safety-critical systems can use ROM
Posted Oct 19, 2006 0:59 UTC (Thu) by bignose
In reply to: safety-critical systems can use ROM
Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)
> > *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.
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
> displayed in the shop, it is "their device" (i.e. the service
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.
to post comments)