was, Re: Changes at Red Hat confouding CentOS, is OT

[m.roth@xxxxxxxxx]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:00 PM,  <m.roth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> or don't you remember them deleting 1984?
>>>
>>> That wasn't censorship, it was correcting an error with appropriate
>>> refunds.  I don't think they are particularly evil or controlling,
>>> just very tempting.
>>
>> Yes, they were, They deleted it WITH NO NOTICE OR WARNING. Had they had
>> anything resembling conscience, *they* would have paid the royalties,
>> and eaten the difference.
>
> Where did you see something that suggested that would have been an
> option?  I thought it was dictated by the publisher holding the
> rights.   In any case, that goes with the concept of DRM controlled
> content, and while the device is somewhat oriented to their versions
> of things, from what I've seen it is not particularly restricted.

No, *I* suggested that option. Just now. Actually, I said it to folks
talking about it at the time it happened. Why would you *not* think that
was an option?

Further, the point is that they had remote control over devices they
allegedly *sold*, not rented, that allowed them to erase content without
the *owner's* consent.

If you really want to continue this conversation, please reply to me offlist.

        mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos