On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:23:23AM -0500, Hubert Figuière wrote: > On 02/12/15 08:54 AM, Denver Gingerich wrote: > > > Since the B2G code includes the kernel named Linux, which is licensed > > under GPLv2, manufacturers must provide "the scripts used to control > > compilation and installation of [Linux]". This could be interpreted > > to mean that they must provide an unlocked bootloader, since it may > > be difficult to install a new kernel without this. > > Nope. This is part of what lead to the most hated clause of the GPLv3, > the so-called "anti tivoisation" clause that would require recipients of > the code to be allowed to install said modified software on the hardware > they purchased with. Linux never switched to GPLv3, and large portion of > the kernel are licensed (deliberately?) under the GPLv2 instead of GPLv2 > or later, preventing the implicit license version upgrade. > > If you find it otherwise, feel free to seek legal counsel: if you have > acquired such a locked device, you'd be entitled to it. Good luck with that.
As is often the case with legal matters like these, people may have different opinions about whether GPLv2 requires an unlockable bootloader. If Mozilla feels there is sufficient ambiguity, then it's important for Mozilla to implement option B right away (making the unlockable bootloader requirement explicit in the partner licensing agreement) to ensure that as many new devices as possible are covered. Denver http://ossguy.com/ _______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
