-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > The program can check the type of its bank, and possibly decline > to run. >
Just a minor detail, but I believe it cannot. Because if it runs on a transparent bank, the test could have been forged. > The decision to enforce bank translucency is a technical means for > achieving a policy objective. I am trying to understand what the policy > objective is. Do we really intend to deprive the user of the choice to > accept DRM? I personally believe we do not. I'd like to encourage everyone to consider this. It sounds like a viable compromise - -- - -ness- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEccL2vD/ijq9JWhsRAjTxAJ40hUj4caZbfdeiI3oNEuZkjMrE5QCeJaHi cNRKiDTUGYFuOe834BBcWY8= =kYf3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
