On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> that's exactly what the GPLv3 does: it creatively defines the
> hardware's key into the 'source code' of the software and then asks
> for that to be provided _not_ because somehow the key derives from
> the software
Dude, you're 3 drafts behind. And some people already read GPLv2 like
that.
> (it clearly does not), but as a "compensation" for the right to
> redistribute! I.e. it's trying to extend its scope to some item that
> is not part of the software. See?
The "compensation" is and has always been "respecting others'
freedoms". If the key is used to disrespect others freedoms, as it is
by TiVO, then TiVO is failing to keep its part in the deal.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
