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

[Jerry Van Baren]

Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Richard Stallman<rms at gnu.org> wrote:
>>    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?
>>
>> This is aimed at cell phone networks: it recognizes they are allowed
>> to make the network refuse to talk to a phone if the users's changes
>> cause the phone to screw up the network.
> 
> Interesting, you allow the hardware & software designer to apply restrictions
> on the end user because their changes could 'screw up a network' but do not
> believe that the same restrictions apply when the changes could 'kill the
> user'

The network restriction makes an explicit distinction at an ownership 
boundary.

The network statement quoted by Robin is:
> 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.  

Note that the network is owned by the service provider, *not* the end 
user.  The end user is free to modify his gadget to his heart's content, 
but the service provider is *also* free to disallow that modified gadget 
from interacting with his (the service provider's) network.  In other 
words, the modification permissiveness boundary matches the ownership 
boundary.

Mapping this concept to the gaming world, I would say that gaming 
machine owners should be allowed the freedom to modify a gaming machine, 
but the casino (governmental regulatory agency) would also be free to 
disallow paying out any winnings to that machine.  Public access to the 
modified machine should not be allowed because that crosses the 
ownership boundary.  IOW, if *you* game the machine, *you* can play to 
*your* heart's content, but but the gaming (in both senses) is bounded 
at the machine's boundary and the ownership boundary.

Mapping this to the medical world, you should be free to modify the 
firmware in medical devices 1) that you own and 2) are only used by 
yourself, as owner.  Beyond that, there are already enough disclaimers 
that adding another disclaimer "if you rewrite this firmware, you could 
kill yourself" would be simple to add. Percentage-wise, it would 
probably add 1% to the pages of disclaimers already present.

There are already innumerable ways of harming (many ways fatally) 
oneself with medicines and medical equipment and these are already 
(theoretically) exhaustively listed.  When I pick up a subscription from 
a pharmacy, I am forced to wait for the pharmacist to make sure I 
"understand" the pages of how I could do myself great bodily harm and 
*literally* sign a document that I was instructed in the dangers.  Add a 
firmware modification disclaimer and you are all set... theoretically.

The classic warning sticker example is stepladders:
   <http://www.michigan.gov/documents/cis_wsh_cet0403_103227_7.pdf>
Note that there is no interlock to prevent you from using the stepladder 
as a straight ladder or from using it on uneven slopes.
<tongueincheek>
Stepladder safety interlocks could be created - just think how much the 
world would save in emergency room costs if we eradicated stepladder 
injuries.
</tongueincheek>

A related classic:
<http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XEQbaTzjzsw/SGDiFJSSyyI/AAAAAAAAB5o/0NbNlsZI_5o/s320/unsafe+ladder+on+truck.jpg>

[snip]

Best regards,
gvb