----- "Frans Pop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ean, with all due respect, but I find your contributions to this > discussion way below par as apparently you can't even be bothered to read > the proposals under discussion. > > We are NOT discussing a blanket waiver of all DFSG or SC criteria for > firmware. The only criterium that is considered for being waived in any > practical sense is the one that requires source to be available for the > firmware. > > So, given that we are just for example extremely unlikely to have the > right to redistribute Windows Mobile, the answer to your question is a > clear and totally undisputed by anyone NO. I would guess that including > Windows Mobile would also violate several other of our principles that > are not under discussion. So please take your pick. > > Now that that's been cleared up, can you please either keep your fingers > off the keyboard for the remainder of this discussion period, or else > start contributing to the discussion in an intelligent fashion? We > already know what your position on the issue is, so there's really no > need to keep repeating it (the same goes for some others BTW).
I'm sorry, but I am dense. Please help me understand. If I have a Microsoft device and they provide an opensource Linux installer which ships a Windows Mobile based firmware then how would this not meet your distribution criteria? When considering Silverlight(tm) development tools this use case is not even far-fetched. I made the mistake in my earlier message of saying "main". I should have said "sourceless". In either case, the firmware in question could be distributed as part of our standard install images. Which part am I getting wrong? -- Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
