4 ms·
The judge would not order to release the code, but John Deere could likely avoid paying (most of) the fine it they instead decided to release the source code.
by afiori 4y ago
The judge would not order to release the code, but John Deere could likely avoid paying (most of) the fine it they instead decided to release the source code.
- squarefoot 4y agoWhich wouldn't help much if they keep their hardware encrypted and locked, de facto preventing users from checking that the hardware actually runs the released code, therefore giving no guarantees against planned obsolescence and other tricks.
- the_pwner224 4y agoThat's not the purpose of the GPLv2. If JD published their source code they would fulfill all the obligations of the license. Doesn't matter if their hardware is locked down.
- pabs3 4y agoThat is a misconception, the GPLv2 also provides users the right to modify, rebuild and reinstall software on their devices. 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... However, with both GPLv2 and GPLv3, a vendor of an aggregation of copyleft and proprietary software can legally cause the the proprietary software to stop working when the copyleft software is modified. I think this hasn't been tested in court though, but the license as they are written both allow this. This would essentially brick your car/tractor until you rewrote that proprietary software from scratch. 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...