Article explaining tivoisation

[Alex Hudson]

On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 14:52 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > The obvious example is someone porting a free software game to a
> > proprietary console (e.g., with XNA Game Studio Express), or similar.
> 
> For a proprietary console, there's not problem.  For a tivoised console:
> 
> But how would someone do that port without having been in collusion with the
> person in control of the tivoisation?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "in collusion" :o)

Clearly, it needs to be with the agreement of the person/organisation
who controls the hardware, by definition.

> So is it any different if Tivo writes the software or if Tivo colludes with
> a third-party for the software to be written?

Well, in terms of intent, it obviously different, in that the
third-party isn't the one restricting the freedoms.

What we effectively end up with is a broad definition of "Live free, or
die" - I see a big difference in surrendering others' freedom, and
others surrendering your freedom: with the former, you're not allowed to
restrict a program by nefarious means. With the latter, you cannot use
the program in scenarios where it would be restricted. 

But, I'm not arguing whether or not the clause is useful.

Going back to my original point, while the hardware manufacturers (and,
in some ways, the OS manufacturers - but less so) are the ones who are
the cause of the problem, such a clause affects everyone who uses such
products.  

So, I don't think it's accurate to characterise it as a clause which
only affects hardware manufacturers: the effects are much wider.

Cheers,

Alex.