At Tue, 23 May 2006 16:09:43 -0400, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I do not know enough about HIPAA (or similar laws) to say much about this, > > but > > you seem to be changing positions all the time. First it needs DRM, then it > > doesn't, and now it does again. > > Actually, I have been consistent all along that it requires > encapsulating constructors, and Marcus has been consistent in declaring > that encapsulating constructors are DRM.
That's not how I understood you. You said that it is "reasonable diligence" that would force implementors to choose a DRM solution over a non-DRM solution. That however is a step of judgement, which narrowly looks at protection, and not at other requirements (like access). Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
