Hacker News Reader

You can get the code, but you might not be able to do anything with it, as there is no obligation for the manufacturer to enable you to run the code on the device itself. GPLv3 intends to cover this case, but the Linux kernel is (not without reason) licensed under GPLv2.

View on HN

This is a misconception, GPLv2 also has the requirement that you receive "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". The position of the Software Freedom Conservancy is certainly that the user be given the freedom to replace the Linux kernel.

Having the “the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable” does not help you any if the device refuses to load a modified kernel. If the GPLv2 were sufficient, then why would the FSF see a need to create version 3?

The device refusing to load a modified kernel is a GPLv2 violation, at least Conservancy interpret "scripts" to include everything needed to run the modified code, since the device recipient does not have software freedom without the ability to load modified code. The GPLv3 has additional improvements in addition to the clarified requirements around device lockdown.

That seems to me personally like a stretched reading, but I am no expert. Thank you for pointing me to it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com