Where RMS's argument collapses

[TankCatNinjaFish]

Linc asked a question about why hardware shouldn't be free the same way software is free. RMS's excuse was that hardware and hardware designs didn't have to be free and reproducible b/c you can't really copy the hardware, where as you can copy software (and books and CD's) fairly trivially.

I say this argument is moot for several reasons. First of all, the line between hardware and software is becoming blurrier every day (esp w/ FPGA's). Most electrical engineers don't have soldering irons on their desktops, they have CAD and circuit design programs, they create a master blue print of the design, which they send off to the plant to "compile" into a physical product. This is a fairly trivial (though expensive) way to copy something from the point of view of the engineer. Under RMS's arguments the end user should have the write to get the design of any chips he bought, modify the design, and send it off to a plant for compilation himself.

Second, software and hardware are inseperable for many devices (ie, the hardware would be useless w/o software). Tivo is one example, but take the automobile as another example. The antilock break system on my Camry is closed sourced proprietary software. Some engineer at toyota sat down and coded it. And its been distributed to me in the form of a little chip under the driver's seat. Is it morally wrong to drive this car because I can't see the source code? Why isn't RMS rallying the automakers to free the programs distributed in every modern car?

[Tsuroerusu]

Why not discuss this with the man himself? It's not like his email address is Pentagon-like secret. rms at stallman dot org

Let me answer your argument by giving you Stallman's answer for how Intel could avoid firmware licensing issues. If that firmware was burned in ROM, and was part of the hardware itself, RMS does not have a problem because "it's just a circuit". This is the same reason HE didn't consider the BIOS of system unethical before the chip the BIOS was placed on was writable and modifiable by the user, through software. And oh by the way, the FSF are campaigning for a free BIOS, the build machine they donated to the gNewSense guys uses the Free BIOS called LinuxBIOS.

[TankCatNinjaFish]

Whether the hardware is writable or not is a different issue. There is proprietary software in every car today. Its being distributed to you the way Firefox is distributed to you; the only thing different is the medium of transfer. Its unethical apparently to use this software and thus drive the car b/c I can't see it. And just because BIOS chips used to be read-only doesn't matter. My rights to rip out the BIOS chip and use it some other way were infringed b/c source was a secret thus I can't find out how it works.

Thinking about this sort of thing only makes me want to write proprietary software and contribute to the eventual fall of FSF and the free software movement.

[Tsuroerusu]

Thinking about this sort of thing only makes me want to write proprietary software and contribute to the eventual fall of FSF and the free software movement.

Well, I'm sure there's a job available for you in at a certain American company in a certain American city located in a certain northern American state.

[dann]

Well, I'm sure there's a job available for you in at a certain American company in a certain American city located in a certain northern American state.

You must be talking about Novell

[Tsuroerusu]

Well, I'm sure there's a job available for you in at a certain American company in a certain American city located in a certain northern American state.

You must be talking about Novell

"Freedom of choice" and "Alternatives", isn't that what we talk about all the time?