Re: Oui mais non

Chapeau pour l'inventivité quand même, tenter de balancer le refus de TiVo dans la GPLv3 comme partie du libre alors qu'il n'est pas défini à cet endroit. Mais bon, ça ne peut convaincre que ceux qui veulent être convaincus...

Ce n'est pas dans le préambule, pardon, je me suis trompé, c'est le guide d'utilisation de la GPL que j'avais sous les yeux.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html :

Tivoization: Some companies have created various different kinds of devices that run GPLed software, and then rigged the hardware so that they can change the software that's running, but you cannot. If a device can run arbitrary software, it's a general-purpose computer, and its owner should control what it does. When a device thwarts you from doing that, we call that tivoization.

Je me base aussi sur (le gras est de moi) :

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization

Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are designed so that users are not allowed to modify that software. There are lots of different ways to do this; for example, sometimes the hardware checksums the software that is installed, and shuts down if it doesn't match an expected signature. The manufacturers comply with GPLv2 by giving you the source code, but you still don't have the freedom to modify the software you're using. We call this practice tivoization.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours — a practice known as "tivoization" or "lockdown", or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as "secure boot" — freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather than a practical reality. These binaries are not free software even if the source code they are compiled from is free.

*splash!*