Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft [LWN.net]

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 27, 2014 21:39 UTC (Mon) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942)
In reply to: Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft by pboddie
Parent article: Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

> So what's your point here? Stallman is just focusing on stuff he knows a lot about: it's pretty unreasonable to expect him to reform all aspects of society; I think that's actually down to other people if they think his ideals are compatible with other domains.

Yet GPLv3 anti-Tivo provisions are exactly the example where FSF tried to expand its influence to another domain (hardware design) with bad results. Consider Chromebooks. They use a verifiable boot where Google holds a private key. Yet a user can replace the bootloader with pretty doable hardware tinkering without any need for special tools. So Google does not take away the freedom, but the code cannot be GPLv3 due to that anti-Tivo provision.

to post comments

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 27, 2014 21:58 UTC (Mon) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (2 responses)

That fits with the GPLv3. What isn't OK is where the key is what's preventing you from using your own binaries. The Chromebook has an escape hatch whereas others don't. Sure, you can't use the same verification infrastructure with your own key, but the GPLv3 doesn't say you need to be able to either.

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 28, 2014 7:47 UTC (Tue) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link] (1 responses)

> That fits with the GPLv3.

I was not talking about enabling developer mode on the Chromebook that disabled kernel verification, I meant a possibility to install a custom boot loader. The developer mode still does not allow that, one has to tinker with the hardware. And I do not even see how enabling developers mode fits with the “Installation Information” section in GPLv3:

“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

Note the requirement that modified code is not interfered. This is not the case with the Chromebook as after activating that mode I cannot deactivate it and keep my changes. And if the mode is activated, then booting is clearly affected with a rather annoying message precisely "because modification has been made".

To stay within GPLv3 either the Google should provide a way to sign the code with their keys or Chromebook should allow to install custom keys (like with Windows 8 x86 hardware).

In any case, hardware changes to get a custom boot loader are outside “Installation Information” as otherwise anybody can claim that one can always disable a verified boot using a probing station or something to change a value in the register at the runtime.

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 28, 2014 10:24 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

In any case, hardware changes to get a custom boot loader are outside “Installation Information” as otherwise anybody can claim that one can always disable a verified boot using a probing station or something to change a value in the register at the runtime.

Are you sure that argument will be bought by layman in court? Because this is where such things are determined. And I'm pretty sure Joe Avarege will see the difference between step-by-step instruction published on verndor's website and vague allusions to some complex and obviously illigal procedure.