[Battlemesh] exception for free software?

[Mitar]

Hi!

> I tend to agree that an exception for Free Software is not really what
> should be fought for, because that raises the legal question of the
> definition of what is Free Software, and why there should be an
> exception for certain kind of software and not for other kinds of
> software.

Interesting. Many people argue, including Eben Moglen, Jennifer Granick,
and Bruce Schneier, that this is precisely what we should do (but you
should read what they say, because I am interpreting their words freely):

https://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2010/sscl/moglen-software_in_everything-transcript.html
(transcript)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjvw5fz_GuA
https://medium.com/backchannel/the-end-of-the-internet-dream-ba060b17da61
(transcript)

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/software_liabil.html
https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/archives/2002/0415.html#6

Let me explain:

We should start thinking about software liability. Software has for long
time not been made as "no or limited liability" and we are slowly seeing
that maybe it is time that it becomes regulated the same as any other
industry where people lives might be at risk. That will slow down the
"progress", and will make costs higher, but it will make things better
in the longer run (pleas read links above for more arguments).

And this current issue with FCC is for me just a particular case of
software liability. Instead of regulating company completely that
manufacturer is liable for any misbehaving of the device (including
radio), we got just one aspect of it. And sadly, we got regulation in
the bad way. But recognizing that this is software liability regulation
and that we might even want that as a society might help us answer the
question how it should be done properly.

But all links above, and me personally, believe that FSF is then the
solution how you achieve good trade off between software liability and
innovation. Simply put: for proprietary software you have software
liability, for open source/free software you do not have. The argument
is that for the latter everyone can check how it works so we are
collectively managing proper functioning of software. Some argue (like
Schneier) that only the company who would at the end use that free
software in the product should be liable, but I am of an opinion that
even in that case one should be liable. Only if they have closed source.

If we are able to make this general case, create a good story around it,
then I think we could win. That free software is in fact a better
software to have to be able to know if hardware is behaving correctly.
For free software we can see when and how it is transmitting on which
frequencies. On proprietary we cannot.

And probably it can be just open source, it is not necessary to be
limited to free software.

And there are pretty good definitions governments use in other cases
what open source and free software is.


Mitar

-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m