3 ms·
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 the
by 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 agoI'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 agoThere is no collision _whatsoever_ between software freedom and security requirements. It's an illusion which happens to be highly convenient to those who want to promote an artificially controlled market and sell that as snake-oil security.