Quoting Chris Croughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
It seems to me that banning locks is itself anticompetitive behaviour.
It is anti-anti-competitive behaviour. A ban on bans would not lead to more bans. ;-)
If someone wants to make a locked PC, I simply won't buy it, I'll buy one which isn't locked.
They are *sold* unlocked. But Vista can activate the locks for you if you like.
As far as I have heard no one is passing a law that there must be locks on all computer hardware.
No such law is required. Intel and Microsoft have taken it on themselves to add
the locks.
If they did then businesses would see such a rise in costs that it would quickly kill the economy, because they gain by using 3rd-party software far more than they'd lose by not having locks.
Surely the existence of DRM would reduce costs to businesses as it would reduce
theft? ;-)
Having screws on the outside is not comparable to having the source of a program. The latter is equivalent to supplying the Haynes manual plus a full box of spare parts...
Having the source of the program is equivalent to owning the car. Not having the
source is equivalent to calling a taxi. - Rob. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
