On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
> In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in > software) for certain properties. (The argument being it must be > tamperproof to random end consumers). But this is not tivoization. Tivoization is a manufacturer using technical measures to prevent the user from tampering (*) with the device, *while* keeping the ability to tamper with it changes itself. (*) tampering brings in negative connotations that I'd rather avoid, but since that was the term you used, and the term "modifying" might bring in legal-based technicalities such as that replacing isn't modification, I just went with it. So, given a proper definition, do you know any law that requires tivoization? Taking it further, do you know whether any such law requires *worldwide* tivoization, as in, applying the restrictions in the law even outside its own jurisdiction? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
