| Subject: | Re: Confinement (even with TPMs) and DRM are not mutually exclusive |
|---|---|
| From: | Eric Northup |
| Date: | Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:13:29 -0400 |
On Jun 7, 2006, at 5:48 AM, Bas Wijnen wrote: > Right. And there is nothing wrong with this in principle (except that > mechanism are needed in the system that I'd like to avoid, but > that's a choice > I make). Can you clarify: do you object to the mechanisms themselves, or to the use of these mechanisms to deny (human!) users freedom? -Eric _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list L4-hurd@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: RMLL / LSM 2006, Thomas Schwinge |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Confinement (even with TPMs) and DRM are not mutually exclusive, Bas Wijnen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Confinement (even with TPMs) and DRM are not mutually exclusive, Bas Wijnen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Confinement (even with TPMs) and DRM are not mutually exclusive, Bas Wijnen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |