Mike Linksvayer

Mike Linksvayer at

The GPL Is Almost an All Writs Canary http://2d.laboratorium.net/post/142848414775/the-gpl-is-almost-an-all-writs-canary

My comment, which you would not see if you're blocking Disqus or proprietary javascript or all javascript(no complaints from me if you are):

I think you're reading GPLv2 correctly. I'm not sure a device with GPLv3 software must allow anyone in possession of the device to install modified software. The installation information in theory could be specific to an individual device, and provided to the purchaser of the device out of band. Also the ability to replace a device's OS doesn't necessarily give one the ability to decrypt user data.

GPLv2/3 and AGPLv3 might also "almost" serve as canaries when companies are ordered to distribute spy software to and spy on users, respectively. But the OS or the service aren't GPL'd, particular programs are, possibly even every program. But a proprietary program can be installed and run on such systems without violating the GPL. Protection of users to the extent it can be obtained has to come from software update services and general services being run by processes and organizations designed to resist compromising users.

It is very much worthwhile thinking through these issues in more detail!
Somewhat related, I wonder if there's anything new https://identi.ca/mlinksva/note/aiXESNT8SB-54jvtvGIZfA (2013) in the state of art for remote bricking under control of device owner with only free software?

Douglas Perkins, Christopher Allan Webber, Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) likes this.

Douglas Perkins, Douglas Perkins, Christopher Allan Webber, Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) shared this.

I would presume this would be partially relevant to copyleft-next?

Stephen Michael Kellat at 2016-05-08T03:00:34Z

Absolutely relevant to copyleft-next.

Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) at 2016-05-08T03:58:46Z

Note that the scenario posted only is relevant when the organization ordered to comply with a court order is not the sole holder of the copyright. There needs to be a third party, whose copyright interest can be infringed upon.

Regarding the GPLv3 installation information: The user could have access to installation keys specific to the device, and the FBI also given those keys, or the user could have device-specific keys, Apple unlimited keys and the FBI some other unlimited keys. I'm not convinced the GPLv3 adds or removes any features in this scenario. It doesn't force anyone to disclose all keys applicable, just forces the vendor to give you one way of signing that works.

If the installation of spyware or backdoor-ware on your device is distribution to you, they would have to provide you the source code. But that depends whose phone the court thinks it is, when the FBI has seized it.

Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) at 2016-05-08T04:09:00Z

Mike Linksvayer likes this.