Adrian,
I can *attest* to that 😉
Have a nice day
Medel
+++++*+++
Sent from my V6 Engine!
メデル ラミレズ
On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:10 AM, Stewart Bryant
<stewart(_dot_)bryant(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 09/03/2016 16:53, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Eliot,
Picking one piece out of your MUD...
I've floated an idea in draft-lear-mud-framework-00.txt which talks a
little about this. The idea is to learn what the Thing is and then have
its manufacturer communicate to a deployment how the thing is intended
to be used.
This approach worries me. While the manufacturer might not object to this,
the user and the system integrator should. The fact that a device was
manufactured for foo should not stop it being used for bar.
Adrian
Indeed, and too often manufactures already do this as part of their business
model.
A classic example is where performance is throttled, or features are enabled
only by
licence.
It is but a short step to application specific restriction, although if an
application has
third party IPR there can be a liability that rests with the manufacturer, in
which
case you can understand the concern.
As distasteful and frustrating as this is, restriction of application may be
an unfortunate necessity.
- Stewart
--
This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use
of the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify the sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.