On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 17:28 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Medical devices and voting machines are ok for similar reasons. Here's a > > fuller explanation: > > http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/gplv3_embedded_in_devices > > That's depressing. If I end up as a user of a medical computer (which > seems likely at some point), then am I no longer deserving of free > software's freedoms as much as possible? > > Verification and authentication are the keys to these problems, not > unmodifiable software, whether through ROMs or tivo-style locks.
I agree with you about ROMing; software being on unmodifiable memory is basically side-stepping the issue by mooting the practical point. The reason that software is unmodifiable is surely irrelevant when asking whether or not it should be free. (The obvious counter argument is an EPROM: semi-permanent memory that cannot be upgrade by software alone. For many this is still a software distribution media, as sad as that is, and of course you can upgrade socketed ROMs/EPROMs.) I think the medical machine / voting machine issues are murky, though. I can quite happily subscribe to the point of view that I should have access the to complete source of a voting machine, in the same way that I can have access to the complete mechanic of the current paper & box system. But some of the other aspects are less clear-cut. E.g., mobile phones - detecting and denying service to a rogue handset isn't necessarily a useful defence. Radio is an excellent example of the tragedy of the commons when unregulated, because you usually can't ignore someone else's misuse. And it also brings us back to issues of safety. The extent to which you should be able to do potentially dangerous things is something I doubt people will ever agree on; e.g., does my freedom to modify software override your freedom to have my wifi card not futz with your wireless phone when you're trying to dial 999? Software freedom doesn't stand alone in a vacuum; it exists in a context of other rights and responsibilities, and I find it difficult to believe (on a personal level) that it is an absolute right (that is, that it is self-evident in all situations). I think that belief will vary largely from individual to individual, though, in the same way some people think knives should be banned and others think we should be able to carry firearms. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
