[jepler]

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 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."

[whoknowswhat11]

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 (who is a major GPLv2 user) also was clear, he wanted folks to have to share software, but didn't want or care what they did with it - they could put it in a car (that was locked down from modification), they could put it in a motor controller (also locked to manage duty cycles), they could put it in a pacemaker (also locked for regulatory and safety reasons).

[tsimionescu]

> 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.

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.

[pabs3]

Its interesting to note that the GPLv3 allows what TiVo did too, even though RMS didn't want that. Also interesting OTOH is that the LGPL seems to imply that a combined proprietary+LGPL work should continue to work after replacing the LGPL part.

https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

[sokoloff]

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?

[pabs3]

What TiVo did (disabling proprietary software when GPL software was modified) is allowed by GPLv2 and GPLv3 according to Bradley Kuhn of Software Freedom Conservancy.

https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

[bombcar]

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.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

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]

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]

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.

[Retric]

If you buy a new car at a dealership they can’t withhold the car keys as an optional extra.

The same applies here. If the script needs a key to work then that key is part of the script.