zlacker

Soon you won't be able to do this either because most manufacturers are locking down the bootloader.

>>sanex+(OP)
And Google stopped providing device trees and driver binaries... and stopped releasing AOSP as often, and, and...

>>sanex+(OP)
That would mean they are committing copyright violation of the Linux kernel. So they could be sued by Linux kernel folks, or by users of the devices.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

>>pabs3+iz
Locked bootloaders are probably not a GPLv2 violation, and probably are a GPLv3 violation. This type of situation was a major reason GPLv3 was created. Another was clarification of some grey areas (these are the reason for "probably").

But the Linux kernel is GPLv2, and only v2. For better or worse, locking down the bootloader is (probably) pernitted with the Linux kernel.

>>jlokie+6H
The Sofware Freedom Conservancy are the main (or only?) enforcers of the GPL these days, and if you read their posts, you will see they disagree with you, GPLv2 requires the ability to modify and reinstall.

>>pabs3+9J
Having read [1] in particular, I think you're right and I was mistaken. Thanks! That's quite eye-opening for me, as I followed discussion about GPLv2 and GPLv3 for years yet didn't know about this view of GPLv2 and reinstallation.

Having heard so much about anti-Tivoization when the GPLv3 was being drafted, and the discussions about it on linux-kernel when Linus decided the kernel will remain GPLv2-only, I was left with the impression that the GPLv2 only required the provision of source code, build scripts, etc. but not the ability to reinstall a new version. [1] makes a pretty good case that the ability to reinstall is also required GPLv2, and I'm heartened that's how Tivo saw it too.

[1] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...

>>kotaKa+e2
You know, when you phrase it like that, it almost makes it sound like they're taking advantage of their market position to the detriment of consumers.