> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
quoted text
>
> >> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
>
> > In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
> > software) for certain properties. (The argument being it must be
> > tamperproof to random end consumers).
>
> But this is not tivoization.

quoted text
> Tivoization is a manufacturer using technical measures to prevent the
> user from tampering (*) with the device, *while* keeping the ability
> to tamper with it changes itself.

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?

quoted text
> (*) tampering brings in negative connotations that I'd rather avoid,
> but since that was the term you used, and the term "modifying" might
> bring in legal-based technicalities such as that replacing isn't
> modification, I just went with it.

quoted text
> So, given a proper definition, do you know any law that requires
> tivoization?

quoted text
> Taking it further, do you know whether any such law requires
> *worldwide* tivoization, as in, applying the restrictions in the law
> even outside its own jurisdiction?

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?

DS


-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/