5 ms·

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

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...
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      That article clashes with many of Richard Stallman's claims. In particular, the article claims that the Series 2 TiVos allowed the user to run any modified kernel, but disabled the TiVo proprietary software. In contrast, Stallman has many public statements claiming explicitly that the TiVo devices would fail to boot or shut down immediately if a modified kernel was detected: > For instance, the Tivo itself is the prototype of tivoisation. The Tivo contains a small GNU/Linux operating system, thus, several programs under the GNU GPL. And, as far as I know, the Tivo company does obey GPL version 2. They provide the users with source code and the users can then modify it and compile it and then install it in the Tivo. That's where the trouble begins because the Tivo will not run modified versions, the Tivo contains hardware designed to detect that the software has been changed and shuts down. So, regardless of the details of your modification, your modified version will not run in your Tivo. [emphasis mine] > One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called “appliances”) contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise. Linus Torvalds, from many public statements about cryptographically signed kernels, shares this same view of what the GPLv2 allows: > And it’s important to realize that signed kernels that you can’t run in modified form under certain circumstances is not at all a bad idea in many cases. For example, distributions signing the kernel modules (that are distributed under the GPL) that _they_ have compiled, and having their kernels either refuse to load them entirely (under a “secure policy”) or marking the resulting kernel as “Tainted” (under a “less secure” policy) is a GOOD THING.
      - pabs3 5y ago

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...
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    That article clashes with many of Richard Stallman's claims. In particular, the article claims that the Series 2 TiVos allowed the user to run any modified kernel, but disabled the TiVo proprietary software. In contrast, Stallman has many public statements claiming explicitly that the TiVo devices would fail to boot or shut down immediately if a modified kernel was detected: > For instance, the Tivo itself is the prototype of tivoisation. The Tivo contains a small GNU/Linux operating system, thus, several programs under the GNU GPL. And, as far as I know, the Tivo company does obey GPL version 2. They provide the users with source code and the users can then modify it and compile it and then install it in the Tivo. That's where the trouble begins because the Tivo will not run modified versions, the Tivo contains hardware designed to detect that the software has been changed and shuts down. So, regardless of the details of your modification, your modified version will not run in your Tivo. [emphasis mine] > One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called “appliances”) contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise. Linus Torvalds, from many public statements about cryptographically signed kernels, shares this same view of what the GPLv2 allows: > And it’s important to realize that signed kernels that you can’t run in modified form under certain circumstances is not at all a bad idea in many cases. For example, distributions signing the kernel modules (that are distributed under the GPL) that _they_ have compiled, and having their kernels either refuse to load them entirely (under a “secure policy”) or marking the resulting kernel as “Tainted” (under a “less secure” policy) is a GOOD THING.
    - pabs3 5y ago