3 ms·
Yup, GPLv3 specifically requires manufacturers to provide any signing keys needed to get code to run: > “Installation Information” for a User Product means any
by csande17 4y ago
Yup, GPLv3 specifically requires manufacturers to provide any signing keys needed to get code to run:
> “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. 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.
> If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
(https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GiveUpKeys https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GiveUpKeys clarifies that this applies to cryptographic keys.)
- dvzk 4y agoI think this is a good argument for the advocacy of GPL-3+ prevalence. It’s also legal, I think, to publish GPL-3 firmware source code, and to disallow custom firmware flashing, as long as the copyright is self-owned. (IIRC the provisions of the GPL don’t give legal standing for suing the author over self-violations.) In this case, would you call the software or code proprietary (which many confusingly do) or would you call the device proprietary?