<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Jon Pruente <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jdpruente@gmail.com">jdpruente@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Wait, what? I'm pretty sure it started with Leo mentioning a desire<br>
to give an HP printer away to one, but could not find drivers to use<br>
on their old P2 running Win98...<br></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>The original post from Oren Beck:</div><div><br></div>"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; ">There seems to me an ethics issue developing . One possibly directed<br>
at establishing the "pattern of crime" RE: EOL software/hardware<br>support.<br><br>I can see a company ethically having legit EOL policy protecting them<br>from liability. Example in my past was devices having consumable<br>
safety parts with "expiry risk" factors. If a seal fails causing<br>ammonia leakage it's potentially deadly.<br>That was on Micrographics gear arguably a "Printing" support device.<br>SO the software running on a pc/xt simply disabled the hardware-<br>
absent codes from the company. Precedent thus set for EOL<br>"disablement" in safety interlock software.<br>That shows what a valid EOL disablement scenario is and was all about.<br><br>The effective disablement of printers attached to unsupported software<br>
is NOT the comparable situation at all.<br>Yes, allegedly if you kept your own software archives, it would be a<br>non issue. The looming crash comes with XP style "activation" of<br>nonfree software and DRM locked information. Here the will they ? Vs<br>
what "Already has" discussion begins.<br><br>I see the golden window for Free and Open Source software to declare<br>an ethical high road."</span><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Chris<br><br><br><br>
</div>