*countable infinities only
awilliam at redhat.com
Mon Jun 18 21:25:20 UTC 2012
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 17:04 -0400, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:21:40 +0200, you wrote:
> >Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> >> I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
> >> but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an incorrect
> >> That premise is to assume that there is a God-given right for
> >> people who own computing devices to retrofit alternative operating
> >> systems onto those devices.
> >> I want to put it out there that this is _not true_
> >it is true
> >i buy a computer
> >i do not rent it
> >i pay money, i own teh device after giving my money
> Many things you buy come with restrictions on ownership.
> If you buy a car, you accept that there are restrictions on it. You
> cannot drive it anywhere you want, you must obey certain rules when
> operating it, you are forbidden from making certain modifications to
> it, etc.
> You buy a house, and you can't do anything you want. You must
> following building codes, community bylaws, HOH/condo rules, etc.
> A computer is nothing different. If it has limitations when you buy
> it, your are implicitely accepting those limitations when you complete
> the transaction. In some cases you may be able to get around those
> limitations, but it is not a right to be able to.
I don't think that's a terribly good analogy. In the examples you cite,
you buy the item from one party and the restrictions on its use are
imposed by another party (the government). They aren't imposed for the
convenience of the business that sold you the item, but for the general
good of society.
And we're still down the side alley of whether one should be _legally
allowed_ to use a device for arbitrary purposes, which _still_ isn't
really what's at issue in the case of Secure Boot.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
More information about the devel