On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Richard Stallmanrms@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