5.3 Update for Paperwhite -- will it interfere with the jailbreak?

[sparrowlight]

I honestly don't know why Amazon won't just have a built-in legit option to add your own screensavers. The Nook allows custom screensavers! If Amazon customers/Kindle users aren't under the sponsored screensaver software, who cares what the screensavers are??

[knc1]

Originally Posted by Akirainblack

I just don't get it.
Jailbreaking an Apple device allows things like Cydia to be installed and opens the device for piracy. (Which is apparently acceptable).
Jailbreaking a Kindle allows extra features that Amazon didn't include and doesn't open any doors at all to piracy which weren't already there. (Which is apparently unacceptable).
I can't wait to see Apple comply with "Users are allowed to install unapproved applications or switch carriers on their smartphones. "Users are allowed to install unapproved applications or switch carriers on their smartphones."
Games consoles have either hardware modifications or software modifications and I can't think of a single one which needs to be Jailbroken (as in the way both the iPhone was by GeoHot and the PS3 was by fa1l0verfl0w) any more (In fact the only one I know of which was jailbroken was the PS3).

A much different situation here.

The Kindle firmware image as a whole is not the copyright property of Amazon.
Only parts of it is, their proprietary parts.

Under GPLv3 they can not block (via encryption and signing keys - or anything else) access to and the ability to replace the GPLv3 code whose copyright they do not own.

Plus, read the title of that linked to document.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-insp...2012-26308.pdf
"Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access
Control Technologies"

Having access to replace the gnutls binaries is not a "Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems ..."
The only Copyright Protection implemented for the Opensource components of the system is the license.

[twobob]

More corporate big-hammer doo-doo. Bleugh.

[dos1]

Originally Posted by knc1

And in some locally breaking news (your reading it here):

Both Kindle Paperwhite firmware version 5.2.0 and version 5.3.0 contain object code covered by GPLv3.
(The gnutls 2.8.4 distribution. See the "COPYING" file in the root of the source code tree for gnutls.)

Of pertinence here:
Section 6 Conveying Non-Source Forms. - "Installation Information"

Translation:
Owners of the Kindle Paperwhite should ask Amazon for the information specified (their encryption keys, among other things).



I don't own a Kindle Paperwhite, I can't do it for you.
Go get'm tigers!

WOW, that's a huge news! I thought that they used only GPLv2, but if there's also code on GPLv3, then they indeed *legally have to* allow jailbreaking and provide all necessary information for that, as you citied.

I surely will ask them, thanks for heads up!

[knc1]

Originally Posted by twobob

More corporate big-hammer doo-doo. Bleugh.

I prefer your reference to 1984.

Another note: I did not look at other Amazon firmwares to see how far back they have been using that GPLv3 gnutls package.
They may be in violation on other devices, other than the Kpw.

[ixtab]

As threads tend to get buried and forgotten rather quickly in this forum, here's a temporary countermeasure.

But knc1's idea of forcing Amazon to give access to the device via the license terms is quite brilliant and probably worth pursuing. If anybody is more versed in that field than I am, please do follow that route. If it's really like knc1 said (IANAL, and I literally either fall asleep, or get nauseous, as soon as I'm confronted with lawyers), then this may even be worth reporting to the FSFE. Especially in light of those completely crackbrained new regulations about the legal status of jailbreaking some devices, but not others, based on their screen size.

<rant mode="controversial">Yes, sometimes I'm really thankful for not living in the self-proclaimed Land Of The Free. Where I live, people are still free to actually own their devices and to do whatever they want with them. Which includes reverse engineering, modifying, jailbreaking, using them for scientific research, or whatever else they want to do. And, luckily, no company take can these civil rights away.</rant>

[knc1]

The reality in the "Land of the Free" is that everyone is free to defend their own interests.
Or so it seems at times.

The one thing that no one can say about our legal system, is that it is fast.

So as a practical matter, owners need to look out for themselves until the legal system catches up.
Which in the case of these devices with the lifetime of a Mayfly, might be years after they are all recycled as junk.

[dos1]

I wonder if libfreetype on Kindle is patched against this kind of attacks:

http://esec-lab.sogeti.com/post/Anal...3-font-exploit
https://github.com/comex/star_

There is support for custom fonts in /mnt/us/fonts, we can also run PDFs or websites with embedded fonts. I think I'll dig into this over weekend, but any help will be appreciated.

[eureka]

Originally Posted by sparrowlight

I honestly don't know why Amazon won't just have a built-in legit option to add your own screensavers. The Nook allows custom screensavers! If Amazon customers/Kindle users aren't under the sponsored screensaver software, who cares what the screensavers are??

Expect breaking news. 5.3.0 introduced ofiicial support for custom screensavers. Or, at least, prototype of it.

But it also looks that with using of official feature, custom screensavers could be downloaded only from Amazon. Maybe there will be some predefined screensaver packs...

EDIT: oh.... it's the thread where this was already discussed earlier... I thought it was another thread, sorry.

[Akirainblack]

knc1 sorry what I meant was I don't understand how a judge can rule against enforcing a contractual agreement for using GPL etc as illegal (yes overly simplified).
Yet something which opens piracy to an item is perfectly legal.

[knc1]

Originally Posted by Akirainblack

knc1 sorry what I meant was I don't understand how a judge can rule against enforcing a contractual agreement for using GPL etc as illegal (yes overly simplified).

That one is easy.
In this country, you can't contract against the law.
Plus there is a unsettled question here: "Is the GPL a contract or the same as a contract?"

Originally Posted by Akirainblack

Yet something which opens piracy to an item is perfectly legal.

That one is also easy.
The decision did not affect the definition of piracy, piracy is still piracy.

PS: This forum is not the place for legal discussions. Write your law makers.

[bartveld]

Originally Posted by ixtab

As foreseeable as that was, it's still a pity that companies keep employing the same idiotic and short-sighted strategy of trying to lock their customers in, instead of providing an open (or at least "openable") environment which allows for open development.

Quite. I, for one, will not buy a PW if it can't be hacked.

[knc1]

Originally Posted by bartveld

Quite. I, for one, will not buy a PW if it can't be hacked.

Agreed.
That is at least two customers that Amazon has just lost.

[qlob]

Originally Posted by knc1

Agreed.
That is at least two customers that Amazon has just lost.

Make that 3. I was thinking of upgrading from my K3, but now that it can't be hacked.....

[knc1]

Originally Posted by qlob

Make that 3. I was thinking of upgrading from my K3, but now that it can't be hacked.....

Sticking with my K3 here also.
I noticed just yesterday that the K3 is back in stock in the Amazon US store.