[happymellon]

The Americans decided that copywrite wasn't enough so implemented legislation to prevent reverse engineering bypassing IP for "security" reasons.

So they have this interesting little dance they have to do around reverse engineering on whether a software lock constitutes DRM that you are hacking and if that DRM is fit for purpose. Because terrible DRM that is trivial isn't actually DRM.

It gets complicated as a lot of it ends up being ultimately subjective.

In this scenario, is using firmware that you know has not been signed by Nvidia, on a system that you know shouldn't run it unless it has been signed breaking DRM? And is the firmware signing DRM?

[EMIRELADERO]

DRM applies only to copyrighted works. The functional aspects of a GPU (what actually makes it work and enables you to use it) are not copyrighted, in the same way that a machine's mechanisms aren't (patents might still exist)

[happymellon]

Wasn't Tivoisation about DRM preventing you from using a different Linux kernel.

I didn't think that DRM applied only to copywritten works. I don't mind being wrong, but if you could expand on what exactly was wrong and what is the actual situation as I am only saying what I understand to be the situation.

[EMIRELADERO]

What I meant with DRM was "legallity of breaking it".

If a technological measure that controls access to hardware has no connection to copyright, there's no legal concern about litigation or bad precedent being set.