On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 18:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 06/08/2012 05:42 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> And - though it pains me that this next thought might actually be
> unpopular, though closer investigation might reveal that I'm giving the
> feature too much credit, and without considering or conceding whether
> such a machine would be non-free - I'm pretty sure I am willing to
> sacrifice a minor technical point of software freedom for real gains in
> human freedom.
I suppose I don't know what minor technical point of software freedom
you're talking about. I presume it's not the freedom to change a
program so it does your computing as you wish, which is scarcely a
minor anything.
It's more like "is building or supporting a machine with this kind of
lockdown intrinsically non-free". At least, that's an objection I've
heard, from people trying to equate SB with DRM or the DMCA, which is a
bit fallacious, or from the "Microsoft is involved so it must be bad"
crowd. SB's just a technology, I believe positive use can be made of
it, and DFSG 6 cuts both ways.
I didn't intend to make it sound like you were advocating that kind of
objection, I apologize if I put words in your mouth there.
- ajax