On 29/12/2008, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Montag 29 Dezember 2008 17:23:45 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
>
> > In my view trying to deny users the choice to enter contracts like the
> > one P requires is not the right way. It is morally dubious and
> > technically infeasible.
>
>
> Firstoff: A
On 27/12/2008, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:19:26PM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > 2008/12/22 :
>
>
> > > Well, *we* don't find EROS-like persistence useful for our purpose.
> > > I never found it useful, as you might remember; and Marcus, who was
>
Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 11:51:05 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
> And how is the computer ever going to not allow sending the photo?
For example because the camera is a test version where you have to pay to
unlock the photo-sharing feature.
You can't think of further examples?
If so, you defini
On 29/12/2008, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Montag 29 Dezember 2008 17:23:45 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
>
> > > Accessing some service which limits the system in a way which is
> > > incompatible with the GPLv3 (as soon as central usage gets "interfered
> > > with" when I change the code, dis
Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 12:10:39 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
> The underlying interface the two binaries use is different. However,
> they both show a window on my screen and access the same Documents
> folder for opening and saving files.
> This is all the compatibility one ever needs for a typi
Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 12:43:45 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
> Yes, it does. But with DRM content protection it is not the system
> what makes the computer useless but the services or devices outside of
> the computer that would require a particular version of the system. I
> do not see how you c
On 30/12/2008, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 11:51:05 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
>
> > And how is the computer ever going to not allow sending the photo?
>
>
> For example because the camera is a test version where you have to pay to
> unlock the photo-sharing feature.
Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 13:21:21 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
> On 30/12/2008, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 11:51:05 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
> > > And how is the computer ever going to not allow sending the photo?
> >
> > For example because the camera is a test
On 30/12/2008, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 12:43:45 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
>
> > Yes, it does. But with DRM content protection it is not the system
> > what makes the computer useless but the services or devices outside of
> > the computer that would require a p
On 30/12/2008, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 12:10:39 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
>
> > The underlying interface the two binaries use is different. However,
> > they both show a window on my screen and access the same Documents
> > folder for opening and saving files.
On 30/12/2008, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 13:21:21 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
>
> > On 30/12/2008, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 11:51:05 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
> > > > And how is the computer ever going to not allow sending the
Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 14:10:28 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
> Yes, it might. It might generally create encrypted blobs usable only
> in non-free environment.
>
> The choices taken during the design of the system running on your
> computer have nothing to do with it.
Yes they have, because with
Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 14:04:52 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
> You need a special hardware to verify the integrity of the system, and
> I can imagine that in a modular system the hardware driver might work
> without modifications to the system - think one of the initial
> servers loaded with the
On 30/12/2008, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 14:10:28 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
>
> > Yes, it might. It might generally create encrypted blobs usable only
> > in non-free environment.
> >
> > The choices taken during the design of the system running on your
> > com
On 30/12/2008, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 14:04:52 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
>
> > You need a special hardware to verify the integrity of the system, and
> > I can imagine that in a modular system the hardware driver might work
> > without modifications to the sys
Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 16:48:53 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
> > Yes they have, because with a treacherous design, they can use my free
> > tools to create parts I can't access.
>
> Yes, and the tools required are memory protection and a hardware
> cryptography device both of which are present in
Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 16:55:33 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
> You can make the driver return any data you want. However, if the data
> it returns are checksums signed by the cryptography hardware vendor
> key then they are the real checksums of the bios, boot loader, and the
> system including t
On 30/12/2008, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 16:55:33 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
>
> > You can make the driver return any data you want. However, if the data
> > it returns are checksums signed by the cryptography hardware vendor
> > key then they are the real checksu
Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 17:23:58 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
> Yes, and then the application does not get the right keys to decrypt
> the data from the device. So the ability to lie (or be root) is
> irrelevant in this case given the protocol to obtain the keys is
> designed properly.
And that k
On 30/12/2008, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 17:23:58 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
>
> > Yes, and then the application does not get the right keys to decrypt
> > the data from the device. So the ability to lie (or be root) is
> > irrelevant in this case given the protoc
Am Dienstag 30 Dezember 2008 18:59:18 schrieb Michal Suchanek:
> So you would have to deny running anything less restrictive than GPLv3
> code on the system for the restriction to be enforceable and we are
> back to the GPLv3 only system which I find somewhat limited.
No, you are turning words aro
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 05:23:45PM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> What do you mean by "designed for treachery" here?
>
> A particular feature is not treacherous by itself. What we are
> speaking about here is memory protection. Is that treacherous?
Not every kind of memory protection -- bu
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:10:39PM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 27/12/2008, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net
> wrote:
> > The user session is obviously not the parent of all processes --
> > that just wouldn't work in a multi-user system. But all processes
> > *of the same user* are descenda
23 matches
Mail list logo
