Misunderstanding of embedded system designers [LWN.net]

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 16, 2006 22:39 UTC (Mon) by bk (guest, #25617)
In reply to: Misunderstanding of embedded system designers by karim
Parent article: GPLv3: a first look

Many embedded engineers have no love for DRM, but must ensure that the products they build cannot run anything but "authorized" applications in order to protect the copyrighted material others will allow to play on their devices.

This sounds like a very oblique way of saying: "I am involved in the development of media player(s) that are locked down to prevent installation of anything other than factory-authorized firmware/software. This is so that the device can only be used with 'properly' restricted (DRMed) content."

Am I right? Can't your employer license some proprietary embedded OS for their locked-down device? Such development should be as difficult and expensive as possible, I see no reason to accomodate it with our free licenses.

(Log in to post comments)

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 16, 2006 23:06 UTC (Mon) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link]

Please cut the us-vs-them crap and check who you're talking to first:
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/belinuxsys/

Being in my position, you kind'a meet a lot of people on both
sides of the fence, you kind'a see a lot of designs, and it kind'a
gives you a better view from a distance.

Coold heads (and philosophy 101) would tell you that making personal
attacks does not diminish your opponent's arguments.

And if I may suggest ... please don't present yourself in public
claiming to defend my view of software freedom.

Karim

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 16, 2006 23:11 UTC (Mon) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link]

In no way did I personally attack you. Nor did I question (or even bring up) your abilities or expertise in embedded design (thank you, however, for crudely insulting my philosophy erudition). Perhaps you should consider your own advice regarding cold heads.

Plaining speaking (rather than hiding behind mealy-mouthed apologetics) will make me respect your viewpoints more. All the publishing credits in the world won't change that.

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 16, 2006 23:27 UTC (Mon) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link]

My publishing credits weren't meant to convince you of my viewpoint.
Rather, it was meant to demonstrate that there can be other reasons
for voicing an opinion that those you hinted at.

And no, you're right, I did not react with a cold head. It just
really gets to me when I see the kind of "us-vs-them" attitude. We
all have a responsibility for the greater good and we all have the
duty -- at least that's my belief -- to make an effort in
understanding others' viewpoints.

Karim

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 17, 2006 0:55 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

"Us-vs-them" is looking at things the wrong way, I think. I could see
someone using the same term to describe the fact that the GPL isn't
becoming, say, BSD-like in that it still doesn't allow Microsoft to link
parts of Linux into their proprietary Windows kernel.

If you're going to create a better world, you have to, at times, draw
lines in the sand. This is the difference between public domain and
copyleft.

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 19, 2006 20:40 UTC (Thu) by Fats (subscriber, #14882) [Link]

It's not "us-vs-them". What you say is that it is OK to have somebody make a device running a linux kernel but I can't compile a new kernel for that device and run it with the new code. This just doesn't feel right to me and I agree with RMS on this one (which doesn't happen that often). People who don't want to allow that should not use GPL software for their kernel.

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 16, 2006 23:40 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Take a few breaths, bk. There's enough hypocrisy in this thread for everybody.

I see no reason to accomodate it with our free licenses.

"our"?

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 17, 2006 9:43 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

'Free licenses that are better than anything I could have written and that I wholeheartedly support'.

I use 'we' that way too, quite often. Perhaps it's a bit mendacious. :/

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 19, 2006 10:37 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

OK, so you think you're famous because you're active in the Embedded Linux area and have written an ORA book.

Does that make your view right by means of `I am better than you'?

From my impression, bk attacked your viewpoint. As a reaction, you attack him personally and don't answer his actual points factually. And then you advise him to have `coold[sic!] heads'. Well, cold heads, indeed.

This is just a feedback that you know how that exchange looks to others.

Cheers, Joachim

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 19, 2006 18:17 UTC (Thu) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link]

Please go back and read the exchange.

His initial post clearly questioned my motivations, insinuating that
my viewpoint was tainted by my work. Like you, he thought my mention
of my book was meant to convince him of my viewpoint. It wasn't. As
I pointed out to him, the main goal was to show that there can be
other motivations for defending a viewpoint. If you'd care to follow
the thread, you would've also seen that I did ack my hot-head comments
... everyone's got his buttons ... some of us are self-aware, others
are less so inclined ...

Karim