3 ms·

>> The big anti-feature is that developers can block users from flashing the chips. There's a liability angle too. If a company (or person) makes a product tha

>> The big anti-feature is that developers can block users from flashing the chips. There's a liability angle too. If a company (or person) makes a product that has any potential for harm and you reprogram it prior to an accident, YOU must take responsibility but will probably not. Another angle is that the hardware may be cloneable and there's no reason anyone should be able to read out the code and put it into a clone device. There is a valid use case in making a replacement chip for yourself. Companies will buy far more chips than hobbyists, so this feature caters to them and for valid reasons. >> Yes, there's a security angle, but if I have the chip in my hands, I should be able to flip some pin to reprogram the chip and prevent all the e-waste. What if the chip used masked ROM? Your desire is not always feasible. You can always replace the chip with another one - and go write your own software for it </sarcasm>. BTW I'm a big fan of Free Software and the GPL, but there are places where non-free makes sense too.

oliwarner 1y ago
> there are places where non-free makes sense too Seriously now, where is that? The only scenarios I can think of are devices that could put others at risk. Large vehicles. But even, many countries allow modified vehicles on the road. But everything else should be game. If it's my device and only me at risk, why should anyone else get a say.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  At least the European countries I am aware of, the owners will have a hard time on a police control if the modifications aren't part of the allowed ones by law, and depending on the modification, it is missing from the car documentation.
  - oliwarner 1y ago
    I think that's what I was saying. Vehicle control software is the only place I think where certified code makes sense. When others' safety can be put at risk by your crappy coding. That's not a copyright/licencing issue, or even something solved by making chips harder to flash, it's a vehicle law. TFA makes it sound like there are many others. What else is there?
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      Liability like in any other products. It is about time people start returning software, or getting free repairs if the software is faulty, instead of rebooting and hoping for the best. The European cybersecurity laws in a few jurisdictions are already a good step into that direction.

oliwarner 1y ago

> there are places where non-free makes sense too Seriously now, where is that? The only scenarios I can think of are devices that could put others at risk. Large vehicles. But even, many countries allow modified vehicles on the road. But everything else should be game. If it's my device and only me at risk, why should anyone else get a say.

pjmlp 1y ago
At least the European countries I am aware of, the owners will have a hard time on a police control if the modifications aren't part of the allowed ones by law, and depending on the modification, it is missing from the car documentation.
- oliwarner 1y ago
  I think that's what I was saying. Vehicle control software is the only place I think where certified code makes sense. When others' safety can be put at risk by your crappy coding. That's not a copyright/licencing issue, or even something solved by making chips harder to flash, it's a vehicle law. TFA makes it sound like there are many others. What else is there?
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    Liability like in any other products. It is about time people start returning software, or getting free repairs if the software is faulty, instead of rebooting and hoping for the best. The European cybersecurity laws in a few jurisdictions are already a good step into that direction.