re: Two views of freedom and software
re: Two views of freedom and software
Posted Jan 9, 2003 20:01 UTC (Thu) by gregjor (guest, #6304)In reply to: re: Two views of freedom and software by rknop
Parent article: Two views of freedom and software
What you're saying is that looking at it from the point of view of the vendor, the binary-only kernel module on the Zaurus is not especially inconvenient for the vendor
Yes.
With an entirely open system, the vendor can choose not to support untested things also. The vendor loses nothing by using only components that can be freely supported. As Bruce points out, the user does lose something.
Maybe you're right. And maybe Sharp has a different opinion. You are free to make your own completely open PDA. It's a big financial risk, of course... you'll have to make decisions and compromises, and no matter what you do you won't please everyone.
If I'm going to pick a point of view that is best to look at the situation, that point of view is mine as the end user, not the point of view of the vendor doing what it wants to go. Given that, Bruce's analysis is the relevant one.
When Bruce chose of his own free will to buy the Zaurus he accepted the vendor's point of view. If Sharp deceived him in any way he has a legitimate grievance. Otherwise he's just complaining that the Zaurus is less to his liking than it could be. But that doesn't mean Sharp did anything wrong.
Posted Jan 9, 2003 21:18 UTC (Thu)
by rknop (guest, #66)
[Link] (4 responses)
When Bruce chose of his own free will to buy the Zaurus he accepted the vendor's point of view. If Sharp deceived him in any way he has a legitimate grievance. Otherwise he's just complaining that the Zaurus is less to his liking than it could be. But that doesn't mean Sharp did anything wrong. Sure, I agree with you. It's less to his liking, from which he points out that, yes indeed, binary-only modules are a problem because there are people who will find them less to their liking do to the real inconveniences they can cause. It's not a matter of condemning Sharp-- but it's also not a matter of praising them. Bruce's point, as I undestand it, is that there are realistic possible (and existing) problems for individuals resulting from binary-only kernel modules. That is a reason to avoid them. -Rob
Posted Jan 9, 2003 23:12 UTC (Thu)
by gregjor (guest, #6304)
[Link]
Posted Jan 10, 2003 16:52 UTC (Fri)
by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054)
[Link] (2 responses)
RMS's actions (and the GPL) follow from his belief that freedom for
all users is more important than freedom for proprietary-software
companies.
Thus, this question boils down to: Do the kernel authors want to
enforce user freedoms wrt the kernel (and prohibit binary-only
drivers), or not. It seems tastes differ. :-) The beauty of the GPL
is that those who wish to, may require that freedom be preserved, so others
with different tastes must abide by the authors' wishes.
Posted Jan 10, 2003 19:14 UTC (Fri)
by gregjor (guest, #6304)
[Link]
RMS's actions (and the GPL) follow from his belief that freedom for all users is more important than freedom for proprietary-software companies. When speaking of freedom, only the freedom of individuals has any meaning. Ill-defined groups such as "all users" don't have any freedoms except as individuals. When individual freedoms conflict we frequently resolve them by consensus or majority. Since our Constitution doesn't mention any natural right to view, change, or redistribute someone else's source code, that subject is left to the law. Right now the laws in this country grant fairly broad proprietary rights to owners of intellectual property. I don't question that copyrights and patents are abused to maintain monopolies and crush competitors. But the failure of our government and courts to interpret and enforce the laws fairly doesn't nullify the law, or the underlying principle. Nor does unfairness create new freedoms for anyone. I've never been entirely comfortable with the idea that corporations have rights in the same sense as individuals. When I hear about corporations asserting their right to free speech it doesn't seem like they should have that right, not in the same sense that I do. Corporations exist to create profit for their shareholders, not to participate in society as citizens. But in matters of copyright and ownership of intellectual property--including the right to determine if, when, and how to reveal information--the law clearly grants corporations rights and privileges. I believe that those rights cannot override individual rights to free speech, etc., and that's where the DMCA and the nefarious RIAA cross the line. Mr. Stallman claims that his position on freedom is an ethical one. But he's not proposing a new ethic to fill a void; he's proposing to replace our existing ethic--which he happens to disagree with--with his own. His ideas in this regard go against the grain not because they are novel, but because they've been explored and rejected. By saying he represents all users he tries to inflate his personal opinion into something larger than it really is. He doesn't represent me, or many of the users of software that I know.
Posted Jan 19, 2003 13:05 UTC (Sun)
by tbrkic (guest, #9186)
[Link]
So when I am going to buy a piece of hardware and it says Linux supported. I dont want to do a research on Google to find out if it is a binary only module or open source module. For example I bought a graphic card that had linux support but then I noticed that under linux my tv-out isnt supported. Since the linux driver is a binary module my only option would be to write the whole driver from scratch. So it might be that we would have fewer drivers available. But Sharp could have used a BSD kernel for their PDA but they
re: Two views of freedom and software
At last I have a politically correct reason for not owning a Zaurus. ;-)
re: Two views of freedom and software
re: Two views of freedom and software
[T]here are [...] problems for individuals resulting from
binary-only kernel modules. That is a reason to avoid them.
re: Two views of freedom and software
Actually I think one thing that is overlooked is that you couldre: Two views of freedom and software
view Linux as brand that stands for some things. The one I think is essential is the GPL lisence that boils down to the right to see the source. Allowing binary only modules dillutes that and as user you cant be sure what parts are open source.
on the other hand I would know that if anything says Linux supported
on it I would know that I wasnt locked in by the vendor as Bruce
described above. I also think that Linux is so big now that the
hardware vendors would release the drivers even if they were
forced to be open source.
choose to Linux, which I personally think should mean that
they are obliged to have only GPL modules. And we shouldnt forget
that there are reasons that Sharp choose Linux, the first things
that come to my mind is cost and a large developer community. I also think
that they would have choosen it even if they would have been
forced to use open source modules. But they would have put more
pressure on the company doing the SD card or choosen another solution.