article on GPLv3, Linux kernel, and Devices Rigged to Malfunction
ben at benfinney.id.au
Wed Oct 25 13:54:00 UTC 2006
On 25-Oct-2006, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Seg, 2006-10-23 às 14:19 +0100, Alex Hudson escreveu:
> > requiring signed binaries doesn't seem to me to be a terribly
> > common tactic, even though it would be relatively simple (and is
> > already pretty common on other platforms, like w32, esp. in areas
> > such as driver development).
> If the vendor of the hardware controls the keys, then the vendor is
> in control and not the user.
> That's perverse. At lest be honest and make ROMs. Oh it's more
> expensive to correct errors? Too bad...
Yes. The GPL is designed from the standpoint that protecting the
freedoms of the recipient of the work is more valuable than protecting
particular business model dependent on restricting freedoms.
\ "Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from |
`\ bad judgement." -- Frederick P. Brooks |
Ben Finney <ben at benfinney.id.au>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Discussion