..
I've done that, IIRC more than once. Sorry to disappoint you.
Or are you one of those perfect humans who are never wrong? ;-)
:-) I wish :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
On Jun 17, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it is a false statement on your part that the executable does not
function properly if it lacks that part. Try it: take out the harddisk
the restrictions in the law
even outside its own jurisdiction?
--
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
On Jun 17, 2007, Bernd Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people don't
*agree* on the spirit.
They don't have to.
Just like nobody but you can
On Jun 17, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 05:17:57AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Just make the tivoization machinery require two keys: one that the
vendor keeps, one that the vendor gives to the user (maybe without
ever knowing it). Neither one can
.) by the majority of the kernel developers.
For one, because the text of the GPL is copyrighted by the FSF, and
licensed without permission for modification. And that's as it should
be, you don't want others to modify the terms of the license you chose
for your code, do you?
--
Alexandre Oliva
' freedoms has a weaker defense for such
attempts, in a copyright infringement lawsuit.
--
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
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2,
Even though anti-tivoization furthers the quid-pro-quo spirit that you
love about v2, and anti-tivoization is your
, that is ;-)
--
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 unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:33:33 -0300
Alexandre Oliva [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
.
--
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 unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
One more time, I'm not talking about the license (the legal terms).
Ok. Then go away.
Everybody else just cares about the legal reasons.
That's false, and the reason I know
On Jun 17, 2007, Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 15:55 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Gabor Czigola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is as free
, please holler ;-)
--
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 unsubscribe from this list: send
are
misguided fools who just don't understand what they are doing.
I don't understand why you think the FSF is doing this.
As for myself (I'm not FSF, I'm not even a member of the FSF), I'm not
doing this, and I hope you'll agree that I'm not.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br
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-tivoized
computers = more users make useful modifications = more
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 to ask the copyright holder.
Affero did just that, and so
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 about:
You're talking about something totally different
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 PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED
wings. With tied
wings, you're evidently not free to fly any more. But if the problem
is that 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
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 honestly think
thousands of
customers, some of which will use the freedoms to serve the goals of
the community, in the very terms the community claims to care about.
So, what flaw do you see in this reasoning?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
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 has
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 unsubscribe from this list: send the line
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 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.
Sorry, no we cannot. You seem to not accept
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://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
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 users
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist
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
disregarded that point entirely.
Do you understand now why I feel you haven't answered the 'why'?
--
Alexandre Oliva http
realities is the weak point of your argument, see above.
Is ROM still software? Is replaceable ROM still 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
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 something else when you wrote do
not include any GPL'ed code.
--
Alexandre Oliva
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
played.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br
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 Linux
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 me.
you
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 established
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.org}
-
To unsubscribe from
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.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board
them is a failure to comply with the obligations
imposed by the spirit, if not the letter, of the license.
And, just in case, IANAL ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL
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.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL
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 driver/firmware
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.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
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 could also dual-license under GPLv2 and GPLv3.
FWIW, IANAL.
--
Alexandre Oliva http
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 likely
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 products
the right to choose what
software runs.
Yup. And I get that right (because the distributor must not stop me)
when I receive software under the GPL along with the computer in which
I'm expected to use it.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
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.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
, that I'm sure is not intentional.
The first part is in this e-mail.
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
--
Alexandre Oliva
, I'm keeping a ratio of 100:1 to make up for that)
PS: I've beaten the addiction!
Good for you!
--
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
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 Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org
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 be worth it,
even if, in my scale of moral values, I'd disagree.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board
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://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler
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 people.
Based
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 straight
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 requirement
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.
Hmm
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 scratch their itches
to the contrary are emotional reactions to peer pressure, which
very clearly exists, since there are indeed numerous people who want
to advance their goals and would like to use the GPLv3 as a tool.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
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
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 matter
. Thank you. It finally sank in, it seems.
--
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 unsubscribe from
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.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board
;-)
--
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 unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
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 every way in which people who want/need to stop
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 be classified as consumer
products.
And even
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 just an illusion to try to convince yourself
that you can deprive users of freedoms provided by the GPL.
--
Alexandre Oliva http
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't care about tivoizing, their business works the same
either
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
gain contributions from even a small fraction
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 likely to buy it, and some might
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 tivoized
hardware?
--
Alexandre Oliva http
.
--
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 unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux
will be. It wouldn't be a bad idea to think about
it, though.
Just in case it's not clear, this is in no way related with GPLv3.
It's just that GPLv3 discussions appear to get more people thinking
about relicensing, and then the impossibilities of doing it come up.
--
Alexandre Oliva
of the
additional costs of the alternatives.
And no, I can't prove it, but it's good that at least the argument is
no longer completely disregarded while something else is disputed.
Now that you guys at least understand what the argument is, you can
figure out the solution by yourselves.
--
Alexandre
was.
--
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 unsubscribe from this list: send the line
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 of whether
the shrapnel hurts people around you.
http
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 America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software
, 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 from distributing the
software this way.
--
Alexandre Oliva http
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 signed kernels is a bug
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 means to disrespect users' freedoms
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:12:57PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Aah, good question. Here's what the draft says about this:
Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no
transfer of a copy, is not conveying
On Jun 20, 2007, H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
b) the manufacturer is able to update the device _in_ _the_ _field_.
Sure, it would be more costly, but it's not like the
law (or the agreements in place) *mandate* tivoization.
The sad part is that the FCC
the GPLv3 doesn't make the requirement that you stated.
--
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
On Jun 20, 2007, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/06/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 05:04:52AM -0300, 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't care about tivoizing
in themselves. We fight for
them because we understand they're essential for the common good.
--
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
.
--
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 unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel
On Jun 20, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A key is a number. A signature is a number.
And a program is a number.
http://asdf.org/~fatphil/maths/illegal.html
Your point?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
It is the duty of the FSF to defend these freedoms. It's its public
mission. That's a publicly stated goal of the GPL, for anyone who
cares
have technical measures intended to prevent the knife from
being used to kill people.
--
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
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 20, 2007, Andrew McKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I don't see how this would ever require a company like Tivo
or Mastercard
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
We already know the vendor doesn't care about the user, so why should
we take this into account when analyzing the reasoning of the vendor?
no, we don't know this. you attribute the reason for the lockdown
On Jun 20, 2007, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18/06/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your analysis stopped at the downside of prohibiting tivoization. You
didn't analyze the potential upsides,
Maybe that's because I don't really see any up sides.
You do:
a few
in a some details. This
has further increased my admiration for you. Thank you.
--
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
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks
the signature is completely independant.
Well, then remove or otherwise mangle
)
as long as this right is not used by the software distributor to
impose restrictions on the user's ability to adapt the software to
their own needs. The GPLv3 paragraph above makes a fair concession in
this regard, don't you agree?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva
modules.
Only copyright holders of Linux can go after them on matters of kernel
drivers. Or is this driver derived from any software copyrighted by
myself? Or did you mean the FSF, with whom I'm not associated in any
way other than ideologically?
--
Alexandre Oliva http
entirely (this
would render the computer useless for many other purpose unrelated
with blocking connections to your network).
You could instead arrange for the network controller to send some
signal that enables the network to recognize that the device is
running certified software.
--
Alexandre
it worth it this time.
--
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 unsubscribe from this list: send
not on behalf of FSF, with whom I'm not
associated. Just in case this wasn't clear yet ;-)
--
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
201 - 300 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
