On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't see what was "disingenuous" about my reply to Bob.
Not your reply to Bob, you reply to me. Which I read along the lines of, "Oh, I didn't mean you should actually *do* what I was talking about, I was just saying it's theoretically possible." You want to argue you don't think it's a big deal, or you interpret the license different, or something like that (which you did, now), okay. I might not agree, but I can respect that. But playing language lawyer to try and dodge ownership of what you say -- that is bogus. I have no respect for that. Maybe that's not what you intended to mean, in which case, I apologize. > Its funny, because whenever someone wants to get better access control with > a home router, there are plenty of recommendations for DD-WRT. The license agreements with those routers don't prohibit third-party firmware. Indeed, in many cases, they're specifically required to release the source under the GPL. Some even advertise their compatibility with third-party firmware as a feature, e.g., WRT54GL. Apple/AT&T forbids it in their licenses, release updates to counter it, and threatens legal action. See the difference? > Apple is not special. No, they're not. And these forums are usually pretty quick to uphold Microsoft's licenses. So why not Apple's? -- Ben
