On 17 Jul 2007, at 12:01, Graham Murray wrote:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The four freedoms:
Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose.
Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your
needs.
Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your
neighbors.
Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public, so that the whole community benefits.
For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open.
Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is
almost eliminated in GPLv3. Freedom One is the freedom that was
most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto.
Just how does GPLv3 almost eliminate this?
It prevents vendors from (effectively) placing restrictions within
their software and running those restricted programs on the hardware
they sell us. Obviously this is a quite unreasonable imposition upon
the freedoms of those benign corporate entities. If you don't see how
unfair this is then you're clearly a subversive^w commie^w pinko^w
freedom-hating terrorist!!
Seriously, I can't understand people who disapprove of GPLv3. As
things stand with GPL v2 it would be quite easy (in the UK) to buy a
nice wireless ADSL modem-router as part of a sign-up package with
your ISP, suffer a year's poor service and decide to sign up with
another internet provider, only to find the the wireless router is
locked to the first ISP and is useless if you leave them. I can't
guess the number of wireless routers that have been thrown away and
ended up in landfill for this reason.
I believe that even Linus - who is noted for his long-standing
opposition to v3 - would change his mind were he to experience this.
"They're using the operating system _I_ wrote to lock me out of _my
own_ router?!?!?!?"
In the case I have in mind (the Wanadoo Livebox) the vendor uses
proprietary software code - which is only shipped as a binary as part
of the firmware - to deny use on other networks. A user can enter any
PPPoA username in the router's web-based interface but the pppd will
just refuse to work if that username doesn't match the naming
conventions used on Wanadoo's networks.
Although this particular code is not GPL, and would not come under
the provisions of the v3, the manufacturers have made a number of
other restrictions to prevent users modifying any part the firmware,
including the remaining 98% of the router's software that is OSS code
(the router runs a Linux 2.4 kernel and busybox). I remember working
on opening up this firmware a little and each time one of the
restrictions was overcome we would find the next version of the
firmware to be more secure (the new firmware is upgraded
automatically to unmodified routers).
At the time this particular router was released it was, IIRC, £80 to
purchase - about the same as other branded wireless ADSL routers, and
perhaps a day-and-a-half's wages for some people, a good chunk of
your weekly disposable income if you're on minimum wage. It was not
obvious in the sales pitch that it was network-locked to Wanadoo.
British Telecom lock their routers similarly. A big FUCK YOU to
anyone who thinks they should benefit from economies of manufacturing
scale and Free software with no regards the end users or to the
environmental and actual cost of replacing hardware which has been
rendered useless merely in aid of screwing the competition.
I believe that if you mass-produce a product and use other people's
GPL code in order to reduce your software development costs then you
have an ethical duty to allow purchasers of that product to modify
the code that runs on that hardware. You should provide reasonably
explicit instructions on how to do so, and at the very least not make
strides to hamper people from running software of their choosing on
the hardware they've bought. Manufacturers have demonstrated that
they don't see things this way and that they don't care how they
prevent their customers from fully enjoying the hardware they've
purchased. Clearly the rules need rewriting.
Stroller.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
