On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
---
Yes, but in highlighting the possibility of evil intentions you
distort the fact that usually there are no such evil intentions...
---
---
I think that's a possibility. I don't see how it's functionally
different from the usual case where the manufacturer can't modify the
device without the user's consent simply because the user has physical
access to the device and the manufacturer doesn't.
---
---
Users benefit from the ability to get software updates, from the
manufacturer, to resolve problems, fix security vulnerabilities, and
provide updated functionality.
---
---
You're harping on the "cannot legally", which is fine but irrelevant.
Whether it's a legal requirement or a business decision, the result is
the same - neither forcing the manufacturer to make the device
non-updatable nor forcing the manufacturer to use different software
benefits anyone. I don't know of interesting cases where the
manufacturer makes the device non-modifiable out of sheer
bloody-mindedness.
I don't believe that the existence of this clause will lead to more
manufacturers making their devices modifiable - there are too many
other options if they think that non-modifiability is important to
them.
[Note that I *do* think it's perfectly appropriate that authors who
feel that they don't want their work used in such devices should be
able to license them in line with that belief. I just don't think it
has any practical value aside from making them feel better.]
scott
-
