about "put it in ROM" [LWN.net]

about "put it in ROM"

Posted Oct 18, 2006 13:20 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
In reply to: about "put it in ROM" by svkelley
Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

They can also put the software-containing-whatever in a locked box. That's another thing GPLv3 can't prevent and doesn't try to prevent.

Or they can send out a worker to take out the dodgy ROM and put in a working one.

But these are corner cases. If GPLv3 is perfect for every application except for the critical parts of some avionics software, that's not a big problem. Being suitable for 99.999% of applications would be just grand. The avionics industry might just have to write some of their software themselves (but I suspect they do this already).

(I put my previous commented into my blog: Preventing modification: put it in ROM?)

(Log in to post comments)

about "put it in ROM"

Posted Oct 18, 2006 21:31 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Reply to your blog (commenting here because I don't want to sign up for yet another site):

Give people the software, with all the usual freedoms
Give people the software but use DRM to prevent them from being able to run modified versions
Put the software in a ROM chip (or put a locked door on the device containing the software)

So, by cutting out option 2, GPLv3 should increase the number of manufacturers who will choose option 1 in the future...

That's some tortured logic. How are you going to cut out option 2? The GPLv2 will still allow it and clearly there are a large number of people who are still interested in its existence.

Besides, option 2 is a freedom that I personally value highly. All this talk of restricting what you can and cannot do with the compiled software... If the FSF shares your view on freedom, maybe it's time for them to change their name to the "Free Sourcecode Foundation"?

about "put it in ROM"

Posted Oct 19, 2006 11:28 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

GPLv3 cuts out option #2. GPLv2 will still have option #2, as will many other free software licences. Developers can choose what licence to use.

The way that GPLv3 cuts out option #2 does not interfere with "what you can and cannot do with the compiled software". GPLv3 only says that if you distribution a software+hardware system, and if you rigg the hardware to malfunction if the software does not have an approved fingerprint, then you have to also distribute whatever digital magic dust is needed to authorise a fingerprint.

So this only places a requirement on people who are distributing products which combine software+hardware, and which are specially rigged to prevent running software modification. It is very unlikely that this includes you. It doesn't include any of the Linux hackers, AFAICT, and it doesn't include Red Hat, or Debian, or SuSE, or Ubuntu. It is only an additional requirement on the company behind the Tivo, and some router manufacturers.