31–40 of 114 posts
It seems stallman had the foresight to predict things like this in 1997. I think the days where one needs to be licensed to use a debugger might not be far away.
I think macOS already blocks the debugger. You couldn't debug iTunes last I checked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Repairing phones and installing custom ROMs are illegal in us/canada?
Under section 1201 of the Digital Millenium Copyright, it would be illegal to install a custom ROM or repair your phone without permission from the manufacturer. However, the Copyright office get to make official exceptions to the law and they made an exception for jailbreaking a phone. I'm not sure about repairing or installing custom ROMs. Those might fall into different categories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think the days where one needs to be licensed to use a debugger might not be far away. GNU/Linux and the BSDs have never before looked so essential to the survival of computing as we know it.
Yet, one of the main companies behind Linux is Microsoft and one of the main companies behind BSD is Apple. It's really hard not to have a negative outlook on both.
This is an example of "tivoization" and should be prevented by GPLv3
We need FOSS phones and a big enough company to implement the project and mass produce it to lower costs.
Also, even if it isn't a big success, the devs of those OS projects will have experience building a Linux environment for a smartphone. There'll be more documented knowledge of how to implement SMS, calling, powersaving, telephoning and the rest. So even if it sinks, we still stand to gain.
Is it really "your" smartphone if you are not allowed to modify it?
We need FOSS phones and a big enough company to implement the project and mass produce it to lower costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more about boiling the frog. Temper the initial outrage with exceptions, let people get used to the idea that repairs are wrong but it's sometime ok, then remove exceptions later. It's the same long game the inkjet printer people have been unfortunately winning for a while now.
Not that I view this comment with a cynical eye, rather with an inquisitive perspective, I would love to read more examples which started with an exception cause and ended up with a blanket rule enforcement.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/11/anti-terror_l...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That Norwegian decision is a travesty as presented here, how can a repair infringe on a trademark and how on Earth did that not lead to an appeal. Using aftermarket parts is a well established practice in automotive, I see absolutely no reason why that would not extend to phones. Are they going to demand cars are only repaired with OEM parts as well?
The practice in automotive is there due to historical legacy - it would never be allowed in modern world. If anything, the carmakers have started to prevent you from doing your own repairs by demanding their own proprietary software to pair car controller modules. That software is licensed only to dealers and trying to use it outside those licensed conditions is a DMCA violation. With BMW pioneering car microtransact…