| |||||||||||||
safety-critical systems can use ROMsafety-critical systems can use ROMPosted Oct 19, 2006 0:01 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40)In reply to: safety-critical systems can use ROM by bojan Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)
> I don't think a lot of service providers would appreciate such freedom in
*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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||