[U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3? (fwd)

[Robin Getz]

On Tue 30 Jun 2009 15:12, Richard Stallman pondered:
> While I probably would not want to change my glucometer, the practice
> of designing hardware so that people cannot change it is becoming more
> and more of a threat to our freedom in general.

It is simple economics - it is about consumers making choices.

Most people in the general public don't _want_ to change anything, so they buy 
the cheapest unit. The price of that unit drops as the volume goes up. The 
suppliers compete, and integrate more into their ICs. The price drops more, 
and consumers line up to buy more, since the price is now cheaper.

People don't know what they are loosing if they don't know it exists.


>     If a product is required to be locked down by a certifying authority,
>     (whom ever that may be), they can't use GPL3 code. 
> 
> If the users' freedom is protected by GPLv3, the certifying authority
> that attacks users' freedom blocks the use of this code.
>
> While I recognize that developers who get in the middle of this battle
> did not  cause the  battle, I  will not surrender  the fight  just for
> their sake.

So understand where the fight needs to take place. It's not at the developer 
level - its at the regulator level.

>     This really has nothing to do with tivoization, since in the Tivo
>     case - they had no greater certification authority - and were 
>     just trying to restrict people's use.
> 
> These companies (if I understand the facts correctly from what people
> have said here) are doing the same thing to the user that tivo does,
> so it is equally wrong.  The wrong is not in their motive, it is in
> what they do.
> 
> Suppose there were an official certification authority for video
> players.  (Hollywood could probably buy such a law if it wanted to;
> Obama would be glad to sign it.)  Would that make the tivo ok?
> Obviously not.
>
> Thus, the existence of a certification authority does not alter the
> concluisions about the ethical issue of tivoization.

So - why does the the GPL3 have an out for networking? (which is going to be 
abused).

From the GPL3:
> Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially
> and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules
> and protocols for communication across the network.  

I can't see how someone can deny access to the network, while still allowing 
anyone's software to be run on the device, without some sort of key system in 
the networking hardware - is that what you had in mind?


> I support effective steps to protect safety for the users of medical
> devices.  But, as I've explained above, that does not require
> tivoization, so it does not excuse tivoization either.

I understand the moral dilemma, and your viewpoint. Unfortunately, no one who 
writes the standards is asking my (or anyone on this list's) opinion of what 
the certification process is.

-Robin