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

Graeme Russ
2009-07-01T13:11:02Z

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Richard Stallman<rms@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'

I admire your efforts with the GPL in version 3 in order to stop a blatant
abuse of free software. However, I agree with many others in this thread,
there are cases where GPL3 went just a little too far. I think GPL3 should
have stopped where legislation requires that the software running on the
device be certified.

I know you fear 'Big Corporations' pushing around governments to pass
legislation like 'All Media Players must only allow software developed by
the manufacturer of the device' and 'Any attempt to reverse engineer audio or
video Codecs for use on non-proprietary systems is punishable by xyz'. But
this is where advocates like yourself really need to stand tall - This
argument goes way beyond Software Freedom - It bleeds into Copyright and
Patents on algorithms, business methods, mathematical formula, DNA,
arbitrary ideas - the list goes on. You seem a little reluctant to take
this battle to this second (and arguably far more important) front.

You have done a marvelous job of changing the attitudes of individuals and
corporations towards software development. There are only a few pockets of
resistance that fail to grok the fact that the more people can play with
your code, the better it becomes at a fraction of the price. These pockets
reacted by 'Tivosation' and 'Patents' - You tried to counter-punch by
saying 'You are not allowed to be part of our community' rather than doing
what you did with the source code - Prove that the system works better
without the restrictions - Make the restrictions an encumbrance on those
that embrace them just like the the non-free developers are now
encumbered by not embracing software freedom