On Jun 19, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Why is the fact that only the root user can load a kernel module not a
>> > further restriction?
>> Because the user (under whose control the computer is, be it perso
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Dispute this:
non-tivoized hardware => users can scratch their itches => more
contributions from these users
tivoized hardware => users can't scratch their itches => fewer
contributions from these users
Linus doesn't have to. Statistically the numb
On Jun 19, 2007, Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-06-18 21:50:12, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Given the ROM exception in GPLv3, I guess you could seal and
>> anti-tamper it as much as you want, and leave the ROM at such a place
>> in which it's easily replaceable but with signature
Le mardi 19 juin 2007 à 10:50 -0700, David Schwartz a écrit :
> > > The GPL was never about allowing you to load modified software
> > > onto hardware
> > > where the legitimate creators/owners of that hardware say, "no,
> > > you may not
> > > modify the software running on this hardware".
>
> >
On Jun 19, 2007, Johannes Stezenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Where "free loaders" is a term introduced by Alexandre, not by me.)
It's actually from game theory. Or something sufficiently mangled by
translation back and forth between English and Portuguese. I think
the original is actually
> > The GPL was never about allowing you to load modified software
> > onto hardware
> > where the legitimate creators/owners of that hardware say, "no,
> > you may not
> > modify the software running on this hardware".
> Good try but you had to add creators there so the sentence actually
> suppo
> On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why is the fact that only the root user can load a kernel module not a
> > further restriction?
> Because the user (under whose control the computer is, be it person or
> company) set up the root password herself?
Well, duh. TiV
On Jun 19, 2007, "Pekka Enberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Alexandre,
> On 6/19/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dispute this:
>>
>> non-tivoized hardware => users can scratch their itches => more
>> contributions from these users
>>
>> tivoized hardware => users can't scra
On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 04:04:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> So your claim is that a user's possibility to scratch her own itches
>> makes no difference whatsoever as to their amount of contributions she
>> is likely to make?
> Exactly.
On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 04:04:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> GPLv3 forbids tivoization, therefore developer has
> Well, it is not Tivo alone -- look at http://aminocom.com/ for an
> example. If you want the kernel sources pay USD 50k and we will provide
> the kernel sources, was their attitude.
GPLv2 deals with that case, and they can (and should) be sued for it
[except that US copyright law is designed for
> The GPL was never about allowing you to load modified software onto hardware
> where the legitimate creators/owners of that hardware say, "no, you may not
> modify the software running on this hardware".
Good try but you had to add creators there so the sentence actually
supported your opinion.
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> Well much as I don't like what Tivo did with only allowing signed
> kernels to run, I don't see anything in the above that says they can't
Well, it is not Tivo alone -- look at http://aminocom.com/ for an
example. If you want the kernel sources pay USD 50k and we will pr
Hi Alexandre,
On 6/19/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dispute this:
non-tivoized hardware => users can scratch their itches => more
contributions from these users
tivoized hardware => users can't scratch their itches => fewer
contributions from these users
Maybe, but in what n
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007, Manu Abraham wrote:
>> Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>>
>>> I argue that if you keep the free loaders out, you miss
>>> the chance to communicate with and educate them.
>>> Communication across borders doesn't work well, and you create
>>> a border be
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007, Manu Abraham wrote:
> Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>
> > I argue that if you keep the free loaders out, you miss
> > the chance to communicate with and educate them.
> > Communication across borders doesn't work well, and you create
> > a border between the morally "good" and t
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> I argue that if you keep the free loaders out, you miss
> the chance to communicate with and educate them.
> Communication across borders doesn't work well, and you create
> a border between the morally "good" and the "bad".
>
> Of course you can't expect that every f
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Johannes Stezenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hm, you only talk about people who already use free software,
> > but I tried to make you aware of the importance of
> > _promoting_ free software, i.e. winning new people and
> > c
On 2007-06-18 21:50:12, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Given the ROM exception in GPLv3, I guess you could seal and
> anti-tamper it as much as you want, and leave the ROM at such a place
> in which it's easily replaceable but with signature checking and all
> such that the user doesn't install ROM that
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 04:04:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> GPLv3 forbids tivoization, therefore developer has requirement for
> >> tivoization in the license, therefore GPLv3
On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> GPLv3 forbids tivoization, therefore developer has requirement for
>> tivoization in the license, therefore GPLv3 forbidding tivoization
>> is bad.
> However, my argument is st
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 01:51:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 19, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers.
On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 01:51:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers.
>> >
>> > The GPLv2 is the one that is acceptable to more peopl
> > But you're not the user of the software on my laptop. I am.
>
> ahh, but by your own argument you aren't
>
> the software on your laptop is owned by people like Linus, Al Viro, David
> M, Alan Cox, etc.
More accurately according to the GPL v2 theory Linus advanced the laptop
you paid is a
On Jun 18, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I.e. the phrase about similar spirit should be replaced with
> something far more explicit and very, very hard to miss.
This is a very good idea. Would you please file it at
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments?
> I don't think you need more proof
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 01:51:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers.
> >
> > The GPLv2 is the one that is acceptable to more people.
>
> Based on my understanding that the anti-tivoization provisio
On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realise that the latest GPLv3 draft would not pose restrictions
> here, as such devices would not be classified as consumer
> products.
And even if they were, there's always ROM.
I don't know whether hardware seals that state "once you
On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually you are in error here. You are saying "More home users == More
> Developers" when the ratio of home users to developers isn't all that high.
> (small set of facts: "Hacker" == "Developer" (in most cases, where the term,
> as
On Jun 19, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers.
> The GPLv2 is the one that is acceptable to more people.
Based on my understanding that the anti-tivoization provisions are
*the* objectionable issue about GPLv3 for those of you who
On Jun 18, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really, Tivo could simply sell you a box without any installed
> software.
Yes.
> The actual software is mailed to you on a credit card sized
> ROM when you activate service.
If that's a separate transaction, then yes, I believe it wo
On Jun 18, 2007, "Kevin Bowling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Legitimate laws and practices require that certain devices not be
> modified by end users. Therefore TiVo fails and contributions
> cease.
I've never denied this possibility.
But how about all the other devices that are being tivoize
On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is the fact that only the root user can load a kernel module not a
> further restriction?
Because the user (under whose control the computer is, be it person or
company) set up the root password herself?
>> > The GPL was never, u
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 23:21 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Let's take a certain class of medical devices into account: ones that
> are absolutely definitely for medical treatment, but are not life
> threatening if they fail.
>
> Say, a dental treatment device -- if the device produces a crown or
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:46:44PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I have actual *numbers* on my side. What do you have, except for a
> history of not actually understanding my arguments?
Why do I suddenly have an image of Palin as Ximenez doing the answer?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: se
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > "More Developers" (either "Free Software" or "Open Source") == "More
> > Contributions"
>
> No, seriously. Linus is disputing the equation above, dismissing my
> various attempts to show it to him, whenever it appears in teh context
> of tivoiz
Let's take a certain class of medical devices into account: ones that
are absolutely definitely for medical treatment, but are not life
threatening if they fail.
Say, a dental treatment device -- if the device produces a crown or
bridge that doesn't fit properly, the dentist says "nope" and th
On Monday 18 June 2007 22:06:57 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 18 June 2007 19:31:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, just think of how many times you've hea
David Schwartz writes:
>> David Schwartz writes:
>
>> >> First, end users buy and use the hardware in question. It does not
>> >> belong to Tivo, so the analogy to his laptop fails there.
>
>> > No, this is incorrect. They buy *some* of the rights to the
>> > hardware but not
>> > all of them. Sp
On Jun 18, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>>> But since the software is good, and moving to another software
>>> would be costly in various dimentions, the vendor has an incentive
>>> to stick with the software they have.
> but if regulations or o
On Jun 18, 2007, Johannes Stezenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> People talk a lot about TiVo here, but do they the faintest idea of
>> how the conversations with TiVo are proceeding? I thought so...
> Oh, if you know something we don't, could yo
> This is a very limited reading of the GPL that leaves out one of its
> most important provisions: the bit about "no further restrictions".
Why is the fact that only the root user can load a kernel module not a
further restriction? Simple -- anyone who is bothered by that restriction
can remove
> David Schwartz writes:
> >> First, end users buy and use the hardware in question. It does not
> >> belong to Tivo, so the analogy to his laptop fails there.
> > No, this is incorrect. They buy *some* of the rights to the
> > hardware but not
> > all of them. Specifically, they do not buy the
On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 19:31:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Actually, just think of how many times you've heard the argument "I
>> can't give you the source code for this driv
> The box could even be sold by third party vendors, I think they may even
> have started off that way, my old Series 1 had a big Philips logo on it.
> So now we make sure that this hardware refuses to boot any unsigned
> code, but it wasn't shipped containing GPLv3 software, so it's license
> ter
On Jun 18, 2007, Joshua David Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Open Source Definition
... derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, engineered to
reflect the Free Software definition ...
> wrote:
>> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
>> Yes, the GPL is conformant with
On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Any number of ways. For example, you probably don't connect the
>> > serial ports
>> > to a device I have access to.
>> But you're not the user of the software on my laptop. I am.
> Even when I get web pages from your web server?
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:31:30PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the GPLv3 world, we have already discussed in this thread how you can
> > follow the GPLv3 by making the TECHNICALLY INFERIOR choice of using a ROM
> > instead of u
On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> First, end users buy and use the hardware in question. It does not
>> belong to Tivo, so the analogy to his laptop fails there.
> No, this is incorrect. They buy *some* of the rights to the hardware but not
> all of them.
Wow, real
David Schwartz writes:
>> First, end users buy and use the hardware in question. It does not
>> belong to Tivo, so the analogy to his laptop fails there.
>
> No, this is incorrect. They buy *some* of the rights to the hardware but not
> all of them. Specifically, they do not buy the right to choo
On Jun 18, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ok, next question, could you do the same thing if you used a CD
> instead of a ROM?
Yes, I believe the very same reasoning applies.
> what makes a blob delivered via a network inherently different from
> the same blob delivered via a plugin ROM or CD?
On 6/18/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just want software back. I think it is *wrong* for me to ask for
> anything else. It's literally my personal "moral choice": I think the
> hardware manufacturers need to make
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:03:40PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> So you're arguing two sides of no argument at all.
Yeah, pretty much. I take back my arguments in the previous
couple of my posts up this thread. They don't actually hold
together! Sorry for wasting your time correct me.
Bron.
-
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> technically, it asks you to pass on (!= give back) access to the
> software (not to the hardware that contains it).
That "technically" is just another way of saying "if you look cross-eyed
at it, and don't look too closely".
> No. The reason, a
On Monday 18 June 2007 19:31:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > With the GPLv2, you need to give your software modifications back, but
> > the
> BZZT!
> > GPLv2 never *ever* makes any technical limit
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
People talk a lot about TiVo here, but do they the faintest idea of
how the conversations with TiVo are proceeding? I thought so...
Oh, if you know something we don't, could you please fill us in?
A
On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> 1. I asked you why GPLv2 is better, and you said it was because it
>> promoted giving back in kind.
> Where I explained that "in kind" was about *software*.
Yes, we'd already establish
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> People talk a lot about TiVo here, but do they the faintest idea of
> how the conversations with TiVo are proceeding? I thought so...
Oh, if you know something we don't, could you please fill us in?
And who was it who coined the "Tivoization" term
> the software on your laptop is owned by people like Linus, Al Viro, David
> M, Alan Cox, etc.
Not quite that simple. An easier way to think about this one is books.
You own the book but you don't own the right to reproduce the words
within. You can however boil the book, use it as bog roll or r
> First, end users buy and use the hardware in question. It does not
> belong to Tivo, so the analogy to his laptop fails there.
No, this is incorrect. They buy *some* of the rights to the hardware but not
all of them. Specifically, they do not buy the right to choose what software
runs on that
> > But you're not the user of the software on my laptop. I am.
> ahh, but by your own argument you aren't
Let's not confuse owner with user and let's not confuse ownership of
copyrights with ownership of particular copies.
> the software on your laptop is owned by people like Linus, Al Viro,
On 6/17/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everybody else just cares about the legal reasons.
> The "legal terms" is the only reason a license *exists*. That's what a
> license *is*, for crying out loud!
> If you don't care about the legal side, go and read the free software
> man
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:09:13PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Quite frankly, I don't *want* to attract develpers that are not
> technically "up to snuff". And if you think that making the technically
> worse decisions is the "rigth decision", then hey, you're clearly not in
> the same techn
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:56:24AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Can you please acknowledge that it doesn't, such that I can feel I've
> fulfilled my goal of dispelling the myth that the GPLv3 changes the
> spirit of the GPL?
No. I don't do metaphysics. This thread alone has shown that the
not
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 12:48:13PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > So, why would we want to waste our time filling out web forms after
> > > that?
> >
> > If you're adamantly favorable to permitting any form of Tivoization
> > whatsoever, don't bother.
>
> For the record, I completely feel that what
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 18, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 18, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
they want to prevent anyone from modifying the credit card machine to
store copies of all the card info locally.
I se
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> Sure, and you use the hardware to stop me from modifying the
> Linux on your
> laptop.
>>
Do I? How so?
>>
>>> Any number of ways. For ex
On Jun 18, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> they want to prevent anyone from modifying the credit card machine to
>>> store copies of all the card info locally.
>>
>> I see. Thanks for enlightening m
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> a) I don't personally feel like I have the "moral authority" to require
> hardware designers to give access to their hardware to me.
>
> I can tell them that I *like* open hardware more than closed hardware,
> but they designed the ha
> > Any number of ways. For example, you probably don't connect the
> > serial ports
> > to a device I have access to.
> But you're not the user of the software on my laptop. I am.
Even when I get web pages from your web server?
> > I'm sorry, who is "the user"? Who exactly is supposed to be
>
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure, and you use the hardware to stop me from modifying the
Linux on your
laptop.
Do I? How so?
Any number of ways. For example, you probably don't connect the serial ports
to a dev
On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Sure, and you use the hardware to stop me from modifying the
>> > Linux on your
>> > laptop.
>> Do I? How so?
> Any number of ways. For example, you probably don't connect the serial ports
> to a device I have access to.
But you
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> 1. I asked you why GPLv2 is better, and you said it was because it
> promoted giving back in kind.
Where I explained that "in kind" was about *software*.
> 2. I asked you what you didn't like about GPLv3, and you said it was
> Tivoization.
Right
On Sunday 17 June 2007 19:50:41 Alan Cox wrote:
> That's a nice definition but one I can see being sort of abusable
> depending how you read it. We head ever more into the disposable computer
> era where as a vendor putting the code on ROM is cheap and upgrades don't
> matter (throw it away get a n
On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
>>
>> > In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
>> > software) for certain properties. (The arg
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 18, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
they want to prevent anyone from modifying the credit card machine to
store copies of all the card info locally.
I see. Thanks for enlightening me.
you don't really answer this issue. since these boxes a
On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I care about one thing, and one thing only: I care that you respect my
> choice of license for the projects _I_ started. Nothing more.
I do. Really.
Once the issue about the spirit of the GPL is (hopefully) settled with
all concerned
> > Sure, and you use the hardware to stop me from modifying the
> > Linux on your
> > laptop.
> Do I? How so?
Any number of ways. For example, you probably don't connect the serial ports
to a device I have access to.
> >> You don't use the software in my laptop. The laptop is not yours.
> >>
> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
>
> > In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
> > software) for certain properties. (The argument being it must be
> > tamperproof to random end consumers).
>
>
> Ok, can I please rewrite my argument to:
>
> "The hardware manufacturer has built a custom BIOS and also written
> Linux kernel support for said BIOS. They have released the kernel
> drivers under GPL as required, but have not released the code to the
> BIOS, instead just releasing the interfac
On Jun 18, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> they want to prevent anyone from modifying the credit card machine to
> store copies of all the card info locally.
I see. Thanks for enlightening me.
> you don't really answer this issue. since these boxes are required to
> be sealed and physically an
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:20:39PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From the very _beginning_ of the v3 process the kernel developers
> > have showed their objection to that section of the license, and we
> > were told, to our face, with no unc
On Jun 18, 2007, "Dave Neuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Seriously, looking only at the downside of anti-tivoization (tivoizer
>> might turn us down), without even acknowledging that, should the
>> tivoizer change practice and respect us
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> We can agree to disagree as to our opinions, if you want.
That's all I ever asked for.
This whole thread started with me saying:
I see the smiley, but I hate it how the FSF thinks others are morons and
cannot read or think for themselves.
On Jun 18, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> do you realize that redhat uses checksums or signatures to check the
> validity of their CD's?
Yes. How does this stop the users from enjoying any of the freedoms?
> I seriously doubt if redhat tells you how to how to generate such a
> checksum/signat
On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >What Tivo did is *good* in my opinion!
>> > Can't you get that through your skull?
>> No. I disagree. We can agree to disagree on that.
> Sorry, no we cannot. You seem to not accep
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 18, 2007, Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:54:56 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
Not exactly laws, but pretty close:
Credit-card payment terminals are subject
On 6/18/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Seriously, looking only at the downside of anti-tivoization (tivoizer
might turn us down), without even acknowledging that, should the
tivoizer change practice and respect users' freedoms, you'd be able to
get far more contributions from all
On Jun 18, 2007, Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:54:56 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
> Not exactly laws, but pretty close:
> Credit-card payment terminals are subject to strict security
> certification, where it
On Jun 18, 2007, Johannes Stezenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think those two goals are somewhat conflicting. If you want to
> win people for free software, you need to make it easy for them
> to accept your ideas. However, in order to make it easy you have to
> make compromises wrt the four
Once upon a time, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>do you realize that redhat uses checksums or signatures to check the
>validity of their CD's?
>
>try to burn a redhat image with the -pad option which adds a chunk of 0's
>to the end of the image and try to boot it.
It'll boot and run just fine. The
do you realize that redhat uses checksums or signatures to check the
validity of their CD's?
try to burn a redhat image with the -pad option which adds a chunk of 0's
to the end of the image and try to boot it.
I seriously doubt if redhat tells you how to how to generate such a
checksum/sign
On Jun 18, 2007, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:56:24AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> If you want your opinions to stand a chance to make a difference, the
>> right place to provide them is gplv3.fsf.org/comments, and time is
>> running short.
> If you hone
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > What Tivo did is *good* in my opinion!
>
> > Can't you get that through your skull?
>
> No. I disagree. We can agree to disagree on that.
Sorry, no we cannot. You seem to not accept that "in my opinion".
That's not somethign we can disagre
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Serious, what's so hard to understand about:
>
> no tivoization => more users able to tinker their formerly-tivoized
> computers => more users make useful modifications => more
> contributions in kind
>
> ?
>
> Sure, there's a downside too:
On Monday 18 June 2007 04:49:56 Anders Larsen wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:54:56 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
>
> Not exactly laws, but pretty close:
>
> Credit-card payment terminals are subject to strict security
> certification, where it ha
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:56:24AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> If you want your opinions to stand a chance to make a difference, the
> right place to provide them is gplv3.fsf.org/comments, and time is
> running short.
If you honestly think that the "anti-tivo" clause in GPLv3 will be
remov
> IANAL but I think a second, probably fictional but not unrealistic scenario.
> A
> Linux-based in-car entertainment system. I believe there are laws in certain
> countries that require the front screens to be off when the car is in motion
> to prevent the driver from being distracted.
Yes -
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 00:05 +1000, Marek Wawrzyczny wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:49:56 Anders Larsen wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:54:56 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
> >
> > Not exactly laws, but pretty close:
> >
> > Credit-card payment
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:49:56 Anders Larsen wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:54:56 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
>
> Not exactly laws, but pretty close:
>
> Credit-card payment terminals are subject to strict security
> certification, where it has t
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:54:56 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
Not exactly laws, but pretty close:
Credit-card payment terminals are subject to strict security
certification, where it has to be ensured that
a) the user cannot tinker with the device
201 - 300 of 1070 matches
Mail list logo
