Licensing Re: Lead-up message 'Welcome to GRUB!' ...

[Isaac Dupree]

On 02/21/10 15:38, address@hidden wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Robo L<address@hidden>  wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Firstly I would like to thank everyone for the reply and Your time.
> >
> > I would like to clarify the issue.
> > First I need to hide the very first Welcom message because I need to hide
> > GRUB for other users of MS Windows on my PC. I need it only for myself.
>
> I'm not entirely certain, but:
>
> (1) I think GRUB is licensed under GPLv3 or higher only

yes

> (2) GPLv3 covers what were considered to be loopholes in GPLv2
> (firmware enforced signature, software-as-a-service)
> therefore

well, GPLv3 is not identical to GPLv2, but I don't think the differences 
are important to this issue.

> (3) Your use of GRUB (copying it into the boot record) requires you to
> provide your users with notice of their GPL rights to your version of
> GRUB.

No, I think it probably does not.  Firstly, because Robo L may not be 
"conveying" the program (see definition in GPLv3), and if not, cannot 
possibly be violating GPLv3.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

Secondly, even if installing it to the hard disk of a computer that is 
shared between you and other people (or other corporations) is 
"conveying", GPLv3 Section 5 says, "d) If the work has interactive user 
interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the 
Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal 
Notices, your work need not make them do so."

I didn't check whether mainstream GRUB interaction displays Appropriate 
Legal Notices.  ("Welcome to GRUB!" is most certainly NOT an Appropriate 
Legal Notice.)  If it doesn't, you're free.  If it does, I think you 
still do not need to display Appropriate Legal Notices until 
"interactive user interfaces" have been activated; say, by typing in the 
secret code that activates them.  In section 0. Definitions, "An 
interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” to the 
extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature 
that [says it's GPLed, etc.].  If the interface presents a list of user 
commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets 
this criterion."  I don't see "interactive user interfaces" defined 
anywhere in the GPL or mentioned in GPL-FAQ, so I am hardly sure whether 
a secret password-entry system that only interacts by secretly reading a 
password (and then brings up the "real" interactive interface) would 
count as an interactive interface in its own right that must tell the 
user about itself even when they don't know the password... The 
Affero-GPL is written with further language about interaction, but as I 
guess that the normal GPL wouldn't make a GPL'd SSH server program have 
to break the SSH protocol in order to fulfill Legal Notices, there must 
be some limits on what is considered "interaction"...

I doubt the GPL was written with surreptitious installation of software 
on other people's computers in mind... well, maybe it was

> So one can hardly say that "another user on my PC not venture a guess
> that there is a GRUB" if you are required to tell them that GRUB is
> there and offer them the source code.
>
> > Richard: redirection is not good idea for me, becouse II need classical
> > console. I wrote a module with hidden password (secret process - no response
> > on console - silent) If match then redirect to boot linux. The nature of the
> > process is that another user on my PC not venture a guess that there is a
> > GRUB and secound linux OS!
>
> Security through obscurity is never a good idea and especially not
> when you have to give away the source code.

You have to give the source code when requested, or distribute it 
on-disk along with the binary... neither of which compromise security 
here.  It's not a secret algorithm; it's a secret that GRUB is there at 
all. (GPLv3 section 5.d , if obeyed strictly, might break this secret -- 
but that is all).

Depending what Robo L's threat model is, this "no messages until secret 
code entered" may be sufficient security.  Suppose it's to prevent other 
people from giving Robo a hard time about using Linux (they'd never 
suspect it in the first place! Or, they wouldn't mind terribly much if 
they found out.).  Or suppose it's part of spying on these people (and 
getting caught means Robo runs away but has succeeded in doing some 
spying in the meantime).