Open Source

31218 readers

270 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

"Selling a machine with proprietary software that links against an LGPLv3 library..." - post discussion (lemmy.kde.social)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I came across a stackexchange thread asking if system root access will be required to be given to the user.

And the answer explaining the license and saying they needed to let the user be able to swap the libs on the system somehow.

And because I just joined the community and can't comment there, here I am.

I feel like, the seller doesn't really need to give root access to the user as long as they allow the user to copy said proprietary software on another system (and this act not be restricted by the license) and then do whatever they feel like, as long as the original system is immutated.

Thoughts?

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Anything that uses *GPLv3 license (which includes the anti-tivoization clause) has to have some way of swapping out those libraries.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

Just checked the tivoization definition. (Guess I should have done so, when reading the original thread, when I felt unsure from their explanation of the word).

So, it has to be runnable on the same hardware after modification. It makes sense now.

I seems like something that would be good in case the solution is being used for a long period and would make sure the user doesn't have to bear the burden of finding another platform that would run the binary, in case a library update is required. This would be in the interest of even corporate clients.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

No, if you include GPL code you need to provide a copy of the source code upon request. If you made modifications to that source code, you will need to provide them, otherwise just provide the commit hash for the GPL project you're using.

You don't need to provide root access just because you used GPL code, you just have to follow the GPL.

[–] cbarrick 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You don't need to provide root access just because you used GPL code, you just have to follow the GPL.

Well, to follow version 3 of the GPL, you do actually need to provide effective root access.

Specifically, version 3 of the GPL adds language to prevent Tivoization.

It's not enough to just provide the user with the code. The user is entitled to the freedom to modify that code and to use their modifications.

In other words, in addition to providing access to the source code, you must actually provide a mechanism to allow the user to change the code on the device.

The name "Tivoization" comes from the practice of the company TiVo, which sold set-top boxes based on GPL code, but employed DRM to prevent the user from applying custom patches. V3 of the GPL remedies this bug.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah, I thought so too.

Guess the V3 has some major, thoughtful changes.

[–] pelya 4 points 4 months ago

Nope. The LGPL license only requires that the user must be able to replace LGPL libraries with their own version. In theory root access is not required, but it will require some heavy effort from the manufacturer to provide a way to replace system libraries without somehow leaving a huge root exploit. Unless they implement virtualization.