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

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    > That would be a good reason for the user not to change the software in
    > this device.  However, that does not mean he should be stopped.

    The FDA disagrees :)

Governments often oppose people's freedom.  That is why fighting for
freedom is hard.

    They add requirements to ensure they detect faulty devices. It is a fact of 
    physics that flash devices go bad over time - I'm sure even you appreciate 
    the ability to know if something in your devices is the image that you 
    thought it is, and doesn't have bit errors.

That sounds like a good feature.  But if it is done in a way that
permits the manufacturer to change the software after sale, then it
can be done in a way that permits the owner to change the software
too.

    All the "circuitry" are integrated circuits. There are very few (none) 
    external components to modify. Test strips are connected directly to the 
    measurement IC, and the measurement IC is connected directly the the 
    processor.

I did not know that.  Thank you for the information.

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.

    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.

    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.

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.