On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:Ok so far. I'd say this is unfair, but if it can happen, then maybe the small company could have been more careful about the regulations. There are various ways to prevent these changes that don't involve imposing restrictions of modification on any software in the device, all the way from hardware-constrained output power to hardware-verified authorized configuration parameters. When this doesn't bring freedom to people, when people can't actually enjoy the freedoms that the software is supposed to provide, I don't see why this would be a good thing. What's the merit in being able to claim "vendor X chose my Free Software and locked it down such that users don't get the freedoms I meant for them, and I'm happy about it?" -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} -
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| David Woodhouse | [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in-kernel, use it in more dr... |
| Philipp Marek | Re: sys_chroot+sys_fchdir Fix |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 008/196] Chinese: add translation of volatile-considered-harmful.txt |
git: | |
| Krishna Kumar | [PATCH 9/10 REV5] [IPoIB] Implement batching |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
