Mark Hounschell wrote:
Jinesh K J wrote:
On 10/18/06, Mark Hounschell <dmarkh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Momchil Velikov wrote:
Jakko Pastuchio wrote:
I must say that I support Tivo in that matter - they are protecting
their
hardware
It seems you're completely misunderstanding the situation. It is not
*their* hardware, it's *mine*.[1] As such, I certainly do not agree on
being restricted on the ways I use and abuse it.
~velco
It's only yours after you bought it. Until then, it's theirs. They
can, and
should, be able to do what ever they want to it 'while it's theirs' to
keep you
from doing anything they don't want you to do to it after it's yours.
Statement 1 : They can, and should, be able to do what ever they want
to it 'while it's theirs'
Statement 2 : to keep you from doing anything they don't want you to
do to it after it's yours
The above statements shows clearly how our freedom is taken away by
Tivoization.
Thanks mark :-)
I guess I left out one thing. You are, and should be, (via your freedom) able to
do what ever you want, 'or are your self capable of doing', to it after 'it is
yours'. So I don't see how your freedom is taken away.
It does not matter what you see and what you don't. As long as a
certain license, e.g. GPLv3, prevents certain behavior from
manufacturers, I'll support it. The concrete term, used to denote this
behavior is irrelevant. I call it "taking away freedom", you may oppose
and call it something else (maybe "protecting valuable company assets"
or "protecting customer from himself" or "BDSM" ?), but while this in
itself is a subject of an argument, it's a subject of a *different*
argument.
~velco
--
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
