On 2007-06-19 20:23:00, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> If you take the Wikipedia definition of Tivoization, you'll see it's
> about copyleft software only, and no law mandates the use of copyleft
> software. There's no end to bad laws, but a law that mandated the use
> of copyleft (=> free) software and at the same time prohibited
> modifications by the user would be a very contradictory one.
You're absolutely right...
Nobody forces us to use Linux in the credit-card terminals I'm currently
working on; of course we could have selected a proprietary solution (and
we would be forced to, were the Linux kernel and/or certain crucial
libraries or utilities GPLv3 only).
Only, your statement above seems to run counter to your previous claims
that the "anti-tivoisation" provisions of GPLv3 would bring _more_
developers to copyleft software.
So which one is it?
Cheers
Anders
-
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]
