I am sure $ANY_COMPANY_MAKING_ROUTERS will truly care about this and somehow (for the first time in their existence) pull real security experts out of thin air to make their products secure enough to be actually impossible to re-flash to a custom firmware...Right...
back
1 comments
As sarcastic as your comment is, the fact is preventing uploads by casual users isn't hard.
while still allowing updates, and not violating the GPL?
It'd only be problematic legally to ship GPLv3 (or similar) licensed software. v3 adds language mandating that the software be replaceable.
There is an exception if law forbids the software from being replaceable.
I don't think so. I just read the tivoization section (section 6), and skimmed the rest. The only thing allowed to prevent modifications is if it is physically not designed to do so.
After watching this video [1] my hatred of GPL is at a whole new level. However, couldn't a company skate around the requirement by simply not providing any way to update the system? Or more likely a vendor could provide a way to upload a new version BUT the released source would only account for the base system minus the features that came pre-installed.
I'm a supporter of GPLv3 so I'll try and give a few counterpoints. His argument wasn't that GPLv3 is a bad license but that, for him, GPLv3 was not a logical extension of GPLv2.
However, Linus's interpretation of the GPLv2 in that video was only coincidentally in line with the FSF at the time. The goal of the FSF has always been to ensure user's freedoms above all else and I feel the GPLv3 better accomplishes that end than the GPLv2. From the perspective of the FSF, hardware manufacturers discovered a loophole in the GPL which allowed people to ship GPL code while denying users their freedoms.
I understand that for many developers there's a balance to be struck. Some developers don't care how their work is used and the MIT, BSD, or DWTFYW licenses are perfect choice for them, but some developers decide that they want to be sure that not only will they get source code back but also that their work wont be used to harm users and they're the perfect candidates for the GPLv3.
* Evil meaning
Yes? Just release the source code, sign the bin using a private key and validate the key before installing that firmware.
It isn't Fort Knox, but look at how long it took to break the PS3 which utilised a system like this (years). While people may find other ways of gaining root and can subsequently disable this check, it would take third party firmware from "trivial to install" to "a damn pain in the ass."
Heck if they REALLY cared just enable things like SELinux and move a lot of root processes into other users.
> while still allowing updates, and not violating the GPL?
GPL v2 wouldn't be violated, per previous.
GPL v3 software isn't used in many places.
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.g...
The linux kernel is GPL v2 and that is the only part they'd really use.
The GPL doesn't protect your right to run the modified code if the mere act of running modifying code is made illegal.
The GPL means that you have a license to do so from the person who owns the rights to the code, but that doesn't mean the government cannot prevent you from exercising that right.
IANAL, but I think it would be reasonably easy for them to get away with this on the grounds that they are "only" preventing activity that is already illegal. (Not to mention that many hardware manufacturers blatantly violate the GPL as it is already).
> The GPL doesn't protect your right to run the modified code if the mere act of running modifying code is made illegal.
If you cannot comply with the terms of the GPL, you cannot distribute the GPL'd software at all. If the FCC prohibits you from distributing the tools and information necessary to build the source code as required by the GPL, then you have to stop using that software in your product. The FCC does not have the power to authorize copyright infringement like that.
You are correct, but that exemption is in the GPL itself so there's no issue. It's possible to ship GPLv3 code with locked down hardware if local law requires it.