Adrian, I can *attest* to that 😉 Have a nice day Medel +++++*+++ Sent from my V6 Engine! メデル ラミレズ > On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:10 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 09/03/2016 16:53, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> Eliot, >> >> Picking one piece out of your MUD... >> >>> I've floated an idea in draft-lear-mud-framework-00.txt which talks a >>> little about this. The idea is to learn what the Thing is and then have >>> its manufacturer communicate to a deployment how the thing is intended >>> to be used. >> This approach worries me. While the manufacturer might not object to this, the user and the system integrator should. The fact that a device was manufactured for foo should not stop it being used for bar. >> >> Adrian >> > > Indeed, and too often manufactures already do this as part of their business model. > > A classic example is where performance is throttled, or features are enabled only by > licence. > > It is but a short step to application specific restriction, although if an application has > third party IPR there can be a liability that rests with the manufacturer, in which > case you can understand the concern. > > As distasteful and frustrating as this is, restriction of application may be an unfortunate necessity. > > - Stewart > > -- This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.