Profile cover photo
Profile photo
D Mo
42 followers -
Some clown from somewhere
Some clown from somewhere

42 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has shared content

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Weeee ice bath :/
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Post has shared content
So here's a question to ponder

GPLv3 protects against tivoisation and evil lockdown of a given piece of software, but it doesn't protect the users system. Linus refuses to go to GPLv3 and has a good moral reason for doing so. He points out that people contributed under a set of expectations that they could continue to use that work and it's a very good point.

This leads me to wonder if the way to fight crap like the EFI so called "secure boot" and the tivoisation of a GPL kernel is for projects that object to tivoised systems to adopt a GPLv3 like licence. One which prohibits distribution for the purpose of, or as part of the installation on a locked down system, and where copyright law covers it, installation or execution on such a device.

Arguably the GPLv2 licence does cover this under the requirement for all scripts - an interpretation I've always made it clear I hold. (Including on some kernel code that vendors shipped but which someone else in later releases has stripped the note from)

Another amusing question here is that if the Nvidia module is legal then 3rd party GPLv3 modules are probably just as legal, and would provide a second line of defence

Alan
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded