[Mi 3 General] TinkoB:
My definition of freedom doesn't necessarily imply anarchy also freedom is just one value in a framework of other values, so I don't really see your point. Do you consider freedom a senseless topic just because there is no limitless degree of freedom? All values are weighted against other values, that doesn't make them meaningless.

It sounds plain and simple, yet the two statements seem completely disconnected to me. I pay for music and games as well, that doesn't imply that I support DRM. Precisely for the reason I stated, the large music stores have realized that it's a failed concept and started selling DRM-free music. I don't oppose DRM because I oppose paying for stuff, I oppose it because I demand freedom in the way I use my computer and the stuff I buy, >plain and simple< (if you compare our arguments, note that there actually is a direct connection between DRM and restrictions on using the stuff you buy, while the whole existence of current ITunes, Amazone Music, etc. proof that you can pay for music without supporting DRM, in fact it's harder to find shops that sell DRM-afflicted music atm).

Yeah, I'm a developer as well and I want to further the cause of free software, that's something I'd like to teach to other developers. Luckily I'm not alone with this message.

Those who come to this board do so precisely because they want to mess with their device. Why limit them again?

Exactly. That's the reason I went to the OS that's build on free software.

App developers are free to lockdown their own apps. I take issue when my OS starts to get locked down. I consider developers who distribute a locked down OS immoral, even when they do it for free. This discussion might be outside the scope of this thread, though, so feel free to check out some Richard Stallman talk for the argument.

Also you don't really seem to understand my point. I'm not interested in ripping of developers. I won't download additional closed source apps anyway, they can keep them. I just want to know whether my OS restricts my freedoms, because in that case I have to fix it or chose another one.

This argument is analogous to saying that only terrorists are interested in privacy from the security agencies.

It won't fulfill this purpose.

Congratulations for starting to disable powerful additions to phones.

This might be the only thing we agree on. I hope for your own sake, that you'll see the value of free software one day.

As for this little DRM project you're endorsing, it can't stop any crack developer so far, and it's inability to do so will only decrease as it infringes more and more on the rights of the users and locks down the OS and as the resistance against it will form. As cracks will start to be concealed better the DRM software will have to break concealment without knowing in advance whether the concealed program is crack software or not. Once again, DRM is a failed concept. The idea that you can only have paying users by putting them on a leash is a failed concept as well. You'll realize that either when the specific DRM project fails or when the ROMs that endorse it will be replaced by the ROMs that respect their users. I can't believe how anyone can hope to succeed with DRM and an audience that already tinkers with their device, when DRM failed spectacularly in the music industry and in stopping piracy in the classic PC world, both of which cater to the general public. And even if it was effective it would still be morally wrong to take control of their devices away from the user.

TL;DR: Supporting DRM is immoral, independent of that, DRM will fail anyway, especially with the target audience of aftermarket firmware.