First of all, how do I quote when I make a reply, a bit of a noob question
but I don't know how to use the forums platform trisquel forums use, I'm use
to phpBB lol.
Anyway, back on topic:
"I think someone on this forum said that old video games, because they are
stored on a non-modifiable ROM (on a cartridge or disc), are acceptable to
them. I disagree with that."
Completely agree, the point is people can't make a cartridge for the n64 so
having the source code isn't of much use to you and me, although nowadays
with emulators and the like the source code may be more useful now than it
would have been when the nintendo (or whatever other game system) first came
out.
"I think the FSF says it's acceptable more to avoid being called "extremist"
by others than out of some reasonable truth."
This makes sense, though they should make it more clear to say that it's
"more acceptable" for the reason that additional malicious features can't be
implemented at a later date rather than saying it just "acceptable" since it
makes things not add up too well, if that makes sense.
In regards to the raspberry pi, it was the GPU Blob I remember reading about
it somewhere, just to clear things up.
"Regarding software stored on CDs, I think a major distinction here is that
the software doesn't stay on the CD; it's installed to the hard drive. Also,
the data can be easily taken off of the disc and then modified, and the
modified version can be either burned to another disc or executed from the
hard drive."
This is true, but I could say the same with any ROM. Even though the ROM that
may hold the BIOS for my Dell I may still find the code useful and may wish
to modify it for use on my HP for example, so I still don't really see a line
other than one is used for distribution the other is used as part of the
machine, but both still contain useful software.
"Having the source is useful in some cases. There is a related problem:
we cannot know that it is the corresponding source, maybe backdoors were
added by the manufacturer and not published in the source."
This is true, which is why I think it's ever more important to not distribute
anything in such a way, instead let the user modify it.
"I'm not sure what business model could
Microsoft have for Windows without software installation."
I don't think this would happen anytime soon, I was just trying to make an
example wondering to show that one ROM'd system is no better than another.
Anyway let me put it a different way. Should we expect to have access to the
code that runs on your watch or microwave oven? I don't think it's too
important for the most part. Take a digital watch for example. Assuming it
doesn't have some sort of cell module that chimes back to a cell tower that
spies on me, just a simple watch, what's the worst the developer could do?
Tell you the wrong time???
In that case you'd just go get a new watch, or if it were an expensive watch
demand a new one, this one is defective. So for a watch, or a microwave is
another example, not having the source code, and having it loaded into a rom
rather than modifiable memory is fine.
So is there a line there? If so, what would it be? If it's not connected to a
network it's fine? That can't be so because I agree with the example of the
games that onpon4 gave. Perhaps the line should be it's okay to have it
loaded in a rom and not have access to the source only if the developer can't
exercise unjust power over you, but that would beg the question what would
unjust power be?
