On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > The FSF's approval of this distinction (ROM versus replaceable) places >> > the FSF's particular principles over users interests, for no >> > particular reason
>> Over *users* interest? How so? > Users benefit from the ability to get software updates, from the > manufacturer, to resolve problems, fix security vulnerabilities, and > provide updated functionality. Which they could have the option to do themselves if the manufacturer didn't prohibit them from doing so. >> > if the manufacturer believes that it cannot legally allow software >> > modification, all the restriction does is force them either to make >> > the software unmodifiable (which advances freedom not at all) or to >> > use software under a different license (which advances freedom not >> > at all). >> Right. >> But if the manufacturer believes that it can legally allow it, and >> wants to be able to install, software modifications, then it must >> decide between giving that up and letting the user do it as well. And >> this is where the users interests may prevail. > Whether it's a legal requirement or a business decision, the result is > the same - neither forcing the manufacturer to make the device > non-updatable nor forcing the manufacturer to use different software > benefits anyone. I agree. But that's an incomplete picture. It's the other part of the picture, that you left out twice, that is the case that is good for the users *and* for the community. > I don't believe that the existence of this clause will lead to more > manufacturers making their devices modifiable - there are too many > other options if they think that non-modifiability is important to > them. > [Note that I *do* think it's perfectly appropriate that authors who > feel that they don't want their work used in such devices should be > able to license them in line with that belief. I just don't think it > has any practical value aside from making them feel better.] They can do that with GPLv3. And those who don't want to stop this can then add a special permission. And then everybody wins. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
