Michelle Konzack dijo [Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 08:24:44AM +0100]:
> Sorry, I am not nativ english spaker...
> And yes is is what I have meant...
Neither am I, so I'll try to get this point across one last time.
> And there are several 100 cases where in general the projects are 100%
> open, but fo
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 08:28:16PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Being in favor of open-sourcing firmwares (including those controlling
> > critical security devices in cars) does not mean being in favor of
> > letting anyone ship their own version. In such cases,
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> Open sourcing certain firmware might make it easier for 'random script
>> kid' to just try some things out and accidentally causing problems to
>> innocent bystanders.
>
> How is this different from open source software? This sounds a bit li
Am 2008-11-08 07:35:02, schrieb Robert Collins:
> On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 20:01 +, David Given wrote:
> > 2. For at least some of these devices, even if the source code was
> > available it would add no value, because of legal restrictions
> > governing
> > which firmware blobs can be used on tha
Hello Ben and *,
Am 2008-11-07 22:09:35, schrieb Ben Hutchings:
> That's not true. DFSG only requires that the copyright holder grants
> certain permissions, regardless of whether the law of some jurisdiction
> overrides those permissions. Software could be included in main even if
> it is illeg
Hello David,
Am 2008-11-07 08:35:16, schrieb David Bremner:
> At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 00:27:13 +0100,
> Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
> > And as I
> > have already written, I do not know HOW OpenMoko will solv this problem,
> > but FreeRunner/OpenMoko or PurpleMagic are not allowd to run in Europe
> >
David Given wrote:
I believe that most if not all firmware images these days are signed or
encrypted.
If they were strongly signed, then there should be no problem
distributing the source code, right? People won't be able to make
modifications. It may not help with DFSG compliance though...
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Open sourcing certain firmware might make it easier for 'random script
> kid' to just try some things out and accidentally causing problems to
> innocent bystanders.
How is this different from open source software? This sounds a bit like
the argument that OSS is less
Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 20:01 +, David Given wrote:
> > 2. For at least some of these devices, even if the source code was
> > available it would add no value, because of legal restrictions
> > governing which firmware blobs can be used on that hardwa
Johannes Wiedersich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > This reasoning, as any security-by-obscurity one, is completely
> > flawed. As long as the firmware is distributed separately, you can
> > modify it, whether it is open source or not. Not having the source
> > never prev
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 20:28 +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Being in favor of open-sourcing firmwares (including those controlling
> > critical security devices in cars) does not mean being in favor of
> > letting
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 18:27 +, David Given wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> [...]
> > Or so you think. There are people who can read assembly and hex just as
> > easily as I read C sources. It would probably take only a few days of
> > testing for a hacker with the appropriate skills to remov
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 20:01 +, David Given wrote:
>
> 1. Some devices require firmware blobs with no source available.
> Because
> of this, such firmware can't be distributed in Debian.
ack.
> 2. For at least some of these devices, even if the source code was
> available it would add no valu
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
[...]
> Up until 1968 the same reasoning wasused to present people from
> connecting anything but phones provided by Bell to the Bell telephone
> network. You were not even allowed to connect a modem through an
> accustic coupler.
If I recall correctly, back in the old days,
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 05:15:33PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le vendredi 07 novembre 2008 à 00:27 +0100, Michelle Konzack a écrit :
> >> The problem is, that even if it is mass production since some time,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Being in favor of open-sourcing firmwares (including those controlling
> critical security devices in cars) does not mean being in favor of
> letting anyone ship their own version. In such cases, there needs to be
> some appro
Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...]
> Or so you think. There are people who can read assembly and hex just as
> easily as I read C sources. It would probably take only a few days of
> testing for a hacker with the appropriate skills to remove firmware
> restrictions for reaching a frequency range, for ex
Le vendredi 07 novembre 2008 à 17:15 +0100, Johannes Wiedersich a
écrit :
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > This reasoning, as any security-by-obscurity one, is completely flawed.
> > As long as the firmware is distributed separately, you can modify it,
> > whether it is open source or not. Not having
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 07 novembre 2008 à 00:27 +0100, Michelle Konzack a écrit :
>> The problem is, that even if it is mass production since some time, I
>> can not distribute the firmware as open source since it change the
>>
Le vendredi 07 novembre 2008 à 00:27 +0100, Michelle Konzack a écrit :
> The problem is, that even if it is mass production since some time, I
> can not distribute the firmware as open source since it change the
> behavour of the hardware which then can distrurb the GSM network.
This reas
Hi there!
Disclaimer: I am a member of the Debian FSO Team [1].
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:35:16 +0100, David Bremner wrote:
> At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 00:27:13 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>> And as I have already written, I do not know HOW OpenMoko will solv
>> this problem, but FreeRunner/OpenMoko or
At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 00:27:13 +0100,
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> And as I
> have already written, I do not know HOW OpenMoko will solv this problem,
> but FreeRunner/OpenMoko or PurpleMagic are not allowd to run in Europe
> with Open Source GSM-Firmware. And of course, PurpleMagic has never
>
Am 2008-11-04 14:02:14, schrieb Josselin Mouette:
> In other words, I think the carrot has better leverage on them than the
> stick. Of course it all depends on who we???re talking, as the stick will
> work just fine on an obscure Chinese manufacturer but not on a
> world-leading company that sells
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mardi 04 novembre 2008 à 10:23 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > How does this follow? Surely if the firmware is already being
> > distributed by the project, that's a *smaller* incentive to the
> > vendor to change the license.
>
> Past experience
Le mardi 04 novembre 2008 à 10:23 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> How does this follow? Surely if the firmware is already being
> distributed by the project, that's a *smaller* incentive to the vendor
> to change the license.
>
> The position “Your license isn't acceptable to us; please change the
>
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Distributing the non-free firmware with regular package updates in
> non-free [has a particular effect]
>
> But the most important thing is that it gives leverage to convince
> manufacturers to actually distribute the firmware with a free
> license.
26 matches
Mail list logo
