[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] GPL non compliance? was Re: GPL non-compliance, was Re: GPLv3

[John Watlington]

On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> How is that a violation of GPL license?
> 
> I believe they do have full access to all source code - just is not 
> allowed to execute it (conveniently) on the hardware it resides on.

Walter is correct that kids in Uruguay should be able to modify Sugar
and install additional activities and apps, even though they may not
have root access or a developer key.

> Tivoization - as I understand it - is when the hardware locks the code 
> in a way so that it can be executed but sources for the executed code is 
> not available.  That, I believe, is not the case for GPL-licensed code 
> on the XOs even when the XOs are locked down.
> 
> GPL code must be _readable_ - it need not be executable.

Actually, I believe that GPL v3 "fixed" that oversight.   While the kernel
is still GPL v2, some components of modern distros are starting to use
this more restrictive license.

From OLPC's point of view, developer keys are needed as our anti-theft
system runs early in the Linux boot process.   We've outlined what it
would take to fix this and move anti-theft entirely into Open Firmware,
which would allow countries to both use OLPC's anti-theft system and
allow kids to completely replace Linux (including the kernel), placing us
in compliance with GPL v3.
Unfortunately, we are short of developer resources...

In Uruguay, Plan Ceibal has an additional anti-theft system running in Linux,
hence their reluctance to allow kids to modify the Linux system.

Regards,
wad