Blender Dumbass ( J.Y.Amihud )
Björn@blenderdumbass Rly? Of course I know the philosophy but there's a difference between practice and it. Developers develop software most users don't. Developers get paid by companies that want to use the software, if they can't use GPL-3.0 or if they are legally unsure that they want improve or develop GPL-3.0 software. I want GPL-3.0 to see adaption which is why I'm making these points. Think out of your own bubble.
@blenderdumbass @[email protected]
You made a good point. Can't reply directly so I'm doing it this way: There's a clause about industrial devices in GPL-3.0 which is good but there's an important different in GPL-3.0 which makes it much worse for use cases where you can't hand out e.g. authorization keys. You can't hand out authorization keys which allow you to reflash radio firmware like in Modems. The situation is very similar when it comes to automotive software.
You made a good point. Can't reply directly so I'm doing it this way: There's a clause about industrial devices in GPL-3.0 which is good but there's an important different in GPL-3.0 which makes it much worse for use cases where you can't hand out e.g. authorization keys. You can't hand out authorization keys which allow you to reflash radio firmware like in Modems. The situation is very similar when it comes to automotive software.
@blenderdumbass There's a big intersection of hardware only legally verified software is allowed to start which is used by consumers indirectly but also by non-consumers also in as e.g. in phones, cars or medical equipment. Firmware for GPU's and such is one thing but I think it very much makes sense that only verified software can run which could disrupt others or even risk the lives of people. Not that these processes are perfect but better than someone disrupt some radio signal.
@thaodan If say there is negligence in using bad software in medical devices. It should be addressed directly by law which is applied to those practicing the medicine directly. Not as a clause that limits what the software on that device can do. This should be always a decision of the user. Perhaps some users will use medical devices not for medical uses, where they might need to modify the software. This should be allowed. And sometimes doctors might want to improve software on medical devices.
@thaodan If the user cannot change software on user's device it's an injustice. And if some law of company makes devices like those radio devices or cars you just mentioned, where the user cannot change software, that is also an injustice. Those devices better not to exist. Or instead those companies can choose to lift their restrictions. Or those laws could be canceled.
@blenderdumbass Are you aware that modifying certain software such as radios can impact anyone around them? You could impact the security of anyone around you by sending radio signals on frequencies you are not allowed too. You could kill someone.
Really your username says it all in this context.
Really your username says it all in this context.
@thaodan Signs of #Norepineuphoria . This is really good. That means that our ideas start to build roots in Björn's head.
@thaodan Now the actual answer. Killing a person is an injustice. But restricting a person's ability to change software of per's device is also an injustice. Is there a possible solution where both injustices are avoided? I think there is. The law can not restrict the change of the software, but restrict certain outcomes, that are injustices. Basically you can hack the radio all you want, but if it kills somebody you go to prison for murder. To allow for more injustice would not benefit nobody.
@thaodan Another point. If there are devices whos security is vulnerable to people playing with radio, those devices do not have nearly enough security to call them secure to begin with. And to test their insecurity requires trying to break into them #LockPickingLawyer style.