Re: Blocking Gmail ads
On 15/05/2008, Dotan Cohen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:2008/5/15 >
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <email@example.com>:
> > On 14/05/2008, Michelle Konzack <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > wrote:
> >> But you kbnow, that ANY modification in the Electronic or Software
> >> will invalid the right to use the BMW public.
> > That's because our laws are wrong, not because it's inherently
> > problematic to modify source code.
> That's because the vehicle will be used on a public motorway, possibly
> endangering other civilians on the motorway. Also, it possibly
> interferes with polution controls.
There's actually a very real example of this in Debian, modifications
of BMWs aside. The iwlwifi driver uses a firmware blob that Intel
claims is necessary in order to enforce FCC regulations. This is
ridiculous. First of all, it's not Intel's job to make sure its
customers obey FCC regulations; if the customers break the
regulations, that's their problem, not Intel's. Second, again the
belief that security through obscurity is a good goal. Even with the
blob, people can and will modify the software to do things such as
disobeying FCC regulations. The blob only presents a temporary
obstacle, but not a real solution to what Intel wants to achieve.
Power to the users. If they break the laws, that's their problem. We
don't need paternalistic corporations doing the job of law-enforcement
> > Freedom to modify code also means freedom to shoot your own feet. I
> > demand the freedom to self-mutilation! :-)
> Ah, but you forget the responsibility _not_ to harm others. Modding
> your BMW might just do that.
Sure, but it's *my* responsibility not to harm others. If by
negligence or stupidity I harm others, then by all means, put me on
trial and remove me from society until I reform. Don't take away
freedom from me just because I might misuse it; I will also mostly use
> >> OH, Airbus is using Linux too... So, do you want to have access to the
> >> sourcecode because you are traveling with an Airbus?
> > In fact, I believe it is available. It has to be anyways, according to
> > the GPL. There is no ASP loophole (I assume you are referring to the
> > inflight entertainment computers that passengers can use during some
> > flights).
> Where in the GPL does it state that the applications running on Linux
> must be open source. The OS is open source. The inflight entertainment
> application running on top of it may or may not be.
Right, I don't have any details about this. But if I am interacting
with the software, I do believe we have a fundamental right to know
how it's working or to hire anyone knowledgeable enough to do modify
it for us, regardless of their affiliations.
- Jordi G. H.