[Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

[me at mattgillen.net (Matthew Gillen)]

On 4/2/2016 11:54 AM, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On 4/1/2016 11:31 PM, Matthew Gillen wrote:
>> The problem the FBI had even if they modified the OS themselves was
>> signing it as an official update so that the phone would accept it...
> 
> The terms of the GPLv3 prohibit the use of digital signatures to prevent
> the execution of modified software.
> 

Well that depends on where and how you draw the line.  They could have a
bootloader that would allow you to put unsigned ROMs on the phone, but
would erase everything, while still having a non-destructive update
mechanism that requires a signed binary.  They could argue that an
unsigned binary voids warranty (as the GPLv3 allows), and their
mechanism for knowing if someone broke the OS is that their
non-destructive update requires signing.

That would satisfy the anti-tivoization and be within the limits of the
GPLv3, while still causing a problem for the FBI in this particular
instance.

Matt