Shane Coughlan
TFF: How widespread GPLv3 adoption could force open many set-top boxes built on Gnu/Linux and other major FLOSS apps, and therefore change business models?
Shane: Wide-spread GPLv3 adoption will lead to the inclusion of more GPLv3 code in media centres. These centres will then benefit from providing a lasting grant of the four freedoms to everyone involved in production
and use.
GPLv3 won't force open set top boxes. People can choose to use (or not to use) GPLv3 code. However, the benefits of Free Software are pretty clear; using Free Software gives you access to technologies and opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable.
If people want to receive the benefits they also need to embrace the paradigm. Indeed, the benefit is directly derived from the paradigm; it's not an optional extra.
TFF: Why and how, directly and indirectly, having FLOSS media centers prevents the creation of new gate-keepers to restrict viewers choice?
Shane: It does not directly prevent gatekeepers. People can make technologies that restrict others. GPLv3 terms only apply to the GPLv3 code. However, GPLv3 and other Free Software licences foster an expectation of openness, of sharing and of creativity. This expectation (and its requirement in a healthy market) means that restricting people becomes less acceptable. It's not a smart mid-to-long-term choice anyway; monopolies tend not to last. Free Software just speeds up the process to a better technology market.
TFF: Is there a risk of prolification of too many FLOSS media center distributions?
Shane: This is not a licensing issue, but rather a management and design issue. Forking technologies, having competing technologies, is part of a healthy market. However, as with everything else in life, too much fragmentation translates not into healthy competition, but needless duplication of work. Ten projects engineer the same basic solution ten times, instead of sharing resources to make an effective base platform, and competing on a more limited set of features or approaches to using that platform.
It depends on perception. If people think 100% of the code in their media centre is a competitive advantage, they will try not to share any of it. However, a more realistic assessment would suggest that pretty much all of the software on the box is doing non-unique things, and that the value proposition - the unique selling point - usually lies in the way they present the solution.
Too much fragmentation reduces the effectiveness of platforms. That being said, sometimes it's necessary to go and make something new. We just have to strike a sensible balance. This balance is likely to err on the side of cooperation. Then use the time you freed up to create cool future technology if you wish.
Shane: Wide-spread GPLv3 adoption will lead to the inclusion of more GPLv3 code in media centres. These centres will then benefit from providing a lasting grant of the four freedoms to everyone involved in production
and use.
GPLv3 won't force open set top boxes. People can choose to use (or not to use) GPLv3 code. However, the benefits of Free Software are pretty clear; using Free Software gives you access to technologies and opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable.
If people want to receive the benefits they also need to embrace the paradigm. Indeed, the benefit is directly derived from the paradigm; it's not an optional extra.
TFF: Why and how, directly and indirectly, having FLOSS media centers prevents the creation of new gate-keepers to restrict viewers choice?
Shane: It does not directly prevent gatekeepers. People can make technologies that restrict others. GPLv3 terms only apply to the GPLv3 code. However, GPLv3 and other Free Software licences foster an expectation of openness, of sharing and of creativity. This expectation (and its requirement in a healthy market) means that restricting people becomes less acceptable. It's not a smart mid-to-long-term choice anyway; monopolies tend not to last. Free Software just speeds up the process to a better technology market.
TFF: Is there a risk of prolification of too many FLOSS media center distributions?
Shane: This is not a licensing issue, but rather a management and design issue. Forking technologies, having competing technologies, is part of a healthy market. However, as with everything else in life, too much fragmentation translates not into healthy competition, but needless duplication of work. Ten projects engineer the same basic solution ten times, instead of sharing resources to make an effective base platform, and competing on a more limited set of features or approaches to using that platform.
It depends on perception. If people think 100% of the code in their media centre is a competitive advantage, they will try not to share any of it. However, a more realistic assessment would suggest that pretty much all of the software on the box is doing non-unique things, and that the value proposition - the unique selling point - usually lies in the way they present the solution.
Too much fragmentation reduces the effectiveness of platforms. That being said, sometimes it's necessary to go and make something new. We just have to strike a sensible balance. This balance is likely to err on the side of cooperation. Then use the time you freed up to create cool future technology if you wish.