Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Polytropon freebsd at
Wed Jun 6 16:22:01 UTC 2012

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the
> point is why should I have to pay anything to a third party in order to
> run whatever OS I want on a piece of hardware I own?

Maybe a common marketing and sales model comes from software
to hardware too: You don't actually own the hardware! When
you give money to the manufacturer (maybe through vendors
or retailers), you receive hardware _plus_ a limited set
of rights which you may exercise on that hardware, maybe
for a limited time. By purchasing the hardware that way,
you may even have "implicitely signed" a kind of agreement
(cf. EULA) that you accept those "licensing of hardware".
You do _not_ own it in order to exercise your free will
on it, like "I have the right to wipe 'Windows' and install
something else", which might result in a loss of warranty.
You may only run what the manufacturer allows you to run
(by providing the proper boot mechanism for it that "just
works"). If the manufacturer may decide that you shouldn't
boot that system you bought anymore, he can retract the
permissions and the device you paid money for will be
rendered into a shiny brick.

This _is_ possible, and as human nature teaches: Everything
that is possible _will_ be done, no matter if we recognize
it immediately or not. And the worst solution prevails, so
whatever we may assume about the future, the future will be
much worse. :-)

Note that flats are a familiar example of this model.
You may live in the flat, but by paying a rent you don't
own it. What you may do is limited.

Another valid interpretation of this problem is of course
"defective by design" and "planned obsolescense".

Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list