4 ms·

Indeed, see for example Vizio (or Tesla) or many other examples. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-co

by pabs3 1y ago

Indeed, see for example Vizio (or Tesla) or many other examples. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

ranger_danger 1y ago
> SFC seeks to confirm in the courts that purchasers of devices running Linux and other software with reciprocal licenses like GPLv2 have a legal right to ask for, and receive, the source code for those devices, so they can adapt the software to their needs, and make practical use of those adaptations by being able to install those changes back onto the devices they purchased. Specifically the last part of that sentence, unfortunately I'm not very hopeful that it will happen, since v2 does not have the same anti-tivoization clause that v3 does, and Linus has personally said that he wants people to be able to lock down their products. My own personal experience with SFC, EFF and FSF is also that they will only agree to take on a case for you if they happen to want to do it, and if you sign over all copyright ownership to them, which I think a lot of people are not willing to do.
- pabs3 1y ago
  GPLv2 has the same requirements as GPLv3 around installation of modifications. The GPLv3 also doesn't prevent what TiVo did; breaking the proprietary software when run on modified GPLed software. TiVo didn't prevent installation of modified GPLed software, and didn't think it was legal to do that. 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... Linus doesn't want people to enforce the GPL in general, not just the lockdown case, he has been arguing against that for a long time. IIRC SFC has a contract option to enforce your copyrights without being the owner of them, I've seen that contract on paper at conferences. They also have limited resources, so can't take on every case.
  - ranger_danger 1y ago
    > GPLv2 has the same requirements as GPLv3 around installation of modifications I disagree: > Stallman found this practice (using crypto lock-down to force the proprietary software to fail) illegitimate. He noted publicly that GPLv2 didn't prevent this behavior, and wanted (and wrote, as explained below) a GPLv3 draft that prohibited that behavior. I think the author is sometimes (but not always) conflating software installation instructions with the ability to actually usefully install different versions of the software. At one point he specifically claims that GPLv2 required "a functional installation method", but gives no citations of this in any actual clause of the GPLv2, nor cites any court cases where this was argued either way, and even admits that many lawyers believe that a working installation method is not required (and gives no evidence otherwise because saying he personally disagrees). > there was a clear installation requirement in GPLv2 — the word “install” appears prominently Except the only time the word "install" actually appears is in this part: > scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable And I would argue that it's going to be entirely up to every individual judge's 50/50 interpretation as to whether "scripts used to control installation" actually implies a working method of installation as well. Not only that, but TiVo's "forcing the proprietary software to fail" practice is IMO a completely different legal issue from not even having a method of installing different software on a locked-down device in the first place. TiVo happened to have a method to do that already, but many devices since then (which use Linux kernels) do not have a way to actually modify any software, and for good reason IMO (e.g. safety/regulation such as in aerospace/defense/medical/automotive industries). And they are not getting sued or called out by anyone to my knowledge... but please prove me wrong.
    - pabs3 1y ago
      If the judge has read the GPL preamble, they would understand the intent of the license, and I would guess that would make it a 90/10 chance of requiring a working install method.
      - sokoloff 1y ago
        IANAL, but my understand is that legally, the preamble is not part of the terms of the copyright license itself and if the preamble can be construed to provide something, but the actual license does not contain it, then it's not part of the license terms. I'm willing to bet a pretty large amount that any judge with such a case before them will read the preamble in the course of the proceedings.

by pabs3 1y ago

Indeed, see for example Vizio (or Tesla) or many other examples. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

ranger_danger 1y ago

> SFC seeks to confirm in the courts that purchasers of devices running Linux and other software with reciprocal licenses like GPLv2 have a legal right to ask for, and receive, the source code for those devices, so they can adapt the software to their needs, and make practical use of those adaptations by being able to install those changes back onto the devices they purchased. Specifically the last part of that sentence, unfortunately I'm not very hopeful that it will happen, since v2 does not have the same anti-tivoization clause that v3 does, and Linus has personally said that he wants people to be able to lock down their products. My own personal experience with SFC, EFF and FSF is also that they will only agree to take on a case for you if they happen to want to do it, and if you sign over all copyright ownership to them, which I think a lot of people are not willing to do.

pabs3 1y ago
GPLv2 has the same requirements as GPLv3 around installation of modifications. The GPLv3 also doesn't prevent what TiVo did; breaking the proprietary software when run on modified GPLed software. TiVo didn't prevent installation of modified GPLed software, and didn't think it was legal to do that. 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... Linus doesn't want people to enforce the GPL in general, not just the lockdown case, he has been arguing against that for a long time. IIRC SFC has a contract option to enforce your copyrights without being the owner of them, I've seen that contract on paper at conferences. They also have limited resources, so can't take on every case.
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  > GPLv2 has the same requirements as GPLv3 around installation of modifications I disagree: > Stallman found this practice (using crypto lock-down to force the proprietary software to fail) illegitimate. He noted publicly that GPLv2 didn't prevent this behavior, and wanted (and wrote, as explained below) a GPLv3 draft that prohibited that behavior. I think the author is sometimes (but not always) conflating software installation instructions with the ability to actually usefully install different versions of the software. At one point he specifically claims that GPLv2 required "a functional installation method", but gives no citations of this in any actual clause of the GPLv2, nor cites any court cases where this was argued either way, and even admits that many lawyers believe that a working installation method is not required (and gives no evidence otherwise because saying he personally disagrees). > there was a clear installation requirement in GPLv2 — the word “install” appears prominently Except the only time the word "install" actually appears is in this part: > scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable And I would argue that it's going to be entirely up to every individual judge's 50/50 interpretation as to whether "scripts used to control installation" actually implies a working method of installation as well. Not only that, but TiVo's "forcing the proprietary software to fail" practice is IMO a completely different legal issue from not even having a method of installing different software on a locked-down device in the first place. TiVo happened to have a method to do that already, but many devices since then (which use Linux kernels) do not have a way to actually modify any software, and for good reason IMO (e.g. safety/regulation such as in aerospace/defense/medical/automotive industries). And they are not getting sued or called out by anyone to my knowledge... but please prove me wrong.
  - pabs3 1y ago
    If the judge has read the GPL preamble, they would understand the intent of the license, and I would guess that would make it a 90/10 chance of requiring a working install method.
    - sokoloff 1y ago
      IANAL, but my understand is that legally, the preamble is not part of the terms of the copyright license itself and if the preamble can be construed to provide something, but the actual license does not contain it, then it's not part of the license terms. I'm willing to bet a pretty large amount that any judge with such a case before them will read the preamble in the course of the proceedings.