No, but thanks for consistently straw-manning my arguments.
I prefer clear rules that say, "You can unlock your bootloader and flash whatever you want to the device, but if you do we aren't going to fix your screw-up"
If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story. But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company. If it's not a mutually beneficial exchange of goods (money for a product) then it shouldn't take place. If you don't like the rules, you should buy from a different manufacturer.
> I prefer clear rules that say, "You can unlock your bootloader and flash whatever you want to the device, but if you do we aren't going to fix your screw-up"
Well, except that at least my point was about laws, and this is not a useful law. The question is not what rules you would like to see from manufacturers, but what meta-rules you would like to see from the government that define how manufacturers can make rules that apply to you.
> If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story.
Why should there be any difference between the two? If either of them is defective as delivered, why should it not always be the responsibility ot the manufacturer/seller to fix the problem, and why should it play any role whether I modified the product, be it in software or in hardware, as long as my modification is not the cause for the defect?
> But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company.
Well, except it isn't, because whatever is between me and the company is ultimately governed by the framework provided by laws, and thus enforced by the government. An agreement that cannot be enforced is ultimately worthless. So, the interesting question is: What rules should the government enforce and which should it make effectively worthless by not enforcing them?
