> >You're asking why I think "can be flashed, but works just fine without > >being flashed" is different from "won't work without being loaded"? > > > >Fundamentally, the latter case forces us to not ignore it. The equipment > >won't work if we ignore the issue.
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can > pretend it's not there? Which part of the policy or SC justifies this > theory? So you say that I was talking about pretending? Which part of what I wrote justifies this interpretation? Thanks, -- Raul