On Monday 02 Jun 2008, PJ wrote: > [snip] > I think it is a GPL violation since a decent coder can't figure out > how to modify the disputed code that is distributed with the kernel, > unlike the original coder. So there is no way you can say it is a > preferred form of source in the GPL sense for the developer the code > was distributed to.
Some people (including me) are neutral to code that doesn't run on their primary processor. For instance, I'd complain if you gave me a non-free driver for my WiFi card, but I wouldn't if you gave me a free driver that downloads a binary blob to the card itself. The blob isn't running on my CPU, so I'm less antagonistic to it being non-free. Just a different point of view to the issue... Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
