Topic: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

(From your site:  http://www.chumby.com/corporate/devlinux)

Currently, the private keys are stored in the clear on the chumby root file system. This is a security risk, but it is the simplest and more importantly, cheapest solution; the current threat model indicates this to be a good point in the risk-benefit-cost tradeoff space. In the case that key copying becomes rampant, a backup plan can be deployed where hardware authentication dongles are distributed to the existing user base, and integrated into future chumby hardware revisions. These dongles execute the SHA-1 and signing operations, and are targeted to be secure enough to protect the value of a subscription, while cheap enough to continue to offer users affordable access to hardware.



I don't understand this comment:  "...secure enough to protect the value of a subscription..."

Subscriptions are free...  does this comment indicate that that's going to change in the future, once you've got a big enough userbase? (so much for the open-source "anti-ipod" in that case, I suppose). 

Or is there another element in your business model that we're not seeing, that requires you to know how big your userbase is (or even where it is at any given time)? (location-based advertising comes to mind rather quickly...)


I think most of us were under the impression that you guys were a big squishy company, eeking out a living from a small profit on each chumby, working on the idea that, once you've got people hooked, they'll want at least one chumby for every family member and one in each bathroom.  If the real money's from advertising, that's fair, but it's probably best to let people in on it now while hype's still building, instead of right before launch when it's a crushing blow to people's images of the device. 


But, perhaps I'm cynical and reading too much into that comment.

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

Somewhere on the site, it says that the basic subscription is free, but there might be premium subscriptions available.

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

Binks wrote:

But, perhaps I'm cynical and reading too much into that comment.

Perhaps.

The goal is to provide a lot of useful and interesting widgets for free.  It is also likely there will be a collection of widgets that will be made available for a subscription.  It is up to you whether or not you wish to pay to get access to those other widgets.

Whatever else we may be, make no mistake that we are a business and will not be apologetic in the least for behaving like one.

I certainly understand the cynicism in this age of rampant DRM - on the other hand, I don't see any other consumer electronics device company that actually has open schematics for their products to go along with all the open code.

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

Sorry, Duane posted before I got around to posting this, but... well... I already wrote it, so I'm still posting it


(in reference to Aremith:)

Aaaah, here's something to that effect here:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/08/27/ch … ut-at-foo/


I'm confused then...  Doesn't a "premium" (for money) and "basic" service go against the "open-source hackable customizable anything box" idea?  I always thought that, by definition, if something's open-source it's free. 


From here:  http://www.christine.net/2006/08/announcing_the_.html

"The team was excited to release the schematics and source code as part of the chumby launch strategy. The chumby license grants users the rights to use and modify the device, but withholds patent royalty rights. The printing of the board is Creative Commons-protected, and there is a separate open source license that covers the patent. The team is encouraging users to hack the device (they even included a parts list) and sell small apps, but not use the hardware in ways that end-run the chumby creators."

It's far too late at night for me to try and figure out exactly what all those licences require, but I think that the important bit's the last line:  "but not use the hardware in ways that end-run the chumby creators"

Is that politically-correct for, "don't try and get premium content for free"?
(that question's been more or less answered, I think:  "Whatever else we may be, make no mistake that we are a business and will not be apologetic in the least for behaving like one.")




That's pretty much what I had before I noticed Duane's post



Sorry if I'm being obtuse, I think I'm trying to "re-orient" my view on the device.  I wonder what's specifically allowed to be done with this device... it sounds like it's the (to use my previous phrase), "(somewhat) open-source hackable (to a point) customizable anything box (with a free or premium service)"


If someone were to set up a "pirate service" that people would authenticate to, in order to recieve what would normally be premium content - or something similar to premium content, that'd obviously be an "end run" around the creators, but with this product being modified linux, isn't it required that people are able to modify  the source completely to their hearts content without fear of retribution?


I find the laws governing patents and such interesting; I'd like to hear what exactly is allowed to be done with this beast (and how any restrictions are supported legally - this thing certainly SEEMS to be as open to modification as possible)


Is there going to be a document put out carefully spelling all this out?  If you're urging poeple to do whatever they want to this device ("We also decided that the chumby would be different because it will be “open and hackable."  If you happen to be another card-carrying hacker, you can blow off the warranty, pull out its electronic guts and reprogram it.") it seems only fair to show people the boundaries - BEFORE they cross them and get themselves into hot water.

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

Think of it this way.

All the current widgets are free. Furthermore, people can make other free widgets. At one point, however, the developers at Chumby will make widgets which are subscription-based.

So it isn't the actual service that is pay, it's just some widgets, which are optional. If popularity picks up, there would be alternatives to these widgets in the open world, made by other people.

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

I think this is a fair discussion and apparently we need to make these issues more clear.

I'll bring them up with the company management next week and we'll try to provide more guidance.

Thanks for your interest.

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

It sounds like a really cool product, and at $150 or less it's at a great pricepoint; but I don't have money to spend on a monthly subscription fee (or a "widget fee" for any interesting widgets).  The way you describe it, Aremith, seems quite reasonable.  Have the developers said that's the plan as it stands now?


I am still interested though in what exactly is allowed or isn't; businesses don't tend to rely on good faith.  We know that the business model probably requires a certain percent of people to subscribe to premium content so Chumby HQ can keep their toilets flushing and the lights on, so there's got to be some legal tool preventing people from buying this for $150 and then just hooking up to "Joe's Server" and avoiding the chumby people all together. 

It's like a video game console - on a new console the manufacturers lose money on every one sold; but they make it back on games.  That's why the manufacturers aren't big on homebrew stuff; there's a certain amount of games someone has to buy for them to even break even on the product.  Their response is to lock the thing down with DRM so people will be FORCED to buy their content. 

What's the mechanism here that's stopping somoene from buying some and not even registering with Chumby?  How can you lock something down that's open source? 

I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt here, I think these are interesting questions.

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

Duane wrote:

I think this is a fair discussion and apparently we need to make these issues more clear.

I'll bring them up with the company management next week and we'll try to provide more guidance.

Thanks for your interest.

Thanks a lot!

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

Binks, read Duane's post (Post #3 for this thread). All I did was simplify what he said.

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

I should note that we are hackers - we're part of the crowd that says "Trust the customer!" when some corporation imposes some DRM to enforce a walled garden.

Chumby is, in many ways an experiment to find out if people really want to be trusted, or whether, when nobody's forcing them otherwise, they'll steal from the penny tray.

There's nothing stopping you from buying a chumby and hacking it so that it doesn't use our server.  Nothing at all -we know that going into the game.  In fact, as hackers, we know it's inevitable, so why fight it.

We hope to provide a compelling enough service that people will choose to use it even though they don't have to - and I suspect all but a few hackers will eventually choose to do so.

What we *don't* want is people hacking the system to steal the portions of our service that we ask people to pay for.  That's part of the trust you've all been asking for - we're giving you, the customer, the *ability* to screw us over seven ways from Sunday. If you choose to do so, well, then we were wrong and the DRM people were right all along, and we've all learned a little something about ourselves.

I, for one, hope we're right.

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

Duane's too fast for me again; here's what I had:

Aremith wrote:

Binks, read Duane's post (Post #3 for this thread). All I did was simplify what he said.

Ah, I think I interpreted that differently than you did:

Duane's post #3 wrote:

The goal is to provide a lot of useful and interesting widgets for free.  It is also likely there will be a collection of widgets that will be made available for a subscription.  It is up to you whether or not you wish to pay to get access to those other widgets.

I read somewhere that there were three stages of a relese for a widget - for you, for your friends, to the world.  That last step required Chumby HQ to sign off on the widget (at least to ensure that it's not a virus).  Now, I may be showing my cynical side here, but the website is the one thing that's not open source, I was looking for a point of control, and the site would seem to provide that. 

So, theoretically, they could prevent any "competing" widgets from ever seeing the widespread light of day.  OR, since the GNU allows someone to charge for distribution of code, they could have someone upload their free, opensource code to them, and then they could charge $5.00/unit to distribute it to other chumbys.  (though that wouldn't mesh with a "subscription fee" since a distribution fee can hardly be recurring)

At this point, though, I'm going very far into cynical speculation.  I think it'd probably be best for all to wait and see what comes from that management meeting - making rumours does nothing for anyone.


And that's where I'd ended. 


Duane wrote:

I should note that we are hackers - we're part of the crowd that says "Trust the customer!" when some corporation imposes some DRM to enforce a walled garden

So, that seems to eliminate the idea of using the website as a "control point" (or, I suppose, the wall for your garden to use your analogy).  That's good. 

Duane wrote:

Chumby is, in many ways an experiment to find out if people really want to be trusted, or whether, when nobody's forcing them otherwise, they'll steal from the penny tray.

That's a very interesting idea.  I remember reading a study once of washroom graffiti (one of my professors ran it).  They discovered that the best way to stop someone from causing damage to a public washroom was an ethical request, i.e. "Please don't damage our washrooms; we only have limited staff resources to deal with isssues like that".  Not a threat, nor a reminder that it was illegal. 

Just from the standpoint of observing THAT, the idea of whether good behavior comes from enforcement or from people's own inner being, makes this project absolutely fascinating.  Will there be any information made public about whether or not people are taking pennies?

Duane wrote:

There's nothing stopping you from buying a chumby and hacking it so that it doesn't use our server.  Nothing at all -we know that going into the game.  In fact, as hackers, we know it's inevitable, so why fight it.

I love that quote; but it's interesting that in the "authentication" section, it talks about making it difficult to share keys if necessary. 

Is there some disagreement within the ranks, or is it that, instead of two ideas on how to stop theft (1. Technologically impossible  2. Unethical/"internal moral compass") there're really three views on what stops people from stealing services? (3. Not worth the bother to save $2.00) (your talk of adding more advanced encryption falling under point three)

So, is it sort of, "we know point 1 is impossible; someone'll always find a way, but let's give point 2 a shot, and if we need to we'll go to 3" (or at least, to get the venture capitalist, you needed a point three tongue )


Duane wrote:

We hope to provide a compelling enough service that people will choose to use it even though they don't have to - and I suspect all but a few hackers will eventually choose to do so.

Hmmm, I wonder - will that percentage cheat because they enjoy the challange of cheating, or because they're really that worried about getting it for free?  Do you guys have any idea of what the percentages of "cheaters" would be, or can be and still have the service viable?



Well, it's been a bit of a journey tonight; I went from excited about this cool new device for a reasonable price, to worried that it would be saddled with so many restrictions and hidden costs so as to make it unusable, to just being fascinated by what the results of this "grand experiment in human nature" will be. 

Is there a researcher of some kind already associated with your project?  Do you want one?  "The effects of an ethical plea on theft of digital service/software"; Damn that'd be interesting to compare with what's already been observed in other areas - shoplifting and satellite signal theft come to mind easily.  Are today's youth (and those with a technical bent) always doing "unethical" things like stealing?  What's the best way to prevent it?

From an economics standpoint, with something like software distribution, given iron-clad DRM, it's best to sell software for as cheaply as possible (as it's almost free to create additional copies, you should sell as many copies as possible) - but that's almost never done because ironclad DRM doesn't exist and there's always a fairly high percentage of theft and greed.  While you're selling a piece of hardware, with a subscription fee you're essentially selling software after the initial investment.  Will enough people NOT steal so as to allow you to keep prices low?  Can software piracy be kept at bay through moral and ethical means, as opposed to technical ones?

It's late, am I still making sense?

You guys have stumbled into one of the most interesting topics I've ever encountered.  Is there any way to find out more about this?

12 (edited by chumbawumba 2006-08-27 23:56:27)

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

from the "CHUMBY SDK AND HDK LICENSE AGREEMENT"

2.2 Chumby HDK License Grant wrote:

(i) no Modified Device shall enable anyone to access the Chumby services and/or servers without an active network ID issued by Chumby; (ii) no Modified Device shall block or interfere with any advertisement that is served by or distributed through the Chumby service and/or servers; and (iii) no Modified Device shall connect, or help connect, a Chumby Device to any network other than (A) the Chumby Network or (B) a local area network (not connected to the Internet) for academic or other noncommercial purposes).

also...

2.5 License to Licensee Applications and/or Devices. wrote:

If Licensee publishes, distributes, or otherwise makes available any Licensee Application or Modified Device or any descriptions or specifications therefor, Licensee hereby automatically grants to Chumby a non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, and worldwide right and license under all Intellectual Property Rights to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works of, and distribute and to make, have made, use, import, offer to sell and sell, and otherwise exploit such Licensee Applications and/or Modified Devices and any modifications, improvements, or enhancements embodied therein; except that the foregoing will not apply to any Licensee Applications that are made available to the public by Licensee under the GNU General Public License.

6. Term and Termination. wrote:

This Agreement shall terminate automatically and immediately without further notice if Licensee breaches any provision of this Agreement.
Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement for any reason, all licensed rights granted in this Agreement will immediately cease to exist. Licensee must destroy or return to Chumby all copies of the Chumby Materials in Licensee's possession or control and certify to Chumby in writing signed by an officer of Licensee that it has fully complied with this requirement. Sections 1, 2.6-2.8, 4, 5, 6, and 7 will survive termination of this Agreement for any reason.

13 (edited by jacubilloro 2006-08-28 03:04:28)

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

That 2.2 section is surely going to be the first one to be abused. One of the first things that came into my head when I read about the Chumby was that I could probably write a small aplication to display data from around my house, or local weather, or that I could take chumby with me and acces my own mp3 streaming service. And I know I'm not the only one who thought about it. Restricting users to chumby-servers-only simply won't work.
Like you said before, we are hackers, either software or hardware ones, and as soon as the chumby is launched people will find a way to make it connect to their own server no matter what type of security measures you use. It's only time before they are cracked and you guys should know this since you've done it first hand. I'm not saying you shouldn't charge for premium widgets, you need to eat after all. But this "premium" services should be damn good if you want people to pay for them, otherwise someone will just make a free alternative and offer it on some other server (for free of course). Remember, people can and WILL connect to other servers.  That's for sure...
So this leaves us (you guys actually) on a very delicate and complicated situation. To allow or not to allow, that's the question. tongue

Binks:
Open-Source doesn't mean it's free, it means that it is... err.. open. This project is open source because they are giving us the schematics, and software/source code needed to build a fully functional chumby. After that they have no other responsability towards us. They've done enough already. They can charge as much as they want for a subscription to one of their services.
If I decide to build my own linux distro and release it's source code to the public that doens't mean I can't charge $200 for every copy. Take the example of RedHat, they do charge for an open source software.
So even if they charge for certain services that doesn't take away any merits to what they have acomplished. After all, has anybody heard apple that they will release the schematics and code for their ipod? No one???
I rest my case.
Flame me smile

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

I agree with jacubilloro - section 2.2 not only will be abused but seems to severely limit the use of the device.  When I first saw info about Chumby, I thought it would be a great way to stream internet radio, podcasts, and my iPod music to my bedside without having to have my computer on 24/7.  As a "reformed hacker" the challenge of getting around protection schemes has always been a major draw - at least back in the days of early computer games.  In fact, I almost never actually played the games, the fun was in cracking the protection schemes.  My cracked games were never released into the wild (so no stealing pennies), it just provided an intellectual challenge.  Heck, I still pay for the software/shareware that I use & the music that I download.  You deserve to make money from your hardware with an additional stream via whatever service(s) you choose to offer - as long as it is not the only way to use Chumby (or it just becomes another device like satellite radio, etc).

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

What we're trying to prevent is someone hijacking our entire user base.

We certainly don't mind you making a widget that, say, streams music from your iTunes (that's for *Apple* to worry about), or from some podcast, or pulling other data from some personal server.

We just don't want somebody putting up a competing service that leeches from ours.  If someone wants to compete with Chumby, then they're going to have to design their own hardware or license ours (our hardware license is open to allow you to play with it, not to allow you to bulk manufacture them), and put together their own service and make their own widgets, not steal ours.

If the wording doesn't correctly represent our stance, then we should look at it.

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

jacubilloro wrote:

Binks:
Open-Source doesn't mean it's free, it means that it is... err.. open. This project is open source because they are giving us the schematics, and software/source code needed to build a fully functional chumby. After that they have no other responsability towards us. They've done enough already. They can charge as much as they want for a subscription to one of their services.
If I decide to build my own linux distro and release it's source code to the public that doens't mean I can't charge $200 for every copy. Take the example of RedHat, they do charge for an open source software.
So even if they charge for certain services that doesn't take away any merits to what they have acomplished. After all, has anybody heard apple that they will release the schematics and code for their ipod? No one???
I rest my case.
Flame me smile

But, with open source, the source is available, so you could always just compile your own version and get it.  I thought what Red Hat charged for was product support and "distribution costs" - but to grab a Red Hat iso was, as I understood it, not illegal (at least, assuming that all the software within the iso was GNU'd or open source as well)


As for section 2.5 of the license, that last bit of it is important: "...except that the foregoing will not apply to any Licensee Applications that are made available to the public by Licensee under the GNU General Public License."

If you're a coder, better make damn sure you release your code with the GNU license... otherwise they own it, forever, and can do whatever they want with it.

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

Uh no, you're completely misunderstanding that.

This license is referring to the software that's included in the chumby itself.  Basically it spells out the terms that we've put on *our* software, but points out that *our* terms don't apply to the sections that are covered by other licenses, particularly the GPL.

If you produce software for the chumby, you can publish it under any license you choose - however, if you're making alterations to the chumby kernel or other GPL code, you'll be somewhat restricted in your choice of license by the GPL.

Actually, the bulk of the software we've created - kernel drivers for the peculiar hardware, the scripts, etc, have all been released under the GPL.  The only things that aren't covered are things related to the Flash Player, because we licensed that from Adobe, and that license is not open.

It's absurd that we'd assert ownership of software *you* produce for the chumby device.

Perhaps you should have a lawyer review this agreement for you.

The other issue is that if you choose to publish a widget using our server, you obviously have to give us the necessary rights to redistribute it.

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

Duane--thanks for watching this thread. I know it's a hairball and you've done a great job on it and I just wanted to say that I agree 100% with everything you've posted here, so I'll avoid doing redundant posts. We have a similar thread going on in the SIM card topic under the hardware forum.

7BAA 2E53 01C1 DCFF 497B  E7F0 9699 A303 78F0 D9B9

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

Stay tuned on this topic, everyone.  Next week, hopefully, we will introduce on our site, and I will do a blog post about this to highlight it, a new and dramatically clearer and more liberal licensing framework.  I imagine that everyone who was okay with our original license will like the new one even better because it doesn't take anything away and gives you a lot more freedom -- and is hopefully *much* clearer because we have tried in the agreement to explain the whole purpose of it in plain English prior to any legalese (and even *that* has been cleaned up).  And hopefully most people who didn't like the old one, will now be supportive of our new approach.  Of course some people will still find something to grumble about, but we really did do our best on this.

All of the feedback that we got from FOO Camp, on blog posts, in private conversations and in this Forum was taken very seriously in the construction of our new license -- our attorney, who participated in the drafting of the Creative Commons license, spent time reading what you all have posted here and considering what we have heard elsewhere.  We're trying to make the Chumby License a model of clarity and liberality yet, as Duane has said throughout this thread, still enable us to function as a business so we can keep making chumbys, improving them and operating our service.

Watch the blog for more info:  http://chumby.wordpress.com/

st

20 (edited by morganw 2007-01-05 19:58:02)

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

Duane wrote:

What we're trying to prevent is someone hijacking our entire user base.

We certainly don't mind you making a widget that, say, streams music from your iTunes (that's for *Apple* to worry about), or from some podcast, or pulling other data from some personal server.

[...]

If the wording doesn't correctly represent our stance, then we should look at it.

You *really* need to look at it.

HARDWARE: You can copyright a schematic and then attach rules to viewing it, but you can't own a board-level hardware design (from which my own schematic can be created), so Chumby can be copied (I don't think there's anything patentable in a design partially based off the Freescale reference design for the MX.21) and more importantly for commercial hardware developers, interfaced to, WITHOUT sharing the peripheral design back.  Sorry, US law at least just doesn't give you that power.

SOFTWARE:  "We certainly don't mind you making a widget that, say, streams music from your iTunes"  What if I sell that widget and I don't release it's source?

You might need to create two SDKs, because the current one, controlled by an agreement that is more limiting than GPL (non-commercial and non-compete) is incompatible with the GPL, controlling some of the software you're using.  Maybe you could create an SDK with all the GPL'd software and your mods to it, but none of the boot, middleware, network and linker/loader/package-for-reflash code you've developed yourself.

Let's say I want to *sell* some software that turns a Chumby into an iTunes remote-controller (using an app on a Mac that receives commands from the Chumby and talks to iTunes via Applescript, then grabs the audio a la AudioHijack and streams it a la AuNetSend to the Chumby).  I don't want it to be a Chumby widget running in your sandbox, so I sell it as a complete "brain wipe" (a la RobotC for Lego NXT) and I release the bootloader and kernel source, but not that of my app.

Linus's explicit "gloss" of the GPL lets me keep my app closed source.  Can your SDK be less "free?"

Ah- I see that you've already done this to some extent.  There's a tarball of linux kernel sources and Chumby Corp.'s diffs, but no bsp or "SuperPro" flash utility.  The instructions for building your own system software for a Chumby stop with the creation of a kernel image on the host computer.

[side note- after reading about the debugchumby back door and running Flash Lite widgets from USB keys, I a) wonder which hacks will stay around and b) wonder how you're supposed to handle the crossdomain.xml problem when the Flash movie originated from local storage.  I guess writing that iTunes-controlling widget isn't going to be possible anyway, huh?  Binary apps, please!]

I understand the desire to avoid having end-users download binaries that someone told them was "really neat" only to have it wedge their Chumby or steal personal identifiers or just keep it from using your network anymore, but that's kind of the breaks with hardware.  Apple can't sell iTunes Store DRM-protected content to Ipodlinux users, but the law gives them no recourse.

-M

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

morganw wrote:

HARDWARE: You can copyright a schematic and then attach rules to viewing it, but you can't own a board-level hardware design (from which my own schematic can be created), so Chumby can be copied (I don't think there's anything patentable in a design partially based off the Freescale reference design for the MX.21) and more importantly for commercial hardware developers, interfaced to, WITHOUT sharing the peripheral design back.  Sorry, US law at least just doesn't give you that power.

People are free to make peripherals for Chumby and can keep the design closed.  If you wish to use our schematics, which are admittedly at least partially derivative from the MX21 reference, then you agree to our terms.  If you don't, you're welcome to use other designs, including the upstream design from Freescale.  Just as the GPL can bind a derivative work from a more "open" license, our license binds to our derivative design.

You might need to create two SDKs, because the current one, controlled by an agreement that is more limiting than GPL (non-commercial and non-compete) is incompatible with the GPL, controlling some of the software you're using.

Please point out to me where we've added additional restrictions on the use of GPL-licensed software.

Maybe you could create an SDK with all the GPL'd software and your mods to it, but none of the boot, middleware, network and linker/loader/package-for-reflash code you've developed yourself.

The only software we've closed is the Flash Player itself, and that's because it came to *us* closed.  Everything is released according the the appropriate licenses.  There may be internal tools we use, but since we don't distribute them, there's no requirement for any release of source code.

Let's say I want to *sell* some software that turns a Chumby into an iTunes remote-controller (using an app on a Mac that receives commands from the Chumby and talks to iTunes via Applescript, then grabs the audio a la AudioHijack and streams it a la AuNetSend to the Chumby).  I don't want it to be a Chumby widget running in your sandbox, so I sell it as a complete "brain wipe" (a la RobotC for Lego NXT) and I release the bootloader and kernel source, but not that of my app.

You're free to do that as long as you abide by any licenses of upstream code you've incorporated.  If you use any of our copyrighted code that's covered under a copyleft license and *don't* release the source, you'd be in violation of our copyright and we'd contemplate coming after you.  The other other copyright holders would make their own decisions.

A user that installs a "brain wipe" application on their chumby is no longer a chumby customer as far as software is concerned.  We'd probably fix anything physically wrong under warranty, but that's it.  If you take a Mac and wipe OSX and install Linux or Windows (which you are free to do), Apple will not support the alternative operating system, but will support the hardware.

Linus's explicit "gloss" of the GPL lets me keep my app closed source.

Linus has nothing to do with it.  The GPL explicitly allows aggregations of GPL and non-GPL code, as we've done by including the closed Flash Player with an otherwise Free system.  We have not done anything even remotely close to the issues that have induced the FSF to create the GPL3.  We don't even use closed kernel modules as some Linux distros have done.

Can your SDK be less "free?"

Please explain what you mean here.

Ah- I see that you've already done this to some extent.  There's a tarball of linux kernel sources and Chumby Corp.'s diffs, but no bsp or "SuperPro" flash utility.  The instructions for building your own system software for a Chumby stop with the creation of a kernel image on the host computer.

We are in compliance with the letter and spirit of all the licenses.  Linus doesn't provide instructions on how to install Linux on your computer either.  Virtually all recipients of chumbys to date got a CD with everything on it, in compliance with GPL2 Section 3a - at the moment, we don't even *have* to support downloading of this stuff, but we are anyway.

[side note- after reading about the debugchumby back door and running Flash Lite widgets from USB keys, I a) wonder which hacks will stay around and b) wonder how you're supposed to handle the crossdomain.xml problem when the Flash movie originated from local storage.  I guess writing that iTunes-controlling widget isn't going to be possible anyway, huh?  Binary apps, please!]

There's nothing stopping you from creating binary applications.  We're simply not going to distribute them, because that's not the business we're in.  You're free to distribute such application, and we're free to decline to support anyone that uses it.

As far as backdoors are concerned, we're actually adding more, better ones.

And for crossdomain.xml, perhaps you should read up on how that works, since the information is freely available and speculation is unnecessary - locally run movies don't have the same security sandbox issues as movie that come in from the network.  I've even provided links on the wiki to Adobe's documentation on that issue.

I understand the desire to avoid having end-users download binaries that someone told them was "really neat" only to have it wedge their Chumby or steal personal identifiers or just keep it from using your network anymore, but that's kind of the breaks with hardware.  Apple can't sell iTunes Store DRM-protected content to Ipodlinux users, but the law gives them no recourse.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here - if you want the freedom to brick your chumby, we've given it to you.  However, if you do so, that's entirely your responsibility, and we have no obligation to support such a device.  If you induce people to brick their chumbys through defective software, then that's between you and them.

Re: "Free" eh? Are you sure?

Hopefully this will shed a little more light on things? 

http://chumby.wordpress.com/2007/01/08/ … more-open/