2 ms·
> The only issue could only ever arises if he claimed "Free Software is more important than human lives", which I am pretty sure not a claim he, or anyone, has
by aragonite 3y ago
> The only issue could only ever arises if he claimed "Free Software is more important than human lives", which I am pretty sure not a claim he, or anyone, has ever made.
Valuing freedom (even in limited spheres) more than human lives is a pretty familiar American idea. For example, recall Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" and consider that he was talking about the prospect of being taxed without his consent, not enslavement. Also, recall Private Eightball from Full Metal Jacket:
"Personally, I think, uh... they don't really want to be involved in this war. You know, I mean... they sort of took away our freedom and gave it to the, to the gookers, you know. But they don't want it. They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."
- erik_seaberg 3y agoCan modified firmware be used with human patients, or would somebody go to prison or lose his license to practice? Would hackers have to collaborate with a manufacturer before a device goes into certification?
- mbakke 3y agoArguably there should be laws mandating that medical equipment MUST be open for everyone to inspect, contribute, and share. That does not answer your question though. It goes both ways: if the doctor recognises that a firmware tweak may save your life, then she should be able to do so.