Notices by Björn (thaodan@mastodon.social)

@blenderdumbass Are you aware that modifying certain software such as radios can impact anyone around them? You could impact the security of anyone around you by sending radio signals on frequencies you are not allowed too. You could kill someone.
Really your username says it all in this context.

@blenderdumbass There's a big intersection of hardware only legally verified software is allowed to start which is used by consumers indirectly but also by non-consumers also in as e.g. in phones, cars or medical equipment. Firmware for GPU's and such is one thing but I think it very much makes sense that only verified software can run which could disrupt others or even risk the lives of people. Not that these processes are perfect but better than someone disrupt some radio signal.

@blenderdumbass @Suiseiseki@reesoftwareextremist.com
You made a good point. Can't reply directly so I'm doing it this way: There's a clause about industrial devices in GPL-3.0 which is good but there's an important different in GPL-3.0 which makes it much worse for use cases where you can't hand out e.g. authorization keys. You can't hand out authorization keys which allow you to reflash radio firmware like in Modems. The situation is very similar when it comes to automotive software.

@blenderdumbass Rly? Of course I know the philosophy but there's a difference between practice and it. Developers develop software most users don't. Developers get paid by companies that want to use the software, if they can't use GPL-3.0 or if they are legally unsure that they want improve or develop GPL-3.0 software. I want GPL-3.0 to see adaption which is why I'm making these points. Think out of your own bubble.

@blenderdumbass GPL-3.0 has clauses to prevent the use on devices who are locked without means to remove the lock which in some contexts impossible or not legal. GPL-3.0 because of the Tivo Clauses and the not existing help from the FSF to clarify has been a big issue.

@gamingonlinux Please include some exurb about the reason into the mastodon that will make it easier to share as it will reach more users what this act will do.
The act does sound very concerning to say the least.

@blenderdumbass Freedom means to also free to choose even if it shooting your self in the foot.
You can't avoid proprietary software entirely. Besides even GPL-3.0 restricts your freedom on what you use your software on already so yeah.

@dx @jwildeboer The worst argument against such things is public transport can't be free because
then nobody is contributing their part and getting something for free. I don't know exactly how to explain this but it is this mindset of nothing should be free, don't be a freeloader.
It's almost like some kind of envy of not wanting the other to get something they don't deserve . Greedy and envy go over logic.
Logic because without checks public transport would be much cheaper to finance.

@sageofredondo @mattiasb @mattdm Where did they do that? Their Gitlab says the license hasn't changed. It's still MIT.

@msw @bootlegrydia So #redis is no longer free software? I think it is strange that we are at a point where open source isn't controlled
enough anymore compared to the term #foss..