Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Nov 2011 22:03 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Okay, I think we can all agree on the fact that while Microsoft's Surface machines might not be particularly useful for most of us, we all secretly want one, or something similar. Thanks to EXOPC, you'll now be able to: for $1299, you'll have a 40" multitouch interactive desk.
Thread beginning with comment 497951
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

Why not just use an OS you already have a license for or can legally obtain?

Because I like my freedom. I don't want to share my privacy with somebody that will sell it to whoever will pay for it, I don't want to have my data locked down by whatever obscure format they decide I should use, I don't want to be forced to pay for an upgrade and I want my hardware to be usable even after the vendor decides it's obsolete, etc...

As for the hardware, one may potentially invalidate the warrenty but that should only become illegal if you then defraud the company over a warrenty issue.

Why on earth would installing a different OS or modifying the hardware be illegal in and of itself?

Because that would probably involve some reverse engineering, breaking trade secrets and/or patents?

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I haven't any idea what you are on about with the first comment. You like freedom, you don't want to share privacy. What has that got to do with an alternative OS?

Your original post suggests that installing an alternative OS would be "illegall[y], of course".


This is awesome hardware. I wonder if it would be possible to install an alternative OS on this (illegally, of course)


Only if you chose to install an OS you did not have a license for but that is not an inherent situation, You would have to intentionally install a copyright infringing OS. I suggested using any OS you can legally obtain an license for.

If it's a retail OS and you buy the license then your legally installing it.

If it's a FOSS licensed OS and you remain within the very broad requiringments of the applicable open source license then you are legally installing it.

If you write your own OS because you can't abide by some kind of freedom or privacy imposition you seem to suggest in either of the first two options then you are the default license owner and therefore, are installing it legally.

So, I really don't understand what your on about with this suggestion that an OS would be "illegaly of course" or freedom/privacy/stanta-claus infringing.

In terms of the hardware; in more sane jourisdictions, reverse engineering is perfectly legal when required to produce a compatible product and/or overlooked for personal use. Don't make a business out of it; fair enough. Really, it should be a civil matter under contract law at most resulting in a voided warrenty and/or SLA. Illegal would suggest criminal law not civil law. (depending on jourisdiction still)

This "use of non-factory OS or hardware modification is criminal by default" mentality is complete idiocy.

Reply Parent Score: 2

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

I realize now my post was not clear and could be interpreted the way you did, sorry about that. I was just wondering if that would be possible to install free OS like GNU.
I agree with you it should be legal in any sane jurisdiction.Unfortunately, sane jurisdictions are hard to find these days. In the US, for instance, this would be illegal under the DCMA because it is an attempt to circumvent digital locks. That depends if there is any lock in the OS to start with, of course but I assume it is pretty standard these days.

Reply Parent Score: 2