On Jun 16, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>
>> > Whether it's a legal requirement or a business decision, the result is >> > the same - neither forcing the manufacturer to make the device >> > non-updatable nor forcing the manufacturer to use different software >> > benefits anyone. >> >> I agree. But that's an incomplete picture. >> >> It's the other part of the picture, that you left out twice, that is >> the case that is good for the users *and* for the community. > --- > I don't think I "left it out". The point is that if the manufacturer > is unwilling to give the right to modify, no change in the language is > going to cause the user to have that right. If the alternatives are worse for the manufacturer than letting the user have it, then it will have the intended effects. In the other cases, it won't make much of a difference for anyone else. The question is: how does tivoization help the community (under the tit-for-tat reasoning)? Does it help more than anti-tivoization? -- 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/
