Linux on older laptops

[Luke-Jr]

On Wednesday 04 January 2006 01:56, Hal Duston wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 04:39:08PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > On Tuesday 03 January 2006 07:55, Tom Bruno wrote:
> > > If I write something, and make a piece of hardware, am I not entitled
> > > to keep the details to myself?
> >
> > You can keep the details to yourself provided you do not distribute the
> > hardware.
>
> So you are in favor of compelled speech then.  E.g. if I manufacture a
> product, I should be compelled to publish certain information about it.  I
> am aware that other type of products are already subject to various forms
> of compelled speech, e.g. nutritional information on food products, but
> compelled speech for hardware seems a bit much.

The person who buys the hardware should be given information he needs to make 
any changes to it that he wants. My libertarian side recognizes that people 
shouldn't be *forced* to publish the info, but providing benefits (plagerism 
protection and/or percentage of all sales) only for those who do sounds good.

> > > How would it be immoral for me to not give away all the details of my
> > > creation?
> >
> > While not giving away all the details may be acceptable in itself
> > provided a moral reason, purposely hiding such details certainly would
> > not be since it is inhibiting others' rights to make modifications and
> > such.
>
> Others have the right to make modifications.  They do _not_ have the right
> to compel my assistance in said modifications.

But in selling only binaries instead of the program code, you are 
*obstructing* their right to make modifications. Providing source code is not 
assistance, but lack of obstruction.