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.