| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The Belkin router fiascoThe Belkin router fiascoPosted Nov 13, 2003 5:40 UTC (Thu) by jasone (subscriber, #2423)Parent article: The Belkin router fiasco For hardware gadgets, having them run free software isn't sufficient to guarantee that we know what the gadgets are up to. We would need full hardware design specifications for that. Ultimately, we have little choice but to trust the manufacturers to some degree.
(Log in to post comments)
The Belkin router fiasco Posted Nov 13, 2003 9:08 UTC (Thu) by beejaybee (guest, #1581) [Link] Yeah, I was going to say pretty much the same thing.How's about not being allowed to sell a gadget without providing (a) a full hardware spec and (b) source code for all the firmware/software contained therein. Note, I'm not suggesting that the software necessarily should be on "free" license. The gadget producer can retain the copyright to the software if they wish. What it _does_ mean is that users are permitted to compile the source code provided and compare the resulting binary with the code contained in the gadget. This provides the capability for a user to verify all the functions provided by the gadget _without_ compromising the gadget producer's intellectual property rights. Naturally I'd prefer a fully open structure; but I'm afraid that ain't going to happen any time soon, & meanwhile devices like routers, DSL modems etc. are required. At least the scheme I propose could be set in place _quickly_ and would allow errant gadget producers to be punished. It would also end attempts to lock in hardware to software providers; e.g. with the hardware spec for XBox and the source code for the boot ROM, it would be possible to write third-party software to use the XBox for purposes other than that originally intended by the manufacturer. e.g. you could run linux on it, or use it as a firewall.
copyright != software license Posted Nov 13, 2003 12:03 UTC (Thu) by gallir (guest, #5735) [Link] Note, I'm not suggesting that the software necessarily should be on "free" license. The gadget producer can retain the copyright to the software if they wish.
Typical confusion, it's quite normal to hear it in a MS o SCO conference, but it's very strange to read it here. All free software (but those in public domain) especially copylefted ones retain copyright of the authors or some other organisation, as the FSF. Copyright != software license. Copylefted software licenses are based on (and exist because|due to) copyright law. Period.
|
|
||||||||||||