[tzs]

> In this case however, the code is under the GPLv3, which is far more problematic. It contains a "anti-tivoization" clause, which says you cannot require any "methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions".

That doesn't actually apply to the Apple app store. The "anti-tivoization" clause is narrowly written to only cover what Tivo did. Namely, providing hardware with locked down firmware.

This is the trigger for the "anti-tivoization" clause:

> If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information.

A "User Product" is:

> either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.

When someone downloads an app from the Apple app store for their iPhone, the iPhone is the "User Product", and the transaction is not one in which "the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient", and so the "anti-tivoization" does not apply.

[salawat]

>anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.

I'd be willing to make the argument that a program integrated into a previously owned computing device is a totally valid case for this clause to trigger under. Your computer is part of, and is increasingly integrated into your dwelling. The program being pulled down is just another module for it.

[tzs]

It wouldn't matter. Two things are required to trigger the clause.

1. The GPLv3 object code has to be conveyed "in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product", and

2. This must occur "as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient".

The "User Product" in your argument is still the computer, and so unless you are buying the computer itself from the App Store at the same time as the app you are buying, the second condition is not met.

The definition of "User Product" in GPLv3 might seem a little puzzling at first. There are two kinds of things that count:

1. "any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes", or

2. "anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling".

There is no definition of "dwelling" in GPLv3, so it is going to be given its ordinary meaning which according to Oxford is "a house, apartment, or other place of residence".

#1 already covers any tangible personal property used for personal, family, or household purposes, and since dwellings are places of residence it might seem that anything incorporated into a dwelling would also be covered by #1.

So what is #2 actually getting at?

The answer, I'm sure, is fixtures. A fixture is physical property that is permanently attached to real property. Crucially, if something is a fixture then it is not considered to be personal property and so does not fall under #1 of the "User Product" definition.

Unless the sales contract specifically says otherwise, fixtures go with the house, and personal property goes with the seller.

Nowadays a lot of things that include software might be fixtures. Some things that might be considered fixtures and might also have software in them:

1. Thermostats.

2. Smoke alarms.

3. Security cameras.

4. Appliances.

5. Lighting fixtures.

(I'm not saying that they are fixtures. In some houses they might be fixtures and in others they might not be, depending on how they were installed).

Without #2 in the "User Product" definition, manufactures of those things might be able to include locked down GPLv3 firmware without trigger the "anti-tivoization" clause.

I say "might be able to" because those things aren't fixtures until they get attached to the house. A thermostat sitting in a box on the shelf at Home Depot is not a fixture at that point. It only becomes a fixture when someone installs it.

This would probably cover it under #1, closing the loophole.

But what if the thermostat is not sold through stores like Home Depot? What if instead you have to buy it through the manufacturer, which sends an installer to install it, and only conveys ownership to you after it has become a fixture? This could probably be done in a way that evades #1.

#2 shuts down such shenanigans.

What I'm puzzled by is what about things that are neither personal property used "for personal, family, or household purposes" nor for incorporation into dwelling?

Would it be OK for Boeing or Airbus to Tivoize the software in their planes and still use GPLv3 code in it? Can John Deere use GPLv3 code in its combines and Tivoize it?

[progval]

> What I'm puzzled by is what about things that are neither personal property used "for personal, family, or household purposes" nor for incorporation into dwelling?

Company cars and phones?