On Jun 20, 2007, "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >>> b) the manufacturer is able to update the device _in_ _the_ _field_. >> Sure, it would be more costly, but it's not like the >> law (or the agreements in place) *mandate* tivoization. > The sad part is that the FCC, especially, are pretty fond of doing > exactly that. <broken-record> It does not mandate the use of *copyleft* Free Software in non-ROM such a way that the user cannot modify it. </broken-record> > This comes more from a general cluelessness about technology And the meaning of tivoization ;-) Tivoization doesn't mean "user can't modify". It's more than that. But I agree with the feeling. It's like mandating knife manufacturers to design ways to stop people from hurting or killing others with knives. So much for self defense... -- 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/
