3 ms·

There's no requirement in GPL 2 (the one the kernel uses) to be able to update the kernel.

NavinF 5y ago
I was about to say the same thing, but I think he’s talking about how GPL2 requires the company to give OP the kernel source code. OP mentioned that he didn’t have the kernel headers for DKMS.
- iso1631 5y ago
  Ah sure, if it's not a stock kernel then yes you'd need to distribute the code for it (although there's no requirement for it to be able boot from any replacement kernel you provide)
  - Teknoman117 5y ago
    I wonder if the kernel's license covers any device tree overlays you create for a board. Technically, the kernel provides the device tree compiler. You write one, compile it, and supply it to the kernel at boot time (or compile it in). The end goal of Linux for ARM would be to completely avoid needing anything other than the upstream kernel (all drivers and CPU quirks being upstream), the .config for the kernel, and a device tree overlay.
simiones 5y ago
This is debatable - the license is pretty clear about it being a requirement, but it has been patchily enforced: > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable [emphasis mine]. Even in the infamous TiVo case, customers of TiVo had complete access to modify the Linux kernel or any other GPL binary - the proprietary TiVo software would just refuse to run if any modification had been applied this way.
- iso1631 5y ago
  Yes, there's no requirement for the sfp to boot any specific kernel, thus no requirement "to update the Linux kernel/etc" If they aren't using a stock kernel with drivers already in the kernel, then clearly they have to distribute that code (which might just be a shim like with nvidea), but not boot from it -- it's not GPL3
  - pabs3 5y ago
    See my other comments above, the GPLv2 requires installation/updates too.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      Interestingly, I found this scholarly article [0] claiming that is actually a misunderstanding of the text of the GPLv2, and an ahistorical reading/discussion of this problem. For example, here is a citation they have from the (then) chief lawyer of the FSF: > TiVo is a provider of hardware and software …. Our concern with them is that they have rights as users, but they should respect the rights of the users to whom they sell. Having a personal video recorder … which won't run software if you modify the box … is not user-respecting conduct. (TiVo) complied with GPL 2 by the skin of its teeth. On the other hand, it seems it is actually pretty hard right now to tell what exactly TiVo was preventing at the time. There are some articles, like the one you cited, that claim TiVo devices would check the signature of the kernel and other software, and refuse to run their own proprietary software. However, other articles (some cited in this paper) claim that in fact TiVo devices would not boot a modified kernel. This seems more plausible to me, given the FSF's reaction and additional langauge added to GPLv3 specifically to prevent what TiVo was doing - modifications which would prohibit the latter case but not the former (were the kernel to ever adopt GPLv3). [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353194088_Does_GPLv2_Include_an_%27Installation_Information%27_Obligation_A_Textual_Historical_Analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353194088_Does_GPLv...
      - pabs3 5y ago
        This post I already posted elsewhere in the thread debunks McCoy's article: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...
pabs3 5y ago
That is a common misconception. Both the FSF (the license authors) and Software Freedom Conservancy have always held the opposite view, and always enforced that view. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

I was about to say the same thing, but I think he’s talking about how GPL2 requires the company to give OP the kernel source code. OP mentioned that he didn’t have the kernel headers for DKMS.

iso1631 5y ago
Ah sure, if it's not a stock kernel then yes you'd need to distribute the code for it (although there's no requirement for it to be able boot from any replacement kernel you provide)
- Teknoman117 5y ago
  I wonder if the kernel's license covers any device tree overlays you create for a board. Technically, the kernel provides the device tree compiler. You write one, compile it, and supply it to the kernel at boot time (or compile it in). The end goal of Linux for ARM would be to completely avoid needing anything other than the upstream kernel (all drivers and CPU quirks being upstream), the .config for the kernel, and a device tree overlay.

simiones 5y ago

This is debatable - the license is pretty clear about it being a requirement, but it has been patchily enforced: > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable [emphasis mine]. Even in the infamous TiVo case, customers of TiVo had complete access to modify the Linux kernel or any other GPL binary - the proprietary TiVo software would just refuse to run if any modification had been applied this way.

iso1631 5y ago
Yes, there's no requirement for the sfp to boot any specific kernel, thus no requirement "to update the Linux kernel/etc" If they aren't using a stock kernel with drivers already in the kernel, then clearly they have to distribute that code (which might just be a shim like with nvidea), but not boot from it -- it's not GPL3
- pabs3 5y ago
  See my other comments above, the GPLv2 requires installation/updates too.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Interestingly, I found this scholarly article [0] claiming that is actually a misunderstanding of the text of the GPLv2, and an ahistorical reading/discussion of this problem. For example, here is a citation they have from the (then) chief lawyer of the FSF: > TiVo is a provider of hardware and software …. Our concern with them is that they have rights as users, but they should respect the rights of the users to whom they sell. Having a personal video recorder … which won't run software if you modify the box … is not user-respecting conduct. (TiVo) complied with GPL 2 by the skin of its teeth. On the other hand, it seems it is actually pretty hard right now to tell what exactly TiVo was preventing at the time. There are some articles, like the one you cited, that claim TiVo devices would check the signature of the kernel and other software, and refuse to run their own proprietary software. However, other articles (some cited in this paper) claim that in fact TiVo devices would not boot a modified kernel. This seems more plausible to me, given the FSF's reaction and additional langauge added to GPLv3 specifically to prevent what TiVo was doing - modifications which would prohibit the latter case but not the former (were the kernel to ever adopt GPLv3). [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353194088_Does_GPLv2_Include_an_%27Installation_Information%27_Obligation_A_Textual_Historical_Analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353194088_Does_GPLv...
    - pabs3 5y ago
      This post I already posted elsewhere in the thread debunks McCoy's article: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...

pabs3 5y ago

That is a common misconception. Both the FSF (the license authors) and Software Freedom Conservancy have always held the opposite view, and always enforced that view. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...