/12/15) (C) 2002-2004 Phillip Lougher
kernel: SGI XFS with realtime, no debug enabled
kernel: pty: 256 Unix98 ptys configured
kernel: HDLC line discipline: version $Revision: 3.7 $, maxframe=4096
kernel: N_HDLC line discipline registered.
kernel: loop: loaded (max 8 devices)
kernel: PPP generic driver version 2.4.2
kernel: PPP Deflate Compression module registered
kernel: PPP BSD Compression module registered
kernel: bcmemac_net_probe: ver 1
kernel: Broadcom BCM703822 Ethernet Network Device v1.0 May  8 2007 20:45:36
kernel: init_buffers: 96 descriptors initialized
kernel: init_buffers: 00000060 descriptors initialized, from flowctl
kernel: BCMINTMAC: Auto-negotiation timed-out
kernel: BCMINTMAC: 10 MB Half-Duplex (assumed)
```


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

GregLee said:


> I find it irritating that D* provides only a casual and oblique reference to the work of so many expert programmers who contributed their efforts to the public good, while D* is just in it for the money. The least they could do is provide a courteous acknowledgment of the great debt they owe. I'm sure that D*'s army of lawyers has made sure they can get away with saying no more than they do. Is that all that counts with you?


The best fortune cookie fortune I've ever received:

_"He who expects no gratitude shall never be disappointed"_


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Redlinetire said:


> The best fortune cookie fortune I've ever received:
> 
> _"He who expects no gratitude shall never be disappointed"_


Then tell me what would be stimulus for all open source supporting ppl ?
Seems to me you never wrote a program.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

P Smith said:


> It was posted at other sites:
> from system log of HR20-600, check who modified the kernel (bold)
> 
> ```
> ...


Custom Build <> Custom Code

(Nor does it indicate who even did the custom build for that matter, merely who the likely customer was.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> And I understand this perspective as well, but still fail to see how or why people would rail about it with such fervor ... that's just me I guess. :shrug:


Drew,

Certainly the passion is nothing like that for HD channel launches .

Seriously, the Open Source movement encompasses people that have dedicated great portions of their working lives to the products and the whole idea of Open Source software. They are truly "invested" in that movement and are going to be very apt to fight for strict adherence to the license.

On the other hand, if the group with legal standing is unwilling to take any action (legal or even PR related) on this issue (have they been asked?) then that should stand as either their agreement that DirecTV has done enough or they're not all that interested in protecting their rights under the license.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Tom, if you want go into details, you could use your own DVR , but there are strong indications of _customized_ kernel. 
Please participate, don't hesitate to look inside your DVR's disk.


----------



## RCY (Nov 17, 2005)

Ken S said:


> ...
> On the other hand, if the group with legal standing is unwilling to take any action (legal or even PR related) on this issue (have they been asked?) then that should stand as either their agreement that DirecTV has done enough or they're not all that interested in protecting their rights under the license.


Spot on, Ken.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Tom, if you want go into details, you could use your own DVR , but there are strong indications of _customized_ kernel.
> Please participate, don't hesitate to look inside your DVR's disk.


That's Ok. I'm happy reacting to the hard work of others in this thread. 

Playing devils advocate for just a moment: Does a mention of the GPL and Linux really honor the many hard working programmers? To me it might and it might not, I'm not really sure.

My personal feelings on this topic haven't changed from my much earlier postings, btw.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Tom, if you want go into details, you could use your own DVR , but there are strong indications of _customized_ kernel.
> Please participate, don't hesitate to look inside your DVR's disk.


There are several ways to customize a Linux kernel that are perfectly normal for a user -- I've done it a number of times. You choose the drivers you want to compile, whether you want them to be modules, you may include proprietary closed source drivers, you choose which filesystems to use, what scheduling algorithm, what compiler and assembler. I don't think D* would have any reason to go beyond this ordinary sort of customization.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Would be looking into kernel and reading some text tell you about non-ordinary customization ? Or you prefer to see full source ? Then DTV must disclose it.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Or you prefer to see full source ? Then DTV must disclose it.


Must it? If you say so. I don't know much about this licensing stuff. I have some vague recollection that "disclosing" the source might mean no more than supplying a reference to where it may be obtained for the cost of distribution.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

> kernel: BCMINTMAC: Auto-negotiation timed-out
> kernel: BCMINTMAC: 10 MB Half-Duplex (assumed)


OT, wonder whats causing the time-out/half duplex issue.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Wasn't connected to network that time.


----------



## adam1115 (Dec 16, 2003)

Just curious if any progress was ever made on this.

It seems like we know for sure that the TiVo OS uses a modified linux kernel, will they be releasing the source for the THR-22 kernel?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You would have to take that up with TiVo. 

In the meantime, this thread, which came from 2007, is closed. If you wish to discuss the GPL in regard to any of DIRECTV's more current offerings, please open a new thread. Thanks.


----------

