2 ms·

Please note that the GPLv2 has the requirement that users be able to modify and reinstall the GPLed software. "Tivoisation" isn't what Tivo actually did and bot

by pabs3 3y ago

Please note that the GPLv2 has the requirement that users be able to modify and reinstall the GPLed software. "Tivoisation" isn't what Tivo actually did and both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 ban "Tivoisation" but allow what Tivo actually did. "Tivoisation" as it is popularly known refers to blocking the running of modified GPL code, while what Tivo actually did was block running their proprietary software (their UI etc) on top of modified GPL code (here Linux). Both GPL versions block the former while allowing the latter. At least according to Software Freedom Conservancy. 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...

sudobash1 3y ago
A good point. For completeness though, I think that the way many modern embedded devices accept updates (arguably) skirts around the GPLv2 requirements. For instance many devices will only accept signed updates, or will only accept updates from a particular https server. The GPLv3 is much more explicit about these matters.
- pabs3 3y ago
  It is fine to require signed updates, as long as the user can get their own updates installed. Usually that involves enrolling a new signing key, signing the updates with the user key and allowing user-signed updates. The shim tool used by Linux distros for Secure Boot is designed to allow that even if the UEFI firmware isn't and some UEFI implementations may allow controlling the signing keys. I expect that most of the cases you cite are simply outright GPL violations though.
ranger_danger 3y ago
Either this information is incorrect or a lot of companies have been getting away with violating this for decades with no consequences. Take for example, the Nintendo Switch. It contains GPL'ed software, which Nintendo makes available on their website (https://www.nintendo.co.jp/support/oss/ https://www.nintendo.co.jp/support/oss/), but they make absolutely no interface for the user to modify or replace any (GPL or not) code that was not provided by them. Lots of companies do this in fact... practically every modern car on the road is another example. And allowing them to have user-replaceable code would be a huge no-no for a variety of (potentially deadly) reasons. Same for medical devices.
- pabs3 3y ago
  Indeed, most companies violate this requirement and copyright holders of GPLed code generally don't have legal/economic resources needed to enforce the license. There is a test case that will, if successful, allow all recipients of GPLed code to sue for GPL compliance, this will open up the possibility of enforcement to users too, which could potentially lead to class action GPL lawsuits. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html On cars, read through the presentation above, it discusses GPLv3 in cars and how that could work. Basically, there is a lot of proprietary software on top of the GPLed software in cars. When you modify the GPLed software, the other software would stop working (or be removed), and so your car would stop driving until you replaced it. You would then need to write replacements, you could then drive on your own property, or get them certified by the relevant authorities for use on public roads. 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...

by pabs3 3y ago

sudobash1 3y ago

A good point. For completeness though, I think that the way many modern embedded devices accept updates (arguably) skirts around the GPLv2 requirements. For instance many devices will only accept signed updates, or will only accept updates from a particular https server. The GPLv3 is much more explicit about these matters.

pabs3 3y ago
It is fine to require signed updates, as long as the user can get their own updates installed. Usually that involves enrolling a new signing key, signing the updates with the user key and allowing user-signed updates. The shim tool used by Linux distros for Secure Boot is designed to allow that even if the UEFI firmware isn't and some UEFI implementations may allow controlling the signing keys. I expect that most of the cases you cite are simply outright GPL violations though.

ranger_danger 3y ago

Either this information is incorrect or a lot of companies have been getting away with violating this for decades with no consequences. Take for example, the Nintendo Switch. It contains GPL'ed software, which Nintendo makes available on their website (https://www.nintendo.co.jp/support/oss/ https://www.nintendo.co.jp/support/oss/), but they make absolutely no interface for the user to modify or replace any (GPL or not) code that was not provided by them. Lots of companies do this in fact... practically every modern car on the road is another example. And allowing them to have user-replaceable code would be a huge no-no for a variety of (potentially deadly) reasons. Same for medical devices.

pabs3 3y ago
Indeed, most companies violate this requirement and copyright holders of GPLed code generally don't have legal/economic resources needed to enforce the license. There is a test case that will, if successful, allow all recipients of GPLed code to sue for GPL compliance, this will open up the possibility of enforcement to users too, which could potentially lead to class action GPL lawsuits. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html On cars, read through the presentation above, it discusses GPLv3 in cars and how that could work. Basically, there is a lot of proprietary software on top of the GPLed software in cars. When you modify the GPLed software, the other software would stop working (or be removed), and so your car would stop driving until you replaced it. You would then need to write replacements, you could then drive on your own property, or get them certified by the relevant authorities for use on public roads. 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...