On 06/19/2012 04:50 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > I wrote: > >> I would claim that the moral right to run whatever software we wish on >> hardware we own is a negative right; it doesn't put any obligation on >> another party to help you do it. If you can hack up Fedora to run on a >> Nokia Windows phone, more power to you, but Nokia and Microsoft aren't >> obligated to help you do it, and aren't legally prohibited from doing >> things that make it difficult for you to exercise your moral right. > > Andrew Haley wrote: >> I think I'd disagree with you there. I don't think it's any different >> from someone using extensive technical measures to prevent anyone >> other than the authorized dealers of a particular car from servicing >> it. Such a move would be treated as anti-competitive in many >> countries, and IMO software should be treated in the same way. > > If the things that make it difficult to run software of your choosing on > a device can be proven to serve no purpose but to stifle competition, > then yes. But often those things have other purposes as well. For > example, requiring firmware updates to be signed has a demonstrable > purpose in preventing certain types of malware from infecting a product, > so that feature cannot be said to serve no purpose other but to stifle > competition. That's true, but couldn't you argue something similar thing for a car? As in, "Unauthorized shops may install inferior copied parts." We've all heard this kind of thing before, and treat it with the contempt it deserves. Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
