On Jun 19, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I realise that the latest GPLv3 draft would not pose restrictions >>> here, as such devices would not be classified as consumer >>> products. >> >> And even if they were, there's always ROM. >> >> I don't know whether hardware seals that state "once you break this >> seal, law prohibits the use of this device with human patients".
> once you break the seal the device is no longer certified. an > uncertified device cannot be used. Yup. That's the law. At which point it's not the hardware vendor imposing the restriction, so this use is perfectly acceptable. One could presumably implement similar seals in software. Nothing wrong with a signature used to indicate that the device has been tampered with. Even a led somewhere that reflects this status. None of this prevents the user from enjoying the freedoms he's entitled to, according to the laws of the place where he lives. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
