libc's internal data structures. I.e., this probably
has nothing to do with GCC or the kernel.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{ls
more along the lines of `hey,
this allegedly-GPLed driver contains a piece of binary firmware whose
source code is not there, could we either replace it with actual GPLed
code or remove the driver?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL P
On Feb 9, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:06:02AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into
>> granting you power over not only the BK history
> It's exactly the same a
t piece of software that you could use
yourself to create and maintain the CVS tree, without having to
develop and maintain the software, and insist on developing such
software yourself, but only if someone else pays for it?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat C
On Feb 11, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:30:22PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > Can you offer any plausible explanation other than a good faith desire
>> > to help the open source community, albeit in a non-traditional way?
is stored in the repository, that's all.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kerne
believe you. I just
wouldn't have thought that's the way it works.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
have Linus' license to use BK revoked. But
I probably can't afford it, oh well :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Feb 15, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote:
> The people we spoke with were far more interested in the ability to
> move people onto BK when they needed to.
They can always pay for the non-free license to get that, I suppose.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unic
chance of having such tarballs offered from an rsync server,
compressed with gzip --rsyncable?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this
r OSDL, then start hacking arch or
> whatever. Puff, you are his coworker, you are competing with Larry,
> Linus license goes away.
Hey, cool! The nice thing is that I probably don't even have to start
hacking anything, I already (pretend to) maintain GNU CVS Utilities.
Can I volunteer to
27;t follow. My Dell Inspiron 8000 has a Synaptics
touchpad as part of the Dualpoint pointing devices.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To un
On Feb 3, 2005, Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:30:14AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 2005, Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 18:07:27 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PR
ntics in GCC 4.4, according to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-11/msg6.html
That's still a long way ahead (the 4.3 development cycle has just
started), but it wouldn't hurt to start fixing incompatibilities
sooner rather than later, and coming up with a clean and un
only to
yourself. And even if you distribute them, you can choose whom to
distribute it to, and that might very well leave the 'back' out.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler
t have to give it back or give it forward. It's just
that, if you don't comply with the license, you don't have permission
to distribute the software at all.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsf
ww.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/papers/free-software/BMind.pdf
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To un
On Feb 16, 2007, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2007, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
&
ikely to be a derived work from B, or
vice-versa, even before they're linked together.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist
tual kernel
headers, then the binary is likely to be a derived work of the kernel,
even if the sources still aren't?
#include
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMA
ue fair use.)
One could try to argue it's an accessibility issue, if local fair use
has provisions for it. Even for manual translations.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
; the cartridge. In other words, to make a compatible catridge, you do have to
> use an original component. (Or at least, it's much more difficult not to.)
Besides, you *can* build a module for Linux without using any kernel
code. It just takes a lot of work to implement all you'd otherw
M technique to
an educational tool, that wouldn't impose any major inconvenience to
those who are entitled to use the combination of code that can't be
distributed.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org
re talking about future releases. Then, if someone
interfaces with code that was already there before, they might claim
they're still entitled to do so. But if it's new code they interface
with, or new code they wrote after this clarification is published,
would they still be entitled
eted as something explicitly
permitted by the license. So this weakens the license, one of our
most valuable tools to make the world a better place. Is this what
you intend to do? I hope not.
Thanks,
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Me
>some OTHER licenses.
Make it *mere* aggregates. That *might* turn out to be a relevant
distinction. E.g., if there's functional dependence of one of the
elements of the aggregate on another, is the aggregate work still the
result of mere aggregation?
--
Alexandre Oliva http:
ed as a mere aggregate, and thus
not be subject to the requirement that the whole be released under the
GPL?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Fr
ct, it wouldn't make sense if it did, since you can use the GPL
> for other things than just programs (and people have).
People do many odd things. How do you define source code and object
code to other things that are not programs.
> So you _always_ get back to the question: wha
On Dec 18, 2006, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > In other words, in the GPL, "Program" does NOT mean "binary". Never has.
>> Agreed. So what? How does this relate with the point above?
&
en?
(there's a hint at http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/128#1 )
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
use only
grants you the right to copy small portions of copyrighted works for
personal use. http://www.petitiononline.com/netlivre
Remember that the GPL is not only about US copyright law or US
courts.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
e of
copyright law in the US, and it would not be morally acceptable for
the GPL to impose such a condition. But then, since nobody can be
forced to see the source code of a GPLed work, or any work for that
matter, acceptance is voluntary, and one shouldn't enter an agreement
one's not wi
off
not using the glue code at all, but rather modifying the
GPL-compatible code to fit.
So, even if condoning binary blobs were morally acceptable, we still
wouldn't be gaining anything from this relationship, we'd only be
enabling vendors to sell us their undocumented hardware while de
clear-cut license plus an explanation/comment would have been
> better. IMHO, IANAL. HAND.]
This bit would probably fit better in the spirit (preamble) than in
the letter. That's why I filed the comment about it in the preamble.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~ol
On Jun 17, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Serious, what's so hard to understand about:
>> no tivoization => more users able to tinker their formerly
On Jun 17, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for
>> > modification?
>>
>> You have
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> /me hands Linus a mirror
> "I'm a damn handsome dude, ain't I?"
Heh. I beg to differ ;-)
>> Serious, what's so hard to understand
which the
program is distributed are not only non-Free Software, they also fail
to meet the Open Source definition.
Neat, huh?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECT
hat you don't have wings, if you're free and sufficiently
creative, you may be able to invent baloons, airplanes, rockets et al
and overcome the barriers that nature poses for you.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http:/
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
en 1 out of 100 vendors start respecting users' freedoms, when
faced with anti-tivoization provisions, the community will already win
big time, because each vendor is likely to have thousands of
customers, some of which will use the freedoms to serve the goals of
the community, in the very te
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 secur
in this case, so it would likely be unenforceable anyway.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubs
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
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.
. A
write-only CD is like ROM. It's not the distributor who's imposing
restrictions on its modification. Nobody can modify it because nature
says so. It's not like the software is being recorded in a CD as a
means to prevent you from modifying it.
--
Alexandre Oliva http
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
&g
lks would like to take into account,
even if the outcome may be not quite what you'd like ;-)
Thanks again for the information,
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAI
7;t even acknowledged its
existence, going back to points 1. and 2. as if they were enough, as
if 3. didn't show a contradiction between them.
Now, it may be that 3. is wrong, or that you think it is wrong. But
you've never said so, or explained why you think so. You've simply
disre
n?
> A law that requires certaint things be tamper-proof, where engineering
> realities requires that they be controlled by software and the software be
> upgradable (for security reasons and for support of future protocol
> revisions) isn't good enough for you?
"en
ts whose licenses are implicitly granted under GPLv2 are
derivative works and your argument might begin to make sense.
Oh, and user products that GPLv3 talks about *do* include GPLv3 code,
otherwise the license is irrelevant for them, since GPLv3 code is not
being conveyed. I guess you meant so
for
> hardware development engineers: How to find excuses for hardware that
> prevents software modifications and how to conceal the true intent.
Yup. And then GPLv4 will have to plug whatever holes they find to
disrespect users' freedoms. That's how I expect the game to be
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 c
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.
>&
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"
terpreted by courts, and on how good a justice money can
buy ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu
is doesn't get in the way of the
user's exercise of the freedoms that the GPL stands to defend. If it
wants to retain more rights than that, then it may have to refrain
from using GPLed software, or face the risk of a court finding it
couldn't have done that in the first place.
--
andatory licensing of them, then you would have a point.
It doesn't because the US law makes that implicit. GPLv3 makes it
explicit because it was found that it wasn't like this everywhere.
>> Oh, and user products that GPLv3 talks about *do* include GPLv3 code,
>> otherwise the
at said, since a number of people already understand the GPLv2
prohibits tivoization, your argument means that either the comment in
the OSD is wrong, and GPLv2 already fails to match the OSD, or that
GPLv3 complies with it in just the same way.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicam
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
>&
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 s
left or
tivoizable (copyleft by definition) software, or (newer versions of)
the same software they already use, but in ROM. (I point this out
because people keep forgetting all the available options when they
claim to enumerate all available options ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.
Linux developers in that other thread happy.
But you could achieve one-way compatibility in various ways:
GPLv2+, after GPLv3 is published, and before there's a GPLv4, is
pretty much it.
One could also come up with any license that permits use under the
terms of the GPLv2 or the GPLv3.
One c
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
>
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)
>> i
ot irrational.
>> I never said it was irrational. I just said it's a further
>> restriction on the exercise of the freedoms that must accompany the
>> software wherever it goes.
> No more than having to be 'root' to load a kernel module. You are free to
> remove it
users'
freedoms are not respected (the cases you mentioned), that's bad for
the user, no doubt. And bad for the community as well.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [E
M). It will just make this a bit more inconvenient, such that
vendors that have the option respect users' freedoms, and those that
find it too inconvenient respect the wishes of users who don't want
their software turned non-free.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicam
users
tivoized hardware => users can't scratch their itches => fewer
contributions from these users
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Sof
ing Linux on TiVo boxes.
How many thousand employees does TiVo have working on Linux?
(I realize a full-time employee is a lot more than a Joe Random
Hacker, but still, I'm keeping a ratio of 100:1 to make up for that)
> PS: I've beaten the addiction!
Good for you!
--
Alexandre Oli
t find this to be enough. Software patents are
not the only stupid law that harms Free Software :-(
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Eva
f you want to use GPLv3 code in a GPLv2 project you have
> to use GPLv3. For some projects, like the Linux Kernel, the upgrade
> is impossible to accomplish.
Impossible is a bit too strong. I understand it would take a huge
amount of work though, so I sympathize with "it wouldn't b
is really in the few additional restrictions, and the
provisions to combat the practice of adding restrictions on top of the
GPL and claiming the software is available under the GPL, which has
made for a lot of confusion over time.
Thanks a lot for your feedback.
--
Alexandre Oliva http:/
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 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> GPLv3 forbids tivoization, therefore developer has requirement for
>> tivoization in the license, therefore GPLv3 forbidding tivoization
>> is bad.
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:
>> >> GPLv
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
>&g
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
>> contribution
don't get an advance in these defenses without the relicensing.
That's unfortunate, but it's not the end of the world. Nobody can,
should or will force any copyright holder to adopt the GPLv3. Any
claims to the contrary are emotional reactions to peer pressure, which
very cl
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&#x
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
>> unlike
GPLv3 does as many times as you want, but special
> rights to particular pieces of hardware is *TOTALLY* alien to the spirit of
> the GPL.
I agree. That's the bug in GPLv2 that the anti-tivoization provision
is trying to fix.
> The GPL was always about equal rights to use the softw
claiming that tivos can't being modified
> it's really not that hard to change.
But is it legal?
How many would contribute changes to a list where there are TiVo
people watching, which might expose these contributors to liabilities?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.uni
tion) for us to end up better off.
Or so I believe ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
T
On Jun 19, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:40:59AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > The actual software is mailed to you on a credit card sized
>> > ROM when you activate service.
> ...
>> The GPLv3 won't remove e
On Jun 19, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 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
ontrol what software runs on the hardware is no different.
For any hardware on which I can run the software, I'm a user there,
and I'm entitled to the rights granted by the license.
It's really this simple. Don't complicate the issue by trying to make
hardware special. It's ju
On Jun 19, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> Once again, now with clearer starting conditions (not intended to
>> match TiVo in any way, BTW; don't get into that distraction)
>>
>>
>> Vendor doesn'
On Jun 19, 2007, "Dave Neuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/19/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But it takes only a small fraction of the tivoizers to decide to take
>> out the locks, when faced with the costs mentioned above, for us to
&g
On Jun 19, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> You're losing all that.
> based on the knowledge shown by these users you aren't loosing much.
Remember, the sample is biased, the hackers who'd like to hack it are
less likel
because I thought it would be useful as a boundary condition.
So just disregard that.
Is there agreement that, comparing tivoized and non-tivoized hardware,
we get'd more contributions if the hardware is not tivoized, because
users can scratch their own itches, than we would for tivoize
t
that the GPL has never permitted you to use whatever rights you have
to impose restrictions on users' freedoms as to GPLed software once
you've (implicitly) accepted the conditions of the license.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
s appear to get more people thinking
about relicensing, and then the "impossibilities" of doing it come up.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Fre
gument is, you can
figure out the solution by yourselves.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsu
t; I should, perhaps, have used a different term - it would
> then have been patently true.
Depends on what the different term was.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PRO
On Jun 19, 2007, "Josh Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Free Software is not about freedom of choice. That's an OSI slogan
>> for "if you like, you can shoot your own foot, regardless
e equally to all hardware in
> the universe, not specially to some hardware and not others.)
Correct. Whoever distributed you the software entitled you to enjoy
the freedoms wherever you manage to run the software.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin A
r the PPC 405/440 and or for the NXP
> (MIPS based) chips.
As you probably know, this is not a valid excuse to distribute the
software under conditions that disrespect its license.
It doesn't mean you can force them to give you the source code, it
only means the copyright holder can stop them
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:26:34PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> If the bug is in the non-GPLed BIOS, not in the GPLed code, too bad.
>> One more reason to dislike non-Free Software.
> Maybe the Tivo only loading
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:52:38AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Why should restrictions through patents be unacceptable, but
>> restrictions through hardware and software be acceptable.
>> Both are mean
1 - 100 of 365 matches
Mail list logo
