On 01/16/08 03:41, Richard Stallman wrote:
If I read and read between the lines you clearly admit you are not
satisfied with the current GPLvX more restrictions will follow.
We will change the GPL as needed to deal with future threats.
I'm satisfied with GPL v3 now, but our enemies
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:10:01PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
If users don't normally install microcode in the CPU, then ethically
it may as well be a circuit. It is not built as a circuit, but that's
a different question.
That may as well be an ethically confusing sentence.
If users
I really tried resisting replying to this but this is simply too much.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:27:24AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
And who controls GPL? What will you do when all GPL software and
subsequent
developments are kept on servers out of reach of users (BSD
On 1/14/08 7:58 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:27:24AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
What will be in GPLv4?
GPLv4 will be basically the same as all previous versions: it will
grant the four freedoms to everyone, and protect them for everyone, as
best as we can
On 01/14/08 12:27, Richard Stallman wrote:
And who controls GPL? What will you do when all GPL software and
subsequent
developments are kept on servers out of reach of users (BSD
situation...)?
You are making an extreme projection, which I doubt will happen.
I see more revenue
On 1/13/08 9:35 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
By taking them away from the developer and putting them under auspices
of the FSF. I would never write a single line of code with a gun to my
head and that is what the GPL does.
The GPL doesn't take any code away from its author, it
On Jan 13, 2008 9:53 AM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/13/08 9:35 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
By taking them away from the developer and putting them under auspices
of the FSF. I would never write a single line of code with a gun to my
head and that is what the GPL
By taking them away from the developer and putting them under auspices
of the FSF. I would never write a single line of code with a gun to my
head and that is what the GPL does.
You got it the wrong way around Richard.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 08:57:39AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Those
bofh wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 1:52 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:50AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote:
Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and
put an exact digital replica of online.
are sure about that? and what about the
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:34:46 -0500, Kevin Wilcox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
bofh wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 1:52 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:50AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote:
Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and
put an
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:20:58 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
If you want to see what we really say about this,
visit that URL and read the whole three paragraphs.
You mean what you say about it this week.
The text in
On 1/10/08 6:18 PM, Eric Furman wrote:
OK, I will explain it to you because I am tired of you *not* *getting*
*it*.
The software is simultaneously available as a CD (actually DVD)
Please stop/halt/finish/end...
It's a CD set, 3 CD's in a DVD box.
set you
can purchase and as a free
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 12:11:46AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can stop the GPL propaganda here. We have wasted enough time
rehashing it. You are not going to convince anybody here that some
random person has more rights than the author of the software. The end,
get over it,
Tony Abernethy wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not out to convince anyone that anyone has any more
rights than anyone else.
HOWEVER, the original author DOES have more rights than anyone else.
In particular, the original author says who has what rights.
You have no say in the matter.
Tony Abernethy wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was pointing out that you could release the alpha/beta/testing
software under whatever license you choose that will keep it
from being re-distributed
Huh???
What kind of release is not re-distributed?
By redistribute I do not mean the
Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 12:11:46AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not out to convince anyone that anyone has any more rights than anyone
else. What I *was* doing was bringing that particular portion of the
conversation back to more than just baseless bashing of a
On 1/9/08 3:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 1:20 AM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why money
was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people earn
money.
On 08 Jan 2008 20:21:08 -0500, Daniel Hagerty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Eric Furman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes
in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them
from posting
On Jan 8, 2008 7:20 PM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes
in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them
from posting it on the internet and everybody else
getting it
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:30:52 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market
It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the
software users in general, as a market.
This is not to say
Eric Furman wrote:
On 08 Jan 2008 20:21:08 -0500, Daniel Hagerty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Eric Furman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes
in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them
Eric Furman wrote:
*BULLSHIT*.
You have so completely missed the point it is to laugh.
Apples and Oranges.
Remember OBSD isn't GPL'ed
There's no need to continue this on the list because you don't get the
analogy so I'm replying directly.
I didn't say that OBSD is GPL'ed, did I? I said that
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:01:52 -0500, Kevin Wilcox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Eric Furman wrote:
*BULLSHIT*.
You have so completely missed the point it is to laugh.
Apples and Oranges.
Remember OBSD isn't GPL'ed
There's no need to continue this on the list because you don't get the
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:07:50 -0500, Kevin Wilcox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Eric Furman wrote:
On 08 Jan 2008 20:21:08 -0500, Daniel Hagerty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Eric Furman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
You might get one wanker to pay
On 01/09/08 16:44, Kevin Wilcox wrote:
I don't think either of you have a firm grasp of what's being said with
regards to selling free software. Or of the GPL in general.
http://webster.com/dictionary/selling
http://webster.com/dictionary/free
http://webster.com/dictionary/software
The use
On 01/09/08 15:30, Richard Stallman wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market
It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the
software users in general, as a market.
This is not to say we're against markets.
If you want to see what we really say about
chefren wrote:
On 1/9/08 12:54 AM, Eric Furman wrote:
This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes
in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them
from posting it on the internet and everybody else
getting it for free?
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:50AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote:
Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and
put an exact digital replica of online.
are sure about that? and what about the sticker(s) that come with the
CDs? and the artwork on the insert? and the
You can stop the GPL propaganda here. We have wasted enough time
rehashing it. You are not going to convince anybody here that some
random person has more rights than the author of the software. The end,
get over it, walk it off.
RMS tried with circle talk to convince people and lost many
On Jan 9, 2008 1:52 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:50AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote:
Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and
put an exact digital replica of online.
are sure about that? and what about the sticker(s)
On 1/9/08 9:10 PM, bofh wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 1:52 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:50AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote:
Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and
put an exact digital replica of online.
are sure about that? and
On Jan 9, 2008 3:29 PM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/9/08 9:10 PM, bofh wrote:
This is beyond silly. FSF/GNU used to sell tapes of GPLed stuff too.
I'm
sure it came with pre-printed instructions as well. No idea about
artwork
or stickers however. But splitting hairs is
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:10:07PM -0500, bofh wrote:
I don't get your point.
then please clear you mind and go back and reread my post. I did not
say anything about GNU/FSF but somehow that came up in your reply.
I can only assume that you were caught up in arguing and not really
paying
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], chefren wrote:
It's misleading to call GNU GNU it should be called BSD/GNU.
BSD/GPL
BSD/GPLvX
Somewhat more typing but good PR.
Again, I surely hope you jest?
Please don't associate me or anything I currently code on with the GPL.
Why would you want
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin Wilcox wrote:
Testing the software has nothing to do (as far as licensing goes) with a
final, released GPL product. You can release the alpha and beta releases
under whatever license you want to. Just license the final product under
the GPL.
If the
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 21:10, bofh wrote:
You are buying it for the source code and binaries on the CD
[snip]
If you _are_ buying the CDs only for the stickers
Exactly. Buy them because you want to. There is no obligation.
On Jan 9, 2008 8:10 PM, pedro la peu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 21:10, bofh wrote:
You are buying it for the source code and binaries on the CD
[snip]
If you _are_ buying the CDs only for the stickers
Exactly. Buy them because you want to. There is no
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin Wilcox wrote:
Testing the software has nothing to do (as far as licensing goes) with
a
final, released GPL product. You can release the alpha and beta
releases
under whatever license you want to. Just license the final product
under
the GPL.
If
You can stop the GPL propaganda here. We have wasted enough time
rehashing it. You are not going to convince anybody here that some
random person has more rights than the author of the software. The end,
get over it, walk it off.
I'm not out to convince anyone that anyone has any more
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:01:52 -0500, Kevin Wilcox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There's no need to continue this on the list because you don't get the
analogy so I'm replying directly.
Then why did you cc the list?
I have to publicly apologize for that. I originally hit reply-all, wrote
my reply
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:50AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote:
Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and
put an exact digital replica of online.
are sure about that? and what about the sticker(s) that come with the
CDs? and the artwork on the insert? and the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was
pointing out that
you could release the alpha/beta/testing software under
whatever license
you choose that will keep it from being re-distributed
Huh???
What kind of release is not re-distributed?
Calling a redistribution release does not make it other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not out to convince anyone that anyone has any more
rights than anyone else.
HOWEVER, the original author DOES have more rights than anyone else.
In particular, the original author says who has what rights.
You have no say in the matter.
Your opinion does not
On 2008/01/07 16:44, bofh wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008 11:39 AM, Sunnz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering... what could be the worse thing that could happen if
the firmware is badly written, say for a wireless device? Could it be
possible to bring the whole system down? Or would it just
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:01:56AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2008/01/07 16:44, bofh wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008 11:39 AM, Sunnz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering... what could be the worse thing that could happen if
the firmware is badly written, say for a wireless device?
On 01/07/08 18:15, Richard Stallman wrote:
So... 'ethically' the TiVo ma as well be a circuit, since users don't
usually install software on it?
Users did install software on it, and that's why Tivo tivoized it.
So...
Your intentioned thinking that gNewSense is clear holds up while
On 01/07/08 12:31, Richard Stallman wrote:
Those quotes do not show gNewSense includes non-free software.
What's interesting is that they admit they cannot find all blobs without
truly
reading and understanding the code, they lack people for it.
They say they can't reliably find
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:13PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
All their answers that we have discussed here have been accurate.
I've explained the facts here in detail many times, so I won't repeat.
So why did you have to retract several endorsements?
Why did you have to change your
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:54PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Users did install software on it, and that's why Tivo tivoized it.
Nope. I bought my TiVo and it was ready to go.
We are talking about two different questions.
All I do is pay $5 a
month and select
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:11PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
They say they can't reliably find all the binary-only firmware.
Nobody's perfect.
Why not? We found all of them and made sure they have proper licenses
on them.
The job you did is easier, because you only
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:20 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from
farmers?
I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free
software). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.
On Jan 8, 2008 8:06 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in
order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who
has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access.
That is
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008 8:06 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in
order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who
has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has
Richard Stallman wrote:
There are no copiers for hardware and it has no source code.
O RLY?
http://fabathome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://www.reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome
http://www.poptech.com/popcasts/popcasts.aspx?lang=viewcastid=154
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loom
On
On 1/9/08 12:54 AM, Eric Furman wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:20 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from
farmers?
I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free
software). See
On Jan 9, 2008 1:20 AM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why money
was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people earn
money.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market
It is
Eric Furman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes
in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them
from posting it on the internet and everybody else
getting it for free?
Good question.
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:13:03AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 1:20 AM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why
money
was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people
earn
I want to add one quote that came to mind a little later...
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power
to make you commit injustices. -- Voltaire
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 09:37:29PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:13:03AM +0100, Alexander
Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers?
I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free
software). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.
A few computer users are in a position manufacture hardware, but
computer users in general do not have that capability. (Meanwhile,
manufacturing does not work by copying a sample; copying as such is
not doable.)
A few software users are in a position to code software..
Those quotes do not show gNewSense includes non-free software.
What's interesting is that they admit they cannot find all blobs without
truly
reading and understanding the code, they lack people for it.
They say they can't reliably find all the binary-only firmware.
Nobody's perfect.
I find it impolite that you partially removed my questions and only
responded to some of them. I asked you if you please could respond to
all paragraphs.
People raise many issues in these messages. My idea of politeness
does not say I have to respond to every question that someone
On Jan 7, 2008 12:31 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers?
I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free
software). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.
With free
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:24AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
I find it impolite that you partially removed my questions and only
responded to some of them. I asked you if you please could respond to
all paragraphs.
People raise many issues in these messages. My idea of
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:52AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Those quotes do not show gNewSense includes non-free software.
What's interesting is that they admit they cannot find all blobs without
truly
reading and understanding the code, they lack people for it.
They say
Richard Stallman wrote:
Gilles' message seems to say that OpenBSD policy is to allow
binary-only firmware. Is that correct?
Binary firmware that's legally redistributable is distributed in OpenBSD, Yes.
But you need to wrap your head around what that means for OpenBSD.
Modern
On 1/7/08, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah doing your best really counts. Kind of a Dr. that did his best but
killed the patient. HE TRIED!!
The consequences of a doctor making a mistake while trying to save a
patient's life are more severe than those of a gNewSense developer
Isn't this attitude more than a bit short-sighted? I certainly
understand the benefits of reserving one's resources for dealing with
issues that can happen, but many of the technology-related problems we
have today are arguably due (at least in large part) to people ignoring
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:24AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
I find it impolite that you partially removed my questions and only
responded to some of them. I asked you if you please could respond to
all paragraphs.
People raise many issues in these messages. My idea of
7 Jan 2008 07:58:04 -0800, Unix Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
These firmwares are just the same as Microcode in modern processors, It's
NOT tainting the kernel at all... unlike binary blob drivers that are
very common in the
Just wondering... what could be the worse thing that could happen
So... 'ethically' the TiVo ma as well be a circuit, since users don't
usually install software on it?
Users did install software on it, and that's why Tivo tivoized it.
Should you do more then say that, maybe put a webpage encouraging open
hardware development?
I mean to write an article about the issue of free hardware designs
some day when I have some time.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:05PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
I mean to write an article about the issue of free hardware designs
some day when I have some time.
Please make sure you research the topic before you do.
-Toby.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:05PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
I mean to write an article about the issue of free hardware designs
some day when I have some time.
Please make sure you research the topic before you do.
And feel free to send a draft here
Nope. I bought my TiVo and it was ready to go. All I do is pay $5 a
month and select programs I want to see. I did NOTHING that has to do
with firmware. Again you are using double standards. GPLv3 is silly
after listening to you rant.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:21PM -0500, Richard
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:05PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Should you do more then say that, maybe put a webpage encouraging open
hardware development?
I mean to write an article about the issue of free hardware designs
some day when I have some time.
Do you plan to read
On 7 Jan 2008 07:58:04 -0800, Unix Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Modern technologies like Wireless cards are little complex computers, some
time ago,
vendors decided it would be easier to ship the firmware inside of the
Proprietary
Windows driver and upload it onto the card at
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 07:58:19AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Gilles' message seems to say that OpenBSD policy is to allow
binary-only firmware. Is that correct?
I did not SEEM to say anything. I told you to fucking read the pages that
are freely available online, but you seem
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Sunnz wrote:
7 Jan 2008 07:58:04 -0800, Unix Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
These firmwares are just the same as Microcode in modern processors,
It's NOT tainting the kernel at all... unlike binary blob drivers
that are very common in the
Just wondering... what could be the worse
* Sunnz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-07 19:53]:
7 Jan 2008 07:58:04 -0800, Unix Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
These firmwares are just the same as Microcode in modern processors, It's
NOT tainting the kernel at all... unlike binary blob drivers that are
very common in the
Just wondering... what
Sunnz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just wondering... what could be the worse thing that could happen if
the firmware is badly written, say for a wireless device? Could it be
possible to bring the whole system down? Or would it just crash the
device itself, as if the hardware had a defect?
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008 12:31 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers?
I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free
software). See
On Jan 7, 2008 11:39 AM, Sunnz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering... what could be the worse thing that could happen if
the firmware is badly written, say for a wireless device? Could it be
possible to bring the whole system down? Or would it just crash the
device itself, as if the
From the look of Stallman's message, it seems as if he thinks copying
software is totally free, which in reality it costs a bit more than
just plain free.
That's often true. (And even if it doesn't cost you money, it may
take some of your time.) But I don't think that changes the
2008/1/6, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From the look of Stallman's message, it seems as if he thinks copying
software is totally free, which in reality it costs a bit more than
just plain free.
That's often true. (And even if it doesn't cost you money, it may
take some of
By using and endorsing gNewSense???
It seems you really don't read what's going on there, people working on it
more or less scream out it's an impossible mission the way it's setup now
and
the project goals are not met for the foreseeable future.
I don't read the gNewSense
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:
In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to copy...
which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something
became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively expensive?
When something is impractical to
Richard Stallman wrote:
In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to copy...
which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something
became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively expensive?
When something is impractical to copy, then the
That itself has problems. Do you mean home computer users? From what I
know, most large companies, including hardware vendors, and
governments uses computers as well, so they are too computer users,
thus copy hardware aren't impractical for every computer users in
general.
A
Really? All those wifi/raid/cpu/etc cards/chips out there that need
firmware, you think they're not a mix of both microcontroller code
and
other binary bits that configure an ASIC or FPGA?
I am not a hardware expert; I don't know sort of hardware the
I have nothing against getting paid to write software, as such. I
criticize non-free software, software that doesn't respect users'
essential freedoms, but that has nothing to do with whether the
programmer gets paid. Getting paid to write free software (which many
people do) is fine. Writing
Richard Stallman wrote:
That itself has problems. Do you mean home computer users? From what I
know, most large companies, including hardware vendors, and
governments uses computers as well, so they are too computer users,
thus copy hardware aren't impractical for every computer
I find it impolite that you partially removed my questions and only
responded to some of them. I asked you if you please could respond to
all paragraphs.
I am struggling with what ethics mean to you. Could you explain that
please?
And if you don't mid could you reply to the original email and
Paul Greidanus wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to
copy...
which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something
became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively
expensive?
When something is
What if I give a dog a computer system.. and he uses it to bark at.
The dog finds it entertaining. The dog would not understand the source
code if it was offered.
The program that the dog barks at while Mom and Pop are out shopping, is
closed source.
It does not matter that it is closed
I know you guys have interesting analogies, but cloning plants is not
the same as copying source code.
On 1/6/08, L [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Greidanus wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to
copy...
which it could be...
On 1/6/08 11:46 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
By using and endorsing gNewSense???
It seems you really don't read what's going on there, people working on it
more or less scream out it's an impossible mission the way it's setup now and
the project goals are not met for the
2008/1/7, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If users don't normally install microcode in the CPU, then ethically
it may as well be a circuit. It is not built as a circuit, but that's
a different question.
So... 'ethically' the TiVo ma as well be a circuit, since users don't
usually
Also modern CPUs run microcode. Does this make them unethical?
Not in my view. And this is why:
Whether it runs on a computer or an FPGA, either way it's a program.
So the next crucial question is, do users normally install programs on
that device?
If users don't
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
