4 ms·

You shouldn't have to hack it, you should have the right to repair the software on your device. Hopefully the Vizio lawsuit will help with that for Linux based

by pabs3 10mo ago

You shouldn't have to hack it, you should have the right to repair the software on your device. Hopefully the Vizio lawsuit will help with that for Linux based devices, signs are looking good though. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

Retr0id 10mo ago
This is just about GPL compliance though (afaik LG TVs are already GPL compliant, or at least, I haven't noticed any noncompliance). The bigger problem here is tivoization. You can build a fresh kernel from source but you have no way to install it because the bootloader is locked down.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- pabs3 10mo ago
  As Conservancy would say, a device with no way to modify isn't GPLv2 compliant either. 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...
  - darkwater 10mo ago
    We should really be happy that Torvalds decided to license Linux as GPL software. If it was BSD these discussions would simply not exist, and corporate power over software would be even greater. I would dare to say we would probably not even have an open source scene at all...
    - paxcoder 10mo ago
      Unfortunately, Torvalds supported tivoization: https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/13/289 https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/13/289
      - ninkendo 10mo ago
        Because anti-tivoization doesn’t make sense in a software license. Imagine you make a smart toaster, and you make it entirely out of open source software. You release all the changes you made too, complying fully with the spirit of open source. People could take your software, buy some parts and make their own OSS toasters, everything’s great. But for safety reasons, since the software controls when the toaster pops, you decide to check at boot time that the software hasn’t been modified. You could take the engineering effort to split the software into parts so that only the “pop on this heat level” part is locked down, but maybe you’re lazy, so you just check the signature of the whole thing. This would be a gpl3 tivoization violation even though the whole thing is open source. You did everything right on the software end, it just so happens that the hardware you made doesn’t support modifying the software. Why is that a violation of a software license? This is what makes no sense to Linus, and TBH it makes no sense to me either. Would the toaster be a better product if you could change the software? Of course. But it seems to be an extreme overreach for the FSF to use their license (and that “or any later version” backdoor clause) to start pushing their views on the hardware world.
        paxcoder 10mo ago
        Modifiability does not imply insecurity (though if it did, the user should still be given a choice). A software author has the right to set terms for use of their software, including requiring that manufacturers provide end users certain freedoms.
        Brian_K_White 10mo ago
        It makes sense in the context of GPL specifically when you remember that the GPL itself and the entire GNU stack and movement started from frustration with a printer, not a program.
- pabs3 10mo ago
  The lawsuit is indeed about the GPL, but the right to repair (or at least replace) software really it needs to be expanded to all software. The right to repair movement is often about software-based lockdowns. Hopefully it will eventually result in those being banned.
godelski 10mo ago
You're right, but until the laws change we should be telling everyone how and make these tools better. If we can't change the laws we can make the cat and mouse game too expensive for them to continue. Plus, I'm pretty confident they are already doing illegal things. On my Samsung TV it wants to force update. There is no decline option, there is no option to turn off updates, only to take it completely offline. There's no way in hell these kinds of contracts would be legal in any other setting. There's no meaningful choice and contracts that strongarm one party are almost always illegal. You can't sign a contract where the bank can arbitrary change the loan on you (they can change interest but they can't arbitrarily charge how that interest is determined. Such as going from 1% to 1000% without some crazy impossible economic situation). Someone needs to start a class action. Someone needs to push that as far as the courts will go
- pabs3 10mo ago
  Agreed. Its not that useful, but I have been collecting exploits here when I see any that could potentially be useful for replacing firmware on devices. https://wiki.debian.org/Exploits https://wiki.debian.org/Exploits
khimaros 10mo ago
https://fossforce.com/2025/12/judge-signals-win-for-software-freedom-conservancy-in-vizio-gpl-case/ https://fossforce.com/2025/12/judge-signals-win-for-software...

by pabs3 10mo ago

Retr0id 10mo ago

This is just about GPL compliance though (afaik LG TVs are already GPL compliant, or at least, I haven't noticed any noncompliance). The bigger problem here is tivoization. You can build a fresh kernel from source but you have no way to install it because the bootloader is locked down.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
pabs3 10mo ago
As Conservancy would say, a device with no way to modify isn't GPLv2 compliant either. 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...
- darkwater 10mo ago
  We should really be happy that Torvalds decided to license Linux as GPL software. If it was BSD these discussions would simply not exist, and corporate power over software would be even greater. I would dare to say we would probably not even have an open source scene at all...
  - paxcoder 10mo ago
    Unfortunately, Torvalds supported tivoization: https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/13/289 https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/13/289
    - ninkendo 10mo ago
      Because anti-tivoization doesn’t make sense in a software license. Imagine you make a smart toaster, and you make it entirely out of open source software. You release all the changes you made too, complying fully with the spirit of open source. People could take your software, buy some parts and make their own OSS toasters, everything’s great. But for safety reasons, since the software controls when the toaster pops, you decide to check at boot time that the software hasn’t been modified. You could take the engineering effort to split the software into parts so that only the “pop on this heat level” part is locked down, but maybe you’re lazy, so you just check the signature of the whole thing. This would be a gpl3 tivoization violation even though the whole thing is open source. You did everything right on the software end, it just so happens that the hardware you made doesn’t support modifying the software. Why is that a violation of a software license? This is what makes no sense to Linus, and TBH it makes no sense to me either. Would the toaster be a better product if you could change the software? Of course. But it seems to be an extreme overreach for the FSF to use their license (and that “or any later version” backdoor clause) to start pushing their views on the hardware world.
      - paxcoder 10mo ago
        Modifiability does not imply insecurity (though if it did, the user should still be given a choice). A software author has the right to set terms for use of their software, including requiring that manufacturers provide end users certain freedoms.
      - Brian_K_White 10mo ago
        It makes sense in the context of GPL specifically when you remember that the GPL itself and the entire GNU stack and movement started from frustration with a printer, not a program.
pabs3 10mo ago
The lawsuit is indeed about the GPL, but the right to repair (or at least replace) software really it needs to be expanded to all software. The right to repair movement is often about software-based lockdowns. Hopefully it will eventually result in those being banned.

godelski 10mo ago

You're right, but until the laws change we should be telling everyone how and make these tools better. If we can't change the laws we can make the cat and mouse game too expensive for them to continue. Plus, I'm pretty confident they are already doing illegal things. On my Samsung TV it wants to force update. There is no decline option, there is no option to turn off updates, only to take it completely offline. There's no way in hell these kinds of contracts would be legal in any other setting. There's no meaningful choice and contracts that strongarm one party are almost always illegal. You can't sign a contract where the bank can arbitrary change the loan on you (they can change interest but they can't arbitrarily charge how that interest is determined. Such as going from 1% to 1000% without some crazy impossible economic situation). Someone needs to start a class action. Someone needs to push that as far as the courts will go

pabs3 10mo ago
Agreed. Its not that useful, but I have been collecting exploits here when I see any that could potentially be useful for replacing firmware on devices. https://wiki.debian.org/Exploits https://wiki.debian.org/Exploits

khimaros 10mo ago

https://fossforce.com/2025/12/judge-signals-win-for-software-freedom-conservancy-in-vizio-gpl-case/ https://fossforce.com/2025/12/judge-signals-win-for-software...