5 ms·

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://sfcons

• 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.
      • pessimizer 10mo ago
        > 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. "For safety reasons" is every single claim. For safety reasons, I want to block the manufacturer's software from doing what it wants. Why do the manufacturer's safety reasons overrule my safety reasons? > This would be a gpl3 tivoization violation even though the whole thing is open source. Copyleft has nothing to do with open source. You haven't done everything right on the software end, because the GPL isn't about helping developers. To do things right on the software end, you should keep GPL software out of your locked down device that you are using to restrict the freedom of its users. > Would the toaster be a better product if you could change the software? Of course. You just said that it would be an unsafe product if you could change the software. Now you're using the "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" trope to pretend that you would of course support software freedom in an ideal, magical, childish, naïve dream world. > it seems to be an extreme overreach for the FSF to use their license People can license their software how they want. Is it an extreme overreach for Microsoft to not let you take their Windows code and do whatever they want with it? Why are you even thinking about GPL code when there's so much overreach coming from Adobe? They don't let you use their code under any circumstances! All of your reasoning is motivated, and I would recommend that people not buy your toaster.
      • MarkusQ 10mo ago
        > 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. Nothing is stopping the "hardware world" from developing their own operating system. But as long as they choose to come as guests to the FSF/GPL party, partake of the snacks and fill their glasses at the free-refills fountain, they're expected to abide by the rules. The doors not locked, they can leave any time.
    • selectnull 10mo ago
      It's not that simple. In the email you have linked to, he does not support tivoization. He simply says that he finds the term offensive (which is really funny coming from him). Torvalds has also publicly stated that he doesn't think that tivoization benefits users, but it's not his battle to fight. More info on that topic can be found in the linked YT (linked at the precise time he is answering the question about tivoization, but the whole video is about GPL v2 vs GPL v3). YT video: https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU?si=RK5ZHizoidgVA1xO&t=288 https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU?si=RK5ZHizoidgVA1xO&t=288
      • paxcoder 10mo ago
        [dead]
    • teekert 10mo ago
      Which confirms the point actually. The hoops companies have to jump through are pretty good hoops.