4 ms·

> FYI the reason is that the GPL would require you to hand over the signing keys. If you sign a GPLv3 licensed bootloader like GRUB, you're forced to also make

by nailer 3y ago

> FYI the reason is that the GPL would require you to hand over the signing keys. If you sign a GPLv3 licensed bootloader like GRUB, you're forced to also make public the signing key... which defeats the purpose. That seems to be a ridiculous interpretation of the GPL (no personal offense meant, I'm sure you're a fine person but this idea is genuinely very silly). Signatures on binaries are not part of the source code, and therefore the GPL isn't concerned with them. Think of: - every signed binary for an open source app on a Linux distro or Windows install - Every open source web app delivered over a TLS cert Nobody has ever considered that the private keys used to sign the package, executable or web site cert to be required by the GPL.

rany_ 3y ago
> Code submitted for UEFI signing must not be subject to GPLv3 or any license that purports to give someone the right to demand authorization keys to be able to install modified forms of the code on a device. Code that is subject to such a license that has already been signed might have that signature revoked. For example, GRUB 2 is licensed under GPLv3 and will not be signed. It does according to MSFT lawyers: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/hardware-dev-center/updated-uefi-signing-requirements/ba-p/1062916 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/hardware-dev-center/u...
- nailer 3y ago
  > any license that purports to give someone the right to demand authorization keys to be able to install modified forms of the code on a device There's nowhere in the GPLv3 that says that (then again, that sentence doesn't imply there is). Anyone can download and modify the grub source code, and compile it. It doesn't mean Microsoft is obliged to sign their fork. I wonder if there's something that confused (or was bad faith interpreted) by Microsoft's lawyers? Maybe someone can just use another open source license? Ie, anything not called 'GPLv3' which, like every other OSS license, does not purport to give someone the right to demand authorization keys to be able to install modified forms of the code on a device.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    Actually, if you ask the Software Freedom Conservancy, not only is this a requirement of the GPLv3, it is in fact also required by the GPLv2 [0]: > GPLv2 assures, to the purchaser of an embedded product, their absolute right to receive the information necessary to install a modified version of the GPLv2'd works. [...] installation of the GPL'd works must succeed and operate in a useful and functional fashion on the device. I believe the FSF position is different, but it's unclear. At least one member of the SFC who was a member of the FSF in the past (Bradley Kuhn) [1] believes that the FSF has the same position - that both GPLv2 software and GPLv3 software must be accompanied by full instructions (and ability) for a user to install their own modified versions on any hardware containing this software. He believes that the only difference with GPLv3 is that, in addition to this requirement, other proprietary software on the device must continue to operate just as before; whereas, with the GPLv2, it's fine for other proprietary software to say "you're running an unsigned version of Linux, failing to start". Linus Torvalds' public statements about the GPLv3, as well as the FSF page on Tivoization [2], seem to suggest otherwise. Either way, this is not some invention of MS lawyers meant to make the GPL look scarier, it is very much how the free software community sees the GPL working. [0] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ [1] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/tivoization.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/tivoization.en.html
  - rany_ 3y ago
    They're probably referring to this part of the GPLv3 license: > “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). I believe the MSFT lawyers are right here, but obviously I'm not a lawyer.
snthd 3y ago
>are not part of the source code, and therefore the GPL isn't concerned with them. IIRC the GPL concerns itself with buildscripts etc. and GPLv3 was written with the tivoization of v2 in mind. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html >Protecting Your Right to Tinker >Tivoization is a dangerous attempt to curtail users' freedom: the right to modify your software will become meaningless if none of your computers let you do it. GPLv3 stops tivoization by requiring the distributor to provide you with whatever information or data is necessary to install modified software on the device. This may be as simple as a set of instructions, or it may include special data such as cryptographic keys or information about how to bypass an integrity check in the hardware. It will depend on how the hardware was designed—but no matter what information you need, you must be able to get it. >This requirement is limited in scope. Distributors are still allowed to use cryptographic keys for any purpose, and they'll only be required to disclose a key if you need it to modify GPLed software on the device they gave you.
ajross 3y ago
So... really no. The overall spirit of the GPLv3 text is that the license demands preservation of the ability of an end user to modify and run the software they receive, see all the discussion at the time it was being drafted about "TiVoization". It does not specifically speak to encryption and signatures being used by the loader environment, but it's absolutely reasonable to interpret it that way. If I buy a laptop from Lenovo, and it uses a signed GPLv3 bootloader, and I want to modify and run a new version of that bootloader, I'm prevented by the lack of a signature. That action is exactly what the license demands Lenovo permit. Now, obviously this collides badly with the security requirements of the system. So it's likewise totally reasonable to imagine a court flipping the other way and refusing to literally enforce the GPLv3 because of the potential damage to the market. But if that happens, then what gives Lenovo any right to ship that GPLv3 software at all? Now they're subject to the bootloader authors demanding they stop shipment of the infringing product. No, the permissively-licensed shim compromise was the right choice.
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  > No, the permissively-licensed shim compromise was the right choice. Why? Why on earth? IF Lenovo wanted to really ship a GPLv3 bootloader, all it imposes on Lenovo is they ship a method to install your own bootloader keys. Do you really disagree with that? Lenovo has already shipped hardware which requires magical incantations to install anything other than Windows (see Secured Core hardware). Why on earth anyone shipping FLOSS software would drop their pants to allow precisely this shitshow is over me.
  - ajross 3y ago
    I'm not the person you should be arguing with. I didn't write the license and I'm not the judge that would have to make the decision. I was explaining why the collision between software freedom and end user security requirements (which is a very real thing!) is seen as a risk to the people shipping and supporting actual hardware.
    - AshamedCaptain 3y ago

by nailer 3y ago

rany_ 3y ago

> Code submitted for UEFI signing must not be subject to GPLv3 or any license that purports to give someone the right to demand authorization keys to be able to install modified forms of the code on a device. Code that is subject to such a license that has already been signed might have that signature revoked. For example, GRUB 2 is licensed under GPLv3 and will not be signed. It does according to MSFT lawyers: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/hardware-dev-center/updated-uefi-signing-requirements/ba-p/1062916 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/hardware-dev-center/u...

nailer 3y ago
> any license that purports to give someone the right to demand authorization keys to be able to install modified forms of the code on a device There's nowhere in the GPLv3 that says that (then again, that sentence doesn't imply there is). Anyone can download and modify the grub source code, and compile it. It doesn't mean Microsoft is obliged to sign their fork. I wonder if there's something that confused (or was bad faith interpreted) by Microsoft's lawyers? Maybe someone can just use another open source license? Ie, anything not called 'GPLv3' which, like every other OSS license, does not purport to give someone the right to demand authorization keys to be able to install modified forms of the code on a device.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Actually, if you ask the Software Freedom Conservancy, not only is this a requirement of the GPLv3, it is in fact also required by the GPLv2 [0]: > GPLv2 assures, to the purchaser of an embedded product, their absolute right to receive the information necessary to install a modified version of the GPLv2'd works. [...] installation of the GPL'd works must succeed and operate in a useful and functional fashion on the device. I believe the FSF position is different, but it's unclear. At least one member of the SFC who was a member of the FSF in the past (Bradley Kuhn) [1] believes that the FSF has the same position - that both GPLv2 software and GPLv3 software must be accompanied by full instructions (and ability) for a user to install their own modified versions on any hardware containing this software. He believes that the only difference with GPLv3 is that, in addition to this requirement, other proprietary software on the device must continue to operate just as before; whereas, with the GPLv2, it's fine for other proprietary software to say "you're running an unsigned version of Linux, failing to start". Linus Torvalds' public statements about the GPLv3, as well as the FSF page on Tivoization [2], seem to suggest otherwise. Either way, this is not some invention of MS lawyers meant to make the GPL look scarier, it is very much how the free software community sees the GPL working. [0] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ [1] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/tivoization.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/tivoization.en.html
- rany_ 3y ago
  They're probably referring to this part of the GPLv3 license: > “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). I believe the MSFT lawyers are right here, but obviously I'm not a lawyer.

snthd 3y ago

>are not part of the source code, and therefore the GPL isn't concerned with them. IIRC the GPL concerns itself with buildscripts etc. and GPLv3 was written with the tivoization of v2 in mind. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html >Protecting Your Right to Tinker >Tivoization is a dangerous attempt to curtail users' freedom: the right to modify your software will become meaningless if none of your computers let you do it. GPLv3 stops tivoization by requiring the distributor to provide you with whatever information or data is necessary to install modified software on the device. This may be as simple as a set of instructions, or it may include special data such as cryptographic keys or information about how to bypass an integrity check in the hardware. It will depend on how the hardware was designed—but no matter what information you need, you must be able to get it. >This requirement is limited in scope. Distributors are still allowed to use cryptographic keys for any purpose, and they'll only be required to disclose a key if you need it to modify GPLed software on the device they gave you.

ajross 3y ago

So... really no. The overall spirit of the GPLv3 text is that the license demands preservation of the ability of an end user to modify and run the software they receive, see all the discussion at the time it was being drafted about "TiVoization". It does not specifically speak to encryption and signatures being used by the loader environment, but it's absolutely reasonable to interpret it that way. If I buy a laptop from Lenovo, and it uses a signed GPLv3 bootloader, and I want to modify and run a new version of that bootloader, I'm prevented by the lack of a signature. That action is exactly what the license demands Lenovo permit. Now, obviously this collides badly with the security requirements of the system. So it's likewise totally reasonable to imagine a court flipping the other way and refusing to literally enforce the GPLv3 because of the potential damage to the market. But if that happens, then what gives Lenovo any right to ship that GPLv3 software at all? Now they're subject to the bootloader authors demanding they stop shipment of the infringing product. No, the permissively-licensed shim compromise was the right choice.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago
> No, the permissively-licensed shim compromise was the right choice. Why? Why on earth? IF Lenovo wanted to really ship a GPLv3 bootloader, all it imposes on Lenovo is they ship a method to install your own bootloader keys. Do you really disagree with that? Lenovo has already shipped hardware which requires magical incantations to install anything other than Windows (see Secured Core hardware). Why on earth anyone shipping FLOSS software would drop their pants to allow precisely this shitshow is over me.
- ajross 3y ago
  I'm not the person you should be arguing with. I didn't write the license and I'm not the judge that would have to make the decision. I was explaining why the collision between software freedom and end user security requirements (which is a very real thing!) is seen as a risk to the people shipping and supporting actual hardware.
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago