[sn_master]

sigh..

Its not about "their own computer". Its about consumer "devices", including ones where control should not be given to the consumer for whatever reason. e.g. electric cars or medical devices.

Think of what would happen if anyone was allowed to run their own AutoPilot software on public roads.

Stallman is a radical and he doesn't pay attention to real business needs of large corporations, which is why they all avoid GPLv3 like the plague.

[gopiandcode]

Requiring that a company provides access to the consumer doesn't preclude the existence of regulations ensuring safe usage.

If a user/team of developers were able to develop their own AI system which could operate to whatever safety constraints are set out by the law, on what grounds would you deny them from running their cars using the AI?

Similarly, we can all execute whatever code we want on our laptops, which also allows us the potential to cause harm by attacking other systems, but doing so would still be illegal.

[javagram]

> Think of what would happen if anyone was allowed to run their own AutoPilot software on public roads.

currently, they are? https://comma.ai/

This is more a matter for regulation than for copyright, I think. Even if the car's ECU and AI code were under GPLv3, governements could prohibit using non-certified versions of the software on public roads and levy hefty penalties and jail time when drivers are caught using wildcat software...

[ryukafalz]

>Its not about "their own computer". Its about consumer "devices", including ones where control should not be given to the consumer for whatever reason. e.g. electric cars or medical devices.

Why should the owners of these devices not be allowed to control them? What makes them special?

>Think of what would happen if anyone was allowed to run their own AutoPilot software on public roads.

Sure, there are plenty of ways to modify the software in a car in reckless ways that endanger those around you. But it's possible to do a lot of things that endanger those around you: you can drink and drive, drive while tired, install headlights that blind other drivers, etc. We have laws to discourage that, and they probably need updating for our modern world of software-driven cars, but at a certain point we rely on the social norm of not recklessly endangering yourself and others. (And if nothing else, the owner of the car is liable if the modifications make it unsafe.)

This is not to say I think people should be able to do whatever they want on public roads; they're not yours after all, there are plenty of restrictions you have to abide by to use them, and I wouldn't mind having a software review requirement. But the car is yours: you bought it, you should be able to do whatever the heck you want with it otherwise.

[Dylan16807]

> Think of what would happen if anyone was allowed to run their own AutoPilot software on public roads.

Nothing would change. You're responsible for what the car does.