4 ms·

SFC does have a strange view of the GPLv2 installation scripts clause. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ http

SFC does have a strange view of the GPLv2 installation scripts clause. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... The normal interpretation is that it includes Configure scripts, Makefiles etc. The SFC claim it also requires things like the encryption keys needed to load the software on that specific device. As most people are aware, GPLv3 added explicit requirement for such keys. The SFC claims that the GPLv2 always required the ability to install modofied software on the device that shipped with GPL (except in cases like ROM, where nobody can modify), and what the GPLv3 is about prohibiting device makers from making their proprietary software stop working when users install modified versions of GPL'd software. I have also heard of at least one other party that asked Stallman flat out if GPLv3 allowed for providing keys that allow for installation of modified versions of the free software software, but where use of such keys bricked the proprietary software that came with the device. Stallman allegedly indicated that it was, which if true counters the SFC narrative.

pabs3 4y ago
Conservancy says the GPLv3 doesn't prevent a vendor from breaking their proprietary software when GPLv3 software is updated (which is what TiVo did, for GPLv2 software): 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...
- jsmith45 4y ago
  Unfortunately those slides directly contradict the blog post I linked, whose thesis is basically that the installation relevant difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 is only that GPLv3 requires the proprietary software to continue to run (for "User Products"), and GPLv3 specifically requires the keys, but that both still require that end users have the ability to run modified versions of the GPL software on the device, either by giving keys, or by offering the ability to disable secure boot, etc. > [so], these words in GPLv3: “The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.” mean that the proprietary software that is not a combined work with the GPLv3'd work must also function? > Stallman replied on 2012-05-06 with: > Absolutely. And I wrote it specifically to do that!

pabs3 4y ago

Conservancy says the GPLv3 doesn't prevent a vendor from breaking their proprietary software when GPLv3 software is updated (which is what TiVo did, for GPLv2 software): 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...

jsmith45 4y ago
Unfortunately those slides directly contradict the blog post I linked, whose thesis is basically that the installation relevant difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 is only that GPLv3 requires the proprietary software to continue to run (for "User Products"), and GPLv3 specifically requires the keys, but that both still require that end users have the ability to run modified versions of the GPL software on the device, either by giving keys, or by offering the ability to disable secure boot, etc. > [so], these words in GPLv3: “The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.” mean that the proprietary software that is not a combined work with the GPLv3'd work must also function? > Stallman replied on 2012-05-06 with: > Absolutely. And I wrote it specifically to do that!