On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 12:13 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Plenty of businesses resell hardware devices with added services; > > That lowers the barrier, but we're still talking about people who've set up > a business, have done some product design, and who do support/shipping/etc.
I'm not sure what argument you're making - that the GPL can place extra burdens on commercial distributors simply because they're making a product? > > I would also disagree that maintaining a set of encryption keys for each > > customer > > Maybe that's not necessary. They could have two keys per chip - their > single master key, and the customer's individual key. So they don't have to > maintain per-customer keys. Well, I did say that it could be something you could work around in some other manner. At the end of the day, I don't think it makes that much difference, simply because so few people are actually using this type of lock-down for whatever reason. I just find it slightly worrying (in a, "I hope there aren't too many unintended consequences" type of way) that the GPL is legislating against a certain technical solution, rather than a more specific end result. Section 3 of the draft is a lot less worrisome, for example. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
