3 ms·
It's perfectly okay for you to put GPLv3 software in ROM that nobody can ever modify and then sell me the hardware. What's not okay is selling me hardware where
by josephcsible 4y ago
It's perfectly okay for you to put GPLv3 software in ROM that nobody can ever modify and then sell me the hardware. What's not okay is selling me hardware where you can modify the software after the fact, but I can't. And it's also okay for your hardware to detect if I modified the software. It just can't refuse to work if I did.
- charcircuit 4y agoAnd this is where the FSF makes the weird trade off that they prefer to not have security updates as that's more "free" than being able to get security updates from the manufacturer. Either way you can't update it, but at least in the scenario the FSF opposes the users are able to be more secure.
- josephcsible 4y agoThat's not what the FSF meant the exception to be used for. That's basically the manufacturers abusing a loophole.
- bheadmaster 4y agoTrue. FSF doesn't support taking the freedom away from users in the name of security. > at least in the scenario the FSF opposes the users are able to be more secure That's quite questionable. What if someone steals the manufacturer keys? Then people with unmodifyable devices would be more secure. But anyway that's besides the point since FSF is against taking the freedom away from the users under the veil of "security" anyway.
- froh 4y agothis has nothing to do with security updates. any vendor is free to ship security updates however vendors often decide to refuse updates to "tainted" devices.
- froh 4y agothat scenario doesn't exist, non-flashable rom. only. the other scenario, "vendor can update I can't" is relevant. and that detection mechanism is called "secure boot".
- josephcsible 4y ago> that scenario doesn't exist, non-flashable rom. Of course they do. One example is pressed DVDs.