Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hypervisors Can Defeat GPLv3's Anti-Tivoization

Posted by kdawson on from the walled-gardens dept.

DeviceGuru writes "A hypervisor can be used to isolate from each other software works released under incompatible licenses, while allowing them to run simultaneously on the same hardware. For example, Linux and Windows CE can run on separate virtual machines on one device, without violating either OS's license. Due to the isolation between multiple VMs running atop a hypervisor, it seems like this architecture could allow companies to build Linux-based devices, such as mobile phones or set-top boxes (think TiVo), that can't be upgraded by their users without authorization, thereby circumventing the GPLv3's 'anti-tivoization' clauses." Here's a white paper with more details from a commercial hypervisor company.

5 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Bogus! by MMC+Monster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Frankly, I'm not sure what the article is trying to state.

    If the code is released under GPLv3, then modifications of the code must be able to run on the same hardware. It doesn't matter if the key to run the code is a checksum or a password to give the hypervisor. Either way, if modification of the client cannot be dropped into the place of the original client (either to run on the same hardware or the same hypervisor), it's in abuse of the GPLv3.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    1. Re:Bogus! by mmacdona86 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Note that the hypervisor doesn't prevent you from updating the GPL code (the Linux kernel, for example)--
      it just prevents you from getting extra access to the machine by updating the code. Thus it allows "tivoization" without violating the letter (or arguably the spirit) of GPL v3. The GPL code you can hack and modify to your heart's content; the hypervisor just makes sure that said hacking doesn't compromise the machine.

    2. Re:Bogus! by Knuckles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Check and mate, RMS!

      You must have a huge stake in proprietary software to cheer about this. Note that if this is the way of the future, it's not only "Check and mate, RMS!", but also "Check and mate, general-purpose personal computer!". Well, I guess you will still be able to import one from China, provided you won't get caught. Hurray indeed.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  2. Re:Backfire in responce. by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Informative

    The goal of the GPL is to keep software free; the goal of BSD-style licenses is to ensure that high-quality software is used as widely as possible. They're conflicting goals, to an extent, though there's a big overlap.

    The GPLv3's anti-tivoization clause is true to the GPL's goal. When putting software under the GPL license, one accepts that it might not get as much use as BSD-licensed (or, as an intermediate, GPLv2-licensed) software, and that's the price for the code itself remaining free.

  3. Re:Backfire in responce. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    hippocraticy? If big words give you problems, use a dictionary to learn how to spell hypocrisy. I mean, you're barely in the ball-park, the first and last letters match, and there's a "p" in the middle somewhere. No, no. I think he really meant hippocraticy -- a government for, of and by the hippos.

    --
    My blog