Article explaining tivoisation

[Alex Hudson]

On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 13:57 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Alex Hudson <home at alexhudson.com> writes:
> > the "Tivoisation" clause can affect those people just distributing
> > software
> 
> Just distributing is never enough to make that clause kick in.  The clause
> adds a requirement if some keys are necessary in order to install/modify/run
> the software.  Keys will only ever be necessary if you have arranged with
> the hardware manufacturer for them to be necessary.

Keys will be necessary if the *hardware manufacturer* has arranged for
them to be necessary. That's different to "this clause only covers
hardware manufacturers", which is incorrect, and is also different to
"if you have arranged with the hardware manufacturer for them to be
necessary", which implies you asked the manufacturer to make that so.

The obvious example is someone porting a free software game to a
proprietary console (e.g., with XNA Game Studio Express), or similar.

The hardware can be locked without the software author being in
collusion with the hardware manufacturer: there are many popular pieces
of hardware which are so locked. 

There are also examples of operating systems with similar locks and/or
safety belts. For example, writing a device driver for Windows - it will
whine if the driver isn't signed. Ditto browser plugins, in some cases.

I'm not saying that the clause isn't useful; I'm just pointing out your
characterisation of it affecting only hardware manufacturers or friends
of hardware manufacturers isn't particularly accurate. It's about the
means of distribution.

Cheers,

Alex.