6 ms·

GPL v3 is toxic. It forces companies to hand out their private certificates. Huge no-no for any hardware manufacturer.

by saltyshake 7y ago

ghettoimp 7y ago
Is there an example of a hardware company that has been forced to hand out a private certificate because of the GPL v3?
- equdi 7y ago
  No because no serious company uses GPL v3 software. (For example Apple avoids it, etc.)
- sn_master 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
  - sn_master 7y ago
    Why am I getting downvoted for posting an article that's core related to GPVv3 and to the discussion ? It seems anyone opposed to GPLv3 is being shushed by the pro-Stallman mobs.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      Because it does not require the release of private certificates to comply with the anti-tivoization language. If you said something about how the company would have less control over the hardware, so they are reluctant anyway, instead of offering that link as an incorrect answer to the question, then you would not receive downvotes.
detaro 7y ago
No it doesn't. It forces companies to do that, or provide an update path that does not require their private certificates.
ryukafalz 7y ago
I mean, only if control of that private certificate is required to run code on the device. I'm sad to live in a world where allowing people to run the software of their own choice on their own computers is considered a "huge no-no."
- umvi 7y ago
  > I'm sad to live in a world where allowing people to run the software of their own choice on their own computers is considered a "huge no-no." I think it's a little more nuanced than that. Should I be able to run whatever software I want in my printer? Absolutely. How about the software in my satellite internet radio transceiver (one rogue transceiver could take down the entire beam/jam the satellite)? How about the software in the micro controllers in my car? Should I be allowed to modify that code too (if I mess up people could die)?
  - NullPrefix 7y ago
    >How about the software in my satellite internet radio transceiver (one rogue transceiver could take down the entire beam/jam the satellite)? This sounds like a failure on the satellite part. Can you do satellite comms with SDR? >How about the software in the micro controllers in my car? Should I be allowed to modify that code too (if I mess up people could die)? What if people die because you cannot modify that code?
    - umvi 7y ago
      The problem is physics. You have a bunch of people in fairly close geographic area transmitting to the same point in space on the same frequency band. One bad actor can interfere with everybody else's tx. > What if people die because you cannot modify that code? I think it's far better to trust unmodified safety critical code that's been tested than to trust Joe Blow's precariously modified braking code that allows his Honda Civic to drift around corners better.
  - wbl 7y ago
    That's what laws are for.
Reelin 7y ago
> GPL v3 is toxic. DRM is toxic.
- sn_master 7y ago
  Agreed, but no content company will license their shows if anyone can record it in full HD with an app on their TV.
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    > no content company will license their shows That's their problem. Refusing to sell your product is probably not the best long-term business strategy. If they want revenue, the will eventually sell. The government already distorts the market in their favor by granting them an exclusive copyright. Those rights do not include being free from the market forces like supply & demand. > anyone can record it in full HD with an app on their TV Why would anybody do that, when its easier to just download a torrent? DRM doesn't stop piracy, because "stopping piracy" has always been the PR-excuse. DRM is an attempt to usurp property rights, with a manufacturer retaining control over your device after the first sale. edit: grammar
    - sn_master 7y ago
      Companies been very successful at catching and suing people torrenting. Plenty of ISPs/universities block torrent entirely. If you do it from your TV, its much harder to catch.
  - dogma1138 7y ago
    You can use Xbox DVR on your PC to record Netflix....
- fmajid 7y ago
  The two statements are not mutually exclusive.
- jhayward 7y ago
  "What about DRM?" is not a valid response to discussion of GPL v3 issues.
Thorrez 7y ago
Wouldn't it be better to just have a physical switch on the device to disable certificate checking?
wbl 7y ago
I remember a world where when I bought something it was mine to do what I saw fit with.
- taneq 7y ago
  Still is (all that 'licensed not sold' bs aside) but the manufacturer isn't obliged to support your activities (outside of right-to-repair type legislation). Just like they're not obliged to give you engineering drawings or internal specs or to explain principles of operation.

GPL v3 is toxic. It forces companies to hand out their private certificates. Huge no-no for any hardware manufacturer.

ghettoimp 7y ago

Is there an example of a hardware company that has been forced to hand out a private certificate because of the GPL v3?

equdi 7y ago
No because no serious company uses GPL v3 software. (For example Apple avoids it, etc.)
sn_master 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
- sn_master 7y ago
  Why am I getting downvoted for posting an article that's core related to GPVv3 and to the discussion ? It seems anyone opposed to GPLv3 is being shushed by the pro-Stallman mobs.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Because it does not require the release of private certificates to comply with the anti-tivoization language. If you said something about how the company would have less control over the hardware, so they are reluctant anyway, instead of offering that link as an incorrect answer to the question, then you would not receive downvotes.

detaro 7y ago

No it doesn't. It forces companies to do that, or provide an update path that does not require their private certificates.

ryukafalz 7y ago

I mean, only if control of that private certificate is required to run code on the device. I'm sad to live in a world where allowing people to run the software of their own choice on their own computers is considered a "huge no-no."

umvi 7y ago
> I'm sad to live in a world where allowing people to run the software of their own choice on their own computers is considered a "huge no-no." I think it's a little more nuanced than that. Should I be able to run whatever software I want in my printer? Absolutely. How about the software in my satellite internet radio transceiver (one rogue transceiver could take down the entire beam/jam the satellite)? How about the software in the micro controllers in my car? Should I be allowed to modify that code too (if I mess up people could die)?
- NullPrefix 7y ago
  >How about the software in my satellite internet radio transceiver (one rogue transceiver could take down the entire beam/jam the satellite)? This sounds like a failure on the satellite part. Can you do satellite comms with SDR? >How about the software in the micro controllers in my car? Should I be allowed to modify that code too (if I mess up people could die)? What if people die because you cannot modify that code?
  - umvi 7y ago
    The problem is physics. You have a bunch of people in fairly close geographic area transmitting to the same point in space on the same frequency band. One bad actor can interfere with everybody else's tx. > What if people die because you cannot modify that code? I think it's far better to trust unmodified safety critical code that's been tested than to trust Joe Blow's precariously modified braking code that allows his Honda Civic to drift around corners better.
- wbl 7y ago
  That's what laws are for.

Reelin 7y ago

> GPL v3 is toxic. DRM is toxic.

sn_master 7y ago
Agreed, but no content company will license their shows if anyone can record it in full HD with an app on their TV.
- pdkl95 7y ago
  > no content company will license their shows That's their problem. Refusing to sell your product is probably not the best long-term business strategy. If they want revenue, the will eventually sell. The government already distorts the market in their favor by granting them an exclusive copyright. Those rights do not include being free from the market forces like supply & demand. > anyone can record it in full HD with an app on their TV Why would anybody do that, when its easier to just download a torrent? DRM doesn't stop piracy, because "stopping piracy" has always been the PR-excuse. DRM is an attempt to usurp property rights, with a manufacturer retaining control over your device after the first sale. edit: grammar
  - sn_master 7y ago
    Companies been very successful at catching and suing people torrenting. Plenty of ISPs/universities block torrent entirely. If you do it from your TV, its much harder to catch.
- dogma1138 7y ago
  You can use Xbox DVR on your PC to record Netflix....
fmajid 7y ago
The two statements are not mutually exclusive.
jhayward 7y ago
"What about DRM?" is not a valid response to discussion of GPL v3 issues.

Thorrez 7y ago

Wouldn't it be better to just have a physical switch on the device to disable certificate checking?

wbl 7y ago

I remember a world where when I bought something it was mine to do what I saw fit with.

taneq 7y ago
Still is (all that 'licensed not sold' bs aside) but the manufacturer isn't obliged to support your activities (outside of right-to-repair type legislation). Just like they're not obliged to give you engineering drawings or internal specs or to explain principles of operation.