| |||||||||||||
safety-critical systems can use ROMsafety-critical systems can use ROMPosted Oct 18, 2006 6:13 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40)In reply to: safety-critical systems can use ROM by bojan Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)
> Every piece of software has bugs.
Yes. And what the vendor considers a "bug" isn't always what the user considers a "bug". A user in legal possession of a device should be the one that decides whether a bug fix goes into the device or not.
> Once you make it a ROM, you can't easily fix it. On the other hand, a
No. It can only receive bug fixes from *one* place -- the holder of the secrets that allow the modified software to run. The GPL is designed *explicitly* to allow the user to have this power, so that if the software is modifiable at all, they can choose bug fixes and improvements from any available source.
Consider: in a great deal of embedded systems, many things the vendor wants to "fix" as bugs are actually features that the user wants to remain in the software. The GPL is designed so that the vendor can't be the only one to have that freedom.
And, of course, if they don't want their users to have that freedom, vendors are not forced to choose software under GPL at all. The goal here is to increase the amount of software with guaranteed user freedoms, so that it becomes less and less economically viable to avoid giving those freedoms to user. But if a vendor really want to write software without using GPLed sources to restrict user freedoms, they can pay that ongoing cost.
(Log in to post comments)
safety-critical systems can use ROM Posted Oct 18, 2006 6:32 UTC (Wed) by timschmidt (guest, #38269) [Link] > No. It can only receive bug fixes from *one* place -- the holder of the> secrets that allow the modified software to run. The GPL is designed > *explicitly* to allow the user to have this power, so that if the software > is modifiable at all, they can choose bug fixes and improvements from any > available source.
And it's not like shipping out a $1 hobbled flash chip or actual ROM is too costly a thing to do - even a hundred times - for a multi-hundred-million dollar plane.
--tim
safety-critical systems can use ROM Posted Oct 18, 2006 7:02 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > And it's not like shipping out a $1 hobbled flash chip or actual ROM is too costly a thing to do - even a hundred times - for a multi-hundred-million dollar plane.
I don't think letting regular users change ROM chips inside mobile phones and Tivo's would be something that those manufacturers would like doing.
safety-critical systems can use ROM Posted Oct 18, 2006 10:17 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > I don't think letting regular users change ROM chips inside mobile phones> and Tivo's would be something that those manufacturers would like doing.
Exactly. That's why it's important to ensure that free software can't be warped by such manufacturers. If they want the freedoms associated with the software, they must let their users have those same freedoms; so those users can get their device's software improved by anyone, not just those approved by the manufacturer.
safety-critical systems can use ROM Posted Oct 18, 2006 11:07 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > That's why it's important to ensure that free software can't be warped by such manufacturers.
Sadly, if manufacturers (PCs included) get pushed into DRM-or-nothing direction by big content providers, free software as defined by GPLv3 would simply not be an option as no manufacturer would give you their hardware keys. And given their contracts with content providers and the desire to ship hardware that can present whatever content providers make (i.e. what the masses like to see), they would pick revenue over freedom any day (most manufacturers are big business, which is all about making money). End result, such free software just wouldn't run on any hardware, which would make it irrelevant.
Now, whether that's worse than GPLv2 free software that can be locked down through hardware DRM, I don't know.
safety-critical systems can use ROM Posted Oct 18, 2006 11:26 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > Sadly, if [the DRM cartel gets their way] End result, such free software> just wouldn't run on any hardware, which would make it irrelevant.
That sounds like the DRM cartel's ideal outcome, yes.
Nothing makes it more certain that us assuming it's already inevitable.
safety-critical systems can use ROM Posted Oct 18, 2006 18:37 UTC (Wed) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] It's far worse, actually.
A basic ethical principle is to avoid doing harm. If you write software and release it under a license that allows it to be Tivoised, you're aiding and abetting the harm they perpetrate. You'd be better off, ethically speaking, to do nothing. If you license it so they can't do that, and they go ahead and write their own software to do the same thing instead, at least you have not aided them. Additionally, if they have to write their own software, that takes time and resources from them, weakening them. It may be a very small effect, but markets sometimes turn on very small effects.
safety-critical systems can use ROM Posted Oct 19, 2006 12:21 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] > Sadly, if manufacturers (PCs included) get pushed into DRM-or-nothing> direction by big content providers, free software as defined by GPLv3 would > simply not be an option as no manufacturer would give you their hardware > keys
The power balance is not so simple. As other stated, manufacturers worry most about per-device cost.
Let them freely DRM-ize their existing and planed FLOSS-using products and they'll bow to content providers easily. Make the DRM-ization costly (requiring flash replacement by ROM, existing software replacement by other code, cutting future access to FLOSS code) and you bet manufacturers will fight tooth and nail against mandatory DRMs.
safety-critical systems can use ROM Posted Oct 18, 2006 23:33 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > No. It can only receive bug fixes from *one* place -- the holder of the secrets that allow the modified software to run.
Yes, that's what I meant. The manufacturer of the device and/or service provider can do that easily. And that's exactly what they want.
> The GPL is designed *explicitly* to allow the user to have this power, so that if the software is modifiable at all, they can choose bug fixes and improvements from any available source.
Hmm... I don't think a lot of service providers would appreciate such freedom in their devices. After all, users usually enter into contracts with service providers about "permitted behaviour" on the network. Having a device on a network that can be easily modified can cause network disruptions that affects other users (i.e. customers). Not good for business...
I know, they can use proprietary software. I reckon that's exactly what they would do if the only other option was GPLv3 licensed software. Maybe that's good for FOSS - I don't know.
safety-critical systems can use ROM Posted Oct 19, 2006 0:01 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > I don't think a lot of service providers would appreciate such freedom in> their devices.
*Whose* devices? The legal owner of the device, not the service provider, gets to say what software changes occur on it.
In the case where the service provider *is* the legal owner of the device, they get to change it however they like. Not otherwise.
> After all, users usually enter into contracts with service
Right. And if the user causes their device to breach that "permitted behaviour", they lose their service. If those are the terms of the service, so be it.
This is quite orthogonal to the issue of preventing a legal owner of a device from getting their software improvements from anywhere they like and installing them.
safety-critical systems can use ROM Posted Oct 19, 2006 0:18 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > *Whose* devices? The legal owner of the device, not the service provider, gets to say what software changes occur on it.
Not necessarily. It all depends on the contract the owner of the device has with the provider.
I think you also interpreted my sentence too literally. Sure, once the device is sold it belongs to the user. But when it's displayed in the shop, it is "their device" (i.e. the service provider's). Regardless, it's the contract that determines who gets to update the software.
I know, there are examples with cars and how you can do whatever you like with them once they have been sold to you. But those analogies don't apply here, as there is (generally) no contract of service provision between the car manufacturers and car users.
safety-critical systems can use ROM Posted Oct 19, 2006 0:59 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > > *Whose* devices? The legal owner of the device, not the service> > provider, gets to say what software changes occur on it.
> Not necessarily. It all depends on the contract the owner of the device
The legal owner of the device gets to decide what changes are made to the device. The service provider gets to say when and how to provide whatever service they're providing.
> Sure, once the device is sold it belongs to the user. But when it's
This discussion is in the context of the device being in legal possession of the user, and who gets to say what software changes can be made from that point. Before that time, this discussion doesn't apply, and the device maker can make any software changes they like.
> Regardless, it's the contract that determines who gets to update the
No. It's the contract with the service provider that determines *whether and how the service is provided*. If the device owner decides they still want to have changes made to the device, that's their choice.
To put it another way: The service contract gets to say things only within the bounds of the service. The device can be used for a much wider range of things not included in that contract, and the service provider has nothing to say about that.
The legal owner of the device should be allowed to do anything they want with the device, *including* breach their contract, and wear the consequences. It's not for the device vendor to second-guess the legal system and deliberately make it technically impossible to do things the vendor doesn't like. Not with free software, anyway.
safety-critical systems can use ROM Posted Oct 19, 2006 1:46 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > No. It's the contract with the service provider that determines *whether and how the service is provided*. If the device owner decides they still want to have changes made to the device, that's their choice.
Again, not necessarily. Contracts can contain all kinds of promises asked from the user. They can even ask that the user not be allowed to modify the device *at all*, but they would probably ask that user cannot modify the device and then connect it to the same network. The effect (for the provider) would be the same.
Attempts to cirumvent technical protection measures may be legal in some countries and illegal in others. In any case, an attempt to connect such a device to provider's network would be a violation of the contract, if that was one of the conditions. An attempt to connect any other device to such a network would probably be some sort of trespassing.
> To put it another way: The service contract gets to say things only within the bounds of the service. The device can be used for a much wider range of things not included in that contract, and the service provider has nothing to say about that.
That also may not be true. A contract can contain the language that prevents the user from using the device for any other purpose.
Contracts are private agreements between parties. They can contain all kinds of "surrender of freedom", as they are entered into voluntarily.
> The legal owner of the device should be allowed to do anything they want with the device, *including* breach their contract, and wear the consequences. It's not for the device vendor to second-guess the legal system and deliberately make it technically impossible to do things the vendor doesn't like.
They would not be second-guessing the legal system at all. They could do it through contracts. In some countries they may even have out-of-contract protection through DMCA and such.
> Not with free software, anyway.
Well, that's the issue here, really. I don't have a definitive answer to that. I'm just trying to present variuos points of view that parties involved may have.
|
|||||||||||||