Michelle Konzack dijo [Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 08:24:44AM +0100]:
Sorry, I am not nativ english spaker...
And yes is is what I have meant...
Neither am I, so I'll try to get this point across one last time.
And there are several 100 cases where in general the projects are 100%
open, but for
Am 2008-11-08 07:35:02, schrieb Robert Collins:
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 20:01 +, David Given wrote:
2. For at least some of these devices, even if the source code was
available it would add no value, because of legal restrictions
governing
which firmware blobs can be used on that
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
Open sourcing certain firmware might make it easier for 'random script
kid' to just try some things out and accidentally causing problems to
innocent bystanders.
How is this different from open source software? This sounds a bit like
the
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 08:28:16PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Being in favor of open-sourcing firmwares (including those controlling
critical security devices in cars) does not mean being in favor of
letting anyone ship their own version. In such cases, there
David Given wrote:
I believe that most if not all firmware images these days are signed or
encrypted.
If they were strongly signed, then there should be no problem
distributing the source code, right? People won't be able to make
modifications. It may not help with DFSG compliance though...
Hello David,
Am 2008-11-07 08:35:16, schrieb David Bremner:
At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 00:27:13 +0100,
Michelle Konzack wrote:
And as I
have already written, I do not know HOW OpenMoko will solv this problem,
but FreeRunner/OpenMoko or PurpleMagic are not allowd to run in Europe
with Open
Hello Ben and *,
Am 2008-11-07 22:09:35, schrieb Ben Hutchings:
That's not true. DFSG only requires that the copyright holder grants
certain permissions, regardless of whether the law of some jurisdiction
overrides those permissions. Software could be included in main even if
it is illegal
Hi there!
Disclaimer: I am a member of the Debian FSO Team [1].
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:35:16 +0100, David Bremner wrote:
At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 00:27:13 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
And as I have already written, I do not know HOW OpenMoko will solv
this problem, but FreeRunner/OpenMoko or
Le vendredi 07 novembre 2008 à 00:27 +0100, Michelle Konzack a écrit :
The problem is, that even if it is mass production since some time, I
can not distribute the firmware as open source since it change the
behavour of the hardware which then can distrurb the GSM network.
This
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 07 novembre 2008 à 00:27 +0100, Michelle Konzack a écrit :
The problem is, that even if it is mass production since some time, I
can not distribute the firmware as open source since it change the
At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 00:27:13 +0100,
Michelle Konzack wrote:
And as I
have already written, I do not know HOW OpenMoko will solv this problem,
but FreeRunner/OpenMoko or PurpleMagic are not allowd to run in Europe
with Open Source GSM-Firmware. And of course, PurpleMagic has never
Le vendredi 07 novembre 2008 à 17:15 +0100, Johannes Wiedersich a
écrit :
Josselin Mouette wrote:
This reasoning, as any security-by-obscurity one, is completely flawed.
As long as the firmware is distributed separately, you can modify it,
whether it is open source or not. Not having the
Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...]
Or so you think. There are people who can read assembly and hex just as
easily as I read C sources. It would probably take only a few days of
testing for a hacker with the appropriate skills to remove firmware
restrictions for reaching a frequency range, for
Am 2008-11-04 14:02:14, schrieb Josselin Mouette:
In other words, I think the carrot has better leverage on them than the
stick. Of course it all depends on who we???re talking, as the stick will
work just fine on an obscure Chinese manufacturer but not on a
world-leading company that sells
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Being in favor of open-sourcing firmwares (including those controlling
critical security devices in cars) does not mean being in favor of
letting anyone ship their own version. In such cases, there needs to be
some
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 05:15:33PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 07 novembre 2008 à 00:27 +0100, Michelle Konzack a écrit :
The problem is, that even if it is mass production since some time, I
can
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
[...]
Up until 1968 the same reasoning wasused to present people from
connecting anything but phones provided by Bell to the Bell telephone
network. You were not even allowed to connect a modem through an
accustic coupler.
If I recall correctly, back in the old days, it
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 20:01 +, David Given wrote:
1. Some devices require firmware blobs with no source available.
Because
of this, such firmware can't be distributed in Debian.
ack.
2. For at least some of these devices, even if the source code was
available it would add no value,
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 18:27 +, David Given wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...]
Or so you think. There are people who can read assembly and hex just as
easily as I read C sources. It would probably take only a few days of
testing for a hacker with the appropriate skills to remove
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 20:28 +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Being in favor of open-sourcing firmwares (including those controlling
critical security devices in cars) does not mean being in favor of
letting anyone
Johannes Wiedersich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
This reasoning, as any security-by-obscurity one, is completely
flawed. As long as the firmware is distributed separately, you can
modify it, whether it is open source or not. Not having the source
never prevented
Le mardi 04 novembre 2008 à 10:23 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
How does this follow? Surely if the firmware is already being
distributed by the project, that's a *smaller* incentive to the vendor
to change the license.
The position “Your license isn't acceptable to us; please change the
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mardi 04 novembre 2008 à 10:23 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
How does this follow? Surely if the firmware is already being
distributed by the project, that's a *smaller* incentive to the
vendor to change the license.
Past experience shows that
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Distributing the non-free firmware with regular package updates in
non-free [has a particular effect]
But the most important thing is that it gives leverage to convince
manufacturers to actually distribute the firmware with a free
license.
How
24 matches
Mail list logo
