On Jun 19, 2007, Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Let's just hope it never is, or that some influx of
>> >> long-sighted comes in
>>
>> > Kernel programmers are short-sighted? What kind of arrogance is that?
>>
>> It's just stating the obvious. The upgrade path is a nightmare
Am Dienstag 19 Juni 2007 20:32 schrieb Alexandre Oliva:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Am Dienstag 19 Juni 2007 04:46 schrieb Alexandre Oliva:
> >> The distrust for the FSF led to this very short-sighted decision of
> >> painting the Linux community into a cor
Am Dienstag 19 Juni 2007 13:50 schrieb Michael Poole:
> Hans-Jürgen Koch writes:
>
> > No. Credible licenses should be simple like physical laws. Newton's law
> > is expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. That's why it's
> > still valid, and you still learn it at school although mea
On Jun 19, 2007, Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Dienstag 19 Juni 2007 04:46 schrieb Alexandre Oliva:
>> The distrust for the FSF led to this very short-sighted decision of
>> painting the Linux community into a corner from which it is very
>> unlikely to be able to ever leave, no
Hans-Jürgen Koch writes:
> No. Credible licenses should be simple like physical laws. Newton's law
> is expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. That's why it's
> still valid, and you still learn it at school although meanwhile people
> know that there are limitations to it.
>
> If yo
Am Dienstag 19 Juni 2007 04:46 schrieb Alexandre Oliva:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Am Montag 18 Juni 2007 23:18 schrieb Alexandre Oliva:
> >> On Jun 18, 2007, Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Vendor would be entitled to the benefit
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:10:02 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I haven't looked at it, in depth, today but one of the problems I
> > saw was the apparent loopholes in the text. No specifics, but I
> > remember thinking "a lawyer would have
On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I haven't looked at it, in depth, today but one of the problems I
> saw was the apparent loopholes in the text. No specifics, but I
> remember thinking "a lawyer would have a field day with this -
> dozens of ways they could sidestep th
On Monday 18 June 2007 22:57:20 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 18 June 2007 17:31:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> And if you look at GPLv3dd1 or dd2 IIRC, that's how it started. For
> >> some reason, the FSF turned it into the more
On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 17:31:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> And if you look at GPLv3dd1 or dd2 IIRC, that's how it started. For
>> some reason, the FSF turned it into the more lax (in some senses)
>> installation information for user pro
On Jun 18, 2007, Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Montag 18 Juni 2007 23:18 schrieb Alexandre Oliva:
>> On Jun 18, 2007, Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Vendor would be entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to the
>> >> motivations in this case, so it would
On Monday 18 June 2007 17:31:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 18 June 2007 15:09:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Yes. Anyone feels like enforcing the GPLv2 in Brazil?
> >
> > I don't know if I have the right. None of the code is m
Am Montag 18 Juni 2007 23:18 schrieb Alexandre Oliva:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Vendor would be entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to the
> >> motivations in this case, so it would likely be unenforceable anyway.
>
> > Right. If GPL v3 comes out, t
On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 15:09:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Yes. Anyone feels like enforcing the GPLv2 in Brazil?
> I don't know if I have the right. None of the code is mine
It would have to be some major copyright holder of core Lin
On Jun 18, 2007, Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Vendor would be entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to the
>> motivations in this case, so it would likely be unenforceable anyway.
> Right. If GPL v3 comes out, there'll probably be a new task for
> hardware development engineer
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 Monday 18 June 2007 15:09:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 19:11:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Let me start with an example: I bought a wireless router some time
> >> ago, and it had a GNU+Linux distribution insta
Am Montag 18 Juni 2007 20:55 schrieb Alexandre Oliva:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So, if a manufacturer used a ROM instead of a flash memory with the
> > intention to make software modifications impossible, then it is bad,
> > and when he did it for economi
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 17 June 2007 19:11:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Let me start with an example: I bought a wireless router some time
>> ago, and it had a GNU+Linux distribution installed in it. No source
>> code or written offer for source co
On Jun 18, 2007, Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, if a manufacturer used a ROM instead of a flash memory with the
> intention to make software modifications impossible, then it is bad,
> and when he did it for economical reasons, then it is a "natural barrier"?
This sounds about
Am Montag 18 Juni 2007 02:56 schrieb Alexandre Oliva:
>
> Anyhow, AFAIK software in ROM is not non-Free Software. That it's
> impossible to modify/replace/whathaveyou it is not the result of a
> restriction that someone is imposing on you.
>
> It's the difference between "you can't fly because
On Sunday 17 June 2007 19:11:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > That accurately describes the FCC wireless rules.
> >>
> >> AFAIK the FCC mandates not permitting the user to tinker. It doesn't
> >> mandate the vendor to retain this ability to it
On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In practical terms it does since a recall/replacement in the event of
>> > rule changes is a bit impractical
>>
>> Indeed. But that's not a legal requirement, it's an economic reason.
> Cynical Economists would argue 'legal requirements'
> > In practical terms it does since a recall/replacement in the event of
> > rule changes is a bit impractical
>
> Indeed. But that's not a legal requirement, it's an economic reason.
Cynical Economists would argue 'legal requirements' are just changes to
the cost of the various economic option
On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > That accurately describes the FCC wireless rules.
>>
>> AFAIK the FCC mandates not permitting the user to tinker. It doesn't
>> mandate the vendor to retain this ability to itself.
> In practical terms it does since a recall/replacement
25 matches
Mail list logo
