[copyleft-next] anti-lock down non-negotiable-ness (was Re: [MERGE REQUEST] reinstate dl-supp)

Theodore Ts'o tytso at mit.edu
Tue Dec 4 14:20:19 UTC 2012


On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 08:38:38AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> I realize the anti-lock down provision was presented by the FSF to the
> Linux developers as non-negotiable.  However, I've since, many years
> later, learned that FSF leadership was never even communicated the
> position of the Linux developers adequately by FSF's representatives at
> the time.  Last year, RMS specifically asked me to apologize on his
> behalf to every single Linux developer to tell them that he wished he'd
> talked with you directly about your concerns at the time, rather than
> going through legal counsel.  I think I've so-issued that apology to
> you, Ted, when I saw you in person at some point, but if I didn't, I do
> so now. :)

I don't recall hearing this, but I certainly accept the apology ---
although I'm still not clear what RMS would have concessions (if any)
he would have been willing to make if (as you say) negotiations had
happened "has equals".

I'll note that the typical consumer electronic device has a sales
lifetime of 6-12 months, and perhaps a useful lifetime of 2-5 years.
For cell phones, it's more like 2-3 years, tops.  I'm pretty sure that
we've had code contributed by Tivo, and certainly by other mobile
handset manufacturers, that have gotten far more reuse and usefulness
outside of the original reason why they were written.  So if you take
the long view, you can make the credible argument that there is more
_Open_ _Source_ code that is made available by allowing lock-down than
if you take the purely _Free_ _Software_ (by which I mean
anti-lockdown uber alles) approach.

At a pretty fundamental level, that's why I'm pretty hostile to the
"you must be able to install modified software" freedom as being one
that should be enforced.

On the flip side, what sort of softening would you propose?  Why is it
OK if the ability to restrict the ability to install and run modified
code is enforced via cryptographic signing, where the key is kept
carefully separate from the source code needed to install the damned
thing, but it's not OK if the key was careless mixed into the source
code.  The GPLv2 approach allows for the ability to restrict this
freedom, but if the manufacturer makes a mistake, then suddenly it's
lawsuit territory, or getting caught between obligations of
conflicting contractual/licensing obligations.

If we're going to allow manufacturers to lock down their devices, as
they surely can do using the GPLv2 even if they need to jump through
the hoops correctly, what is the value of having the license require
the hoops?  Hope that they screw up so we can play "gotcha" and demand
sources or hit them with a lawsuit?

    	    	      	   	       	      - Ted



More information about the copyleft-next mailing list