For anyone looking for GPLv3 explanations:

Posted Sep 23, 2006 17:22 UTC (Sat) by k8to (guest, #15413)
In reply to: For anyone looking for GPLv3 explanations: by ibukanov
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

I think the point of the "anti DRM" clause is not to prevent
freedom-limiting technical measures from existing, or to prevent
freedom-limiting technical measures to be used in systems that include
GPLv3 code. It is simply to prevent freedom-limiting technical measures
to remove the freedoms intended in GPLv3 code.

Thus, in a TIVO, GPLv3 components should be modifiable and replacable,
is the goal. TIVO could simply implement their logic they do not intend
to be replaced in a non-GPLv3 body of code, and apply technical measures
to prevent this code from being changed, even if the box is running GPLv3
code in other portions.

I think your argument about the ROM question in the embedded environment
is a good one, and that the idea of waiting for further understanding is
a good suggestion. However, I do think that devices with non-updatable
firmware is going to approach 0% over time.

to post comments

For anyone looking for GPLv3 explanations:

Posted Sep 23, 2006 19:20 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (4 responses)

Since the kernel presumably isn't going to change, this is all pretty academic, but...

Changing to ROM would (as I understand it) be cheaper than flash. It would be interesting to think about whether you could put the kernel in ROM but provide a flash-based patch block for any needed updates. Lots of systems used to work that way. Not sure what the license impact would be, but it would probably be doable.

The problem with the idea of locking down the app code and leaving the kernel replaceable is that the kernel is privileged, making it hard to control what it could do to the rest of the system. It would probably be necessary to move some current kernel functionality (some of the device drivers) out of the kernel, to protect data paths from sniffing. Should be doable.

There are lots of interesting questions left around the current GPLv3 language. It talks to making keys available, but, of course, keys are not the only way you could assure that the software in the device is the software you put there...

For anyone looking for GPLv3 explanations:

Posted Sep 23, 2006 19:48 UTC (Sat) by Tester (guest, #40675) [Link] (3 responses)

The license would still apply, because the code in the Flash would still most likely be derivative from the GPL code and you'd have to provide the key for the flash. The only reason to do that was that flash was much much more expensive than rom.

For anyone looking for GPLv3 explanations:

Posted Sep 24, 2006 1:56 UTC (Sun) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (2 responses)

First off, whether the code was derivative of the GPLed work would depend on the particular patch and, possibly, on the way the patch facility was implemented.

As to the viability of ROM vs flash, for some kinds of device (like music players) ROM might be just fine. It's unlikely a manufacturer would want to reflash them in the field. For a phone or a DVR, however, I agree that some kind of update capability is probably a necessity.

For anyone looking for GPLv3 explanations:

Posted Sep 24, 2006 23:10 UTC (Sun) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link] (1 responses)

For the record, music players do regularly flash-upgrade the firmware.

One of the reasons flash was created was because to be able to create
high density programmable rom, which is not achivable via other methods
with the levels of density flash has achieved. It maybe possible to
create traditional roms with the density required, but there are massive
logistical problems that go along with non-programmable ROM in terms of
wasted parts, large runs being required, the cost of bugs, and so on.

I believe that the day of non-programmable rom has passed, and that this
is why free software ethics are now being applied to firmware, because
there is no longer the unchangeability issue that made the argument moot.

For anyone looking for GPLv3 explanations:

Posted Sep 25, 2006 15:08 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

You're right about music players - I forgot the various times I have updated my iPod's software. I do htink there are some devices small and narrowly purposed enough to be ROM-suitable, but I agree that mainstream music players were a poor example.