Article: Interview: Bruce Perens on GPLv3 embedded consequences
May 11, 2006 — by LinuxDevices Staff — from the LinuxDevices Archive — 2 views
[Updated May 12] — GPLv3 will likely be adopted for Linux kernel, according to Bruce Perens (pictured at left). “It's a negotiation… I'm expecting the embedded manufacturers and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Linus to get the license to a point they can all live with,” Perens says.
He adds, “There are people like Eben Moglen on the job, who understand how to bring people together.”
Moglen (pictured at right) heads up the Software Freedom Law Center, which advised Richard M. Stallman on language used in the first GPLv3 draft, released by the FSF this January, after a year or more of work.
We called Perens for a reaction to Richard Stallman's speech at the GPLv3 conference in Brazil last month, in which the GPL author appeared to suggest the new license would require devices to be capable of running user-modified kernels, if based on GPL-licensed software, by mandating the release of keys used to sign OS binaries. The specific language in the current draft appears to be:
Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications.
Initially, Linus Torvalds reacted strongly to the draft GPLv3's “key sharing” requirement, calling it “insane.” However, he may have misunderstood the language as applicable to developers' personal cryptographic keys, according to Perens.
Perens is the original author of busybox, one of the most popular open source embedded software applications. He sounded hopeful that the GPLv3 can protect his copyrighted free software better than the current GPL does, doing more to stop misappropriation in closed devices.
“The problem I see is that proprietary software in devices is not long-term supportable by the owners of those devices,” Perens says.
He explains, “We've all seen that companies abandon devices — as soon as it goes off the market, you can't get the OS anymore. Our goal is to have devices that are maintainable.”
One device that could come into conflict with the GPLv3 is AMD's PIC (Personal Internet Computer), which uses a General Software embedded BIOS. According to General Software, its BIOS can be configured so that it will only boot a preauthorized OS; additionally, the BIOS can be located within protected flash (e.g. boot block flash), such that it cannot be reflashed without special procedures or equipment. Thus far, the PIC — which comes equipped with a Windows CE OS — has resisted efforts by hackers to coax it into running Linux, suggesting that AMD has employed techniques that prevent Linux being loaded by the PIC's BIOS. If this is indeed the case, a Linux version of the PIC that includes protections that block reflashing and/or the loading of a user-updated Linux OS, could come in conflict with the GPLv3, in light of Stallman's latest comments.
Forced key sharing is one thing in consumer electronics devices, but what about true high security applications, such as casino gaming, medical equipment, surveillance devices, and military and defense applications? User-replaceable OSes there would greatly compromise security, wouldn't they?
Perens side-steps the question. “It's interesting you ask about defense. Linux and open source are pervasive there for one reason — they are the only systems those sort of people can trust. Nothing in GPLv3 says you have to disclose your personal keys. GPLv3 is perfectly compatible with military applications.”
Perens returns to consumer electronics device issues. “The FSF is opposed to DRM, and feel they can get a compromise out of manufacturers regarding your ability to re-program your device. If the FSF takes this further than manufacturers are willing to go, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Manufacturers will go kicking and screaming, saying it's a non-starter, but at the end of the process, they'll make a decision regardless of what they were saying up until then.”
He adds, “A manufacturer needs to look at the cost equation. Linux is not necessarily the cheapest solution, or in some cases the only workable one. But not many OSes can handle streaming media as well.”
“We're not mandating that you give us the keys to your movies. The GPL doesn't let me encumber a user-mode program. The capacity to replace the kernel in that device is what we're asking for.”
“For example, I have a Motorola Linux phone, an A780. It comes with a 2.4 kernel, but Harald [Welte, of OpenEZX] figured out how to make it run a 2.6 kernel. Harald is improving on Motorola's design. If they're smart, Motorola will start using pieces of his Linux implementation.”
What about FCC regulations forbidding post-certification modifications to radio devices?
“I think that's a red herring. Some people have come out with open wireless drivers, and the FCC has not done anything about it. In my reading, the FCC rule does not require that they close-source the device,” Perens says.
He adds, “Amateur radio doesn't have type approval. You are allowed as a ham to build receivers, and modify equipment, in almost every way. A Technician [class license holder] has it in his privileges to modify [WiFi cards] and run them at 200 Watts.
“We're talking about technology policy directly as it relates to innovation, here. For social and societal reasons, there's great reasons to protect people's freedom to tinker.”
He concludes, “If you're going to use open source, keep the covenant! Keep people's freedom to tinker!”
This story was revised on May 12 to reflect that GPLv3 was written by Stallman, with advice from the SFLC, and released by the FSF. –ed
This article was originally published on LinuxDevices.com and has been donated to the open source community by QuinStreet Inc. Please visit LinuxToday.com for up-to-date news and articles about Linux and open source.