On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 18:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 06/08/2012 05:42 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > And - though it pains me that this next thought might actually be > > unpopular, though closer investigation might reveal that I'm giving the > > feature too much credit, and without considering or conceding whether > > such a machine would be non-free - I'm pretty sure I am willing to > > sacrifice a minor technical point of software freedom for real gains in > > human freedom. > > I suppose I don't know what minor technical point of software freedom > you're talking about. I presume it's not the freedom to change a > program so it does your computing as you wish, which is scarcely a > minor anything. It's more like "is building or supporting a machine with this kind of lockdown intrinsically non-free". At least, that's an objection I've heard, from people trying to equate SB with DRM or the DMCA, which is a bit fallacious, or from the "Microsoft is involved so it must be bad" crowd. SB's just a technology, I believe positive use can be made of it, and DFSG 6 cuts both ways. I didn't intend to make it sound like you were advocating that kind of objection, I apologize if I put words in your mouth there. - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
