On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:33:33 -0300 > Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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. > It most definitely is >> 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. > That accurately describes the FCC wireless rules. AFAIK the FCC mandates not permitting the user to tinker. It doesn't mandate the vendor to retain this ability to itself. Therefore, per the above, FCC doesn't mandate tivoization. Is there anything else I'm missing that would show it does? -- 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/
