On controlling the software in the hardware you own
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| davidshields Nov 04, 2006 8:09 PM EDT |
It is of course an open question if by buying a piece of hardware you have a right to control any software within it. And if you really believe you do have that right, then who cares about TIvo? Only a few folks have Tivo's. But almost everyone has one or more automobiles, and every car now comes with thousands of lines of software embedded into its chips. As do digital wrist watches, televisions, cell phones, microwaves, children's toys, and almost every other digital device you own, as almost all modern chips have some form of 'microcode' inside, and it can be fairly argued that this microcode is software. |
| dcparris Nov 04, 2006 8:34 PM EDT |
Look, if tinkering with the chip(s) on my car void the warranty, fine. Just don't make it illegal for me to tinker or fix problems myself. Non-free software developers make it darned near impossible to fix something yourself, if you need/want and are able to. I may not be able, skillwise, but that is very different from using a legal manuever to prevent me from doing the work. Some of that might be resolved by "opening the source", but possibly not allowing sharing, etc. It still falls short of the fundamental freedoms required to be free software. You will note that Stallman admits he doesn't use many modern conveniences, such as cell phones. For all I know, he has a wind-up watch. The issue still comes back to users needing to be able to solve their own problems. |
| davidshields Nov 05, 2006 5:39 AM EDT |
You want me to encourage you to have the right tinker or "fix the problems" in the chip that runs your engine? So you can then take that modified car on the road? Yikes!. I might be willing to let you have a go if you will agree to keep you car at least 50 miles away from mine at all times. Indeed, you can start working on the license now... By the way this is not a "legal maneuver." It's about property, including intellectual property, and the right to use and license your own intellectual property as you see fit. I know some folks don't even believe in the notion of intellectual property, but most do, including me. To learn the origins of all this, read the U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: The Congress shall have the power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; So if you have beef, write to your congressman. Or even better, be sure to go out this Tuesday and vote for the Congressman of your choice. |
| tuxchick Nov 05, 2006 5:52 AM EDT |
How is that any different from monkeying with the mechanical parts of your vehicle? By that reasoning cars should be sealed off completely from their owners. You're also forgetting about Fair Use, which has been getting a thorough trampling. |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 05, 2006 3:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:I know some folks don't even believe in the notion of intellectual property, but most do, including me. There is no intellectual property. The clause you point to refers to copyright and patents. Trademarks are another thing commonly associated with it. None of those three things is "property" in any sense of the word. And don't even get me started on some companies lame attempts at inventing more forms of intellectual property, such as methods & comcepts and "negative know-how". |
| dcparris Nov 05, 2006 5:35 PM EDT |
> You want me to encourage you to have the right tinker or "fix the problems" in the chip that runs your engine? So you can then take that modified car on the road? Yikes!. >I might be willing to let you have a go if you will agree to keep you car at least 50 miles away from mine at all times. Indeed, you can start working on the license now... Well, since I don't personally have such skills, I'm likely to pay someone who does. But that's just me. Perhaps you missed that I did just this with the Evolution project not long ago. However, since you don't know me, I might be a high-end mechanic/hacker. Then again, with the sources, I might become that high-end mechanic/hacker. The vendor can give me a $10k donation to help me learn, or the source code. > By the way this is not a "legal maneuver." It's about property, including intellectual property, and the right to use and license your own intellectual property as you see fit. The Constitution _allows_ for a system of copyrights and patents - it does not claim that as a matter of natural law. The Constitution could just as easily omitted the whole shebang, or prohibited it. The code you own the copyright on is running on the machine I own. As long as the license you use doesn't afford me the four fundamental freedoms, you'll want to talk to someone else about renting your code. I don't mind paying for the convenience of pre-compiled binaries, but I'm not about to surrender my ability to control my hardware. Any vendor unwilling to give me the 4 basic freedoms guaranteed by both, the Free Software and the Open Source Software definitions, will not be my vendor. Your rights must be balanced as well - this is not a one-sided issue. The GPL, whether you realize it or not, is built on copyright. Code licensed under it is copyrighted code. Therefore, my rights as owner are protected while my users are free to do as they wish with the code that runs on their boxes. I am an end-user primarily (one minor DB backend designed, and released under the GPLv2), not a developer. I might pay a developer, but I am not one. Still, that freedom to accomplish what I need to with the hardware I own is very important to me. |
| dinotrac Nov 06, 2006 2:40 AM EDT |
>None of those three things is "property" in any sense of the word. Yawn. One of these days, you might consider learning what property is. |
| jdixon Nov 06, 2006 2:52 AM EDT |
> One of these days, you might consider learning what property is. Dino, I'll go with DC on this one. We've been through this before. These things have been defined and treated as property, but that doesn't make them property. We can define and treat a cat as a dog, and it will all work out legally, but the cat still won't be a dog. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!