[rando832]

Gplv2 violations are widespread, we need much much more enforcement and more copyleft software, and this could be a huge win. Free software's main purpose should not be to be proprietarized, too much of it now is a group effort among companies to more efficiently lure users to trade their freedom for functionality.

[kevin_thibedeau]

It would be nice if perma-locked bootloaders were illegal.

[squarefoot]

Not just nice, it would be a huge accomplishment. Imagine being able to resurrect (as in saving from a landfill) old tablets, phones and even smart TVs, or making new ones more usable and trustworthy by flashing a lighter OS that doesn't contain adware and spyware, and can be patched to solve bugs or implement new functions (including codecs) to give the product a longer life. Hardware manufacturers would absolutely hate such a scenario, which is why I'm pessimistic about that.

[colejohnson66]

Isn’t that the idea of the “TiVoisation” clause in the GPLv3? Basically, TiVo released their Linux derivative code, but you couldn’t actually flash your version. The problem is that Linus is staunchly against the GPLv3

[dv_dt]

That imho should be an extension of right-to-repair (and own/modify)

[drran]

Perma-locked bootloaders can be made illegal, if they prevent you, the owner of the device, from patching a security hole in your device. In essence, it's a backdoor mechanism installed by the vendor.

[matheusmoreira]

Would be nice if all corporate exploitation was illegal.

[concordDance]

> too much of it now is a group effort among companies to more efficiently lure users to trade their freedom for functionality

Often they don't have more functionality, just actual marketing and discoverability.