| |||||||||||||
Re: the beefRe: the beefPosted Oct 7, 2006 12:44 UTC (Sat) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)In reply to: Re: the beef by vonbrand Parent article: Busy busy busybox
> "But, yerhonnor, we used GPLv3ed code because it was cheaper, and the
But was the reckless design to use GPLv3 or DRM instead of ROM? If you have this kind of liability hanging over your head, you can certainly afford ROM, or protected hardware jumper, or whatever
(Log in to post comments)
Re: the beef Posted Oct 8, 2006 1:44 UTC (Sun) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] If the TC is good enough, there's no need to go to ROM. As noted elsewhere, there are disadvantages to using ROM. And it's usually sufficient to make it difficult to modify, so the user clearly has to jump over intended barriers (and thereby demonstrate that it's their fault, and not the manufacturers).
I'm neither a lawyer nor on the business side; I don't know what factors they use in deciding how hard to make it to crack the security.
Re: the beef Posted Oct 8, 2006 9:12 UTC (Sun) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] > As noted elsewhere, there are disadvantages to using ROM.
But are the disadvantages sufficient to refuse using GPLv3 software if it implies ROM?
> And it's usually sufficient to make it difficult to modify, so the user
This part is easily done without blocking GPLv3 by making the update process interactive and spewing big red warnings if the updating binary is not signed by the manufacturer
|
|||||||||||||