[Battlemesh] FCC fw lockdown vs. GPLv3?

Benjamin Henrion zoobab at gmail.com
Tue Sep 29 11:04:30 CEST 2015

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Linus L├╝ssing <linus.luessing at c0d3.blue> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 05:28:36PM +0200, Henning Rogge wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Benjamin Henrion <zoobab at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Henning Rogge <hrogge at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Mitar <mitar at tnode.com> wrote:
>> >>> Hi!
>> >>>
>> >>> Is there other software used by manufacturers beside kernel which could
>> >>> get easier to relicense?
>> >>
>> >> No...
>> >>
>> >> the whole GPLv3 disaster already pushed a lot of manufacturers away
>> >> from GPL solutions to software which is BSD licensed... you see the
>> >> effect in Android.
>> >
>> > Most of the codebase in Android has been rewritten towards BSD-style
>> > software, except the Linux kernel, because probably it is too big to
>> > rewrite.
>> Exactly...
>> relicencing to GPLv3 would be a good way to make the industry drop it
>> completely.
> Being more permissive on our side won't make the industry do the same.
> We've seen that with BSD and are now starting to see this again for
> GPLv2 with signed binaries. This "the industry will ignore us if
> we use GPL, Linux won't survive" argument has been there in the 90ies
> already. There it seems to me that the less permissive code was
> actually better off on the long run.
> Big companies simply think economically. They might keep you on the
> hook for the short term so that you throw your code at them but
> will drop you once they acquired enough own developers and own code
> on their side...
> If companies affiliated with Android actually want to lock their
> devices then why would I want to write code for that plattform for
> free? Screw Android - if they don't want us then this relationship
> is doomed anyways.
> With manufacturers (still - they seem to become less) focusing on
> hardware and young startups we actually have a chance to not drown
> completely on the long run if we were using GPLv3. The bigger the
> GPLv3 code basis we can build up now is, the more hardware
> manufacturers we can cooparate with in the future, while reducing
> the risk of being stabbed in the back later.
> Cheers, Linus
> PS: Have never really cared about whether to use GPLv2 or GPLv3 so
> far. But the news about the TP-Link TL-WR841N made things too real
> and outrageous for me. Sorry about getting so emotional here :(.

Do you have any technical evidence of the lockdown?

What kind of lockdown is it? Signed firmwares checked by the bootloader?

Benjamin Henrion <bhenrion at ffii.org>
FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403
"In July 2005, after several failed attempts to legalise software
patents in Europe, the patent establishment changed its strategy.
Instead of explicitly seeking to sanction the patentability of
software, they are now seeking to create a central European patent
court, which would establish and enforce patentability rules in their
favor, without any possibility of correction by competing courts or
democratically elected legislators."

More information about the Battlemesh mailing list