Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sokoloff 1704 days 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?
4 comments
pabs3 1704 days ago
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...

link
bombcar 1704 days 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.

link
PaulDavisThe1st 1704 days 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.
link
dane-pgp 1704 days 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?
link
tsimionescu 1704 days 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.

link
Retric 1704 days ago
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.

link