What are your thoughts on the BadUSB source code release?
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
The BadUSB source code is now available here:
https://github.com/adamcaudill/Psychson
I got this news from a Brazilian magazine.
So, what are your thoughts:
- Is BadUSB considered a software?
- I don't know if it's free software as I didn't have the time
to evaluate its dependencies, just the license, but, is freedom
0 appliable to harmful uses?
Best regards, ADFENO.
Have a nice day.
--
Assinatura automática – português brasileiro:
– Blogue: http://adfeno.wordpress.com/
– Favor não enviar-me documentos do Microsoft Office ou Apple
iWork. Ao invés disso, envie documentos em OpenDocument!
http://fsf.org/campaigns/opendocument/
– Se eu não te desejar um bom dia em meus e-mails, minhas
postagens, ou meus comentários; isto significa que estes foram
enviados por terceiros.
Automatic signature – North American English:
– Blog: http://adfeno.wordpress.com/
– Please do not send me Microsoft Office or Apple iWork
documents. Instead, send OpenDocument documents!
http://fsf.org/campaigns/opendocument/
– If I don't wish you a nice day in my emails, my posts, or my
comments; this means that these were sent by third parties.
"Is BadUSB considered a software?"
Of course it is.
"is freedom 0 appliable to harmful uses?"
Of course it does. It might be malware, running a nuclear reactor, the scheduling system for an abortion clinic, the guidance system on a cruise missile, or whatever else you can imagine. Software freedom is for everyone, so anything that anyone wants to do with a computer should be doable while keeping their software freedom. So "for any purpose" must literally mean "for any purpose" - even for the purposes that someone else might not like.
I can't help thinking that this is perilously close to handing a child a loaded gun and then calling it an unfortunate aspect of freedom when he then shoots himself with it.
Allowing others to do as they please, without regard for the consequences, is not any kind of freedom I recognise. If we follow that to its logical conclusion there'd be no Police and as sad as it is to say, some people cannot handle freedom - they abuse it for personal gain or revenge. To stand by and shrug in the face of that seems to me to be the wrong response.
Personally I think all the various licences should explicitly prohibit the use of open source code in machines created to kill and if that's not total freedom then good. I'm not sure that anyone benefits from that sort of freedom as it's a freedom that claims to owe nothing to morality and without morality there is only chaos.
I am not sure using copyright law would be the right way to go to prevent people killing each other or hacking into others' systems. There are other laws for that. People also usually behave ethically regardless of the status of the nation's laws.
You can not demand anything more in license terms than what could be enforced using copyright law.
Preventing handing a child a loaded gun is handled by laws. It's not the job of software licenses.
Did you read this?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html
"Allowing others to do as they please, without regard for the consequences, is not any kind of freedom I recognise. If we follow that to its logical conclusion there'd be no Police"
That's not what I was talking about, and you know it. Please read the page that onpon4 linked to.
I have read it and I think it's largely confused nonsense.
"Imagine selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them; that would be noisome, and we should not stand for it."
Everyone buys pens with the understanding that there are laws covering what you can write with that pen. If you write and publish hate speech or incitement to murder or riot, can you not expect consequences?
You buy a car with the implicit understanding that you're not supposed to drive over people in it, is this an unacceptable restriction?
And software is somehow supposed to be different?
Sorry, I will never agree to allowing someone else to use code to kill, maim, oppress or intimidate. It's not about freedom, it's about sanity and moral responsibility. We know there are weak people in the world and we know there are nasty people who will exploit the weak. Are we to stand by doing nothing and call our inaction wisdom?
nux wrote:
> I have read it and I think it's largely confused nonsense.
>
> "Imagine selling pens with conditions about what you can write with
> them; that would be noisome, and we should not stand for it."
>
> Everyone buys pens with the understanding that there are laws
> covering what you can write with that pen. If you write and publish
> hate speech or incitement to murder or riot, can you not expect
> consequences?
Absolutely, yet it would be absurd to attach usage conditions to every
pen sold upheld by contract law. Democratically elected laws exist to
prevent the crimes that you mentioned.
Andrew.
I'd also like to point out that if the conditions are attached to the pen, by the manufacturer of the pen, the rules are not chosen democratically; they are decided by a dictator.
nothing about the pen is chosen democratically... I guess that's not the point.
There are laws covering these things already. There is no need to also put them into licenses and contracts etc. Just as it's a bad idea to, say, enshrine U.S. export law into your license as a condition that you then not share with people in certain countries: It expands the scope of U.S. policy to anyone getting a copy of the software, no matter where they are which is not a good idea - even if you happen to love U.S. export control law.
"You may only do the things with which I approve of" becomes a slippery slope.
I hear what you are saying.
I just cannot give assent to allowing open source code to be used for killing and oppression. Not ever.
And if that means imposing a restriction on its use then that's fine by me.
Where does that lead to? Why does it have to lead anywhere? Why can there not be just that one restriction? "Use this software for anything you like, other than causing death and suffering".
What if I knew that libre software was being used for the promotion of racism? I'd consider it an intellectual/political issue and ponder about reporting the site.
But I see an inherent difference between using libre software for the promotion of hopeless ideologies on the one hand and explicitly to kill, maim and dispossess on the other.
Perhaps I've yet to grasp the fullness of "you can use this code for any purpose". It is hard to nail down the morality of the use of libre software because of the lack of useful parallels in the real world.
But it hurts to see the military use open source code to power machines of death. It hurts very, very deeply indeed. I can find nothing within but outrage and anger over such behaviour.
"Everyone buys pens with the understanding that there are laws covering what you can write with that pen."
But laws vary from country to country. Taking the laws and policies of one country, enshrining them into the agreement for anyone to use those pens, no matter where they are, has the effect of propagating that policy worldwide. Why should the laws of one country override those of another?
'So "for any purpose" must literally mean "for any purpose" - even for the purposes that someone else might not like.'
The question is: why does it have to be this way in order to make a program free?
In a free society, there are things you aren't allowed to do, like beating up people in bars.
Why should this be different for software?
Of course it should be the state who forbids commiting a crime with a gun, but if the gun itself or its license prohibits killing innocent people, then this is fine with me and not an attack on my freedom.
Though freedom is something extremely important, we should raise the question whether it should be considered the most important in life.
I don't think we should, at least i don't do it for myself, and i never heard a striking argument against my attitude, not even by rms.
Just read onpons link and have to correct myself:
rms has some good arguments.
Here's a related rms article
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti