4 ms·

GPLv2 has the same requirements as GPLv3 around installation of modifications. The GPLv3 also doesn't prevent what TiVo did; breaking the proprietary software w

• 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.
    • ranger_danger 1y ago
      The GPL also says: > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License I am interpreting this to mean that "installation" does not count as any of those things. It even says "The act of running the Program is not restricted", and to me that means I am free to restrict how/if the program can run in the first place, which I believe is what TiVo did. Linus even admits "Tivo never did anything wrong", and honestly from a license perspective I'd rather be on the good side of whoever wrote the thing I'm using, as opposed to an outsider who thinks I might be using the license wrong, and is no party to any case I might be involved in. Either way this Brad guy seems to go on a lot about how he thinks everyone else is wrong, while also never showing any evidence that his interpretations have ever played out successfully in court... so I think it's at least safe to say that for now, "we don't know" if installation is covered or not, until it's actually tested in court. And even then, one judge may interpret it differently than the next one, so maybe there can't be a universal answer unless the license is modified to be more clear.