4 ms·

> Yes, which is blatantly anti-GPL2. No it's not. It's anti-GPLv3. GPLv2 absolutely allows tivoization. Stallman thinks this is bad, but not everybody else agr

by eridius 11y ago

> Yes, which is blatantly anti-GPL2. No it's not. It's anti-GPLv3. GPLv2 absolutely allows tivoization. Stallman thinks this is bad, but not everybody else agrees (I know Linus Torvalds thinks tivoization is fine in the context of GPLv2, and I believe the FSF agrees). > I really wish any Linux copyright holder […] Your argument here is not a legal one. Any Linux copyright holder that did this would lose horribly. And in particular, Linus Torvalds explicitly stated that he does not support relicensing the Linux kernel under GPLv3 because of this (even if it were possible, which it isn't because of the very large number of copyright holders). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization#GPLv3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization#GPLv3 > The entire point of the GPL2 is that a developer who creates code and receives a modified version back should be able to modify that instance of code And they can! But the GPLv2 does not require that the modified code must be able to be installed back on the original hardware by the person doing the modification. > tivoization is entering into the license in bad faith Not by any legal definition of "bad faith", and even with the informal definition, a lot of people would disagree with you.

mindslight 11y ago
> the GPLv2 does not require that the modified code must be able to be installed back on the original hardware by the person doing the modification Does not explicitly. From GPL2: > Accompany it [executable code] with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code ... The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it So, you're telling me that the preferred form for making modifications to the source code of a router does not include the scripts which install onto the router to test those modifications? > Not by any legal definition of "bad faith" The GPL2 and the FSF are very explicit on what the GPL2 is supposed to engender. Accepting the license and trying to circumvent it on a possible technicality (assertion that a signed blob isn't a derivative work, when the only reason anyone is interested in the source code is to run it) looks pretty bad-faith to me. IANAMOAG (I am not a member of a guild, and you probably aren't either). Even if we were, we could still disagree until it was actually litigated. I see no reason to prematurely capitulate Linux devices being non-Free.
- eli 11y ago
  > So, you're telling me that the preferred form for making modifications to the source code of a router does not include the scripts which install onto the router to test those modifications? In short: yes. Being able to access and modify and redistribute source code isn't the same as having the ability to deploy it to a particular piece of hardware. Likewise, if I open source a .NET project that doesn't mean it has to include Visual Studio even though VS is the preferred way to build it.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    > Being able to access and modify and redistribute source code isn't the same as having the ability to deploy it to a particular piece of hardware But the preferred form for modification includes being able to test your changes. Source without installation scripts is most likely not the preferred form - ie what do engineers at the company use? > if I open source a .NET project that doesn't mean it has to include Visual Studio, which is the preferred way to build it Yes, because having been designed in the era of expensive compilers, GPL2 explicitly covers this: > However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable
    - mynameisvlad 11y ago
      Visual Studio is not a "major [component] ... of the operating system on which the executable runs". It's not any component, in fact; it's a completely separate application from the OS, and in no way bundled together.
      - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        You're arguing that a compiler is not a major operating system component when the license explicitly enumerates it as a major operating system component. Nobody says you have to get all your operating system components from the same disc.

by eridius 11y ago

mindslight 11y ago

> the GPLv2 does not require that the modified code must be able to be installed back on the original hardware by the person doing the modification Does not explicitly. From GPL2: > Accompany it [executable code] with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code ... The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it So, you're telling me that the preferred form for making modifications to the source code of a router does not include the scripts which install onto the router to test those modifications? > Not by any legal definition of "bad faith" The GPL2 and the FSF are very explicit on what the GPL2 is supposed to engender. Accepting the license and trying to circumvent it on a possible technicality (assertion that a signed blob isn't a derivative work, when the only reason anyone is interested in the source code is to run it) looks pretty bad-faith to me. IANAMOAG (I am not a member of a guild, and you probably aren't either). Even if we were, we could still disagree until it was actually litigated. I see no reason to prematurely capitulate Linux devices being non-Free.

eli 11y ago
> So, you're telling me that the preferred form for making modifications to the source code of a router does not include the scripts which install onto the router to test those modifications? In short: yes. Being able to access and modify and redistribute source code isn't the same as having the ability to deploy it to a particular piece of hardware. Likewise, if I open source a .NET project that doesn't mean it has to include Visual Studio even though VS is the preferred way to build it.
- mindslight 11y ago
  > Being able to access and modify and redistribute source code isn't the same as having the ability to deploy it to a particular piece of hardware But the preferred form for modification includes being able to test your changes. Source without installation scripts is most likely not the preferred form - ie what do engineers at the company use? > if I open source a .NET project that doesn't mean it has to include Visual Studio, which is the preferred way to build it Yes, because having been designed in the era of expensive compilers, GPL2 explicitly covers this: > However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable
  - mynameisvlad 11y ago
    Visual Studio is not a "major [component] ... of the operating system on which the executable runs". It's not any component, in fact; it's a completely separate application from the OS, and in no way bundled together.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      You're arguing that a compiler is not a major operating system component when the license explicitly enumerates it as a major operating system component. Nobody says you have to get all your operating system components from the same disc.