> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <email@example.com> wrote:
You're splitting those hairs might finely. So when you ask whether there's
any law that "requirse tivoization", you won't accept a law that creates a
situation where the only practical solution is tivoization?
A law that requires certaint things be tamper-proof, where engineering
realities requires that they be controlled by software and the software be
upgradable (for security reasons and for support of future protocol
revisions) isn't good enough for you?