Suppose (bear with me) the builder's business model was to mass- produce 4 bedroom houses, but offer a cheaper '3 bedroom' one with the
4th bedromm locked behind a $2 padlock. Suppose Mike figures this out, and tells the world 'Hey, if you need a 4 bedroom house, just buy the 3 bedroom one from Jones Brothers, move the supplied wardrobe out of the way, cut the lock and you have an extra bedroom'. Families needing 4 bedroom houses read this advice and do so, meaning they spend less money on the house then they would otherwise. This deprives Jones Brothers of income they'd otherwise recieve. Jones Brothers has to cut costs, and their children go hungry.Who, if anyone, do you think is in the wrong in the above story?
I'm not denying it might cost Rigol some cash, but I fail to see what the crime was.
Personally I don't see it as morally wrong in the least. And I'm sorry to inform you John, but if I owned one of your devices and figured out how to enable an extra feature I needed for free (as long as it wasn't by downloading some hacked firmware, which would be a copyright violation) I'd do so and still sleep at night. Because when I did so, I'd be modifying _my_ box of tricks. You stopped owning the physical item when you sold it to me. If it's a real concern, ask the customer to sign an agreement not to modify the product.
Cheers,
Al