[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Leverage in licensing discussions

On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 20:28 +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Being in favor of open-sourcing firmwares (including those controlling
> > critical security devices in cars) does not mean being in favor of
> > letting anyone ship their own version. In such cases, there needs to be
> > some appropriate process to validate the new versions and to enforce it
> > legally. Just like you are not allowed to make any modification you like
> > in your engine, you should not be allowed to make modifications in the
> > car’s firmware. And just like modifying the engine without the original
> > plans makes it more likely to fail, the same holds for a firmware you’d
> > modify without source.
> Well, if there is some law preventing me from modifying the code, it's
> not free software any more. It's still not 'closed software' but that
> still renders it non-free and non-distributable for debian.

That's not true.  DFSG only requires that the copyright holder grants
certain permissions, regardless of whether the law of some jurisdiction
overrides those permissions.  Software could be included in main even if
it is illegal to modify it in certain ways, so long as that restriction
is not imposed by the copyright holder.  Of course, if it is illegal
even to distribute the unmodified software (particularly if that is the
case in the US where the ftpmaster host is) then it would have to be


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: