5 ms·

I'm surprised to see that installation is a requirement of the GPLv2. Does this mean that Android phones with bootloaders that can't be unlocked violate the GPL

I'm surprised to see that installation is a requirement of the GPLv2. Does this mean that Android phones with bootloaders that can't be unlocked violate the GPL?

kmeisthax 5y ago
Yes, but given that most of the copyright owners of Linux do not believe GPLv2 to have such a requirement (and explicitly abhor the idea that v3 adds one, even though it didn't add it) I doubt anyone with standing is interested in enforcing said requirement.
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  Seriously, the idea that after losing this fight clearly with GPLv3 that they are going to force this down folks with a re-write of history / language / intent and practice is appalling. Hopefully someone like Linus can make absolutely clear this is total garbage.
  - bkallus 5y ago
    What I think is total garbage is the fact that I have a drawer full of potentially useful computers (EDIT: by computers I mean mostly phones, routers, e-readers, etc) stuck running insecure OSes. Can you give me an argument for why installation should not be required? It seems pretty clear to me that if release of "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" is required by the GPLv2, then those scripts should have to be functional.
    - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
      They are functional on hardware you build. The source code is released. No one disagrees there. Buy unlocked hardware if you care about this. Most PC's can disable secure boot paths through BIOS settings unless you are in a corp environment and they lock that out.
      - bkallus 5y ago
        It isn't always possible to build my own hardware, especially in the embedded world. I buy unlocked hardware now, but I learned that lesson the hard way from Verizon and Samsung.
      - djur 5y ago
        Locked hardware is itself objectionable, anti-consumer and anti-freedom. "Free software works in a narrowing ecosystem of semi-free hardware" is not an acceptable position for advocates of free software.
      - 20after4 5y ago
        We are quickly headed to a future where it won't be possible to buy unlocked hardware. It may not be long before (very nearly) 100% of the hardware on the consumer market is locked and it will only be able to acquire unlocked hardware through NDA agreement, huge costs or by "illegally" unlocking it via an exploit.
  - kmeisthax 5y ago
    You have this backwards. GPLv2 had a clear history and language, TiVo worked around it, and then the FSF rewrote history by saying v2 had no prohibitions on installation instructions (so they could convince people that v3 was necessary). It did have those prohibitions, they just were insufficient for what Stallman intended. Hell, even v3 is insufficient for what Stallman wants; it only requires being able to install new versions of the covered code. It doesn't cover other proprietary programs that can see if you've modified the Free program and refuse to work. You can't actually prohibit that with a license unless you want to go full Ethical Source and start impinging on Freedom Zero. Yes, this may not mesh with Linus's intent, but Linus already has a very specific idea of how the GPL works that applies to Linux and only Linux. The whole "you can load proprietary kernel modules as long as they don't touch internals" thing springs to mind. Also, I'd like to point out that people haven't "lost the fight" with GPLv3. There's plenty of libraries out there that use it - they're just not particularly relevant to Linux, so nobody's really pushing for a relicensing effort.
    - pabs3 5y ago
      The article makes it clear that GPLv2 has always had the installation requirement throughout its entire history of use and enforcement.
- ajklsdhfniuwehf 5y ago
  You are missing the point. or the forrest for the trees as some say. Yeah the installation requirement is silly. But android in general is plagued by GPL violations in that every single piece of it is linux based (or other GPL code based), and yet no user will ever get the source no matter how much they ask.
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    > Yeah the installation requirement is silly. Is it? From my reading, much of the GPL v2/v3 divide comes from different expectations of what GPL is intended to achieve. One camp (e.g. Linus) believes that the goal is to ensure that the freely available product is the best product, that all improvements that are distributed can make their way back to the freely available repo. The other camp (e.g. Stallman) believes that the primary goal is to ensure that end users have control over their computers. That any software distributed to them can be modified to suit the end user's needs. These are both valid viewpoints, and both camps thought the GPLv2 fit their needs, at the time of its writing. When TiVo found a loophole that satisfied one interpretation of the letter of GPLv2, but violated the its spirit as seen by the second camp, the GPLv3 was made to make explicit what was previously potentially ambiguous in the GPLv2. That it all to say, I think it's premature to dismiss the viewpoint of Stallman's camp as "silly".
    - ajklsdhfniuwehf 5y ago
      There is only GPL :) GPLv3 only goal is exclusively to twart bad actors from using needlessly complex things with the sole goal of avoiding GPLv2 (and 3 since they are practicaly the same) goals, which is to provide source for code that was originally GPL'ed. In Tivo specific case, that needlesly complex thing was a rubegoldberg build/install process. Also TIVO did not find a loophole. They provided the code as their shenanigans was exposed as such in the end. Note that you are commenting under an article which main point was exactly to dismiss the misunderstanding in pop culture about the TIVO case! and here you are repeating it. sigh.
  - kmeisthax 5y ago
    Not necessarily. If the copyright owners of a license believe that the license is to be interpreted one particular way, to the point of making public statements about it, that can be construed by a court to have amended the license. At the very least you probably could argue estoppel if the owner changes their mind and decides to start suing. In other words, if Linus says "GPLv2 doesn't require kernel installation on hardware it gets ported to and sold on", then GPLv2 doesn't for the Linux kernel, or at least the parts of it Linus owns. (In practice, a good chunk of the core kernel dev team believes this and has said so, so this also applies for them, too.) That being said, you are correct that interpretation-related estoppels and/or implied license amendments probably wouldn't save most Android vendors, since their violations are not limited to just Installation Instructions. I know of nothing that Linus has said that would make statically linking all your drivers into a kernel with no source release OK. However, the post I was replying to was specifically talking about locked bootloaders; not that.
- singpolyma3 5y ago
  The software freedom conservancy (publishers if this article) have standing but not many resources and a policy to do things as slow and expensive as possible so as to avoid pissing anyone off.
singpolyma3 5y ago
Yes, but virtually every Android phone is a cornicopia of GPL violations anyway so this is just cherry on top
JetSpiegel 5y ago
According to the article, the main difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 is that having the Secure Boot unlocking process wipe the disk, and therefore destroy the proprietary software installation is kosher under the GPLv2, while v3 requires the proprietary software needs to continue working. I would argue v2 is even better, because it forces unlocked phones to use alternatives to Android (that is, the proprietary Google Servics), like Lineage, while avoiding turning billions of phones into bricks.

I'm surprised to see that installation is a requirement of the GPLv2. Does this mean that Android phones with bootloaders that can't be unlocked violate the GPL?

kmeisthax 5y ago

Yes, but given that most of the copyright owners of Linux do not believe GPLv2 to have such a requirement (and explicitly abhor the idea that v3 adds one, even though it didn't add it) I doubt anyone with standing is interested in enforcing said requirement.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago
Seriously, the idea that after losing this fight clearly with GPLv3 that they are going to force this down folks with a re-write of history / language / intent and practice is appalling. Hopefully someone like Linus can make absolutely clear this is total garbage.
- bkallus 5y ago
  What I think is total garbage is the fact that I have a drawer full of potentially useful computers (EDIT: by computers I mean mostly phones, routers, e-readers, etc) stuck running insecure OSes. Can you give me an argument for why installation should not be required? It seems pretty clear to me that if release of "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" is required by the GPLv2, then those scripts should have to be functional.
  - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
    They are functional on hardware you build. The source code is released. No one disagrees there. Buy unlocked hardware if you care about this. Most PC's can disable secure boot paths through BIOS settings unless you are in a corp environment and they lock that out.
    - bkallus 5y ago
      It isn't always possible to build my own hardware, especially in the embedded world. I buy unlocked hardware now, but I learned that lesson the hard way from Verizon and Samsung.
    - djur 5y ago
      Locked hardware is itself objectionable, anti-consumer and anti-freedom. "Free software works in a narrowing ecosystem of semi-free hardware" is not an acceptable position for advocates of free software.
    - 20after4 5y ago
      We are quickly headed to a future where it won't be possible to buy unlocked hardware. It may not be long before (very nearly) 100% of the hardware on the consumer market is locked and it will only be able to acquire unlocked hardware through NDA agreement, huge costs or by "illegally" unlocking it via an exploit.
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  You have this backwards. GPLv2 had a clear history and language, TiVo worked around it, and then the FSF rewrote history by saying v2 had no prohibitions on installation instructions (so they could convince people that v3 was necessary). It did have those prohibitions, they just were insufficient for what Stallman intended. Hell, even v3 is insufficient for what Stallman wants; it only requires being able to install new versions of the covered code. It doesn't cover other proprietary programs that can see if you've modified the Free program and refuse to work. You can't actually prohibit that with a license unless you want to go full Ethical Source and start impinging on Freedom Zero. Yes, this may not mesh with Linus's intent, but Linus already has a very specific idea of how the GPL works that applies to Linux and only Linux. The whole "you can load proprietary kernel modules as long as they don't touch internals" thing springs to mind. Also, I'd like to point out that people haven't "lost the fight" with GPLv3. There's plenty of libraries out there that use it - they're just not particularly relevant to Linux, so nobody's really pushing for a relicensing effort.
  - pabs3 5y ago
    The article makes it clear that GPLv2 has always had the installation requirement throughout its entire history of use and enforcement.
ajklsdhfniuwehf 5y ago
You are missing the point. or the forrest for the trees as some say. Yeah the installation requirement is silly. But android in general is plagued by GPL violations in that every single piece of it is linux based (or other GPL code based), and yet no user will ever get the source no matter how much they ask.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  > Yeah the installation requirement is silly. Is it? From my reading, much of the GPL v2/v3 divide comes from different expectations of what GPL is intended to achieve. One camp (e.g. Linus) believes that the goal is to ensure that the freely available product is the best product, that all improvements that are distributed can make their way back to the freely available repo. The other camp (e.g. Stallman) believes that the primary goal is to ensure that end users have control over their computers. That any software distributed to them can be modified to suit the end user's needs. These are both valid viewpoints, and both camps thought the GPLv2 fit their needs, at the time of its writing. When TiVo found a loophole that satisfied one interpretation of the letter of GPLv2, but violated the its spirit as seen by the second camp, the GPLv3 was made to make explicit what was previously potentially ambiguous in the GPLv2. That it all to say, I think it's premature to dismiss the viewpoint of Stallman's camp as "silly".
  - ajklsdhfniuwehf 5y ago
    There is only GPL :) GPLv3 only goal is exclusively to twart bad actors from using needlessly complex things with the sole goal of avoiding GPLv2 (and 3 since they are practicaly the same) goals, which is to provide source for code that was originally GPL'ed. In Tivo specific case, that needlesly complex thing was a rubegoldberg build/install process. Also TIVO did not find a loophole. They provided the code as their shenanigans was exposed as such in the end. Note that you are commenting under an article which main point was exactly to dismiss the misunderstanding in pop culture about the TIVO case! and here you are repeating it. sigh.
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  Not necessarily. If the copyright owners of a license believe that the license is to be interpreted one particular way, to the point of making public statements about it, that can be construed by a court to have amended the license. At the very least you probably could argue estoppel if the owner changes their mind and decides to start suing. In other words, if Linus says "GPLv2 doesn't require kernel installation on hardware it gets ported to and sold on", then GPLv2 doesn't for the Linux kernel, or at least the parts of it Linus owns. (In practice, a good chunk of the core kernel dev team believes this and has said so, so this also applies for them, too.) That being said, you are correct that interpretation-related estoppels and/or implied license amendments probably wouldn't save most Android vendors, since their violations are not limited to just Installation Instructions. I know of nothing that Linus has said that would make statically linking all your drivers into a kernel with no source release OK. However, the post I was replying to was specifically talking about locked bootloaders; not that.
singpolyma3 5y ago
The software freedom conservancy (publishers if this article) have standing but not many resources and a policy to do things as slow and expensive as possible so as to avoid pissing anyone off.

singpolyma3 5y ago

Yes, but virtually every Android phone is a cornicopia of GPL violations anyway so this is just cherry on top

JetSpiegel 5y ago

According to the article, the main difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 is that having the Secure Boot unlocking process wipe the disk, and therefore destroy the proprietary software installation is kosher under the GPLv2, while v3 requires the proprietary software needs to continue working. I would argue v2 is even better, because it forces unlocked phones to use alternatives to Android (that is, the proprietary Google Servics), like Lineage, while avoiding turning billions of phones into bricks.