Misunderstanding of embedded system designers [LWN.net]

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 16, 2006 22:33 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868)
In reply to: Misunderstanding of embedded system designers by karim
Parent article: GPLv3: a first look

While it may be true that such embedded systems require that the user not be able to modify the
supplied system, such a requirement is directly in conflict with the FSF's goals.

The FSF is promoting Free Software -- that is, in their words "software that respects the user's
essential freedoms". One of those essential freedoms is the ability to modify the software. Providing
the source code for a system but designing the system such that the user cannot modify the code
makes it unfree. While the GPLv2 let you get away with this, the GPLv3 closes the hole, such that it's
no longer possible to subvert free software in this way.

It does not matter whether or not you *like* DRM, if you are designing a product that uses it, you
should not expect the FSF (and others who agree with them) to help you in that task any more than
if you were creating any other proprietary product.

(Log in to post comments)

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 16, 2006 23:44 UTC (Mon) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link]

The folly of all great ideals is to blindely follow clear
successes with short-sighted and stuborn policies, thereby
forgetting the initial goal (communism vs. the peasants'
greater good, bureaucracy vs. having structured government
services, etc.)

I understand the FSF's intent. I just think that this is
the kind of thing that hurts the FSF's goal instead of
helping it.

Karim

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 17, 2006 0:49 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

Karim,

I have to disagree. I've just finished reading Stallman's "Free
Software, Free Society" lately (it's a collection of essays and speeches
he's done throughout the year).

When I saw the new GPL license draft, I felt very much like the FSF
was adhering to the principles on which it, and the free software
movement it advances, were founded.

By contrast, I think the accusation of "short-sighted and stubborn
policies" indicates a desire that they yield in some part of their core
mission. If I look at the landscape on which we now sit, I see the FSF as
being the organization responsible for maintaining the uncompromising
idealism on which our modern software society is now based. If someone
wants to make compromises, perhaps it can be OSI? (small jab :P)

Remember that no one has any 'duty' to support business with their
free software. The FSF, in its documents, makes this clear. However, they
do concede that once they satisfy freedoms, they can work to satisfy
business as well.

Just some random thoughts.

- Chase

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 17, 2006 9:34 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

I concur. I can see very little wrong with this GPL revision: I was fearing a repeat of the GFDL fiasco, but it seems my fears were unfounded. Bravo!

(Oh, and if there's one thing nobody can describe RMS as, it's `blind'. He's shown a consistent record over the last few decades of foreseeing threats to software freedom a decade or so before they become obvious to most people.)

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 17, 2006 6:56 UTC (Tue) by jae (guest, #2369) [Link]

The "folly" of all (great) ideals is that they have some "vision", and won't budge to short-sighted interests.

Fell free to take this as a flame if you want to.