MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Did Tivo include an auto-upgrader which was used to remove some > functions from the machines, or am I thinking of another similar > product?
I'm not sure. But the important thing is that they could. > Why not call these things locked computers instead of giving Tivo this > interesting reward? I don't have a strong preference, but by including spyware, Tivo does hand us a nice example of what's wrong with not having control. > > [...] If manufacturers implement #1 and #2, but told each > > customer the (possibly unique) digital fingerprint and how the > > customer can include it in software, then there would be no problem. > > Customer or user or owner? Maybe I should move to owner, as Jason also suggested. I used "customer" to highlight that the person being screwed is also the person who is paying, so they should feel they deserve better treatment. > I feel it would be good balance to the piece if it mentions the > importance of allowing sysadmins to use strong cryptography to secure > their software on their own computers, and how GPLv3 won't hinder > that. Ok. I think I can add a paragraph on that. > IIRC, there are other licences which seem less careful about that. Other licences that fight tivoisation? Which ones? Thanks for the comments. -- Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3 http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \ GPLv3 and other work supported by http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ Fellowship: http://www.fsfe.org _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
