The important question we must ask is this: Who owns the hardware, and what rights should these owners of tangible property expect to be protected in the law.
As an owner of hardware I expect to be control of my hardware for any lawful purpose. Where there is software, I should have the right to replace that software with software of my own choosing, including the right to author and run my own software on the hardware if I have these skills.
In a recent article in CNet News.com, Linus Torvalds, the founder and leader of the Linux kernel project, was quoted as follows:
“Say I’m a hardware manufacturer. I decide I love some particular piece of open-source software, but when I sell my hardware, I want to make sure it runs only one particular version of that software, because that’s what I’ve validated. So I make my hardware check the cryptographic signature of the binary before I run it,” Torvalds said. “The GPLv3 doesn’t seem to allow that, and in fact, most of the GPLv3 changes seem to be explicitly designed exactly to not allow the above kind of use, which I don’t think it has any business doing.”
I strongly disagree with Torvalds language, and disagree with his objections to the enhanced GPL.
If I purchase hardware, it is my hardware and is no longer owned by the manufacturer. If my hardware checks a cryptographic signature on a binary file to verify its origins, it should be my signature signed with my key since I am the owner of the hardware.
And then here’s an article by Cory Doctorow of BoingBoing fame on Apple’s copyright protection technologies.
I believe that as systems get more integrated, service providers will eventually provide all the hardware and bill the client for device rental.
This seems to be the trend with everything. You pay good money but have no rights to anything. Software started this trend, it was continued with leased vehicles, then online music and movies, now computer hardware. And with the good old DMCA on their side, any hardware manufacture that did lock their systems would be perfectly in their rights to sue the ass of you for go against their “vision” of their product.
“If I purchase hardware, it is my hardware and is no longer owned by the manufacturer. If my hardware checks a cryptographic signature on a binary file to verify its origins, it should be my signature signed with my key since I am the owner of the hardware.”
The hardware manufacturer builds the device to run with particular software installed, which it validates using a key. His only obligation is that the device operates properly and as expected based on the specs and features advertised when the sale was made. You can do whatever you want with the physical hardware afterwards, but don’t expect it to work outside of its designed function. This ownership argument is a red herring.
#1 – I agree. Eventually we’ll all be using dummy terminals again, with the actual hardware/software sitting on the other end of miles of networking cable. The whole system will work more like your TV cable, were you pay a monthly subscription.
As for Torvalds, I’m actually getting pretty sick of him. All he’s done over the past couple of years is bitch & complain about everything. With each passing year he seems to stray further from the ideals that made him popular in the first place.
If a hardware manufacturer clearly states on the packaging that the hardware has restrictions as to compatibility then no problem.
OK,
Think about DirectX.
Version this and that…
And WHY 1 card can DO upto DX8.1, but Fails to work well under DX9 then think about DX10, NOT being able to work on WinXP, or anything earlier in hardware then 1 year ago.
NOW, look at openGL, which works on almost ANYTHING and has worked, as long as the basic codes are setup on the chipset.
NOW, how about a Card that has EEproms on it, to load any Thing on them to Keep the card upgraded, and updated. they can do it, but THEY WONT. you could have a 512 meg card, that has all the codecs loaded ON the card, it could have NEW Bios and Controllers all the time to match whats happening Currently, as well as being FULLY backward compatible, by reloading the OLD setups.
you wouldnt need to Buy a NEW card EVER. Not to spend $200-500 every 3-5 years.
Why does Cory have his head so far up his own butt???
Example 1
There are some miscellaneous restrictions, including ones that are genuinely bizarre, like limiting the number of times you can burn a given playlist.
The thought that anyone burning more than 10 indentical CDs may be doing something other than archiving their songs is bizarre to him?
Example 2
Early on, he acknowledges how it is possible to move iTunes songs to another platform…
Removing iTunes’s DRM is pretty straightforward. It’s time-consuming, but it’s not too difficult.
Then rants about how Apple is locking-out iPod compeditors locking-in iPod owners via the pesky DMCA…
while iTunes enjoys the protection of a corrupt law that gives Apple the right to exclude competitors from the market.
Then grudingly admits – again – that while it is a hassle, you aren’t really locked-in…
Sure, you could conceivably burn and rip all that music (except the audiobooks, which will come out mangled into 70-minute chunks)…The more music you have — the better a customer you’ve been for the iTunes Music Store — the more onerous this task becomes.
Example 3
Then he starts mixing popularity of iPods with popularity of iTunes music.
But the customer has decided, by and large, to avoid Apple’s lock-in by not buying anything at all — they’ve joined the majority of Internet users in decided that copyright infringement is your best entertainment dollar.
And he doesn’t mention the irony inherent in his last sentence:
That’s a lesson Yahoo Music has taken to heart — they’re abandoning DRM, shipping MP3s, and putting their engineering effort into producing a superior product.
Why doesn’t he mention said Yahoo MP3s will play on an iPod?
What a maroon! [grin]
#8 ECA
I suppose that a Newer card having a NEW GPU would have to BE phisically upgraded…
That DX example of yours is poor, when DX8.1 cards come out they support the current definition of the spec. The manufacturer has no idea of how DX9 o DX10 (or 15 or 20…) will be, and even if he has, there’s no silicon that supports it…
That DX10 issue is different. It’s microsoft saying: – ok, we’re not going to rewrite XP to work with newer technologies, if you want, upgrade XP.-
Open GL is different. The GPU manufacturers develop chips to meet M$ specs. Open GL is independent of GPU, is specifies a set of features, and then implements then on the driver the best it can to work on every specific GPU (actually is another HAL working here…).
The new GPUs being made today, don’t even need EEproms. They are programable. they have a basic set of features to fall back to, then newer functions can be reprogramed on the fly. Heck, a driver upgrade could be a new firmware altogether…
That theory of Never buying a new card is fine: You would be running now a system with a pentium 90 and a S3-64Mb graphics card, only with upgraded bios and firmware… NOT going to happen –
Now, the issue of the thread:
Stinks. I really hope that emergent markets reset the Free trade/open market thing. U.S and Europe have become so regulatory on one side and so abiding of the industry dictation, on the other side, that this free market really is starts to grind down…
The hardware is mine when I buy it. If corporations want to lease me the hardware, then ok… Lease me so I can return my PC every 6 months and change for a new one… I mean, that’s leasing…there’s risk involved. But what they want is to sell me stuff and then tell me how to use it and when and with what… BS….
I actually agree with Linus, though his wording is awful. Companies should be free to do that, just as we would be free to not buy the product because we didn’t like that.
There is no reason why the GPLv3 should say no to it, unless there is also another version that says using this variant GPL that they can.
The GPL dictactes what people can do with my code, it shouldn’t dictate what I can and can’t code.
10,
I understand.
but even NOW, MS is trying to close the market.
They want EVERYONE to upgrade, and are forceing it.
If everyone had DX8.1 and COULDNT uypgrade DX 10 would HAVE to ba made compatible.
Look at Laptops. do you see many NEW ones with 128meg ram?? I dont. How about 256meg ram video. WONT HAPPEN.
I dont even want to see the BASIC requirements for a system with VISTA, Min 1 GIG ram. WHY??
Let me, write my letters, maybe use the spread sheet, Play my games and wonder the net.
But, they WANT to improve something that should be in the HARDWARE MAKERS area, and FORCE then to deal with DX10, When they could just do HARDWARE calls for THEIR product. BUT MS dont like OTHERS working on THEIR system, so they made DX. IT SUCKS. Let the hardware MAKERS DRIVE their OWN CARDS. DUMP DX.
It’s the upgrade game. Long time ago people figured out that if they did something good durable and sturdy, they’ll sell less of it… If a pair of shoes lasts for 20 years, you’ll just buy 10 pair on your lifetime. But if fashion changes 4 time a year, you’ll buy a lot of pairs, that in turn can be made less durable and cheaper. In the end you’ll be shelling out more cash and helping the economy. And computers are even better at this because there’s so much evolving being done.
True,
but there IS.
If the Card maker made a GREAT card, and then created a driver to make it RUN very nicely, THEN be restricted by MS DX.
toughting what DX can do as DX10, over DX9…Is stupid. WHY cant DX9 do better?? WHY USE DX at all.
Its like having a 128 meg card, and the textures cant be stored, because it ISNT an option with DX…
It USED to be that the Game makers made drivers FOR the card makers. NOT just DX.. DX is there to interpret the 2 and JOIN them. But a SPECIAL card, cant do anything SPECIAL, as DX wont do ALL the options the card has. MS wants the control. And if you DONT PAY for the rights to PROGRAM under DX, you cant.