update articles

1 files changed, 37 insertions, 24 deletions

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-rocket.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-rocket.html
index f4663a6..6b58f45 100644
--- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-rocket.html
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-rocket.html
@@ -17,21 +17,23 @@ answering that question may illuminate similar issues about the sorts
 of products people really buy today.</p>
 
 <p>As far as I know, software as such is not capable of generating
-thrust.  A rocket is necessarily principally a physical device.  But
-it may include computerized control and telemetry systems, and thus
-software.</p>
+thrust.  A rocket is necessarily principally a physical device, so it
+can't literally <em>be</em> free software.  But it may include
+computerized control and telemetry systems, and thus software.</p>
 
 <p>If someone offered to sell me a rocket, I would treat it like any
 other appliance.  Consider, for instance, a thermostat.  If it
 contains software to be modified, all the software in it needs to be
-free.  If, however, the software in it need not ever be altered, and
-it communicates <em>only</em> through some limited interface, such as buttons
-on the control panel, a TV remote control, or a USB interface with a
-fixed set of commands, I would not consider it crucial to know what is inside
-the thermostat: whether it contains a special-purpose chip, or a
-processor running code, makes no direct difference to me as user.  If
-it does contain code, it might as well have a special chip instead, so
-I don't need to care which it is.</p>
+free, and I alone should have the authority to decide whether to
+install some change.  If, however, the software in it is not meant
+ever to be altered, and it communicates <em>only</em> through some
+limited interface, such as buttons on the control panel, a TV remote
+control, or a USB interface with a fixed set of commands, I would not
+consider it crucial to know what is inside the thermostat: whether it
+contains a special-purpose chip, or a processor running code, makes no
+direct difference to me as user.  If it does contain code, it might as
+well have a special chip instead, so I don't need to care which it
+is.</p>
 
 <p>I would object if that thermostat sent someone data about my
 activities, regardless of how that was implemented.  Once again,
@@ -47,14 +49,20 @@ makes it possible for people who have bought the rockets to work on
 improving the software in them, though the irreversible nature of many
 rocket failures may discourage tinkering.</p>
 
+<p>Readers have pointed out that SpaceX has
+received <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18683455/nasa-space-angels-contracts-government-investment-spacex-air-force">important
+financial support from the US government</a> to develop its rockets.
+By rights, accepting this support should require SpaceX to release the
+rocket software under a free license, even if it uses that software
+only inside its own rockets.</p>
+
 <p>Given the experience of Tesla cars, which are full of surveillance and
 tracking malware that Tesla can change but the owner can't, I suppose
 SpaceX rockets have that too.  If someday rockets are sold like today's
-cars and tractors, proprietary software in them would be unjust
-(<a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">
-https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html</a>),
-and it would probably be malware (<a href="/malware/malware.html">
-https://gnu.org/malware/</a>).  If the
+cars and tractors, <a 
+href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">software in
+them would be unjust</a>, and it would <a
+href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">probably be malware</a>.  If the
 manufacturer could install modified software in it but the owner could
 not, that too would be unjust.  People are starting to recognize this:
 look at the right-to-repair movement, which demands only the beginning
@@ -80,10 +88,16 @@ does not mean &ldquo;absolutely&rdquo; or &ldquo;100%&rdquo;),
 so the instructions for the job are simple (take these boxes to address
 A by date D).</p>
 
-<p>But there is one kind of activity which should never be treated as a
-service: private computational activity.  That's because a private
-computational activity is exactly what you could do on your own
-computer in freedom, given suitable free software.</p>
+<p>If SpaceX has released the rocket software under a free license,
+that would give you the right to make, use and distribute modified
+versions, but would not give you the right to modify the code running
+in SpaceX's rocket.</p>
+
+<p>But there is a kind of activity which a hypothetical future
+spaceship might do, which should never be treated as a service: private
+computational activity.  That's because a private computational
+activity is exactly what you could do on your own computer in freedom,
+given suitable free software.</p>
 
 <p>When a program's task is to do computing for you, you are entitled to
 demand control over what it does and how, not just that it obey your
@@ -98,9 +112,8 @@ control.  Even things as minutely directed by the user as text
 editing!  This is a scheme to get you to substitute their power for
 your freedom.  We call that &ldquo;Service as a Software
 Substitute&rdquo;, SaaSS for short (see
-<a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">
-https://gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html</a>),
-and we reject it.</p>
+&ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">Who
+does that server really serve?</a>&rdquo;), and we reject it.</p>
 
 <p>For instance, imagine a hypothetical SpaceX Smart Spaceship, which as
 a &ldquo;service&rdquo; wants to know all about your business so SpaceX servers
@@ -172,7 +185,7 @@ Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2020/10/09 11:36:53 $
+$Date: 2020/11/14 16:23:28 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>