Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread John Gilmore
Ignoring the fact that some deployments ship without root access. Is the practice of completely locking-down the laptops something we'd even want to encourage? Shipping the laptops TiVoized like Uruguay does has put them into serious legal trouble. OLPC should definitely not encourage

Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread Gabriel Eirea
Please, when you say Uruguay you should just say Plan Ceibal. Has anyone formally requested Plan Ceibal to correct this situation? Thanks, Gabriel 2010/7/7 John Gilmore g...@toad.com: Ignoring the fact that some deployments ship without root access. Is the practice of completely

Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread Stanley Sokolow
Please explain your statement that lack of root violates GPLv3. Couldn't the owner of the system insert a SD card with a developer's version of Linux, mount the internal drive of the XO, and tinker with the installed packages as root from the external OS? Does GPLv3 expressly mention root

Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread Martin Langhoff
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:32 AM, John Gilmore g...@toad.com wrote: Shipping the laptops without root access is a direct violation of the GPLv3 license on a dozen packages (probably 50+ packages in later While I understand and agree with the spirit of what John wants, direct violation is a strong

Eben Moglen: Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread John Gilmore
: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs In-Reply-To: Martin Langhoff's message of Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:21:27 -0400 aanlktikxexio9oikse4dugp2bdo55ain8xn0mruzh...@mail.gmail.com From: Eben Moglen mog...@softwarefreedom.org I don't know what the technical details are, but it sounds as though

Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread John Gilmore
Please explain your statement that lack of root violates GPLv3. Couldn't the owner of the system insert a SD card with a developer's version of Linux, mount the internal drive of the XO, and tinker with the installed packages as root from the external OS? Does GPLv3 expressly mention root

Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread Eben Moglen
I don't know what the technical details are, but it sounds as though the right people are present in the conversation. For GPLv3 programs-- which would include bash, tar, and Samba as well as the toolchain, to take some examples--the requirement is for installation information to be provided to

Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread Martin Langhoff
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:42 PM, John Gilmore g...@toad.com wrote: The laptops refuse to boot a developer's version of Linux.  They require a signed kernel and initrd.  Some people call this DRM; it's definitely TiVoization (check Wikipedia if you don't know the term). I think it is a very well

Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread Ed McNierney
Eben - Hi; thanks. Chris Ball and I had some correspondence with Brett Smith a few months ago in order to make some introductions and get the FSF and Plan Ceibal talking. It seems that that didn't quite happen, and we've asked Martin Langhoff (who's responsible for OLPC technical work with

Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread Eben Moglen
Ed, Thanks for helping me to understand the context here. Brett is certainly the right person at FSF. I'm happy to do anything I can to help further the conversation, and am always available to answer any questions anyone may have. Best regards, Eben On Wednesday, 7 July 2010, Ed McNierney

Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread Jacob Haddon
martin.langh...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs To: John Gilmore g...@toad.com Cc: OLPC Devel devel@lists.laptop.org,Sugar Devel sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org,Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org, mog...@softwarefreedom.org Message-ID

Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread Chris Ball
Hi, forgive an honest question that may spark a philosophical debate: Since the Linux kernel and Fedora are both licensed under GPL.2, how would this violate an unrelated license? (which reading, it may or may not...) Because it's not true that Fedora is licensed under GPLv2 --

Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread Tiago Marques
I agree with you completely. This is bad, it's just not complete TiVoization: If you insert a USB flash drive or SD card, the boot firmware will only boot from it if the files are tested and cryptographically signed by OLPC. What stops one person of then adding root access again? This will

Re: Uruguay violates GPL by deleting root on OLPCs

2010-07-07 Thread Ed McNierney
Jacob - The Linux kernel question is easy, as it's largely GPL v2; the Fedora one is by no means easy. The Fedora Project maintains a list of software licenses which are considered acceptable for software to be packaged in Fedora. That doesn't mean *all* these licenses are in use in any