From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 6 17:55:36 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3CB2106570B for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:55:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp6.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1:3cd3:cd67:fafa:3d78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174178FC19 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:55:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from seedling.black-earth.co.uk (seedling.black-earth.co.uk [81.187.76.163]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q56HtQI3086976 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:55:31 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.5.2 smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk q56HtQI3086976 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infracaninophile.co.uk; s=201001-infracaninophile; t=1339005331; bh=ykobowyYKIdkLpMKUKjKy5c7JowOXF0/NSAfYbcS3Hk=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: Message-ID:Mime-Version; b=d0t6Y1Gqf4IXDva/xZCaHReRyK8BcTGMboPRTVt2W+XPwv8sC7iippSOld2C1aj6Z AkwO0NIcOknU/EDRRnRCgnrijjBJOk7fcxpeM22iXuUQEGqV02WqYAn6wVMxTRtb0a GvCRhmx5f16lv/MdJ9IdJeqszGCmmO8ZOL2ykeGk= Message-ID: <4FCF9987.6080803@infracaninophile.co.uk> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:55:19 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120601 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Polytropon References: <20120605203717.5663bdf7.freebsd@edvax.de> <20120605181055.4af65fdb@scorpio> <4FCF0772.8000609@FreeBSD.org> <4FCF1891.9020006@cran.org.uk> <4FCF2521.6090006@FreeBSD.org> <20120606062437.41f48a9e@scorpio> <4FCF352F.7030509@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20120606182153.3cc2ee07.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20120606182153.3cc2ee07.freebsd@edvax.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 OpenPGP: id=60AE908C Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig7836851698F96C5397FBDF36" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.4 at lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_ALL,DKIM_SIGNED,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 17:55:36 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig7836851698F96C5397FBDF36 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 06/06/2012 17:21, Polytropon wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the >> point is why should I have to pay anything to a third party in order t= o >> run whatever OS I want on a piece of hardware I own? >=20 > Maybe a common marketing and sales model comes from software > to hardware too: You don't actually own the hardware! When > you give money to the manufacturer (maybe through vendors > or retailers), you receive hardware _plus_ a limited set > of rights which you may exercise on that hardware, maybe > for a limited time. By purchasing the hardware that way, > you may even have "implicitely signed" a kind of agreement > (cf. EULA) that you accept those "licensing of hardware". > You do _not_ own it in order to exercise your free will > on it, like "I have the right to wipe 'Windows' and install > something else", which might result in a loss of warranty. > You may only run what the manufacturer allows you to run > (by providing the proper boot mechanism for it that "just > works"). If the manufacturer may decide that you shouldn't > boot that system you bought anymore, he can retract the > permissions and the device you paid money for will be > rendered into a shiny brick. Sure, manufacturers can propose that if they wish -- and I guess a lot of mobile phone contracts are like that. However, I'd never touch server hardware under those sort of terms. Quite apart from such considerations as not letting disks that have held confidential data out of my control unless they have been securely destroyed -- would I be allowed to do that to a disk I didn't actually own? The idea that a third party could effectively hold a business to ransom by withdrawing permission to choose what operating system is run is completely unacceptable. No sane business would accept that. Also, I think you'll find that such actions are already illegal certainly in the UK, and I believe EU wide. > This _is_ possible, and as human nature teaches: Everything > that is possible _will_ be done, no matter if we recognize > it immediately or not. And the worst solution prevails, so > whatever we may assume about the future, the future will be > much worse. :-) Umm... corporations will always try it on, and politicians will always act in whatever way they think will work out best (and being on good terms with an important corporation that can also happen to pay for an overwhelmingly large lobbying effort does tend to make it seem like a no-brainer to our elected representatives). Corporations should be reminded that they are subject to exactly the same laws as everybody else, regardless of their wealth. Politicians should be reminded that their best interest is precisely the best interest of the people that vote them into office, and no one else. Or in other words, the worst will only happen if we let it. > Note that flats are a familiar example of this model. > You may live in the flat, but by paying a rent you don't > own it. What you may do is limited. No idea what the law is in Germany, but in the UK this applies to any property that you might buy of any type. You don't get ownership per-se, just various rights over the property, like residence and access. Should you find that your property contains, say, a large natural gas source, you won't get any return from it, as mineral rights are not part of the usual property deal. I own my flat, and I do pay ground rent. Officially one peppercorn per year, but I've never seen anyone angrily shaking an empty pepper pot at me in all the years I've been here. I also pay a service charge for maintaining the common areas, which could in theory get me evicted should I fail to pay it for a sufficiently long time, and so could be confused with rent -- but it really isn't. > Another valid interpretation of this problem is of course > "defective by design" and "planned obsolescense". The big advantage of the rental model of acquiring shiny toys is that once the shine has worn off, it's up to the leasing company to fulfil all the weee regulations and dispose of the dead kit. That's pretty expensive otherwise. Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW --------------enig7836851698F96C5397FBDF36 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk/PmY4ACgkQ8Mjk52CukIwqEwCggPyrAxiwZ3WH0TSKIhu+k/la GmgAnRxLGC0ojoQTKwKvB8U24NjDgI9S =mItk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig7836851698F96C5397FBDF36--