|Subject:||Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Golden Rule Angle for Libre Software Advocacy|
|Date:||Tue, 16 Aug 2016 17:53:50 -0400|
This thread got me wondering also if there were cases where public interest demands some sort of control. What about jetliner software? This software is extremely rigorously reviewed by government agency, at least in the US. Should the user (jetliner company) have the right to modify such software? Not without review, in my opinion.
However, it's in the public interest for the software to be available for public review. This much, at least, seems clear to me.
----- Reply message -----
From: "Aaron E-J" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [libreplanet-discuss] [fsf-community-team] Golden Rule Angle for Libre Software Advocacy
Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2016 15:11
If an open source device is modified by the end consumer and this
consumer does not know what they are doing, in the medical field this
can have life threatening consequences. People who do not understand
what it means for something to be open source could take a press release
about such a scenario and run with it; saying that this is a reason for
keeping code a secret. Such a program needs for the devices themselves
to be very secure and un-hackable, but for the method by which the
devices are made and the source code to be open. There is tremendous
potential for a bridge to be formed between the users of the
technologies and their development.
I was working on a project to develop an open source electrical muscle
stimulation device with the initial use going towards the development of
a gait retraining system. This is currently on hold, but I would be
interested in working with other people in starting an open source
medical device organization geared towards developing new devices and
advocating for a more libre healthcare system.
You can read more details about the device I was developing on my
Let me know if you are interested in such an organization or if you know
of existing organizations with this focus.
On 2016-08-13 2:24 PM, Marcos Marado wrote:
> > I won't go as far as to talk about robotic bodies, but the issue is
pertinent today, with current technology. > > I recently read about a
woman who has a pacemaker. It had a software bug, which frightened her.
She knows /of/ it but she doesn't know it, since she doesn't have access
to the software running on her own body. Furthermore, she found out that
there is a functionality in it to accept OTA updates, which she cannot
control. Scary. And this is not science fiction, this is a real case,
current technology. > > Unfortunately I don't recall where I read about
this, but it was in the last couple of weeks. On FSFE's newsletter,
maybe? > > Anyway, the question can be rephrased to "how ethical it is
to implant non-free software on someone's body?". > > Best regards, > --
> Marcos Marado > ANSOL.org > > > On Aug 12, 2016 16:42, "Logan
Streondj" <email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote: >
> I recently gave a presentation on my libreware project, and someone
> said they really liked the Golden Rule angle of reincarnating as a robot
> The typical example I've often read advocating for libreware is the
> car analogy, where you have access to your cars internals. This was a
> great analogy when cars didn't have loads of proprietary software
> installed -- unfortunately it is only increasing because of
> self-driving cars.
> However now as we get closer to the twenty twenties, when the
> processing of a human brain should be affordable for a $1000.
> The analogy I use now is:
> "When you reincarnate as a robot, do you want to be enslaved by
> proprietary software and hardware, or be liberated by libre software
> and hardware?"
> Anyways wondering what you guys think of this angle,
> and if you might use it also.
> I have more detailed slides in my presentation.
>  my presentation SPEL and GI-OS overview (CC-BY-SA): PDF
> source TEX:
> > ____ > > Freeform discussion: irc.gnu.org
<http://irc.gnu.org> #fsf > Sharing news and links: #fsfct
https://microca.st/fsf & https://status.fsf.org/fsf > How to use
Group:LibrePlanet_Rapid_> > Responders/Workflow
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|