Post B1iK7Pb4HprvDAkBAO by osma@mas.to
(DIR) More posts by osma@mas.to
(DIR) Post #B1aUbRvRdcILOkYbUO by torvalds@social.kernel.org
2025-12-24T21:58:27.364729Z
8 likes, 10 repeats
GPLv2 affirmation…I don’t generally post here as people have probably noticed, but here’s a pdf of a recent court ruling, and this turns out to be the easiest way for me to link to a copy of it, since I don’t really maintain any web presence normally and I don’t want to post pdf’s to the kernel mailing lists or anything like that.And the reason I want to post about it, is that it basically validates my long-held views that the GPLv2 is about making source code available, not controlling the access to the hardware that it runs on.The court case itself is a mess of two bad parties: Vizio and the SFC. Both of them look horribly bad in court - for different reasons.Vizio used Linux in their TVs without originally making the source code available, and that was obviously not ok.And the Software Freedom Conservancy then tries to make the argument that the license forces you to make your installation keys etc available, even though that is not the case, and the reason why the kernel is very much GPLv2 only. The people involved know that very well, but have argued otherwise in court.End result: both parties have acted badly. But at least Vizio did fix their behavior, even if it apparently took this lawsuit to do so. I can’t say the same about the SFC. Please, SFC - stop using the kernel for your bogus legal arguments where you try to expand the GPLv2 to be something it isn’t. You just look like a bunch of incompetent a**holes.The only party that looks competent here is the judge, which in this ruling saysPlaintiff contends the phrases, “machine-readable” and “scripts used to control compilation and installation” support their assertion in response to special interrogatory no. 4 that Defendant should “deliver files such that a person of ordinary skill can compile the source code into a functional executable and install it onto the same device, such that all features of the original program are retained, without undue difficulty.”The language of the Agreements is unambiguous. It does not impose the duty which is the subject of this motion.Read as a whole, the Agreements require Vizio to make the source code available in such a manner that the source code can be readily obtained and modified by Plaintiff or other third parties. While source code is defined to include “the scripts used to control compilation and installation,” this does not mean that Vizio must allow users to reinstall the software, modified or otherwise, back onto its smart TVs in a manner that preserves all features of the original program and/or ensures the smart TVs continue to function properly. Rather, in the context of the Agreements, the disputed language means that Vizio must provide the source code in a manner that allows the source code to be obtained and revised by Plaintiff or others for use in other applications.In other words, Vizio must ensure the ability of users to copy, change/modify, and distribute the source code, including using the code in other free programs consistent with the Preamble and Terms and Conditions of the Agreements. However, nothing in the language of the Agreements requires Vizio to allow modified source code to be reinstalled on its devices while ensuring the devices remain operable after the source code is modified. If this was the intent of the Agreements, the Agreements could have been readily modified to state that users must be permitted to modify and reinstall modified software on products which use the program while ensuring the products continue to function. The absence of such language is dispositive and there is no basis to find that such a term was implied here. Therefore, the motion is granted.IOW, this makes it clear that yes, you have to make source code available, but no, the GPLv2 does not in any way force you to then open up your hardware.My intention - and the GPLv2 - is clear: the kernel copyright licence covers the software, and does not extend to the hardware it runs on. The same way the kernel copyright license does not extend to user space programs that run on it.
(DIR) Post #B1aeJbh7Zs2y1czKQC by pkal@social.sdfeu.org
2025-12-24T22:47:27Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@torvalds Doesn't this mean that you don't get to exercise freedom 1: "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1)."? If you only can read the software but have no means of putting any changes into practice, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to complain about it from a software freedom perspective. Or am I missing something in the discussion?
(DIR) Post #B1aeJd72J0N2QI7XSC by kbruen@procial.tchncs.de
2025-12-24T23:07:24.729Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pkal@social.sdfeu.org @torvalds@social.kernel.org From what I understand, Linus' stance is that software freedom does not get to override what the hardware manufacturer wants their hardware to do. Since you have access to the software as granted by GPLv2, you can make your own hardware to run that software on.I'm not yet sure how I feel about it, but it is consistent with Linus' stated opinions.
(DIR) Post #B1aeJdtbORDcquqK9Y by pkal@social.sdfeu.org
2025-12-24T23:20:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kbruen That is my fear, software freedom is about the user not the manufacturers after all 😕. I certainly don't have the means to produce the kind of hardware being talked about, making the freedom more abstract. Part of me thinks that this is a kind of false pragmatism that is due to the Linux Foundations funding, but I don't know enough about that to turn that hunch into a claim...
(DIR) Post #B1aeJegsREdNJjtfxQ by kbruen@procial.tchncs.de
2025-12-25T00:13:01.693Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pkal@social.sdfeu.org Well, my understanding is that Linus doesn't believe software freedom is about the users. I may be wrong in my understanding, but, when using the Visio product, you're not a user of Linux, but of Visio's product (which happens to contain Linux). The user of Linux is Visio. And I think Linus is only concerned about Visio being fair when using Linux by giving back code if they modify it.
(DIR) Post #B1aeJfpQCx3yqWu0um by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
2025-12-25T00:26:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kbruen@pkal I thought Linus was more of an Open Source guy than a Free Software guy.And Open Source is all about getting companies to contribute to a common codebase, such that no company has an unfair advantage that'd discourage other companies from contributing.
(DIR) Post #B1aicrtnx9nRbMMQgS by neal@social.gompa.me
2025-12-25T00:28:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kees @torvalds Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen SFC make the claim that it forces hardware to be opened up. To the contrary, they've argued that people have fundamentally misunderstood what TiVo did and it resulted in the messy GNU v3 license stuff we have today.
(DIR) Post #B1aictc9ZkrivC7MRs by lyyn@mastodon.ml
2025-12-25T01:14:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neal @kees @torvalds You mean this, right?https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/Just linking here because it's relevant
(DIR) Post #B1auJ7Ke3yqL7lGP7Q by neal@social.gompa.me
2025-12-25T03:25:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lyyn @kees @torvalds Yup, that's the one.
(DIR) Post #B1bxl66ehw00S4iIxE by WellsiteGeo@masto.ai
2025-12-25T15:39:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @kbruen @pkal That may be the *intent*. But if companies don't see any benefit, they won't use it.My employer (at the time) produced GIFs in what was a graphics scripting engine.They got a money-with-menaces letter from GIF_License_Extortion_Inc.So they stopped making v.1 with GIFs, wrote a v.2 using a proprietary image format, and distributed a reader to clients.Never once considered a GPL version. Added PNG in v.3, which was less compressed than their image format.
(DIR) Post #B1c4sESckCSm4JL2KO by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
2025-12-25T16:58:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@WellsiteGeowith Linux, if you want to ship a device with a kernel in it, you have three options:- you use some other kernel, and hope it is better than the one than gets contributions from 2000 people including employees of 200 companies in every release- you use Linux, but if you make any changes to the kernel, your competitors can use those changes too- you use a private fork of Linux without releasing the sources, and hope you don't get sued@kbruen @pkal
(DIR) Post #B1csrgJmgH4Bsx8OsS by djsumdog@djsumdog.com
2025-12-26T02:18:51.647927Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
Wasn't that the whole point of GPLv3, which the kernel never adopted? To prevent "Tivioization"
(DIR) Post #B1czyTvdqGlLAO21bM by vascorsd@mastodon.social
2025-12-24T23:04:35Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@torvalds which is all well and understood, but also makes it useless because there being no way to reinstall the compiled thing from the sources by ourselves there's no way to guarantee or confirm that the sources delivered are actually the ones being run in the hardware.
(DIR) Post #B1dV2F468y8QnzGBk0 by ghul@nerdculture.de
2025-12-24T22:47:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@torvalds Always good to hear from you, Linus.Though I have to say:I was hoping for a Christmas greeting — not a reminder that some people still don’t understand GPLv2 in 2025.TL;DR (IMHO):The GPLv2 is about making source code available.It is not about forcing vendors to open their hardware or provide installation keys.You must be able to:- copy - modify - redistribute the codeincluding using it elsewhere.You are not entitled to reinstall modified software on the original device and expect it to keep working.Open source software is not a backdoor mandate for open hardware.If that had been the intent, the license would have said so.It didn’t.
(DIR) Post #B1dV2GZKYKiDT8se3s by pkal@social.sdfeu.org
2025-12-24T22:53:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ghul I don't buy "If that had been the intent, the license would have said so. It didn’t.", it could also be an oversight at the time of publishing the GPLv2, due to not expecting hardware to exist with software that the user cannot modify. The intention seems pretty clear from all other literature, and just the fact that the GPLv3 was written in response to the issue of such hardware appearing.It is a different thing to argue that users of the license didn't intend/care about this.
(DIR) Post #B1dV2HgSPK0UvXDqoC by ghul@nerdculture.de
2025-12-24T23:07:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pkal I get the argument, but I don’t think it holds up legally or historically.An “oversight” in GPLv2 would only matter if the text were ambiguous. The court explicitly found that it isn’t.In licensing, intent is defined by what was written and agreed to — not by later expectations or moral preferences.The fact that GPLv3 was explicitly written to address locked-down hardware is actually strong evidence that GPLv2 does not cover that case.If the intent had already been there, GPLv3 wouldn’t have needed new language.It’s fair to argue that some people wanted stronger guarantees later on - but that’s a different claim than saying GPLv2 already required them.In short: evolving goals led to a new license, not a reinterpretation of the old one.Licenses don’t gain new obligations retroactively - just because the world changed.
(DIR) Post #B1dV2IoIDfrwQ7tcf2 by WellsiteGeo@masto.ai
2025-12-25T15:20:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ghul @pkal GPL v2 was, IIRC, about 1988? Which was well into the era of binary blobs on ROMs, game cartridges, etc. The question of "hardware controlled by built-in software" was live long before then, and GPL didn't cover it of choice.In 1988, I was installing highly propriatory SW updates at work with a screwdriver and 2 ROMs on the 8088 industrial SBC.
(DIR) Post #B1dV2K8XHteiXCNIqu by amszmidt@mastodon.social
2025-12-25T21:57:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@WellsiteGeo GPLv2 was released in 1991, version 1 was released in 1989. The basis of which was based on the GNU Emacs General Public License (with similar terms used in other parts of GNU) from 1985.The GPL (any version) and ROMs are quite compatible, and have always been. The issue with TiVo was different, and @torvalds likes to ignore that fact (similar, in this thread where he ignores everything the SFC wrote or stated).@ghul @pkal
(DIR) Post #B1dV2LI8zew47HsUT2 by torvalds@social.kernel.org
2025-12-25T23:01:36.055875Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@amszmidt I wonder why you think I’m ignoring or mis-reading what the SFC has written and stated? Because I’m sadly very familiar with their statements over the years. Do you think the California Superior court judge also misread what the SFC stated? Because that judge also found their arguments lacking any basis in reality:The Plain Language of the Agreements does not Support the Alleged Duty(where that “Alleged Duty” is the baseless arguments from SFC about being able to re-install on the device).I think you didn’t actually read the ruling, and you may perhaps have read just the flim-flam garbage that the SFC put out about the completely irrelevant issue of “continuing to function properly” which was what Vizio was using as their reason for not releasing keys.Put another way: I can read. That superior court judge can read. I think you need to learn to read. And you need to take what the SFC then says in court - and on their blog - with a big pinch of salt. I realize that other people like the GPLv3 and wish the Linux kernel was under that license. But that is simply not the case, and never has been and never will be. Deal with reality, not your baseless wishes otherwise.
(DIR) Post #B1dV2M543m4EZ0lYie by shironeko@fedi.tesaguri.club
2025-12-26T09:26:28.037612Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@torvalds When people say "intent of GPLv2" they often do not make it clear if it's the intent of GNU writing it they're talking about or the intent of you choosing it. It's pretty much a talking over each other situation.IMO it's fine to make whatever argument in court because that's what civil court is for. It's nice that the court agrees with you so the kernel don't need to be relicensed. But it's also not the end of the world if the court agrees with SFC since It's clear that when GNU wrote GPL they did not intent for this loophole to exist, and many other people that used GPL did not want this loophole to exist for their software (hopefully they've relicensed to GPLv3 by now).
(DIR) Post #B1gO82GwVHRIf4xmzo by mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world
2025-12-27T18:53:23.045561Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@wolf480pl @WellsiteGeo @kbruen @pkal >your competitors can use those changes tooWho cares ? It's not like you're trying to have a monopoly on 7 billions of users, right ?
(DIR) Post #B1gOc74LEYVgE4PYmW by mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world
2025-12-27T18:58:49.085484Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@WellsiteGeo @wolf480pl @kbruen @pkal >, your competitors can use those changes tooCompanies will also scrap the bottom of the barrel by parasiting other entities and be dependent on them while they don't contribute be it technically or financially.It depends on their economical model/intent. If their intent is to make as much money as possible you know it's not a sustainable model.>My employer (at the time) produced GIFs in what was a graphics scripting engine.>They got a money-with-menaces letter from GIF_License_Extortion_Inc.Am I missing out on something or could they just have used ffmpeg ?
(DIR) Post #B1gPvo0vtCJksElrAO by mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world
2025-12-27T19:13:35.277838Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@pkal @kbruen >software freedom is about the user not the manufacturers after all 😕It's about and for everyone.Manufacturer have the freedom to use it and that's great, what's not great is when they treat their customers like trash. And people getting treated like trash should have a way to legally defend themselves before using force.>Part of me thinks that this is a kind of false pragmatism that is due to the Linux Foundations funding, but I don't know enough about that to turn that hunch into a claim...It's impossible to know how much the world would use free/libre software if the kernel would have migrated to v3, what's for sure is that entities who would have the legal obligation to share the code and allow modified version would have resulted in similar lawsuits like the SFC did but with a slight difference that people would have been allowed to execute a modified version.
(DIR) Post #B1iK7Pb4HprvDAkBAO by osma@mas.to
2025-12-25T09:03:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
- GPLv2 not covering the hardware may have been an oversight- GPLv3 specifically addressing that indicates the intent to cover that- Linux continuing to use GPLv2 is not an oversight but an explicit signal that the kernel developers do not intend to make claims over hardware access@ghul @pkal
(DIR) Post #B1iK7QnVp3Puw3ZdCa by wonka@chaos.social
2025-12-25T11:03:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Re your third point: Linux could not trivially switch to GPLv3 even if kernel developers intended to do so because everyone involved would need to agree and some authors cannot agree anymore on account of being dead. Their contributions would need to be replaced first.@osma @ghul @pkal
(DIR) Post #B1iK7Rq1xB1eA9l9lY by etchedpixels@mastodon.social
2025-12-25T12:32:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wonka @osma @ghul @pkal GPLv2 explicitly allows any later version, and removing that is an additional restriction so dubious. It would take a court to sort that question out however, and for Linux it's not likely to ever happen.More importantly though was also the social contract. Linux was built and people contributed on the GPLv2 basis. Changing that would have been shutting doors on existing contributors. That point to me was the salient one Linus made when GPL3 arrived
(DIR) Post #B1iK7T0haz9jnXlC2S by jejb@mastodon.online
2025-12-28T17:00:18Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@etchedpixels > GPLv2 explicitly allows any later version, and removing that is an additional restriction so dubious. Legally a licence or a contract memorialises the understanding between parties at the time. There can't be a meeting of the minds on terms one party added after that. So actually the effect of the "or later" language when added before the final form of GPLv3 was known is what is dubious.