On 06/08/2012 06:37 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
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".
Well, that depends. Can you change the program (in this case, a kernel)
and run it, or not? It's not a difficult or obscure question.
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.
I'm not objecting, I'm just trying to find out what's up.
Andrew.