"Stéphane Rollandin" <hepta at zogotounga.net> wrote:
> Cees de Groot writes:
> 
>  > The problem with DRM inside your CPU is that your CPU will refuse to be part
>  > of a non-trusted computing base. Which will mean that it will not load a BIOS
>  > that hasn't got the right sig, the BIOS will not load a OS boot block that
>  > hasn't got the right sig, etcetera up to the application. So if you don't get
>  > Squeak signed by Micro$oft (or whoever will control the signing keys for
>  > Palladium), Squeak will simply refuse to run on your Windows platform.
>  > Similarly, Linux will not load, until you run the single copy of the kernel
>  > that has been Palladium-certified (which, in turn, will only run signed
>  > binaries, i.e. - no Squeak). 
>  > 
> 
> I don't get it. Do you mean that you could simply not program your own computer ? What's the
> difference between an external non-certified application and your own non-certified stuff ?
> Is Emacs going to be illegal because you can use it to program in Lisp ? 
> This does not make any sense. 


Isn't the situation is already like that for gaming consoles?  You are
very limited in how you can legally program them.  (Or at least, in what
you can do with a porgram once it's written.)  In fact, it seems
entirely consistent that standard desktop computers would become just
like consoles.  "office consoles", if you will.

Perhaps it will remain legal to make other forms of computers, but can
they be made as cheaply?  The masses won't care whether they can
reprogram their computer with uncertified stuff, any more than the
masses don't care that they cannot write and give away their own
Playstation game.


-Lex