91–100 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this strategy becomes validated by this case, it means that any organisation can bring GPL compliance lawsuits. Hopefully that leads to companies noting their increased potential for liability by multiple less scrupulous actors than SFC and spontaneously coming into compliance.
The alternative is that they will decide that GPL software is not worth the legal risk, and ban its use.
Question: if I sell my old Visio TV that violates the GPL, am I now also in violation of the license since I’m redistributing it?
I thought copyright in GPLv2 kicks in once someone is linking? I saw Linux Kernel, bash, awk mentioned; but if these were compiled into binary assets without any code from the TV, then isn't Vizio entitled to sell these TVs without disclosing their own source code?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Software Freedom Conservancy is based out of New York, and they are the plaintiffs here.
... and your point is? The Software Freedom Conservancy is a business which can do business in many states and be subject to the jurisdiction of courts in all of them, unlike an individual, who can be resident in only one state. (And even then, an individual could also sue in California if the event being sued over - like a purchase or an accident - occurred in California)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Software Freedom Conservancy represents a coalition of Linux kernel developers who are willing to sue despite Linus' opinions. [1] is incorrect, what TiVo did (disabling the proprietary software on your device when you modify the GPL software) is allowed even by GPLv3, even though RMS did want to prevent the possibility of that. Also, the requirement to allow software reinstall is there even in GPLv2. https://eve…
> Also, the requirement to allow software reinstall is there even in GPLv2. >> a key reason that the GPLv2 was created, is the software freedom to reinstall a modified version. Would that mean e.g. Apple is breaking the GPL by including GPLv2 components in iOS and not letting me reinstall modified versions of those components on my iPhone?
Question: if I sell my old Visio TV that violates the GPL, am I now also in violation of the license since I’m redistributing it?
Even if the argument could be made, there would be no practical way to enforce it. It’s not like Disney is breathing down my neck if I “redistribute” their IP by getting paid $50 to dress up in a Mickey Mouse costume for a kids birthday party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Software Freedom Conservancy represents a coalition of Linux kernel developers who are willing to sue despite Linus' opinions. [1] is incorrect, what TiVo did (disabling the proprietary software on your device when you modify the GPL software) is allowed even by GPLv3, even though RMS did want to prevent the possibility of that. Also, the requirement to allow software reinstall is there even in GPLv2. https://eve…
> Also, the requirement to allow software reinstall is there even in GPLv2. >> a key reason that the GPLv2 was created, is the software freedom to reinstall a modified version. Would that mean e.g. Apple is breaking the GPL by including GPLv2 components in iOS and not letting me reinstall modified versions of those components on my iPhone?
If Apple were including GPLv2 components in iOS, yes. Why do you think all the Apple userland is based on BSD?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-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 n…
This would be an absolutely crazy outcome if this turned out to be a result. I think Vizio (who I have no love for) would get a HUGE number of opens source folks behind them. We need to look at what developers believed GPLv2 required and what it did not. The whole Tivo issue came about because GPLv2 does NOT require that a developer ALSO make it so that others can use HARDWARE they create any way they want. Linus (wh…
This also used to be my understanding, but it is simply wrong. If you read the article posted by GP, from the lawyer who actually pursued the FSF's case against TiVo, the facts are different. TiVo started by bot providing source code at all, and then had some limitations in their published scripts showing how to install modified sources onto their device. This part was remediated by TiVo during these discussions - TiVo devices then and now allow you to install and run any Linux you want on them.
The one thing they also do that angered Stallman and was clearly not prohibited by the GPLv2 is that TiVo's proprietary userspace software uses hardware support to check whether the running kernel is cryptographically signed by themselves, and refuses to start if it is not. The OSS keeps running and has full access to the hardware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
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.