4 ms·

Isn’t that the idea of the “TiVoisation” clause in the GPLv3? Basically, TiVo released their Linux derivative code, but you couldn’t actually flash your version

Isn’t that the idea of the “TiVoisation” clause in the GPLv3? Basically, TiVo released their Linux derivative code, but you couldn’t actually flash your version. The problem is that Linus is staunchly against the GPLv3

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
> The problem is that Linus is staunchly against the GPLv3 No he isn't. He is unable to relicense the kernel. Whenever he's interviewed on the subject it is always in relation to kernel development. He doesn't control the copyright on the entire codebase and there are too many contributors, some dead, for anyone to get copyright assignment sorted out.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mmlb 5y ago
  You are right that he can't unilaterally relicense the kernel and that it will likely never happen, but Linus is in fact against the GPLv3, see debconf 14 Q&A: https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840 https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jepler 5y ago
At risk of making a gross oversimplification, sfconservancy seems to be pursuing the angle that GPLv2 _ALSO_ was intended to prevent tivoization. see e.g., https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... which refers heavily to pre-GPLv3 discussions about the topic. "In GPL enforcement actions at the time, during our “complete, corresponding source (CCS) checks”, we verified that the source code was not only complete, but that it corresponded to the binaries on the vendors' devices, and that we could install modified versions of the software. This was a standard part of any check to verify GPLv2 compliance. Passing this check was required, then and now, by FSF and Conservancy before distribution rights are restored after a violation." "That position was not controversial when I, along with then FSF counsel (Daniel Ravicher), taught it to lawyers in 2003 and 2004 on FSF's behalf. Nevertheless, today, many act as if this interpretation and intent of GPLv2§3¶2 is a recent and novel phenomena, rather than a long standing position held by all copyleft activists for at least 18 years. Today, most companies and lawyers argue (incorrectly, IMO) that users have no rights to reinstall their GPLv2'd software."
- sokoloff 5y ago
  It’s not at all clear-cut to me. (IANAL.) If a cryptographic key is required, it’s not clear to me that that is either “source code” nor “script used to control compilation/installation”. If you asked developers “is a certificate source code?”, I think most would say “No”. If you asked them “is a certificate a script?”, I think almost all would say “No”. If it’s not either of those things, I don’t know how the license terms (not the preamble) of GPLv2 would apply to prevent TiVo-isation. Further, if it does apply, how has no one successfully sued TiVo over it?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    The “script used to control compilation/installation” needs to actually work. If it can't work without a certificate, then it doesn't work without a certificate.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      Isn't the problem that the code would work fine on a piece of hardware that doesn't perform the signature check, it's just you'd have to make that piece of hardware yourself?
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        This is apparently not how the license had historically been interpreted by everyone, at least before GPLv3 appeared. The intended and historical interpretation seems to have been that as long as you're distributing a device running GPL software, you have to provide the source code for that GPL software along with working instructions about how to build, install and run those sources on the device. This even goes back to the original motivation for creating the GPL in the first place: the desire to repair faulty software in a printer at MIT. I have no idea if this provision has ever been tested in court.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    To me “our code can’t run on TiVos” is basically a political statement along the lines of “it can’t be used for evil, or for nuclear weapons” and so on. It’s certainly an option to license it that way but I think GPL 3 was mostly a mistake.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

> The problem is that Linus is staunchly against the GPLv3 No he isn't. He is unable to relicense the kernel. Whenever he's interviewed on the subject it is always in relation to kernel development. He doesn't control the copyright on the entire codebase and there are too many contributors, some dead, for anyone to get copyright assignment sorted out.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mmlb 5y ago
You are right that he can't unilaterally relicense the kernel and that it will likely never happen, but Linus is in fact against the GPLv3, see debconf 14 Q&A: https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840 https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jepler 5y ago

At risk of making a gross oversimplification, sfconservancy seems to be pursuing the angle that GPLv2 _ALSO_ was intended to prevent tivoization. see e.g., https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... which refers heavily to pre-GPLv3 discussions about the topic. "In GPL enforcement actions at the time, during our “complete, corresponding source (CCS) checks”, we verified that the source code was not only complete, but that it corresponded to the binaries on the vendors' devices, and that we could install modified versions of the software. This was a standard part of any check to verify GPLv2 compliance. Passing this check was required, then and now, by FSF and Conservancy before distribution rights are restored after a violation." "That position was not controversial when I, along with then FSF counsel (Daniel Ravicher), taught it to lawyers in 2003 and 2004 on FSF's behalf. Nevertheless, today, many act as if this interpretation and intent of GPLv2§3¶2 is a recent and novel phenomena, rather than a long standing position held by all copyleft activists for at least 18 years. Today, most companies and lawyers argue (incorrectly, IMO) that users have no rights to reinstall their GPLv2'd software."

sokoloff 5y ago
It’s not at all clear-cut to me. (IANAL.) If a cryptographic key is required, it’s not clear to me that that is either “source code” nor “script used to control compilation/installation”. If you asked developers “is a certificate source code?”, I think most would say “No”. If you asked them “is a certificate a script?”, I think almost all would say “No”. If it’s not either of those things, I don’t know how the license terms (not the preamble) of GPLv2 would apply to prevent TiVo-isation. Further, if it does apply, how has no one successfully sued TiVo over it?
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  The “script used to control compilation/installation” needs to actually work. If it can't work without a certificate, then it doesn't work without a certificate.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Isn't the problem that the code would work fine on a piece of hardware that doesn't perform the signature check, it's just you'd have to make that piece of hardware yourself?
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      This is apparently not how the license had historically been interpreted by everyone, at least before GPLv3 appeared. The intended and historical interpretation seems to have been that as long as you're distributing a device running GPL software, you have to provide the source code for that GPL software along with working instructions about how to build, install and run those sources on the device. This even goes back to the original motivation for creating the GPL in the first place: the desire to repair faulty software in a printer at MIT. I have no idea if this provision has ever been tested in court.
- bombcar 5y ago
  To me “our code can’t run on TiVos” is basically a political statement along the lines of “it can’t be used for evil, or for nuclear weapons” and so on. It’s certainly an option to license it that way but I think GPL 3 was mostly a mistake.