[sdkgjajggaf]

GPL v3 was specifically written to address this. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization#GNU_GPLv3

That's why quite a few new products are still using old GPL v2 licensed software.

[tzs]

It should be noted that the Tivoization clause in GPLv3 is pretty narrow. It only covers software that you acquire in the same transaction in which you acquire the locked down hardware.

[joezydeco]

For embedded systems (like a TiVo or a car) there's no other software being installed.

That "narrow" case is the entire case.

I'm currently working on a product for a well-known company and there's a corporate ban on GPLv3. And we do get audited.

[tzs]

> For embedded systems (like a TiVo or a car) there's no other software being installed.

For now anyway. I would be surprised if cars do not end up with apps. The car will come with the base software installed and then you can later buy apps for your car from an app store run by the car maker.

[joezydeco]

The high adoption rate of CarPlay and Android Auto by the car makers leads me to believe they have zero interest in doing this.

[yuhong]

It also applies only to "“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."

[oliwarner]

So it would apply here if the cars software were under GPL v3?

[em-bee]

that would be good enough to apply to cars

[nvr219]

> That's why quite a few new products are still using old GPL v2 licensed software.

Like how macOS ships with bash 2.7 or whatever

[redprince]

That would an odd reason, because Apple could comply easily. Source and development tools to translate them into binary are readily available. And you can still install software that you yourself built without a hassle last I checked.

[johannes1234321]

Seither using GPLv2 or replacements using BSD software (see for instance how MacOS replaced GPL Software)