FSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years ago [LWN.net]

FSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years ago

Posted Oct 4, 2006 9:58 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
In reply to: FSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years ago by mingo
Parent article: Busy busy busybox

> Your (rather impolite) statement is directly contradicted by pro-GPLv3
> people in this very thread acknowledging that indeed the FSF wants to
> dictate certain aspects of how the hardware is made. (by forbidding GPLv3 on
> such hardware)

1. Who holds the DRM keys do not change how the harware is made.
2. GPLv3 does not forbid GPLv3 code use on DRM hardware, provided you give the users the keys (which you have or you couldn't deploy the software in the first place)

What it stops has nothing to do with hardware and everything to do with software distribution, which was the GPL function all along

(Log in to post comments)

FSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years ago

Posted Oct 4, 2006 14:27 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

While the specific restrictions are written in terms of software distribution, the result is the same, a requirement for the right to update a particular device, if that device is updatable. There's no way to look at that without seeing it as extending some degree of control over the particular device. It's not enough that the user be able to run the software on some hardware device, she has to be able to run it on the particular device in question.

FSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years ago

Posted Oct 5, 2006 2:40 UTC (Thu) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link]

> GPLv3 does not forbid GPLv3 code use on DRM hardware, provided you give the users the keys

Everyone seems to be forgetting there is another option here. Tivo doesn't need to hand out their signing key to be GPLv3 compliant. Instead they could add one jumper to the board. Put a cap on it, apply power and it does three things: 1) erase the keyring and 2) permit loading unsigned binaries and 3) voids the warranty and makes the machine unable to obtain services from Tivo.

I think they could make a strong argument that this complies because a Tivo is both a hardware sale and a subscription service. It is somewhat reasonable for a service to be restricted to controlled hardware/software platforms. Installing the jumper would allow installing MythTV on the hardware but it wouldn't be a Tivo anymore.

Of course this is a bad example since Linux is going to remain GPLv2.