""" If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind ... [GPL.v3] crimps the style of mad scientists everywhere by also putting restrictions on the use of the source code. You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version """
Why do you assume that TiVo "exploited" a "weakness", when the software authors of prominent GPLv.2 projects (or other licenses that allow "tivoization") don't think that's the case?
What did TiVo did so awful to call it an exploit and market a derogative term after them, trashing their brand?
What "exploit" is there when you can make your own phones with Android's software on it?
If you, as a software author (working hard on your software) do not want YOUR software to be used in the way TiVo did, then GPL.v3 is fine and has its place in the world certainly, but other than that, what the hell are people smoking?
Also, Linus' opinion represents that of the majority of core kernel contributers. This can be checked, based on their mailing list, and based on the growing list of companies sponsoring its development.
why you think the FSF's position is ambiguous
My problem is with all the other people that suddenly discover the virtues of Free Software and consider it within their right to trash other people's work. Unfortunately being negative on the Internet is far too easy. Meritocracy doesn't work. The FSF has the right to bitch and moan about open-source versus free-software. Most other people do not.
All I'm saying -- it depends on who's perspective you're relying on, and since when talking about TiVo you're mostly talking about the Linux kernel, I gave it as a shining example of a project who's main founder disagrees.
The part about Torvald ... he merely tolerates it
That said I completely agree that Motorola are assholes.
But you cannot change their behavior, unless you're going to do it by means of healthy competition -- simply because if Android were to impose stricter rules on locking, Motorola wouldn't have joined the party, and I'm pretty sure they are still skeptical about their choice ;-)
Imagine if Android somehow becomes the standard, just as Windows, but for mobile phones. And that you can run your apps on every phone, and thus have no vendor lock-in (like people have with iOS for example) -- the truth of the matter is that software is much more bigger than hardware, and mobile phones themselves will be a complementary to software (just as PCs currently are).
In this instance do you think Motorola will afford to lose market share to smaller, more open manufacturers that will be dying to grab a chunk of the market by any means necessary?
Which it the reason they probably are trying to do lock-in now, when the market is unprepared for it -- you're witnessing a land-grab. Apple does it too -- the more they shove on their customer's necks, the more they'll have in the future when competition will be stronger.
The important part of this story is that other manufacturers will be able to join the game, and unless something is yet to unfold, this is precisely what Google wants, as it is in their best interest. Not only that but they are putting pressure on it by releasing unjailed devices like Nexus S.
Have some faith in humanity dude :-) Software is a relatively new field versus all the others.
If that's not a reasonable advantage and you still depend on the goodwill of the parent company for future versions -- then you're basically saying that open-source / free-software licenses are useless.
Which is not true, as there are examples of famous forks available -- see XFree86 / Xorg; although forks don't happen so often because they take a lot of resources and energy, and there has to be enough incentive for a fork to survive.