3 ms·

You know what I'm curious about? Why so many people rail against GPL for business use, claiming it makes it more difficult to monetize a product, but then compa

You know what I'm curious about? Why so many people rail against GPL for business use, claiming it makes it more difficult to monetize a product, but then companies like Samsung and Google turn around and use GNU/Linux and other GPL code on a project and then lock it down with proprietary blobs and DRM. Doesn't seem to really be hurting them at all, but it is certainly hurting consumers that linux is being used to abuse peoples rights. If I buy a TV with a quad core processor in it, there is no reason I should not, if I so choose (and potentially void warranty) that I shouldn't be able to install whatever I want to on that. The only technical limitations to rooting a Samsung smart tv are artificially placed there by Samesung, and with recent updates they made it so trying to root can brick your TV! I would love to buy a completely FOSS smart tv, but it infuriates me to know I have linux but can't do anything with it on mine. Contrary to popular opinion, I'm increasingly convinced that RMS was just a man ahead of his time and the principles of the GPL are more important than ever to uphold.

jessaustin 12y ago
I haven't used one of these TVs, but if they're using linux and you can't patch it, why haven't they been sued? That is the point of the GPL.
- arca_vorago 12y ago
  Perhaps we need to contact the FSF about this? That's a good question. For any curious this is the page that details what they need for such a report. I will be doing this sometime this week and sending all of it to them. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
- tbirdz 12y ago
  You're thinking of the GPLv3's anti "tivoization" clause. Linux is released under the GPLv2 only, and that license does not include that clause.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    You're right; thanks. There is a difference between "providing source code" and "providing source code that may be built and run by the user". RMS was right, about tivoization.

jessaustin 12y ago

I haven't used one of these TVs, but if they're using linux and you can't patch it, why haven't they been sued? That is the point of the GPL.

arca_vorago 12y ago
Perhaps we need to contact the FSF about this? That's a good question. For any curious this is the page that details what they need for such a report. I will be doing this sometime this week and sending all of it to them. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
tbirdz 12y ago
You're thinking of the GPLv3's anti "tivoization" clause. Linux is released under the GPLv2 only, and that license does not include that clause.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  You're right; thanks. There is a difference between "providing source code" and "providing source code that may be built and run by the user". RMS was right, about tivoization.