#4286 BLOC First D: Verify that the current theft-deterrence design is compatible with our GPL obligations.

[Zarro Boogs per Child]

#4286: Verify that the current theft-deterrence design is compatible with our GPL
obligations.
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
  Reporter:  mstone   |       Owner:  jg                    
      Type:  task     |      Status:  new                   
  Priority:  blocker  |   Milestone:  First Deployment, V1.0
 Component:  distro   |     Version:                        
Resolution:           |    Keywords:                        
  Verified:  0        |  
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------

Comment(by HoboPrimate):

 Hope I'm not commenting with a different point of view than supposed to,
 perhaps the feedback you request is only of the Legal kind.

 I think that theft-deterrence should work like this and still abide by the
 freedom 0 as defined by the FSF, to let the user use the software any way
 he sees fit:

  1. Take care the laptops are delivered to their intended owners
 (activation at school before giving to student)
  2. Deter the theft of the laptops from the students (periodical check
 with school server, and if reported stolen, lock it)
  3. Controversial: Let kids, with approval from parents, request to stop
 periodical theft-checking

 Typically a kid in normal circumstances won't need number 3. Attipically,
 I can see some ocasions where they might want to:

  A. Some years down the road, they change school/leave school. The laptop
 should still work for them (but this could be arranged by the school
 comunicating with OLPC or somesuch).
  B. Even more controversial and an extreme but possible case: If in the
 life of a kid, he comes to a situation where he has to choose between
 having a need for life-subsistence and a laptop, the first should have the
 priority (selling, trading it).

 Disadvantages of 3:

  1. Aproval from parents puts the decision on the parents, who can coerce
 the kid into disabling the theft-deterrence against their will.

 Advantages of 3:

  1. Aproval from parents at least keeps the kid "safe" from bullies or
 external people from coercing them into disabling it.

 In the end, though, discussion must be done on wether the intent to
 protect the "users rights", as defined by the FSF guidelines, protects
 those users who are kids, which really are still in the bottom of the
 food-chain in our societies. I suggest contacting the mailing lists, to
 get input from smarter people than me who just happens to lurk the bugs
 mailing list ;-).

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://dev.laptop.org/ticket/4286#comment:2>
One Laptop Per Child <https://dev.laptop.org>
OLPC bug tracking system