On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Faulty logic. The hardware doesn't *restrict* you from *MODIFYING*
> any fscking thing.
Ok, lemme try again:
case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes
the hardware won't let him use the result of his efforts, and gives up
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:45:07 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Where's the payback, or the payforward?
>>
>> And then, tit-for-tat is about equivalent retaliation, an eye for an
>> eye. Where's the retaliation here?
>>
>> If GPLv2 were tit-for-tat, if someone invents artifices to prevent the
>> user from making the changes the user wants on the software, wouldn't
>> it be "equivalent retaliation" to prevent the perpetrator from making
>> the changes it wants on the software?
--
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]