3 ms·
That's not quite true. First of all, the anti-tivoization clause only applies to things "normally used for personal, family, or household purposes" or things "
by hlieberman 3y ago
That's not quite true. First of all, the anti-tivoization clause only applies to things "normally used for personal, family, or household purposes" or things "sold for incorporation into a dwelling". You can run GPLv3 software on your MRI machine as much as you want, without having to let anyone else install their own version of it.
Second of all, even for consumer products, you can still make it so that you no longer trust machines that have been tampered with -- as long as you still let the person execute their own code. For example, Chromebooks getting put into developer mode by removing a screw could be cut off from cloud resources, or a phone screaming at you on boot that it's no longer trustworthy.
- nrclark 3y agoGood point about commercial/industrial devices. For consumer products, we are both right. A consumer product developer must provide owners with any secrets/keys/code necessary to replace any of the GPLv3 software. So: rights to modify the rootfs. It's OK for the product to complain at you for doing it, but the vendor has to tell you how, if you ask. And give you any signing keys. That's not ideal on products that might have software-unlockable features, or on public-facing things like routers.
- pessimizer 3y agoThe second is true, but it is also letting your customers have root (as the OP said.) It's control through the threat of ending a relationship, which Redhat is also trying now. You can't really say that it's allowed for in the GPL (there's no text in the GPL that says that it is allowed), it's just something that the GPL does not cover.
- jenadine 3y agoAnd third of all, the reason why Linux and busybox are not in GPLv3 is because it is to complicated too change the license.