[Battlemesh] FCC fw lockdown vs. GPLv3?

[Henning Rogge]

Hi,

I don't think Linus would accept patches that are not under GPLv2...
you could double-licence them, but without the GPLv2 part there is not
a chance that they get into the main kernel.

Henning Rogge

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing at c0d3.blue> wrote:
> Ok, the total lockdown of a TP-Link TL-WR841N(D), the most popular
> device in Freifunk wireless community networks (and maybe other
> communities too?) makes me wonder a lot. A device still running
> a GPLv2 licensed Linux kernel.
>
>
> For community mesh networks we need affordable devices. Community
> networks aren't big enough yet to produce their own devices in a
> similar quality and price range.
>
> If affordable devices for wifi communities were going to die now
> thanks to total firmware lockdowns, why would I want to continue
> contributing patches to the Linux kernel (specifically
> batman-adv and the Linux bridge)?
>
> I'd have the option to give up or to put my patches under a GPLv3
> license from now on. If enough(*) other Linux developers were
> were switching to GPLv3 then it might become less costly for
> most manufacturers to only have the wifi firmware signed/locked
> than having to maintain a whole, huge operating system all on
> their own.
>
> Am I missing something or could that new FCC regulation be a
> good reason to reopen the "GPLv3 for Linux" discussions?
>
> Cheers, Linus
>
> (*): "Enough" are probably quite a lot... as most parts of the
> Linux kernel are GPLv2 and not GPLv2+ or BSD/MIT licensed,
> so many people would need to add a GPLv3 license to their
> previous code, I guess? *mumble*, *mumble*...
> _______________________________________________
> Battlemesh mailing list
> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/battlemesh