| |||||||||||||
Success measured by goalsSuccess measured by goalsPosted Jun 29, 2012 13:20 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769)Parent article: Linksvayer: 5 years of GPLv3
Surely the measure of the GPL3's success is how well it has achieved its stated goal of protecting the freedom of computer users who use a particular program, and by extension the FSF's broader goal of freedom for computer users generally. On that measurement the record is mixed. The new licence doesn't seem to have helped at all against what we used to call 'Tivoization' - locked-down hardware on which you cannot install your own programs or make changes to those installed. In most cases where the new licence might have made a difference (for better or worse), most free software authors have chosen not to adopt it. There isn't a critical mass of GPL3-only software which might make hardware vendors think twice about shipping locked-down hardware and so excluding the use of GPL3 code on it.
(Log in to post comments)
Success measured by goals Posted Jun 29, 2012 13:34 UTC (Fri) by dmitrij.ledkov (subscriber, #63320) [Link]
One notable piece of software is GRUB2. Due to GPLv3, it is questionable whether it is legal to use GRUB2 for implementing UEFI Secure Boot without disclosing private key used for signing.
Success measured by goals Posted Jun 29, 2012 15:46 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
I was commenting on this very issue in another article. I think this meme is due to some confusing language the FSF has put into their FAQ on GPLv3. The reality is that the end user has to be able to install their own modified software so a machine with GRUB2 can't be boot locked using UEFI Secure Boot or any other mechanism, but as long as you can disable the checking or add your own keys, even if the procedure is a pain, you are in the clear. If you ship a boot locked GRUB2 system then you don't actually have a proper copyright license to distribute it and there are many options for remedy, refund/replacement, firmware update, etc. before one would be backed into a corner where disclosing private key materials were the only way to compliance.
Success measured by goals Posted Jun 29, 2012 17:45 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] If I understand correctly, it would not be legal to ship a binary of GRUB2 with a machine that does not allow the user to install his/her own signing keys, because the user then cannot replace it with a new version (unless an appropriate private key is provided to the user).But it seems to me that if a laptop shipped with GRUB2 comes with a document telling the user how to install a private key on that laptop, and how to sign new binaries with that key, then GPL3 is fully complied with.
Success measured by goals Posted Jun 30, 2012 23:58 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] There isn't a critical mass of GPL3-only software which might make hardware vendors think twice about shipping locked-down hardware and so excluding the use of GPL3 code on it.Indeed, tivoization is alive and well: the GPLv3 has not driven down the number of locked down devices. However locked down devices don't contain any GPLv3 code, which might count as a minor success for the license. As to whether it has raised awareness of the issue, I think this has been a mixed bag. The masses remain unwashed and buying locked down phones, then rooting them like crazy.
Success measured by goals Posted Jul 1, 2012 1:58 UTC (Sun) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
A lot of the phone manufacturers provide unlock mechanisms these days, for example:
http://htcdev.com/bootloader/
Success measured by goals Posted Jul 1, 2012 20:51 UTC (Sun) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
a lot? right... I just tried to unlock my old htc dream. All the htcdec site says is "needs an hboot update" without me telling whatsover what this means or how I'd go about doing it. Unlocked? the minority of a minority...
Success measured by goals Posted Jul 13, 2012 20:02 UTC (Fri) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
Yeah, I guess it depends how you measure it. I was measuring that in terms of the number of manufacturers rather than the number of different device models.
|
|||||||||||||