On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > The FSF's approval of this distinction (ROM versus replaceable) places
>> > the FSF's particular principles over users interests, for no
>> > particular reason
>> Over *users* interest? How so?
> Users benefit from the ability to get software updates, from the
> manufacturer, to resolve problems, fix security vulnerabilities, and
> provide updated functionality.
Which they could have the option to do themselves if the manufacturer
didn't prohibit them from doing so.
>> > if the manufacturer believes that it cannot legally allow software
>> > modification, all the restriction does is force them either to make
>> > the software unmodifiable (which advances freedom not at all) or to
>> > use software under a different license (which advances freedom not
>> > at all).
>> Right.
>> But if the manufacturer believes that it can legally allow it, and
>> wants to be able to install, software modifications, then it must
>> decide between giving that up and letting the user do it as well. And
>> this is where the users interests may prevail.
> Whether it's a legal requirement or a business decision, the result is
> the same - neither forcing the manufacturer to make the device
> non-updatable nor forcing the manufacturer to use different software
> benefits anyone.
I agree. But that's an incomplete picture.
It's the other part of the picture, that you left out twice, that is
the case that is good for the users *and* for the community.
> I don't believe that the existence of this clause will lead to more
> manufacturers making their devices modifiable - there are too many
> other options if they think that non-modifiability is important to
> them.
> [Note that I *do* think it's perfectly appropriate that authors who
> feel that they don't want their work used in such devices should be
> able to license them in line with that belief. I just don't think it
> has any practical value aside from making them feel better.]
They can do that with GPLv3. And those who don't want to stop this
can then add a special permission. And then everybody wins.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]