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

John Watlington wad at laptop.org
Tue Apr 26 16:28:48 EDT 2011

On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> On 11-04-26 at 03:37pm, John Watlington wrote:
>> 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.
> I fully agree that kids anywhere should be able to modify Sugar.
> The issue here, however, is whether or not it is a violation of Sugar 
> license if someone restricts kids from modifying Sugar *on* *XOs*.

Kids can modify Sugar on XOs.

>>> 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.
> How, more specifically?

This is being thrashed to death on other threads that I was ignoring when
I replied to this one.   Basically, the "anti-tivoization" clause of GPL v3
prevents use of the code if someone can't install a modified version of
the code.   Under GPL v3, it is no longer sufficient to provide source code,
you also have to provide a way of running a modified version of that source
code on the hardware distributed with the original code.

As Martin says, GPL v3 moves from requiring that modifications be shared,
to telling you what you can and cannot do with the code.


More information about the IAEP mailing list