5 ms·

Gplv2 violations are widespread, we need much much more enforcement and more copyleft software, and this could be a huge win. Free software's main purpose shoul

Gplv2 violations are widespread, we need much much more enforcement and more copyleft software, and this could be a huge win. Free software's main purpose should not be to be proprietarized, too much of it now is a group effort among companies to more efficiently lure users to trade their freedom for functionality.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
It would be nice if perma-locked bootloaders were illegal.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Would be nice if all corporate exploitation was illegal.
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  Isn’t that the idea of the “TiVoisation” clause in the GPLv3? Basically, TiVo released their Linux derivative code, but you couldn’t actually flash your version. The problem is that Linus is staunchly against the GPLv3
  - jepler 5y ago
    At risk of making a gross oversimplification, sfconservancy seems to be pursuing the angle that GPLv2 _ALSO_ was intended to prevent tivoization. see e.g., https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... which refers heavily to pre-GPLv3 discussions about the topic. "In GPL enforcement actions at the time, during our “complete, corresponding source (CCS) checks”, we verified that the source code was not only complete, but that it corresponded to the binaries on the vendors' devices, and that we could install modified versions of the software. This was a standard part of any check to verify GPLv2 compliance. Passing this check was required, then and now, by FSF and Conservancy before distribution rights are restored after a violation." "That position was not controversial when I, along with then FSF counsel (Daniel Ravicher), taught it to lawyers in 2003 and 2004 on FSF's behalf. Nevertheless, today, many act as if this interpretation and intent of GPLv2§3¶2 is a recent and novel phenomena, rather than a long standing position held by all copyleft activists for at least 18 years. Today, most companies and lawyers argue (incorrectly, IMO) that users have no rights to reinstall their GPLv2'd software."
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      It’s not at all clear-cut to me. (IANAL.) If a cryptographic key is required, it’s not clear to me that that is either “source code” nor “script used to control compilation/installation”. If you asked developers “is a certificate source code?”, I think most would say “No”. If you asked them “is a certificate a script?”, I think almost all would say “No”. If it’s not either of those things, I don’t know how the license terms (not the preamble) of GPLv2 would apply to prevent TiVo-isation. Further, if it does apply, how has no one successfully sued TiVo over it?
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        The “script used to control compilation/installation” needs to actually work. If it can't work without a certificate, then it doesn't work without a certificate.
        dane-pgp 5y ago
        Isn't the problem that the code would work fine on a piece of hardware that doesn't perform the signature check, it's just you'd have to make that piece of hardware yourself?
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        This is apparently not how the license had historically been interpreted by everyone, at least before GPLv3 appeared. The intended and historical interpretation seems to have been that as long as you're distributing a device running GPL software, you have to provide the source code for that GPL software along with working instructions about how to build, install and run those sources on the device. This even goes back to the original motivation for creating the GPL in the first place: the desire to repair faulty software in a printer at MIT. I have no idea if this provision has ever been tested in court.
      - bombcar 5y ago
        To me “our code can’t run on TiVos” is basically a political statement along the lines of “it can’t be used for evil, or for nuclear weapons” and so on. It’s certainly an option to license it that way but I think GPL 3 was mostly a mistake.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    > The problem is that Linus is staunchly against the GPLv3 No he isn't. He is unable to relicense the kernel. Whenever he's interviewed on the subject it is always in relation to kernel development. He doesn't control the copyright on the entire codebase and there are too many contributors, some dead, for anyone to get copyright assignment sorted out.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - mmlb 5y ago
      You are right that he can't unilaterally relicense the kernel and that it will likely never happen, but Linus is in fact against the GPLv3, see debconf 14 Q&A: https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840 https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- drran 5y ago
  Perma-locked bootloaders can be made illegal, if they prevent you, the owner of the device, from patching a security hole in your device. In essence, it's a backdoor mechanism installed by the vendor.
- dv_dt 5y ago
  That imho should be an extension of right-to-repair (and own/modify)
- squarefoot 5y ago
  Not just nice, it would be a huge accomplishment. Imagine being able to resurrect (as in saving from a landfill) old tablets, phones and even smart TVs, or making new ones more usable and trustworthy by flashing a lighter OS that doesn't contain adware and spyware, and can be patched to solve bugs or implement new functions (including codecs) to give the product a longer life. Hardware manufacturers would absolutely hate such a scenario, which is why I'm pessimistic about that.
  - duskwuff 5y ago
    I think you're overestimating developer ability/willingness. There's a lot of hardware out there which could in theory have third-party firmware built for it, but which hasn't because it's just too niche for anyone to have bothered, or because there's insufficient public documentation. Most smart TVs, for example, fall into both categories. There are simply too many models for a third-party firmware effort to take off, and documentation on the hardware used in these TVs is usually nonexistent. (And the hardware is often already stretched to its limits on the stock firmware -- implementing "new functions, including codecs" is likely to be impossible.)
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      I think you're underestimating the tenacity of hobbyists. Some people hack every device they own, then release the software they wrote to do so; it only takes one or two of these people to write the drivers for a few dozen devices, and then they all run Debian.
    - grishka 5y ago
      There are many models of smart TVs, but they reuse components and software a lot. I remember rooting my Samsung TV with a universal exploit that worked across something like several years of models.
concordDance 5y ago
> too much of it now is a group effort among companies to more efficiently lure users to trade their freedom for functionality Often they don't have more functionality, just actual marketing and discoverability.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

It would be nice if perma-locked bootloaders were illegal.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Would be nice if all corporate exploitation was illegal.
colejohnson66 5y ago
Isn’t that the idea of the “TiVoisation” clause in the GPLv3? Basically, TiVo released their Linux derivative code, but you couldn’t actually flash your version. The problem is that Linus is staunchly against the GPLv3
- jepler 5y ago
  At risk of making a gross oversimplification, sfconservancy seems to be pursuing the angle that GPLv2 _ALSO_ was intended to prevent tivoization. see e.g., https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... which refers heavily to pre-GPLv3 discussions about the topic. "In GPL enforcement actions at the time, during our “complete, corresponding source (CCS) checks”, we verified that the source code was not only complete, but that it corresponded to the binaries on the vendors' devices, and that we could install modified versions of the software. This was a standard part of any check to verify GPLv2 compliance. Passing this check was required, then and now, by FSF and Conservancy before distribution rights are restored after a violation." "That position was not controversial when I, along with then FSF counsel (Daniel Ravicher), taught it to lawyers in 2003 and 2004 on FSF's behalf. Nevertheless, today, many act as if this interpretation and intent of GPLv2§3¶2 is a recent and novel phenomena, rather than a long standing position held by all copyleft activists for at least 18 years. Today, most companies and lawyers argue (incorrectly, IMO) that users have no rights to reinstall their GPLv2'd software."
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    It’s not at all clear-cut to me. (IANAL.) If a cryptographic key is required, it’s not clear to me that that is either “source code” nor “script used to control compilation/installation”. If you asked developers “is a certificate source code?”, I think most would say “No”. If you asked them “is a certificate a script?”, I think almost all would say “No”. If it’s not either of those things, I don’t know how the license terms (not the preamble) of GPLv2 would apply to prevent TiVo-isation. Further, if it does apply, how has no one successfully sued TiVo over it?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      The “script used to control compilation/installation” needs to actually work. If it can't work without a certificate, then it doesn't work without a certificate.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        Isn't the problem that the code would work fine on a piece of hardware that doesn't perform the signature check, it's just you'd have to make that piece of hardware yourself?
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        This is apparently not how the license had historically been interpreted by everyone, at least before GPLv3 appeared. The intended and historical interpretation seems to have been that as long as you're distributing a device running GPL software, you have to provide the source code for that GPL software along with working instructions about how to build, install and run those sources on the device. This even goes back to the original motivation for creating the GPL in the first place: the desire to repair faulty software in a printer at MIT. I have no idea if this provision has ever been tested in court.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      To me “our code can’t run on TiVos” is basically a political statement along the lines of “it can’t be used for evil, or for nuclear weapons” and so on. It’s certainly an option to license it that way but I think GPL 3 was mostly a mistake.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  > The problem is that Linus is staunchly against the GPLv3 No he isn't. He is unable to relicense the kernel. Whenever he's interviewed on the subject it is always in relation to kernel development. He doesn't control the copyright on the entire codebase and there are too many contributors, some dead, for anyone to get copyright assignment sorted out.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mmlb 5y ago
    You are right that he can't unilaterally relicense the kernel and that it will likely never happen, but Linus is in fact against the GPLv3, see debconf 14 Q&A: https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840 https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
drran 5y ago
Perma-locked bootloaders can be made illegal, if they prevent you, the owner of the device, from patching a security hole in your device. In essence, it's a backdoor mechanism installed by the vendor.
dv_dt 5y ago
That imho should be an extension of right-to-repair (and own/modify)
squarefoot 5y ago
Not just nice, it would be a huge accomplishment. Imagine being able to resurrect (as in saving from a landfill) old tablets, phones and even smart TVs, or making new ones more usable and trustworthy by flashing a lighter OS that doesn't contain adware and spyware, and can be patched to solve bugs or implement new functions (including codecs) to give the product a longer life. Hardware manufacturers would absolutely hate such a scenario, which is why I'm pessimistic about that.
- duskwuff 5y ago
  I think you're overestimating developer ability/willingness. There's a lot of hardware out there which could in theory have third-party firmware built for it, but which hasn't because it's just too niche for anyone to have bothered, or because there's insufficient public documentation. Most smart TVs, for example, fall into both categories. There are simply too many models for a third-party firmware effort to take off, and documentation on the hardware used in these TVs is usually nonexistent. (And the hardware is often already stretched to its limits on the stock firmware -- implementing "new functions, including codecs" is likely to be impossible.)
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    I think you're underestimating the tenacity of hobbyists. Some people hack every device they own, then release the software they wrote to do so; it only takes one or two of these people to write the drivers for a few dozen devices, and then they all run Debian.
  - grishka 5y ago
    There are many models of smart TVs, but they reuse components and software a lot. I remember rooting my Samsung TV with a universal exploit that worked across something like several years of models.

concordDance 5y ago

> too much of it now is a group effort among companies to more efficiently lure users to trade their freedom for functionality Often they don't have more functionality, just actual marketing and discoverability.