#tivoization — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #tivoization, aggregated by home.social.
-
Do you know what “#Tivoization” means?
#RichardStallman coined this term to criticize a practice that restricts user freedom: even with free and opensource software, some devices block the execution of modified versions.
Yes, but why this name?
It simply takes the name of the first product (Tivo) this terrible practice was applied.Did you know? 😬
-
Do you know what “#Tivoization” means?
#RichardStallman coined this term to criticize a practice that restricts user freedom: even with free and opensource software, some devices block the execution of modified versions.
Yes, but why this name?
It simply takes the name of the first product (Tivo) this terrible practice was applied.Did you know? 😬
-
Do you know what “#Tivoization” means?
#RichardStallman coined this term to criticize a practice that restricts user freedom: even with free and opensource software, some devices block the execution of modified versions.
Yes, but why this name?
It simply takes the name of the first product (Tivo) this terrible practice was applied.Did you know? 😬
-
Do you know what “#Tivoization” means?
#RichardStallman coined this term to criticize a practice that restricts user freedom: even with free and opensource software, some devices block the execution of modified versions.
Yes, but why this name?
It simply takes the name of the first product (Tivo) this terrible practice was applied.Did you know? 😬
-
Have the open source and open data communities, including organizations like the @eff, @creativecommons, or the @fsf, given any thought yet to updating various #FOSS and other licenses to address the current #SaaS problem of code or data that isn't necessarily being "redistributed," allowing these companies to dodge the obligation to contribute changes back upstream? How about the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the #GPLv3 and #FDL, #CreativeCommons licenses, and other open-license content that is often scooped up regardless of licensing into #AI #datasets that are then put behind #paywalls?
To me, this seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to the evolution of #GPLv2 to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting licensed code, writing, or other data into a walled garden where even the original contributors that they rely on are charged for access.
I'm not anti-business. If these companies were at least making the data sets freely available, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with making value-added profit off of properly-licensed data, although examples like CC-BY-NC 4.0 are a notable exception that should also be considered. Companies like Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, and others have been making money legally off of open source software for decades.
Just because the label "AI" is slapped on something doesn't mean that companies should be allowed to ignore copyrights or licensing terms. If they want to do that, and licensing or requiring free access to open-content data can't prevent this land-grab, perhaps its time we collectively revisit the whole framework around #intellectualproperty that currently allows corporations like #Disney and uncountable #PatentTrolls to create ever-expanding assertions of property rights that prevent almost any material from entering the public domain within a single human lifetime.
-
Have the open source and open data communities, including organizations like the @eff, @creativecommons, or the @fsf, given any thought yet to updating various #FOSS and other licenses to address the current #SaaS problem of code or data that isn't necessarily being "redistributed," allowing these companies to dodge the obligation to contribute changes back upstream? How about the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the #GPLv3 and #FDL, #CreativeCommons licenses, and other open-license content that is often scooped up regardless of licensing into #AI #datasets that are then put behind #paywalls?
To me, this seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to the evolution of #GPLv2 to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting licensed code, writing, or other data into a walled garden where even the original contributors that they rely on are charged for access.
I'm not anti-business. If these companies were at least making the data sets freely available, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with making value-added profit off of properly-licensed data, although examples like CC-BY-NC 4.0 are a notable exception that should also be considered. Companies like Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, and others have been making money legally off of open source software for decades.
Just because the label "AI" is slapped on something doesn't mean that companies should be allowed to ignore copyrights or licensing terms. If they want to do that, and licensing or requiring free access to open-content data can't prevent this land-grab, perhaps its time we collectively revisit the whole framework around #intellectualproperty that currently allows corporations like #Disney and uncountable #PatentTrolls to create ever-expanding assertions of property rights that prevent almost any material from entering the public domain within a single human lifetime.
-
Have the open source and open data communities, including organizations like the @eff, @creativecommons, or the @fsf, given any thought yet to updating various #FOSS and other licenses to address the current #SaaS problem of code or data that isn't necessarily being "redistributed," allowing these companies to dodge the obligation to contribute changes back upstream? How about the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the #GPLv3 and #FDL, #CreativeCommons licenses, and other open-license content that is often scooped up regardless of licensing into #AI #datasets that are then put behind #paywalls?
To me, this seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to the evolution of #GPLv2 to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting licensed code, writing, or other data into a walled garden where even the original contributors that they rely on are charged for access.
I'm not anti-business. If these companies were at least making the data sets freely available, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with making value-added profit off of properly-licensed data, although examples like CC-BY-NC 4.0 are a notable exception that should also be considered. Companies like Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, and others have been making money legally off of open source software for decades.
Just because the label "AI" is slapped on something doesn't mean that companies should be allowed to ignore copyrights or licensing terms. If they want to do that, and licensing or requiring free access to open-content data can't prevent this land-grab, perhaps its time we collectively revisit the whole framework around #intellectualproperty that currently allows corporations like #Disney and uncountable #PatentTrolls to create ever-expanding assertions of property rights that prevent almost any material from entering the public domain within a single human lifetime.
-
Have the open source and open data communities, including organizations like the @eff, @creativecommons, or the @fsf, given any thought yet to updating various #FOSS and other licenses to address the current #SaaS problem of code or data that isn't necessarily being "redistributed," allowing these companies to dodge the obligation to contribute changes back upstream? How about the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the #GPLv3 and #FDL, #CreativeCommons licenses, and other open-license content that is often scooped up regardless of licensing into #AI #datasets that are then put behind #paywalls?
To me, this seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to the evolution of #GPLv2 to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting licensed code, writing, or other data into a walled garden where even the original contributors that they rely on are charged for access.
I'm not anti-business. If these companies were at least making the data sets freely available, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with making value-added profit off of properly-licensed data, although examples like CC-BY-NC 4.0 are a notable exception that should also be considered. Companies like Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, and others have been making money legally off of open source software for decades.
Just because the label "AI" is slapped on something doesn't mean that companies should be allowed to ignore copyrights or licensing terms. If they want to do that, and licensing or requiring free access to open-content data can't prevent this land-grab, perhaps its time we collectively revisit the whole framework around #intellectualproperty that currently allows corporations like #Disney and uncountable #PatentTrolls to create ever-expanding assertions of property rights that prevent almost any material from entering the public domain within a single human lifetime.
-
Have the open source and open data communities, including organizations like the @eff, @creativecommons, or the @fsf, given any thought yet to updating various #FOSS and other licenses to address the current #SaaS problem of code or data that isn't necessarily being "redistributed," allowing these companies to dodge the obligation to contribute changes back upstream? How about the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the #GPLv3 and #FDL, #CreativeCommons licenses, and other open-license content that is often scooped up regardless of licensing into #AI #datasets that are then put behind #paywalls?
To me, this seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to the evolution of #GPLv2 to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting licensed code, writing, or other data into a walled garden where even the original contributors that they rely on are charged for access.
I'm not anti-business. If these companies were at least making the data sets freely available, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with making value-added profit off of properly-licensed data, although examples like CC-BY-NC 4.0 are a notable exception that should also be considered. Companies like Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, and others have been making money legally off of open source software for decades.
Just because the label "AI" is slapped on something doesn't mean that companies should be allowed to ignore copyrights or licensing terms. If they want to do that, and licensing or requiring free access to open-content data can't prevent this land-grab, perhaps its time we collectively revisit the whole framework around #intellectualproperty that currently allows corporations like #Disney and uncountable #PatentTrolls to create ever-expanding assertions of property rights that prevent almost any material from entering the public domain within a single human lifetime.
-
@fsf Has there been any thought given to updating the #GPL or FDL to address the #SaaS problem where code isn't necessarily being "redistributed," or the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the GPL, FDL, or similar open licenses in #AI #datasets?
It seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting our GPL-licensed data behind a #paywall.
-
@fsf Has there been any thought given to updating the #GPL or FDL to address the #SaaS problem where code isn't necessarily being "redistributed," or the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the GPL, FDL, or similar open licenses in #AI #datasets?
It seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting our GPL-licensed data behind a #paywall.
-
@fsf Has there been any thought given to updating the #GPL or FDL to address the #SaaS problem where code isn't necessarily being "redistributed," or the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the GPL, FDL, or similar open licenses in #AI #datasets?
It seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting our GPL-licensed data behind a #paywall.
-
@fsf Has there been any thought given to updating the #GPL or FDL to address the #SaaS problem where code isn't necessarily being "redistributed," or the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the GPL, FDL, or similar open licenses in #AI #datasets?
It seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting our GPL-licensed data behind a #paywall.
-
@fsf Has there been any thought given to updating the #GPL or FDL to address the #SaaS problem where code isn't necessarily being "redistributed," or the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the GPL, FDL, or similar open licenses in #AI #datasets?
It seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting our GPL-licensed data behind a #paywall.
-
@aktivismoEstasMiaLuo If the second would be the only problem, there possibly would be a solution: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=telegram+apk (I am unsure).
About the first, I think tivoized smartphones are unsuitable for anonymity even if you replaced Android with F-Droid.
#Signal #Telegram #apk #Android #FDroid #tivoization #smartphone #smartphones #anonymity #anonymous #anon
-
Dear #freesoftware #legal community: I need some help finding comments on #GPLv3 #tivoization clause and whther the term "user product" covers the case of your company handing out devices to you as a work tool.
I need to convice someone that they don't have to give their employees root access on in-house devices (mobile phones).
-
@djsumdog @wolftune @CharredStencil @LWFlouisa
> the Linux Kernel never upgrading to v3.The only differences this creates is that certain changes were made in GPLv3 to protect users against things like some aspects of software patents, and the use of GPL software in locked-down hardware that doesn't allow people who buy it to make use of all four software freedoms ("#Tivoization"). See:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html
