| |||||||||||||
FSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years agoFSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years agoPosted Oct 2, 2006 21:56 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421)In reply to: FSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years ago by landley Parent article: Busy busy busybox
People were burning code into ROM 20 years ago, but now the FSF wants to dictate how the hardware is made If you're going to criticise GPLv3, try to do so without distorting the facts. The DRM provisions don't prevent ROMs. They only affect the situation where the hardware manufacturer can upgrade the software but the user can't, which is relatively new. The FSF has explained this repeatedly: But if there really are regulations which forbid software on certain devices from being modified once it's installed, it's still possible to use software licensed under the GPL — simply burn the software into a ROM.
(Log in to post comments)
FSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years ago Posted Oct 3, 2006 0:12 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] but now the FSF wants to dictate how the hardware is made If you're going to criticise GPLv3, try to do so without distorting the facts. Your (rather impolite) statement is directly contradicted by pro-GPLv3 people in this very thread acknowledging that indeed the FSF wants to dictate certain aspects of how the hardware is made. (by forbidding GPLv3 on such hardware) Of course what this will result in is the non-use of GPLv3 software, not the change of hardware - so what will be achieved is only harmful to Linux and free software in general. The only entities that will win from the DRM language are Hollywood and Microsoft.
FSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years ago Posted Oct 3, 2006 2:15 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Your (rather impolite) statement is directly contradicted by pro-GPLv3 people in this very thread acknowledging that indeed the FSF wants to dictate certain aspects of how the hardware is made. (by forbidding GPLv3 on such hardware) My statement was directly referenced to the authors of GPLv3, not to your paraphrasing of "pro-GPLv3 people". Moreover, I never suggested that the FSF didn't want to restrict certain aspects of the hardware design. All I said was that the FSF has clearly stated it has neither the intention nor the desire to restrict the use of ROMs, which had been falsely implied above. (This is also backed up by a direct quote from Eben Moglen in another post of mine above.) If you find it impolite to point out that the facts are being distorted by certain posters, I find the distortion itself even more impolite.
FSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years ago Posted Oct 4, 2006 6:42 UTC (Wed) by svkelley (guest, #37299) [Link] So, letś say you have some GPLv3 code you wrote that say deals with rotating images. Caterpillar has a new vehicle that runs embedded Linux for its driver's display. The software is used for the backup camera. if Caterpillar doesn't allow you access to their firmware with an unsigned loader, you have the right to revoke use of the code?
This is bull. The original intent of the code had nothing to do with tractors or what ever. Again, I feel this whole motivation is without merit, spiteful, and dictatorial.
Why would they care if you change the code? Posted Oct 4, 2006 9:41 UTC (Wed) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] Where does this "right to revoke" come from? You don't have the right to do anything, the Caterpiller violated your licence. If you don't like that effect, don't use that licence. Duh.
My real questions are:
1. Why would the people who made the tractor not want to give you the code? It doesn't matter to them at all, does it?
2. Why would they care if you changed the installed code? In your example I can't even see why they'd want to stop you making your own changes. Changes would void the warrenty obviously, but that's about it... What is this "signed bootloader" acheiving in the Caterpillar?
Similarly, I can't imagine why a TiVo-like device would want to stop you changing the userland GPL code. They control the kernel, so letting people do whatever they like in userspace seems like the obvious thing to do.
Why would they care if you change the code? Posted Oct 4, 2006 14:17 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Caterpillar would not want you to be able to modify the code in their device because if you did, and ran over somebody because the device failed in use, the victim and the driver might both choose to sue the manufacturer for liability in the accident. And they might very well win.
For Tivo there are two issues: (1) their contract with the content owners almost certainly requires them to make a good-faith effort to assure that there is no point where a user can get access to unencoded content and (2) if someone installed software that allowed them to copy content out and subsequently posted such content for sharing, Tivo might well be sued for liability for the claimed losses of the content owner(s).
Companies have to factor their potential liability into the cost of using components. If they believe the financial risk of using the components is unacceptable, they'll go elsewhere.
Why would they care if you change the code? Posted Oct 5, 2006 23:11 UTC (Thu) by svkelley (guest, #37299) [Link] Well said. And when companies go elsewhere, Linux loses.
Why would they care if you change the code? Posted Oct 7, 2006 14:35 UTC (Sat) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] Think it will fare any better if DRM is generalized?
Hint:
Why would they care if you change the code? Posted Oct 9, 2006 14:18 UTC (Mon) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link] I'm not sure whether or not this was sarcastic, but if a company doesn't choose Linux in its DRM-locked product, what does Linux lose, exactly?
You are willing to sacrifice your freedom for a few points of *market share*? WTF are you thinking? The whole point of an open source operating system is to be free, except when freedom would result in a few less locked-down systems running it?
Yes, requiring DRM keys will reduce Linux's market share. But the whole point of a free-software operating system is that market share doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. You're giving away the one thing in the whole deal that really matters for a shiny but meaningless bauble.
I'll give you three beads and a blanket for Manhattan. Deal?
Why would they care if you change the code? Posted Oct 6, 2006 17:37 UTC (Fri) by spitzak (guest, #4593) [Link] That's nonsense. Caterpillar would win the case, as you modified their device without their authorization!
Why would they care if you change the code? Posted Oct 6, 2006 19:01 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Most companies are willing to go to significant lengths to lower the probabilities. Juries do sometimes do things you would not expect. The cost of going to law are substantial, even if you win.
I can say that I know of design decisions taken specifically to avoid liability potential, over things with much less potential impact that replacing major parts of the operating software.
FSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years ago Posted Oct 4, 2006 9:58 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] > Your (rather impolite) statement is directly contradicted by pro-GPLv3> people in this very thread acknowledging that indeed the FSF wants to > dictate certain aspects of how the hardware is made. (by forbidding GPLv3 on > such hardware)
1. Who holds the DRM keys do not change how the harware is made.
What it stops has nothing to do with hardware and everything to do with software distribution, which was the GPL function all along
FSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years ago Posted Oct 4, 2006 14:27 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] While the specific restrictions are written in terms of software distribution, the result is the same, a requirement for the right to update a particular device, if that device is updatable. There's no way to look at that without seeing it as extending some degree of control over the particular device. It's not enough that the user be able to run the software on some hardware device, she has to be able to run it on the particular device in question.
FSF is SOLVING a problem that did not exist 10 years ago Posted Oct 5, 2006 2:40 UTC (Thu) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] > GPLv3 does not forbid GPLv3 code use on DRM hardware, provided you give the users the keys
Everyone seems to be forgetting there is another option here. Tivo doesn't need to hand out their signing key to be GPLv3 compliant. Instead they could add one jumper to the board. Put a cap on it, apply power and it does three things: 1) erase the keyring and 2) permit loading unsigned binaries and 3) voids the warranty and makes the machine unable to obtain services from Tivo.
I think they could make a strong argument that this complies because a Tivo is both a hardware sale and a subscription service. It is somewhat reasonable for a service to be restricted to controlled hardware/software platforms. Installing the jumper would allow installing MythTV on the hardware but it wouldn't be a Tivo anymore.
Of course this is a bad example since Linux is going to remain GPLv2.
|
|||||||||||||