2 ms·
A good point. For completeness though, I think that the way many modern embedded devices accept updates (arguably) skirts around the GPLv2 requirements. For ins
by 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 agoIt 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.