-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 09:44:23AM +1000, David Cottrill wrote:
[...] > The condition of allowing users to install a different operating system > seems a lot less stringent than allowing users to access the underlying > system. > > The underlying system is affected by GPL-3 and so users can not be > hindered in their access to it. Yes, that seems to be one of the purposes of the GPL-3. > This is the crux of my problem - the > underlying system is not user friendly, nor can it be made so to satisfy > usability tests (can users use it without being able to break the > system). That looks like a straw man to me. Resorting to the well-loved Slashdot car analogy, I'm allowed to buy a new car and a set of wrenches and go wild on it. If it doesn't work afterwards (most probably it won't, given my limited abilities) -- is the car to be declared non-user-friendly? Of course not! There must be some clearly visible line which conveys to the user: "here be dragons. You are on your own from here on". If you are extra friendly, you may provide some kind of undeletable firmware which knows how to re-load a pristine state. If the user loses configuration or tinkering -- tough luck: she trespassed the "dragons" line, remember? As a device provider you get something in exchange: a vibrant community of tinkerers which may be a source of endless cool ideas for your product (how many have bought a Linksys router just *because* it's so hackable? I know I have; on the other extreme: watch those iphone folks doing cool things _in spite of_ Apple trying to prevent that and extrapolate the power this community would have if unhampered by Apple). > I could put in a generic option to permanently disable the closed source > parts of the box if users insisted on using the underlying system I don't understand this part. Why should you "disable the closed source parts"? This is GPL-3, so the "closed source parts" are well-separated (aggregation, no linking), e.g a user-space program (say Flash, to put an example) would be OK, a kernel module is alread gray area (I wouldn't risk that). So... why disable? If the user changes the environment that much that the closed-source parts won't work -- tough luck (remember the dragons?). > but > that to me is a poor option. If I didn't permanently disable the closed > source parts then we would be forced to support devices that had unknown > modifications - a worse option. Just re-flash (see above) -- of course with the user's consent. To me it boils down to "can we draw a clear line such that the user really knows when she is leaving the 'within support' area"? Of course, you get extra points if you are able to encourage a community to explore the area beyond! Here [1] is one of my favourite quotes in this context. Enjoy. [1] <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openmoko.community/17428> Regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJ+U3oBcgs9XrR2kYRAsa8AJ9y+AsuXGVcRQXBi2ot03utCuhzwACfUSrX P82h/b4CAE2CxQL6JDhXtSY= =Qjv6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
