On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 08:28:16PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > 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. > > > Indeed. But you can still use a modified firmware, even without the > > source. If ill-intentioned people wanted to do it, this would already be > > quite feasible. > > There is a difference between 'ill-intended people' (those with criminal > intentions) and interested kiddies just downloading and tampering with > freely available source code, having no idea of what harm they might > cause to others.
Not in the "eyes of the law". Ignorance is not a defence. Although, with a "decent" lawyer you "should" be OK. Unfortunately, this is also true for the 'ill-intended people'. :( -- Chris. ====== I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen F Roberts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]