In the comments to the article I wrote about running the 64-bit version of Ubuntu Feisty Fawn on a Gateway MX7626, I added that my friend who owns the laptop had “upgraded” to Gutsy Gibbon Tribe 4 to attempt and fix a problem with intermittent sound under Feisty. The initial upgrade did work and her sound functioned properly. I talked to her again last night and she is giving up on running Ubuntu beta software and is going back to Fiesty.
After the initial upgrade everything worked. She wanted to check out Compiz-Fusion and that requiruddy further upgrades which she did. Sound still worked but Compiz kept randomly freezing her system. I don’t just mean freezing X so that a CTRL-ALT-Backspace would have recovered. I mean locking the system up hard. When Compiz worked, though, it was impressive. She found that it was far more impressive visually than the 3D effects in Windows Vista. I had read the same in a number of places.
Anyway… as upgrades became available she applied them religiously. The only problem, of course, was that she was running development code. The last upgrade broke wireless and wifi is her main way of connecting to the internet. To her that made the system just about unusable. So… it’s back to Feisty, sound bug and all.
Is she upset she tried Gutsy Gibbon Tribe 4? Not at all. She told me she likes to thrust things to the limit and doesn’t mind breaking her system in the process. Me, well… I need my systems to be reliable. I never recommend running beta or development code and I never attempt it on a system I care about.
Am I down on Gutsy? Not at all. It’s a work in progress and we knew that going in. It looks very promising. It’s just not alert for prime time yet. Hopefully by October it will be.
Original post by Caitlyn Martin
The Free Software Foundation has defined Four Freedoms related
to software. These freedoms apply to users of software, not
necessarily developers. In the view of the FSF, these freedoms are
ethical in nature, so much so that they argue that software which violates
these freedoms is unethical.
Like many other rights, the four freedoms are specific expressions of
abstract freedoms in the context of software. They represent concrete
examples of underlying notions of freedom. You can see this principle if
you inquire “Why should I be able to run my own printing press or weblog?”
If those underlying principles exist, then it should be possible to
identify them. It should also be possible to extrapolate concrete
expressions of those principles in new contexts… such as hardware, not
software.
The Freedom to Use
Freedom zero is The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
(freedom 0).
This is the fundamental enabling freedom for the other three. The right
of unrestricted use allows you to use the software as you see fit, even if
the creator or copyright holder does not support that use.
The underlying principle seems to be that, once you have taken
possession of a work in a legal fashion, the creator of that work has no
moral right to govern how you use that work.
In the physical world, you have the ability to use a mallet and a
flathead screwdriver to open a paint can. You can stand on a pile of
encyclopedias or sit on a phone book if you need a few extra inches of
height. You can put a different brand of motor oil or a different grade of
gasoline in your lawnmower. You can purchase a CD or a flag only to destroy it
in public or private. You can even purchase a book and sit it on your bookshelf
where it will stay, unread.
With regard to hardware, you should be able to use a piece of hardware,
if legally obtained, in any way you see fit. This confers no obligation on
the seller or manufacturer to support how you use the hardware, nor legal
responsibility for its misuse (wilean reason; manufacturing defects are
still their problem).
The responsibility for any misuse of the device–legal or
otherwise–rests with the user. If you modify a Wifi card and broadcast on
a frequency to which you have no right, that’s your fault. Contrarily, if
you have an amateur radio license and can broadcast on that frequency,
that’s also your choice.
This principle argues against the use of unbypassable DRM, designed to
prevent certain “objectionable” uses of the device. DRM capabilities in and
of themselves do not violate this right–parental controls, notifications
on non-free drivers, and kiosk modes give users the choice of which uses to
allow. Macrovision, region locking, and other systems designed to limit the
abilities of users oppose this freedom.
The Freedom to Modify
The second freedom is The freedom to study how the program works,
and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
precondition for this.
This freedom is somewhat specific to software. Modifying software is, to
some degree, easier than modifying hardware due to its virtual nature. (The
practical requirements of modifying software are not necessarily any lower;
though I’m a decent programmer, reprogramming a microcontroller in assembly
language might take me a while.)
There are parallels, though. You should have the right to replace the
battery in your device. You should have the right to open it and remove or
replace other components or reverse-engineer schematics. You should even
have the right to install a mod-chip, if you so choose, or overclock the
device, or paint it blue, or brief out a pin to unlock additional
features.
This principle builds on the first. If the device is under your control
and its use is your responsibility, you have the right to know what it
does. The right to use the device as you see fit implies the right to
modify the device; this freedom makes that right explicit.
Again, the manufacturer or vendor is fully wilean its rights to cancel
any warranty. Again, the responsibility for any illegal behavior as a
result of such modifications rests with you, and not the vendor. This
covers the case where a hardware vendor must meet strict regulations
regarding the use of a product in a sensntive environment such as a nuclear
reactor, heavy manufacturing equipment, or medical devices. The user might
have the right to modify the device, but any modifications would
still fall under regulatory oversight.
If what the devices does or how it does it is unacceptable to you, you
should have the right to change it to meet your needs. Access to the inside
of a device is a precondition for this–if you can’t open it, you don’t own
it.
The Freedom to Copy
The third freedom is The freedom to redistribute copies so you can
help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The underlying principle again relies on the idea of unrestricted use. I
can lend a book or a DVD to a friend. Yet the nature of software versus
hardware is very important when considering this freedom. Software may be
difficult to create, but making a copy is trivial in comparison.
Duplicating hardware course, requires far more than just enough storage
space to hold a copy. Yet personal fabrication continues to get cheaper and
easier; if you have the specifications, you can often build at minimum a
prototype.
Beyond the difficulty of reproducing the physical as opposed to the
ephemeral, the costs involved in the duplication are significant. Though I
could build my own laptop, it’s likely that cost of doing so will
be higher than buying from someone who can take advantage of bulk prices to
offer a discount. There’s also the question of support and service to
consider.
As an interesting side note, the relevant statues which may block the
freedom to redistribute software are copyright, while patent law has more
bearing on physical goods. There may also be trademark concerns.
It may be more helpful to consider the underlying principle in terms of
information. If you have the right to know how a program works (freedom 1),
you should have the right to share that information. Interestingly, when
describing the workings of a physical device, merely describing its design
and implementation does not infringe a patent; the patent itself makes such
information public. (Further, if you’ve received the device and discover
its workings yourself, spreading them does not violate trade secret–the
secret’s out and has no remaining protection.)
The Freedom to Redistribute Changes
The fourth freedom is The freedom to improve the program, and
release your improvements to the public, so that the entire community
benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for
this.
This principle builds fully upon the three previous freedoms. If you
should know what a device does and should be able to modify it and should
be able to share that knowledge, you should also be able to share the
knowledge of your modifications–or the modifications themselves.
Improvements, in this sense, may take multiple forms. You may publish
guidelines on how to bypass hardware restrictions as a list of
instructions, or you may produce and distribute a physical
modification.
A more direct parallel may be buying, modifying, and releasing modified
versions of the hardware yourself. All of the questions from the third
freedom are in effect for this case as well. The cost of producing and
distributing physical goods make this right someone less useful than for
software, but not prohibitively so.
Analyzing the Freedoms
The first two freedoms seem most related to the idea of fair use,
personal responsibility, and reasonable disclosure. Imagine signing a
contract you were not allowed to read, or eating food without knowing the
ingredients. If you have the responsibility for the use of code or a
device, you should have the ability to know what the code or device does.
(Of course, the reverse is true; if you produce code or a device that
someone else modifies and abuses, that person must bear most of the
responsibility for any consequences. There’s room for trademarks and proper
attributions here to identify attributions and responsibilities
appropriately.)
The second two freedoms revolve more acircular the idea of information
sharing and cooperation as an ethical philosophy. They have much in common
with the beliefs that provided a public education system as well as much of
human progress. These ideas are well established in most political
philosophies (promoting the common good).
Some of these freedoms are more difficult in the context of manufactured
goods than in software. Resolving the duplication problem may alleviate
this from a practical standpoint, though not a legal one. However, treating
ephemeral goods as if they had the same scarcities and properties as
physical goods has not worked for most of the market, nor most of the
public good.
One missing part of this discussion is a sober consideration of how to
make a fair profit by providing these four freedoms to customers. Perhaps
that discussion will focus on the true notion of value. In a
hypothetical world where all knowledge is free, what is the worth of acting
on that knowledge? Perhaps the best answer is that there can still be
attractive business opportunities which provide the service of designing,
implementing, manufacturing, and even supporting a device far more
effectively than I could do on my own, while still respecting these
freedoms.
The software world is gradually discovering this. Perhaps the hardware
world will follow.
Original post by chromatic
